Joe Biden’s First Day Began the End of Girls’ Sports

Watch
iNeed2p
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#21
Report 1 month ago
#21
This is so wrong in many levels. Now the tag deranged previous president looks to me more of a fit in the office.

Remember the female power lifter who broke four world records by landslide in official power lifting. Her name is Mary Gregory. Before she was he. This alone should say it enough. Men and women never have the same strength in terms of physical ability. I think transgenders should have their own sports.
2
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#22
Report 1 month ago
#22
(Original post by SHallowvale)
If the argument is that women's sport is doomed then the frequency of the problem certainly matters.
Quite.

I just don't believe that many of those who are outraged about this really care about women's sports. Seems more about trying to fight a culture war and exploiting this obviously difficult issue in order to do so.
1
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#23
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#23
(Original post by SHallowvale)
If the argument is that women's sport is doomed then the frequency of the problem certainly matters.
That wasnt quite the point i was making but either way. Going by the current fad for transitioning, especially within the US, its hard to say its an insignificant number. As the author outlines quite succinctly in her book on the matter, as it happens.
Then again, i can only presume you're in the same mind as QE2 on this that the author is not but an unreconstructed 'transphobe' for airing her opinion on said matter or?
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#24
Report 1 month ago
#24
(Original post by iNeed2p)
This is so wrong in many levels. Now the tag deranged previous president looks to me more of a fit in the office.
Someone else who has not read the actual EO, but just the tight-wing media hysteria.
All Biden has done is sign an order that says existing legislation will be enforced. The EO does not actually say any of the things these reports imply.

Remember the female power lifter who broke four world records by landslide in official power lifting. Her name is Mary Gregory. Before she was he. This alone should say it enough.
Is this the same Mary Gregory who was stripped of her titles because she was not actually a trans woman but still a male (competitive status) who hid her true status from the event organisers?

Men and women never have the same strength in terms of physical ability.
Nonsense. Elite female athletes will generally beat most males.
0
reply
Gaddafi
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#25
Report 1 month ago
#25
(Original post by Kitten in boots)
Except of course that men or trans individuals encroaching on women's sport and outcompeting them isn't happening in any meaningful way and has never been happening.

People are getting outraged over a problem that doesn't exist.

If you want to understand why Trump was so successful at convincing people of his post-truth reality, you merely need to look at this.
Lana Lawless, Mary Gregory, Rachel Mckinnon....
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#26
Report 1 month ago
#26
(Original post by DSilva)
I just don't believe that many of those who are outraged about this really care about women's sports. Seems more about trying to fight a culture war and exploiting this obviously difficult issue in order to do so.
This is precisely what it is about. The people faux-outraged about this are often also outraged about things like BLM, Antifa, The Left, Remainers, Corbyn, immigration, refugees, foreign aid, etc, etc.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#27
Report 1 month ago
#27
(Original post by Napp)
Then again, i can only presume you're in the same mind as QE2 on this that the author is not but an unreconstructed 'transphobe' for airing her opinion on said matter or?
"naught but..."
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#28
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#28
(Original post by QE2)
"naught but..."
Are you attempting to make some form of point here?
(Original post by QE2)
This is precisely what it is about. The people faux-outraged about this are often also outraged about things like BLM, Antifa, The Left, Remainers, Corbyn, immigration, refugees, foreign aid, etc, etc.
Pots, kettles etc. etc. :rolleyes:
Although that really is a most amusing, if disparate and eclectic, grouping you've mustered up there.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#29
Report 1 month ago
#29
(Original post by QE2)
This is precisely what it is about. The people faux-outraged about this are often also outraged about things like BLM, Antifa, The Left, Remainers, Corbyn, immigration, refugees, foreign aid, etc, etc.
They're also the types who complain about women's tennis players earning the same as men's players in grand slams.

Maybe I'm being unfair, but I just am not convinced that the integrity of women's sport is the main concern here.
Last edited by DSilva; 1 month ago
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#30
Report 1 month ago
#30
(Original post by Gaddafi)
Lana Lawless,
The current women's Long Drive world record is held by a cis-female, with a drive 80 yards longer than Lawless' earlier record.

