Not all liberals, or most of us, are fans of identity politics. Most us, like you, just want government to work for us the people.
-
60
-
America's fury wrote:
Rojo said nothing anti-trans. Telling biological men to stay in their lane is not anti-trans, fool.
Fixed it for you. Must be one of those people who hate trans people for making you confused about grammar or something
28 -
Steve The Addict OFFICIAL -----^^^^^ wrote:
Liberals loves the trans in women's sports distraction. Do they really believe in the stuff they're propagating? Maybe a few of them and they certainly have the support of idiots. This topic is an astutely derived distraction for the institution to perpetuate the obedience of their slave citizens. Now of course, the real victims, biological women in sports are ignored as they are a small demographic and the left can scream under the guise of bigotry and oppression of the trans community as their illogical counter argument. But altogether, this distinct distraction enables and perpetuates the weakening of society, the attack on strong independent thinkers that are a threat to the institution. The institution intends to create a society of generally losers because these people are the exact demographic which is desperate and reliant on the government, culminating in the most important fact that they are obedient and bound to the rules of the institution rather than a threat to overthrow them like strong independent thinking men would be. All a numbers game for the institution. They are incredibly meticulous in their schemes. The vats majority get distracted. It's time to wake up or be a slave or a loser.
Which are you, a weak loser or a strong independent thinking man?
This post was edited 11 seconds after it was posted.12 -
You people are getting upset about 0.6% of the population wanting to compete in a sport that the vast majority of Americans could care less about. I mean seriously; if the sport of distance running was banned no one would care.
216 -
Lenny Leonard wrote:
unfair arguments wrote:
If a 25 yr. old doesn't want to compete against everyone else and instead only wants to compete against the U20 athletes, they are faced with two options: Either compete against people their age, or don't compete at all. Out of fairness, we don't allow those 25 yr olds to compete in the U20 division, but I'd still encourage the 25 yr. old to compete in the division that aligns with their biology because I want everyone to enjoy the sport I love.
I've never actually heard of a 25-year-old doing this, so it's a bit of a moot point, but even if it was not, age and gender are not equally fluid. For instance, you can go to your state's DMV or your company's HR department and change your gender. You cannot do the same thing with your age.
If your #1 goal of all goals is to have people enjoy the sport, then don't tell them which division they are allowed to compete in. You mandating such a thing does not affect you at all, but it will undoubtedly lead to many not enjoying the sport you love.
Sports are separated on sex, not gender. Do you make that error on purpose to confuse the issue? It seems like a lot of people on your side of this issue live to confuse the issue.
41 -
Lenny Leonard wrote:
RunRagged wrote:
Your framing suggests that in your eyes, the only people whose wants matter here are the males who no longer want to compete against others of their sex. You seem to think that what female people want, and don't want, doesn't count at all - that when it comes to gender identity ideology being used as a mechanism to force males into women's and girls sports and spaces, female people get no say.
When the question is who should make the decision about how the athlete competes, I think the answer should come from the athlete, not anyone else.
Their wants matter more than someone else's.
It's like if someone gets asked out on a date, and they say "no" or "yes." Their opinion matters more than the person who asked them, or any other person's for that matter. We are autonomous beings who should be able to govern our own lives, not have Congress make our decisions for us.
Huh? By likening the situation of male trans-identified athletes wanting in on girls's and women's sports to the male athletes being asked out on a date, you seem to be suggesting that girls and women initiated this conflict by inviting trans-identified males to join our sports. As though the female half of the American population one day decided, "Gee, wouldn't it be swell to open up girls' and women's sports to blokes!"
That's not what's happened at all.
