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

Watch
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#41
Report 1 month ago
#41
(Original post by Gaddafi)
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.
So what is your objection if it is not that trans-women will mean that cis-women can't compete?
Even when she won, she admitted that it was only because the unusual conditions favoured her style.

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.
These are the winners of the women's long drive title. The trans-women are in red.
2000 – Stacey Shinnick 249 yards
2001 – Lee Brandon 291 yards
2002 – Stacey Shinnick 292 yards
2003 – Nancy Abiecunas 332 yards
2004 – Sally Dee 287 yards
2005 – Stacey Shinnick 311 yards
2006 – Phillis Meti 326 yards
2007 – Sheila Kelliher 329 yards
2008 – Lana Lawless 245 yards
2009 – N/A
2010 – N/A
2011 – Sandra Carlborg 285 yards
2012 – Sandra Carlborg 339 yards
2013 – Heather LeMaster 306 yards
2014 – Sandra Carlborg 332 yards
2015 – Sandra Carlborg 321 yards
2016 – Phillis Meti 310 yards
2017 – Sandra Carlborg 320 yards
2018 – Phillis Meti[19] 317 yards
2019 – Chloe Garner[20] 347 yards

So, tell me again about how cis-women can't compete with trans-women.

2 of these "women" came out of nowhere to take top level titles. But sure "reactionary nonsense" it is...
Not really.
Claiming that two examples of dubious relevance supports the claim that allowing trans-women to compete in women's sports is "the end or women's sport" and they will "wipe the floor" with cis-women competitors is demonstrable nonsense.

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....
Yearwood has only competed at a regional schools level. Ironically, she has recently been beaten by a cis-female athlete whose parents are suing to prevent Yearwood from competing.
Cis-female competitors have lifted more than Hubbard's best, and she was a top competitive lifter as a male, so hardly out of nowhere".

It seems that whatever examples the anti-trans brigade come up with, they always show that there are cis-women who out-perform them.

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.
It was just an observation that the same people are often opposed to a similar package of social justice/human rights issues. It could be just coincidence.
Last edited by QE2; 1 month ago
1
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#42
Report 1 month ago
#42
(Original post by Napp)
I didnt say you had, i said QE2 had and then asked if you were subscribing to their argument.
I didn't say the author was "an unreconstructed transphobe". I merely pointed out that her objection was essentially based on the argument that trans-women are not women.
However, it is surprising that you consider that argument to be transphobic. There's hope for you yet!
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#43
Report 1 month ago
#43
(Original post by Napp)
Are you attempting to make some form of point here?
Er, obviously yes. Not sure how you could be confused about what that point was.
(I was correcting your malapropism, in case you are still confused)

Although that really is a most amusing, if disparate and eclectic, grouping you've mustered up there.
Are you denying that there are people who become agitated over all or most of those issues?
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#44
Report 1 month ago
#44
(Original post by Napp)
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..
What are you on about?
You claimed that Biden's EO means the end of women's sports.
Examples were given that were purported to support your claim.
I showed why those examples do not support your claim. I was not citing them as examples of anything to do with my position on the issue. Not sure why you would think I was.

Anyway - as it has been comprehensively shown that allowing trans-women to compete in female sports does not even lead to a significant number or trans-winners at any level, let alone "the end of women's sport", do you now accept that your claim is false and your position untenable?
0
reply
Vapordave
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#45
Report 1 month ago
#45
That title is obscenely alarmist.
5
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#46
Report 1 month ago
#46
(Original post by Gaddafi)
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.

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....
Nope, even before considering the question of advantage, it was at worst unfair for two of them: the bronze medallist who might otherwise have won silver, and the 4th place finisher who might otherwise have won bronze. The gold medallist would have won anyway, and everyone below 4th would have been an also-ran with nothing at stake anyway (this is still amateur cycling, so no real prize money).
0
reply
64Lightbulbs
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#47
Report 1 month ago
#47
(Original post by Final Fantasy)
I think it's getting ridiculous - these people won't be satisfied until it becomes illegal to even be a male anymore and whenever anyone disagrees with these crazy extremists they get labelled right-wing (which apparently means you're racist, bigoted etc). Please note this is my personal opinion and not intended to cause offence to anyone...
What legislation has been widely advocated for that might foreshadow wanting to make certain gender identities illegal, in your opinion?
Last edited by 64Lightbulbs; 1 month ago
0
reply
Final Fantasy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#48
Report 1 month ago
#48
(Original post by 64Lightbulbs)
What legislation has been widely advocated for that might foreshadow wanting to make certain gender identities illegal, in your opinion?
Sorry don't understand - are you saying there's gonna be legislation on gender identities??
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#49
Report 1 month ago
#49
(Original post by Vapordave)
That title is obscenely alarmist.
And yet entirely true to form for the author.
0
reply
64Lightbulbs
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#50
Report 1 month ago
#50
(Original post by Final Fantasy)
Sorry don't understand - are you saying there's gonna be legislation on gender identities??
i was wondering what legislation these people have advocated for, that makes you think that "these people won't be satisfied until it becomes illegal to even be a male anymore". It was just a question, as recent legislation regarding gender has (mostly) been discrimination protections for all genders.
0
reply
Final Fantasy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#51
Report 1 month ago
#51
(Original post by 64Lightbulbs)
i was wondering what legislation these people have advocated for, that makes you think that "these people won't be satisfied until it becomes illegal to even be a male anymore". It was just a question, as recent legislation regarding gender has (mostly) been discrimination protections for all genders.
I don't think I'm allowed to post on this thread anymore, something happened and I don't wanna unintentionally offend anyone again - sorry. With regards to the OP, yeah completely support Biden 100%, he's an awesome guy and got nothing wrong with these policies - it's all good. Bye.
Last edited by Final Fantasy; 1 month ago
0
reply
Gaddafi
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#52
Report 1 month ago
#52
(Original post by QE2)
So what is your objection if it is not that trans-women will mean that cis-women can't compete?
Even when she won, she admitted that it was only because the unusual conditions favoured her style.