Mary Gregory,
Stripped of her title for falsely claiming to be female when actually still a male under competition rules.

Rachel Mckinnon
Won the 200m by half a second but came second in the 500m, to a cis-female. Also note that she was in a veteran's category. The winning time for the elite group was faster than McKinnon's.

It seems that every example of trans-women "wiping the floor with" cis-women is just more reactionary nonsense.
Last edited by QE2; 1 month ago
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#31
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#31
(Original post by QE2)
Stripped of her title for falsely claiming to be female when actually still a male under competition rules.
Interesting view to take, weren't you recently going on about trans people being whatever gender they've elected to identify with and this being an immutable fact? Now you're saying that their chosen identify is in fact a falsehood? Very interesting. How do you square these two mutually exclusive views exactly? Or is it simply this particular transgendered person you think is faking it?:holmes:
0
reply
Gaddafi
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#32
Report 1 month ago
#32
(Original post by QE2)
The current women's Long Drive world record is held by a cis-female, with a drive 80 yards longer than Lawless' earlier record.


Stripped of her title for falsely claiming to be female when actually still a male under competition rules.


Won the 200m by half a second but came second in the 500m, to a cis-female. Also note that she was in a veteran's category. The winning time for the elite group was faster than McKinnon's.

It seems that every example of trans-women "wiping the floor with" cis-women is just more reactionary nonsense.
1) She won it none the less. She would not have won if she competed with the gender she was born with. And sued the organization when they tried to forbid her from competing. The fact that a singe cis-female managed to out compete her does not prove that it was unfair for the many other cis-females.

2) She managed to compete and win titles whilst "still being a male". That illustrates the threat pretty well.

3) Yes, she won. And again, the fact that an extremely elite woman was able to beat her does not mean that her biochemistry isn't unfair for the dozens of other women....

4) 2 of these "women" came out of nowhere to take top level titles. But sure "reactionary nonsense" it is...

5) There are numerous other examples such as Andraya Yearwood and Laurel Hubbard. The former came first place repeatedly and the latter won a gold medal....
(Original post by QE2)
This is precisely what it is about. The people faux-outraged about this are often also outraged about things like BLM, Antifa, The Left, Remainers, Corbyn, immigration, refugees, foreign aid, etc, etc.
In order to delegitimize a POV you are opposed to, you're making wild assumptions and generalizations. There's no correlation between wanting people to compete with the gender you are assigned at birth with and the 8 random categories you just listed. In fact out of those 8, I can't see a single one I'd be "outraged" about.
Last edited by Gaddafi; 1 month ago
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#33
Report 1 month ago
#33
(Original post by Napp)
That wasnt quite the point i was making but either way. Going by the current fad for transitioning, especially within the US, its hard to say its an insignificant number. As the author outlines quite succinctly in her book on the matter, as it happens.
Then again, i can only presume you're in the same mind as QE2 on this that the author is not but an unreconstructed 'transphobe' for airing her opinion on said matter or?
If you think there are enough numbers to make this issue significant then by all means provide them. At the moment only about 5 examples have been given in this thread.

I don't care whether the author is a transphobe or not. It has no relevance to the argument.
0
reply
CoolCavy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#34
Report 1 month ago
#34
Makes me laugh this, the main argument these people have against trans kids in school sport is their natal puberty differing to the biological sex they are racing against.
If only there was something that paused puberty and stopped these changes happening 🤔
Wait a minute there is! But people against trans people wanted those banned.

P.S none of this is a new change , its simply restoring the rights LGBT people had before the trump administration
3
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#35
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#35
(Original post by SHallowvale)
If you think there are enough numbers to make this issue significant then by all means provide them. At the moment only about 5 examples have been given in this thread.

I don't care whether the author is a transphobe or not. It has no relevance to the argument.
I have already stated my position and referenced the book on the matter. However, you have yet to answer the question as to why numbers are important going in one direction but irrelevant when going in the other?