What actually happened is that in recent years male trans-identified people and gender identity ideology campaign groups quietly went to sports policy makers and powerful institutions in society; sold them a bill of goods full of confusing, nonsensical gibberish about gender; told them some sad stories about unhappy men and boys who wish they were female and believe they were born "with girl brains in boys' bodies;" infomed them that it's now "settled science" that "transwomen are women;" and used a bunch of buzzwords and slogans about "diversity and inclusion," "respecting identity" and honoring people's "authentic selves" and "personal truths... And in the process, the campaigners convinced the powers-that-be to change the rules and regulations around sex segregation in women's and girls' sports behind closed doors - without alerting the public, without bothering to consult girls and women, and without asking or considering how girls and women felt about this revolutionary change.
Using your dating analogy, what's happening today with the intrusion of males into women's and girls' sports strikes me as more like a a situation where a pushy, arrogant, entitled, self-centered, massive strong man built like Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson shows up at the home of the woman he fancies, bangs down her door with his mighty man strength and size, and informs her that she and her home now belong to him, and she has no choice in the matter - he's not going to take no for an answer.
When the woman reacts with alarm, horror and hesitancy - and tells the man lording it over her that she wants nothing to do with him and he needs to get out of her house immediately - the man who has suddenly intruded upon her private domain gets red in the face, screams abuse at her, flexes his muscles and orders her to shut up and put up - or else!
When the woman continues resisting the man - and repeats that she wants nothing to do with him, reminds him he barged in uninvited, and asks him to please leave her home and let her be - the man starts twisting her arm, smacking her on the head with his fist and alternates between threatening to punch her lights out, shouting that she's a hateful bxtch, bigot and manphobe who is hurting him and denying his existence, and telling her that if she doesn't yield and comply with his demands, he and all his guy friends are going to kill themselves - and it will be all her fault.
44 -
Steve The Addict OFFICIAL -----^^^^^ wrote:
Liberals loves the trans in women's sports distraction. Do they really believe in the stuff they're propagating? Maybe a few of them and they certainly have the support of idiots. This topic is an astutely derived distraction for the institution to perpetuate the obedience of their slave citizens. Now of course, the real victims, biological women in sports are ignored as they are a small demographic and the left can scream under the guise of bigotry and oppression of the trans community as their illogical counter argument. But altogether, this distinct distraction enables and perpetuates the weakening of society, the attack on strong independent thinkers that are a threat to the institution. The institution intends to create a society of generally losers because these people are the exact demographic which is desperate and reliant on the government, culminating in the most important fact that they are obedient and bound to the rules of the institution rather than a threat to overthrow them like strong independent thinking men would be. All a numbers game for the institution. They are incredibly meticulous in their schemes. The vats majority get distracted. It's time to wake up or be a slave or a loser.
I'm as far left as you can get - and I don't want trans women in women's sports either. So F you.
42 -
jonno wrote:
Steve The Addict OFFICIAL -----^^^^^ wrote:
Liberals loves the trans in women's sports distraction. Do they really believe in the stuff they're propagating? Maybe a few of them and they certainly have the support of idiots. This topic is an astutely derived distraction for the institution to perpetuate the obedience of their slave citizens. Now of course, the real victims, biological women in sports are ignored as they are a small demographic and the left can scream under the guise of bigotry and oppression of the trans community as their illogical counter argument. But altogether, this distinct distraction enables and perpetuates the weakening of society, the attack on strong independent thinkers that are a threat to the institution. The institution intends to create a society of generally losers because these people are the exact demographic which is desperate and reliant on the government, culminating in the most important fact that they are obedient and bound to the rules of the institution rather than a threat to overthrow them like strong independent thinking men would be. All a numbers game for the institution. They are incredibly meticulous in their schemes. The vats majority get distracted. It's time to wake up or be a slave or a loser.
I'm as far left as you can get - and I don't want trans women in women's sports either. So F you.
Sorry jonno but you do support trans women in women's sports, 100% you do. Just look how your leftist party just voted in the house, unanimously supporting men masquerading as women for athletic achievement. As a self-proclaimed "far left" person, trans issues are at the top of your party's list so by extension, you are a massive supporter of this nonsense by voting for them.
