UPenn swimmer comes out as trans / switches to women's team after competing on men's team for 3 years and is dominating NCAA

pavement88 wrote:

https://twitter.com/davidlikesyou/status/1468972775129829380?t=pqBN1ZFfWUqdRYYj32X3Vg&s=19

David Melly getting some grief on Twitter for his take.

So the lesson here is: Don’t speak truth to power because Twitter will give your grief.

Not very Gold Soundz of you.

It has the characteristics of a cult. The viciousness is baked in.

Look in the mirror. Who cares if sports or fair play do not matter to you? But you are a liar. Because they clearly do matter, which is why you support this farce. If it was not so important then why is it so important that this self-centered athlete compete against biological women? Becausse if you can force women to compete with biological men while silencing dissent, by force of bullying and intimidation, in an area where biological sex matters in all respects, then you can force your agenda anywhere.

If the biological women being directly hurt by this are too chicken$h!+ to take a stand then they deserve this. Kids their age were off fighting freaking Nazis facing actual death but they worry about their job prospects?

This is actually making me like this trans swimmer better

dhe8282uehdh wrote:

If the biological women being directly hurt by this are too chicken$h!+ to take a stand then they deserve this. Kids their age were off fighting freaking Nazis facing actual death but they worry about their job prospects?

This is actually making me like this trans swimmer better

I don't think this comparison is the winning argument you think it is. A far more analogous situation to what these women fear, with very good reason, is what happened to many people in the US during the McCarthy era.

Certainly compared to the horrors of Stalin's Russia, McCarthyism was not a drastic form of political repression. But it was an effective one.

The punishments were primarily economic. People lost their jobs. The official manifestations of McCarthyism--the public hearings, FBI investigations, and criminal prosecutions--would not have been as effective had they not been reinforced by the private sector. The political purges were a two-stage process that relied on the imposition of economic sanctions to bolster the political messages conveyed by public officials. The collaboration of private employers with HUAC and the rest of the anti-Communist network was necessary both to legitimate the network's activities and to punish the men and women identified as politically undesirable. Without the participation of the private sector, McCarthyism would not have affected the rank-and-file members of the Communist movement or so effectively stifled political dissent.

It is important to realize that the dismissals were usually in response to outside pressures. Most of the firings of the McCarthy era occurred after someone had refused to cooperate with an investigating committee or was denied a security clearance. Major corporations like General Electric and U.S. Steel announced that they would discharge any worker who took the Fifth Amendment, and other employers made it equally clear that they would do the same. Some of these employers may well have welcomed and even actually arranged for a HUAC hearing, especially when it enabled them to fire left-wing union leaders. Left to their own devices, however, most of the other employers would not have initiated political dismissals, though they were usually willing to acquiesce in them once they were apprised of the identities of their allegedly subversive employees.

Self-defense was the primary motivation. Even when not threatened with direct reprisals, the leaders of the nation's major corporations, universities, and other private institutions seem to have decided that good public relations demanded the dismissal of someone openly identified as a Communist or even, in many cases, of people who were merely controversial...

Ideology shored up the dismissals. The cautious college presidents and studio heads who fired or refused to hire political undesirables shared the anti-Communist consensus. They were patriotic citizens who, however squeamish they may have been about the methods of McCarthy and the other investigators, agreed that communism threatened the United States and that the crisis engendered by the cold war necessitated measures that might violate the rights of individuals. By invoking the icon of national security, they were able to give their otherwise embarrassing actions a patina of patriotism.

Equally pervasive was the belief that Communists deserved to be fired. Because of their alleged duplicity, dogmatism, and disloyalty to their nation and employers, Communists (and the definition was to be stretched to include ex-Communists, Fifth Amendment Communists, and anybody who associated with Communists) were seen as no longer qualified for their jobs. Since these disqualifications usually appeared only after the until-then qualified individuals were identified by part of the anti-Communist network, these rationalizations obviously involved considerable deception and self-deception.

What happened in the US in the 1950s to people accused of wrong think is very much like what is happening today to those who publicly question or disagree with any aspect of gender identity ideology. If you openly say that Lia Thomas is not a woman, and that men can't become women, you'll be smeared as a transphobe and evil bigot, and you'll be set upon by mobs of vicious keyboard warriors determined to trash your reputation, make you a social pariah, get you fired and make sure no one will hire you or offer you any kind of paid work ever again. They'll even make it impossible for you to sell crafts on Etsy, Redbubble or through Facebook. Look how they've gone after Dave Chapelle.