I rather doubt it but either way i'm pretty sure basing an argument on an ad hominem is relevant...
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#36
Report 1 month ago
#36
(Original post by Napp)
I have already stated my position and referenced the book on the matter. However, you have yet to answer the question as to why numbers are important going in one direction but irrelevant when going in the other?

I rather doubt it but either way i'm pretty sure basing an argument on an ad hominem is relevant...
I know what your position is, I am asking for evidence that justifies it. Have you read that book that you're referring to?

I'm not sure what 'other direction' you're talking about, so I can't answer that question. I'm not sure what this has to do with the claim that women's sports is doomed.

What ad hominem have I used in my argument?
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#37
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#37
(Original post by SHallowvale)
I know what your position is, I am asking for evidence that justifies it. Have you read that book that you're referring to?

I'm not sure what 'other direction' you're talking about, so I can't answer that question. I'm not sure what this has to do with the claim that women's sports is doomed.

What ad hominem have I used in my argument?
Is that a serious question or do you really think i would reference something i never bothered to read myself?

If you, or anyone for that matter, used the argument that you can ignore a minorities complaint (whatever minority or complaint it may be) because "there arent many of them" or instances of whichever issue occurring, what do you think the response would be? One imagines somewhat less than good.
Nothing much, it was a tangent that came up. Threads not having to stay solidly on the title - womens sports, in of themselves, being of less interest to me than the principle here. Hence my including another link as well.

I didnt say you had, i said QE2 had and then asked if you were subscribing to their argument.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#38
Report 1 month ago
#38
(Original post by Napp)
Is that a serious question or do you really think i would reference something i never bothered to read myself?

If you, or anyone for that matter, used the argument that you can ignore a minorities complaint (whatever minority or complaint it may be) because "there arent many of them" or instances of whichever issue occurring, what do you think the response would be? One imagines somewhat less than good.
Nothing much, it was a tangent that came up. Threads not having to stay solidly on the title - womens sports, in of themselves, being of less interest to me than the principle here. Hence my including another link as well.

I didnt say you had, i said QE2 had and then asked if you were subscribing to their argument.
Sometimes people reference books without reading them, hence why I asked. If you've read the book, could you say what evidence it presents to show that there are enough numbers to make this issue significant problem?

My comment that "there aren't many of them" is solely about whether women's sport is doomed. This is the argument that both articles present which is entirely dependent on the prevalence of trans women participating in women's sport. That's the point I am arguing against. The comment has nothing to do with whether trans women participating in women's sport is an issue in it's own right, of which I have no opinion either way.

Right, then as I said before I don't.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#39
Report 1 month ago
#39
(Original post by Napp)
Interesting view to take, weren't you recently going on about trans people being whatever gender they've elected to identify with and this being an immutable fact? Now you're saying that their chosen identify is in fact a falsehood? Very interesting. How do you square these two mutually exclusive views exactly? Or is it simply this particular transgendered person you think is faking it?:holmes:
1. "for falsely claiming to be female when actually still a male under competition rules"
2. My views on gender definitions are completely irrelevant to the rules of particular sporting governing bodies.
Hopefully, that should make it a bit easier for you to understand. (not holding my breath though)
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#40
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#40
(Original post by QE2)
1. "for falsely claiming to be female when actually still a male under competition rules"
2. My views on gender definitions are completely irrelevant to the rules of particular sporting governing bodies.
Hopefully, that should make it a bit easier for you to understand. (not holding my breath though)
Hey you're the one who cited an example of, of all things, a sporting body stating categorically that somebodies self definition is an irrelevance. Not exactly a nice shout of support for your position if even sporting bodies don't agree with you :rolleyes:. Cute little insult at the end though, more than slightly hypocritical given your own little problem with comprehension..
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Which of these would you use to help with making uni decisions?

Webinars (63)
12.48%
Virtual campus tours/open days (118)
23.37%
Live streaming events (46)
9.11%
Online AMAs/guest lectures (49)
9.7%
A uni comparison tool (116)
22.97%
An in-person event when available (113)
22.38%

Watched Threads

View All