310 -
People use the same examples over and over to show that some transgender athletes have an unfair advantage. Those examples are obvious and the athletes should not be allowed to compete, or at least should not count as being in the women's competition.
But there are other trans athletes who compete in women's sports and it is appropriate, they are where they should be. They would be out of place competing against males. So a blanket ban really harms people who are not gaining an advantage.
The solution is something like what World Athletics did, create strict protocols that will allow transgender athletes to compete in the appropriate place. If you are concerned about the posterity of women's sports, they could be banned from post-season competition or from international events, the places where we take measure of sports.
Blanket bans are not reasonable. If this is about fairness, do the right thing for the trans athletes as well as the women athletes.
47 -
fitz wrote:
jonno wrote:
I'm as far left as you can get - and I don't want trans women in women's sports either. So F you.
Sorry jonno but you do support trans women in women's sports, 100% you do. Just look how your leftist party just voted in the house, unanimously supporting men masquerading as women for athletic achievement. As a self-proclaimed "far left" person, trans issues are at the top of your party's list so by extension, you are a massive supporter of this nonsense by voting for them.
You are a dim bulb. So if you vote Republican, by your reasoning, does that mean you support the endless lies of Santos, Trump etc? Does that mean you support everything the party purports to stand for?
42 -
kiltedrunner wrote:
Alright then, what if this hypothetical able-bodied athlete wants to compete as a para athlete? By your logic, the other para athletes in the race should have no say on this as it's down to the athlete. And if it's not ok to insert yourself into categories for disability or say, weight class, then why is it ok to do so for the female category? Because some screeching blue-haired disciples of the Church of Genderology are really insistent?
If an able bodied athlete became disabled, then they would then qualify as an para athlete, yes?
if you gained 50 lbs, putting you in a new weight class, you would qualify for that new weight class, yes?
So if you transition from a man to a woman, you then compete against women, yes?
If you don’t agree with all three of these scenarios, then explain why.
Also, I don’t think the church of genderology exists. Someone lied to you.
215 -
afdsadfadfdsf wrote:
rojo wrote:
While I've been deleting other posts calling me anti trans as being factually incorrect, I'll let this one stand so I can respond. What are you talking about? I wasn't caught posting anything misleading.
1) you are anti-trans. Here's why, you can't say you support a group then dictate which rights they have and which they don't. It's like saying you aren't races and supports African American's right to vote...but not in presidential elections. Without a full complement of rights, it's meaningless support.
2) you either intentionally misrepresented what was said in an article. I doubt you remember because you were too busy trying to be a bigot. When I called you out on it...you REFUSED to change the article you wrote about it. (I have the emails)
By your own definition you are anti-women:
Here's why, you can't say you support a group then dictate which rights they have and which they don't
You are telling Biological Females that they have NO RIGHTS to privacy, autonomy, fair competition, single sex spaces.... the list goes on
83 -
RunRagged wrote:
Lenny Leonard wrote:
When the question is who should make the decision about how the athlete competes, I think the answer should come from the athlete, not anyone else.
Their wants matter more than someone else's.
It's like if someone gets asked out on a date, and they say "no" or "yes." Their opinion matters more than the person who asked them, or any other person's for that matter. We are autonomous beings who should be able to govern our own lives, not have Congress make our decisions for us.
Huh? By likening the situation of male trans-identified athletes wanting in on girls's and women's sports to the male athletes being asked out on a date, you seem to be suggesting that girls and women initiated this conflict by inviting trans-identified males to join our sports. As though the female half of the American population one day decided, "Gee, wouldn't it be swell to open up girls' and women's sports to blokes!"
That's not what's happened at all.