In the past couple of years, there have been numerous well-known cases of people in the UK, Canada and the USA who have lost jobs, speaking gigs, publishing contracts, art exhibitions, commissions, positions in entertainment and media, and put under review by professional governing bodies because of relentless campaigns mounted against them by trans activists determined to destroy the lives and livelihoods of anyone who dares believe that men can't become women. Just today there's lead story in The Times (of London) about a choreographer in the UK who has been forced out of the dance company she founded and which bears her name because she's been accused of "transphobia"

Maybe you're independently wealthy because you've got a trust fund, or you're financially secure or set for life because you're self-employed, you have tenure or you've invested really well, so it's easy for you to sneer that the young women afraid to speak up about Lia Thomas "are too chicken$h!+ to take a stand." But most people aren't in a position where they can afford to be made unemployable. In today's era of gender identity tyranny and nouveau McCarthyism, most young people just staring out in life, often with hefty college loans to pay back, have every reason to worry about their job prospects.

Those are a lot of words to say you are ok with people it making a stand because you are weak.

Wonder how Rosa Parks would feel a out being afraid to take a stand when you feel you are being wronged even if it may cost you everything.

dhe8282uehdh wrote:

Those are a lot of words to say you are ok with people it making a stand because you are weak.

Wonder how Rosa Parks would feel a out being afraid to take a stand when you feel you are being wronged even if it may cost you everything.

Your first sentence is incoherent. I can't make heads nor tails of what you are trying to say.

It doesn't sound like you are very familiar with the story of Rosa Parks, the Montgomery bus boycotts and the US civil rights movement. Parks wasn't a single teenager or young woman still wet behind the ears and a political neophyte when she became a nationally-known name in 1955. She was a 42-year-old married woman who at the time of her first arrest was already a veteran civil rights activist, as was her husband, who had been involved in the struggle for black civil rights since before the time he and Rosa married in 1932. Parks herself joined the NAACP in 1943, and was secretary of the Montgomery chapter. Since 1949, she was also advisor to the local NAACP Youth Council, and led youths to challenge Jim Crow. The summer before her first arrest, Parks traveled to Tennessee to attend workshops in a program entitled “Racial Desegregation: Implementing the Supreme Court Decision.”

The US civil rights movement organized through black churches in the south, and Parks had enormous support from a large community and her church congregation. She also wasn't solely reliant on her own self financially and emotionally; she had the full support of her husband and her mother.

Even so, Parks and her husband paid dearly for their activism. Weeks after her first arrest, Parks was fired from her job. After her husband was told that no mention of Rosa Parks or the bus boycott were allowed at his workplace, he felt compelled to quit his job. Throughout the boycott and beyond, Parks received threatening phone calls and death threats. In 1957, Parks, her husband and mother moved to Detroit in search of less notoriety and better employment prospects. She eventually became an administrative aide for Congressman John Conyers, Jr.

The way you slag off young women for being "weak" and "afraid," and say that if the women forced to compete against Lia Thomas "are too chicken$h!+ to take a stand then they deserve this," makes me suspect you've never taken a politically risky stand IRL yourself. And that you have no idea whatsoever what it's like to be a female person intimidated by strapping full-grown males who have bodies that are much larger, stronger and faster than your own - and who are puffed up with "male privilege," arrogance and entitlement like Lia Thomas appears to be.

I suspect Rosa Parks would have much more compassion than you do for the position that female college swimmers at Penn, and young women generally, face dealing with today's trans ideology and the way it's being used to punch down on, menace and bully "the second sex." I don't think she'd agree with you that girls and women "deserve this" - or as many misogynists say, that women "asked for it" and "brought it on ourselves" by seeking equal rights and sex-specific sports, provisions and protections for those of us who are female.

My hunch is that Rosa Parks would also sympathize with the young women's worries about their job prospects, and would offer them wise counsel and words of caution, not rebuke and ridicule them as weak, afraid and chicken$h!