These are the winners of the women's long drive title. The trans-women are in red.
2000 – Stacey Shinnick 249 yards
2001 – Lee Brandon 291 yards
2002 – Stacey Shinnick 292 yards
2003 – Nancy Abiecunas 332 yards
2004 – Sally Dee 287 yards
2005 – Stacey Shinnick 311 yards
2006 – Phillis Meti 326 yards
2007 – Sheila Kelliher 329 yards
2008 – Lana Lawless 245 yards
2009 – N/A
2010 – N/A
2011 – Sandra Carlborg 285 yards
2012 – Sandra Carlborg 339 yards
2013 – Heather LeMaster 306 yards
2014 – Sandra Carlborg 332 yards
2015 – Sandra Carlborg 321 yards
2016 – Phillis Meti 310 yards
2017 – Sandra Carlborg 320 yards
2018 – Phillis Meti[19] 317 yards
2019 – Chloe Garner[20] 347 yards

So, tell me again about how cis-women can't compete with trans-women.


Not really.
Claiming that two examples of dubious relevance supports the claim that allowing trans-women to compete in women's sports is "the end or women's sport" and they will "wipe the floor" with cis-women competitors is demonstrable nonsense.


Yearwood has only competed at a regional schools level. Ironically, she has recently been beaten by a cis-female athlete whose parents are suing to prevent Yearwood from competing.
Cis-female competitors have lifted more than Hubbard's best, and she was a top competitive lifter as a male, so hardly out of nowhere".

It seems that whatever examples the anti-trans brigade come up with, they always show that there are cis-women who out-perform them.


It was just an observation that the same people are often opposed to a similar package of social justice/human rights issues. It could be just coincidence.
1) He/She would not have won if she competed with the gender she was born with. In fact, she would have been nowhere close. My point, as I have already made, is that only elite women can compete with this "former" man due to "her" biochemistry. I draw your attention to said point below which you appear to have cut out when responding to me.

(Original post by Gaddafi)
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....
2) I never used the phrases "wipe the floor" or "end of girls" sports. In fact with the former, I don't even know where you got it from. Anyway, my point is simple - there are many women who are unfairly disadvantaged. This is may not be the end of women's sport, but that doesn't make it any fairer for those women who lost out by having to compete with men. Most biologically female athletes will not be able to compete with biologically male athletes.
1
reply
Gaddafi
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#53
Report 1 month ago
#53
(Original post by anarchism101)
Nope, even before considering the question of advantage, it was at worst unfair for two of them: the bronze medallist who might otherwise have won silver, and the 4th place finisher who might otherwise have won bronze. The gold medallist would have won anyway, and everyone below 4th would have been an also-ran with nothing at stake anyway (this is still amateur cycling, so no real prize money).
No. Every single one of the women you just dismissed could have been a place higher. It is unfair to say that it doesn't matter for number 6 as she would have only came in at number 5 - that was a place she deserved and could have earned if she wasn't up against a biological male.

Also, from memory that comment was in relation to professional golf. I'm not sure why you mentioned amateur cycling.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#54
Report 1 month ago
#54
(Original post by Gaddafi)
1) He/She would not have won if she competed with the gender she was born with. In fact, she would have been nowhere close. My point, as I have already made, is that only elite women can compete with this "former" man due to "her" biochemistry. I draw your attention to said point below which you appear to have cut out when responding to me.



2) I never used the phrases "wipe the floor" or "end of girls" sports. In fact with the former, I don't even know where you got it from. Anyway, my point is simple - there are many women who are unfairly disadvantaged.
Still don't get what your objection is.
Trans-women tend not to outcompete cis-women. The results show this.

This is may not be the end of women's sport, but that doesn't make it any fairer for those women who lost out by having to compete with men.
But trans-women are not men. You really need to try and grasp this concept. It is absolutely central to the issue.

Most biologically female athletes will not be able to compete with biologically male athletes.
And?
Most cis-women athletes can't compete with the best cis-women.
Most trans-women athletes can't compete with the best cis-women.
Still fail to see where the problem lies.
1
reply
iNeed2p
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#55
Report 4 weeks ago
#55
(Original post by QE2)
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.


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?


Nonsense. Elite female athletes will generally beat most males.
"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."

You must be those lads who read and listen to dailymail. Lol


"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?"

Don't they all do the same thou by changing their gender and hiding their true identity?


Anyway, you seem very defensive to this whole post so, I will just leave it there.




0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#56
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#56

Sorry competely random question but what exactly is this wee symbol you posted?
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#57
Report 4 weeks ago
#57
(Original post by iNeed2p)
You must be those lads who read and listen to dailymail. Lol
Don't they all do the same thou by changing their gender and hiding their true identity?
Anyway, you seem very defensive to this whole post so, I will just leave it there.
I have no idea what you are trying to say there.
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#58
Report 4 weeks ago
#58
As part of the 'reactionary right' I wholeheartedly welcome this news and this might actually make me inclined to watch things like women's MMA.

Screw feminist Terfs I want to pay to see this glorious progressivism.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wxDaiyREBPw
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 (58)
13.55%
Virtual campus tours/open days (98)
22.9%
Live streaming events (39)
9.11%
Online AMAs/guest lectures (40)
9.35%
A uni comparison tool (98)
22.9%
An in-person event when available (95)
22.2%

Watched Threads

View All