What actually happened is that in recent years male trans-identified people and gender identity ideology campaign groups quietly went to sports policy makers and powerful institutions in society; sold them a bill of goods full of confusing, nonsensical gibberish about gender; told them some sad stories about unhappy men and boys who wish they were female and believe they were born "with girl brains in boys' bodies;" infomed them that it's now "settled science" that "transwomen are women;" and used a bunch of buzzwords and slogans about "diversity and inclusion," "respecting identity" and honoring people's "authentic selves" and "personal truths... And in the process, the campaigners convinced the powers-that-be to change the rules and regulations around sex segregation in women's and girls' sports behind closed doors - without alerting the public, without bothering to consult girls and women, and without asking or considering how girls and women felt about this revolutionary change.
Using your dating analogy, what's happening today with the intrusion of males into women's and girls' sports strikes me as more like a a situation where a pushy, arrogant, entitled, self-centered, massive strong man built like Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson shows up at the home of the woman he fancies, bangs down her door with his mighty man strength and size, and informs her that she and her home now belong to him, and she has no choice in the matter - he's not going to take no for an answer.
When the woman reacts with alarm, horror and hesitancy - and tells the man lording it over her that she wants nothing to do with him and he needs to get out of her house immediately - the man who has suddenly intruded upon her private domain gets red in the face, screams abuse at her, flexes his muscles and orders her to shut up and put up - or else!
When the woman continues resisting the man - and repeats that she wants nothing to do with him, reminds him he barged in uninvited, and asks him to please leave her home and let her be - the man starts twisting her arm, smacking her on the head with his fist and alternates between threatening to punch her lights out, shouting that she's a hateful bxtch, bigot and manphobe who is hurting him and denying his existence, and telling her that if she doesn't yield and comply with his demands, he and all his guy friends are going to kill themselves - and it will be all her fault.
Here is the inconvenient truth for you.
Do you think transgender athletes should be able to play on sports teams that match their current gender identity (or) should only be allowed to play on sports teams that match their birth gender?
Men -
Play on teams that match gender identity 24%,
Play on teams that match birth gender 72%.Women -
Play on teams that match gender identity 43%,
Play on teams that match birth gender 53%.Your view is supported slightly over half of women, but nearly three quarters of men. There is nothing wrong with that. Both men and women disagree on this issue. However, you cannot present your view as THE women's view because almost half of women do not agree with you. It's just your opinion and opinions of other women who agree with you. (And far greater number of men.)
24 -
Steve The Addict OFFICIAL -----^^^^^ wrote:
Liberals loves the trans in women's sports distraction. Do they really believe in the stuff they're propagating? Maybe a few of them and they certainly have the support of idiots. This topic is an astutely derived distraction for the institution to perpetuate the obedience of their slave citizens. Now of course, the real victims, biological women in sports are ignored as they are a small demographic and the left can scream under the guise of bigotry and oppression of the trans community as their illogical counter argument. But altogether, this distinct distraction enables and perpetuates the weakening of society, the attack on strong independent thinkers that are a threat to the institution. The institution intends to create a society of generally losers because these people are the exact demographic which is desperate and reliant on the government, culminating in the most important fact that they are obedient and bound to the rules of the institution rather than a threat to overthrow them like strong independent thinking men would be. All a numbers game for the institution. They are incredibly meticulous in their schemes. The vats majority get distracted. It's time to wake up or be a slave or a loser.
I am a staunch liberal. Always vote democrat. Fan of Elizabeth Warren, Obama, etc.
On this issue I side with the right.
It's so obvious to me.
I have empathy for the trans athlete, but unfortunately allowing them to compete with women/girls is not the answer. Their rights can not come at the expense of others. Kind of like that adage of your right to throw a punch ends at my face.
83 -
This isn’t a zero sum game. Just because you think protecting a sex-based classification is fair, it doesn’t necessarily mean you are “anti-trans”. I have trans coworkers whose gender identity I …kind of don’t give a thought to, to be frank. They are they, and that’s great. Live your best life. But I don’t think it would be fair to women (sex) to have to compete against them in athletics. We have two classifications for a reason. World class women would struggle to compete with high school boys.