"If you openly say that Lia Thomas is not a woman, and that men can't become women, you'll be smeared as a transphobe and evil bigot"

I mean what would you call it? If you're saying trans people don't exist or can't exist then it's transphobia. Hearing that LGBT is a lifestyle choice is as old as time and this is not different. If you said gays and lesbians are choosing to live a gay life and what they're choosing is immoral, you'd rightly be called a homophobe.

It's beyond deluded to think "gender critical" opinions are subject to McCarthy-style suppression. A quick search for Rosie Kay or Sasha White and the internet is full of articles and individuals in support of them. There isn't a single article that gives them a rough time or challenges them. I've even Googled JK Rowling and there's hardly anything written in the media which pushes back on her perspective (the best example I could find was from USA Today where Rupert Grint says she's wrong). Hardly an oppressive environment.

It's quite a leap to go from saying a person doesn't believe in or support something to saying that they have an irrational fear of that something. I don't particularly like rates, but I am not a musophobe or musophobic.

Rats. I do have an irrational fear of autocorrect.

lasdjfodifj wrote:

I really want to see a big D1 school actively and publicly recruit only trans women. Could you image how unstoppable a basketball, soccer, or lacrosse team would be if the coach only fielded trans women and not a single cis woman?

I would 100% pay to see that. A program like Ucon or Tennesee for basketball or UNC for soccer come out and very publicly state they are only interested in giving scholarships to trans women. Bonus points if they actual state it is ok if the trans women are faking it just for the free education.

Great idea. I actually think the way to do this is for for some conservative leaning school to do it. After playing 4 years on the men's basketball team, instead of graduating, have the seniors come out as trans and then play on the women's team. Remember, all they have to do it take a single birth control pill one time and they will be in compliance for being on testosterone reducing medication.

It should be forced into a cage fight with Svechenko or Nunes before getting indoctrination into the it community

Lenny Leonard wrote:

There have been a lot of suggestions from both sides about this issue, but inverse doping protocols is a bad idea. No one will ever agree on what is “sufficient,” and every time a new athlete comes along, the thresholds will be reset.

We need to stop trying to make the sport winnable by every participant. Sports are not a level playing field. If I race Kipchoge in the marathon 100 times, I lose 100 times. It’s not “fair,” but that doesn’t mean he should have to handicap himself with drugs so that I can have an opportunity to beat him.

Great post.

CrispyChicken wrote:

It's quite a leap to go from saying a person doesn't believe in or support something to saying that they have an irrational fear of that something. I don't particularly like rates, but I am not a musophobe or musophobic.

"-phobia" essentially means "a strong aversion to." When someone calls you "transphobic," isn't doesn't mean you have an irrational fear of transpeople; it means that you really dislike them and avoid them when possible.

You are transphobic. Wear it with pride. Or not. I wouldn't. I would take a look in the mirror and try to be a better person.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

CrispyChicken wrote:

It's quite a leap to go from saying a person doesn't believe in or support something to saying that they have an irrational fear of that something. I don't particularly like rates, but I am not a musophobe or musophobic.

"-phobia" essentially means "a strong aversion to." When someone calls you "transphobic," isn't doesn't mean you have an irrational fear of transpeople; it means that you really dislike them and avoid them when possible.

You are transphobic. Wear it with pride. Or not. I wouldn't. I would take a look in the mirror and try to be a better person.

God gave 2 sexes. You are how you were born. How is this anything but a mental illness like schizophrenia, bipolar, etc etc. If someone feels like a animal, do we just say they are an animal, and put a chain on their neck, or do we help their mental state?

If someone says they are a deer, are we allowed to hunt them during season?

Lenny Leonard wrote:

CrispyChicken wrote:

It's quite a leap to go from saying a person doesn't believe in or support something to saying that they have an irrational fear of that something. I don't particularly like rates, but I am not a musophobe or musophobic.

"-phobia" essentially means "a strong aversion to." When someone calls you "transphobic," isn't doesn't mean you have an irrational fear of transpeople; it means that you really dislike them and avoid them when possible.

You are transphobic. Wear it with pride. Or not. I wouldn't. I would take a look in the mirror and try to be a better person.

Tatar... wrote:

RunRagged wrote:

If you openly say that Lia Thomas is not a woman, and that men can't become women, you'll be smeared as a transphobe and evil bigot

If you're saying trans people don't exist or can't exist then it's transphobia.

Read the quote. That's not at all what RunRagged is saying.

So now the liberalism are labeling people transphobic they believe in science?