Also, if it were fair, shouldn’t we be seeing any trans men competitive? Like, a single trans man qualifying for Worlds or Olympics.81 -
Steve The Addict OFFICIAL -----^^^^^ wrote:
The institution intends to create a society of generally losers because these people are the exact demographic which is desperate and reliant on the government, culminating in the most important fact that they are obedient and bound to the rules of the institution rather than a threat to overthrow them like strong independent thinking men would be.
One more thing, your premise above is completely wrong. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows the red states are by far more of the welfare recipients than the blue states.
NY pays for the bastions of strong men in the south. C'mon dude. AL, MS, AR, GA LA are all net takers of government cheese.
12 -
rojo wrote:
Yesterday, I was on twitter and saw a thread where Ross Tucker was explaining why using a car in an ultramarathon was wrong. I was like, "What in the hell is he doing? This is so obvious." But I read it all and it was so amazing.
Read the whole thread.
Point #6 was my favorite.Sports is segregated on sex, not gender. An outright ban is the proper 100% call.
I listen to Ross Tucker’s podcast and he’s very articulate on this issue. His views are rooted in science, and, from what I can tell he’s apolitical regarding this matter.
A a political liberal who opposes biological males participating in female sports for scientific reasons (as do virtually all of my liberal friends), I wish we could disassociate this conversation from politics and hate, which drives the conversation in the United States, including on this message board.
23 -
This quoted post has been removed.
Let's be fair. Rojo is not anti-transgender but rather anti-transwomen in women's sport. There is a HUGE difference. If you think this debate is just a Trojan horse for haters to sneak in so more hate on trans people, you are wrong.
Most every single person I know (I am liberal) is not anti-trans. But we are 100% against having transwomen in women's competitive sport.
Heck, we don't even care if transwomen want to jog along mid-pack at the New York marathon (for example), but if they are competing, taking prize money, standing on podiums, bumping girls off teams, then yes, we are 100% against that.
But we are not anti-trans. We support people to live their best possible lives; you do you! I'll support that unless you are stepping on other people's toes. Because, obviously, we also support those rights for biological women too.
54 -
ProTrans and ProFairness wrote:
This isn’t a zero sum game. Just because you think protecting a sex-based classification is fair, it doesn’t necessarily mean you are “anti-trans”. I have trans coworkers whose gender identity I …kind of don’t give a thought to, to be frank. They are they, and that’s great. Live your best life. But I don’t think it would be fair to women (sex) to have to compete against them in athletics. We have two classifications for a reason. World class women would struggle to compete with high school boys.
Also, if it were fair, shouldn’t we be seeing any trans men competitive? Like, a single trans man qualifying for Worlds or Olympics.I love your post. I wrote mine before I read yours and basically copied everything you wrote. I could have just said "ditto."
33 -
Lenny Leonard wrote:
If an able bodied athlete became disabled, then they would then qualify as an para athlete, yes?
if you gained 50 lbs, putting you in a new weight class, you would qualify for that new weight class, yes?
So if you transition from a man to a woman, you then compete against women, yes?
If you don’t agree with all three of these scenarios, then explain why.
Also, I don’t think the church of genderology exists. Someone lied to you.
What if the person wasn't actually disabled but felt disabled? Should they enter the Paraolympics?
What if a fit strong athlete promised to wear a weight belt to compete against obese people of a higher weight? Do you see how that could be a problem?
We have strict rules defining who is which category for the Paraolympics. We don't just let The Rock or David Goggins throw on a weight-vest and destroy people in some event for obese people.
It mostly matters that people transition primarily in their hearts and minds. Their fist bones and hip-angle-ratios and shoulder tendons and skull thickness don't "transition." And for lots of sports, those are the things you are measuring in a women's division. The physical traits are the precise parts that don't transition.
This post was edited 53 seconds after it was posted.33
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.