We couldn’t make this up if we tried: Transgender UPenn woman swimmer beaten by transgender man Yale swimmer

CrispyChicken wrote:

How do you know animals don't have genders? Are you Dr. Doolittle and have had conversations with them?

Interestingly, your New Speak definition of Gender hasn't always existed in the English language. The original 1828 Webster's dictionary does not include it, and it is pretty clear on the definition of gender:

1. Properly, kind; sort.

2. A sex, male or female. Hence,

3. In grammar, a difference in words to express distinction of sex.

I know animals don't have genders because the Cheshire Cat told me after I fell down the rabbit hole during my adventures as Malice in Genderland.

I never said that my "New Speak definition" of gender has "always existed in the English language." Language evolves over time. "Gender" originally comes from Latin and French anyways; it's not a word that originated amongst the Germanic Anglo-Saxons peoples that settled in the British Isles in the Middle Ages whose languages formed the basis for English.

My own first contact with gender as a word and concept comes from studying Romance languages in which nouns and pronouns even for inanimate objects - along with associated words like articles and adjectives - are gendered, meaning classed as masculine, feminine or neuter. For example: in French, bed is considered a masculine object, "le lit," the pronoun is "il" and the article is "ce;" whereas chair regarded as a feminine object, "la chaise," the pronoun is "elle" and the article is "cette."

As for Webster's 1828 tome, I hope you know Noah Webster cribbed his definitions for the word gender from Samuel Johnson's landmark dictionary first published in 1755. Here's Johnson's definitions of the noun:

Ge'nder.

n.s. [ genus, Latin; gendre, French.]

1. A kind; a sort.

Our bodies are our gardens, to the which our wills are gardeners; so that if we will supply it with one gender of herbs, or distract it with many, the power and corrigible authority of this lies in our will. Shakespeare’s Othello.

The other motive,

Why to a publick court I might not go,

Is the great love the general gender bear me. Shak. Hamlet.

2. A sex.

3. [In grammar.] A denomination given to nouns, from their being joined with an adjective in this or that termination.

Cubitus, sometimes cubitum in the neutral gender, signifies the lower part of the arm on which we lean.

Arbuthnot.

Ulysses speaks of Nausicaa, yet immediately changes the words into the masculine gender.Notes on the Odyssey.

But even if we go with Webster's 1828 version, a lot of water has gone over the damn and under the bridge in the past 200 years regarding understanding of both sex and gender, and the way these terms are used.

The meanings I was referring to for gender in my earlier post are the ones the noun has principally had in English parlance more recently, particularly since the 1960s.

RunRagged wrote:

Language evolves over time.

And every organic usage is still either identical with sex, or firmly rooted in the concept. The special usage insisted upon by trans activists is not organic but forced. This is obvious every time they try to make everyone else use it too.

This can be arguably justifiable to eliminate a slur, such as the N-word, but the indelible link between gender and sex is no slur, but a biological fact. Cite any exception you want, its rarity only proves the rule that produced our overwhelmingly common usage.

Enough of the nonsense. If you're a male, you can say you're a female, but you can't make me say it.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Enough of the nonsense. If you're a male, you can say you're a female, but you can't make me say it.

Sure but you have no point here. If you are stupid you can say you are smart, but you can’t make me say it. This was always palpably obvious.

When these men line up to compete against the women. The women should protest and step down from the platform in unison. Don't start and maybe then we'll get to hear how the women really feel about men competing as women. Unless I'm wrong and the women are supporting this delusion.

The word gender as it is being used now has a specific meaning. If you want to take gender and make it no longer mean that, then another word will emerge that means the exact same thing. Arguments against the word are dumb because it's not really about the word used so much as the concept of sex vs gender.

I will reiterate that we sports need to be based on sex and sex alone in order to protect women's sports. I think in most other aspects of life, we should find ways to be accepting and tolerant instead of vehemently opposed.

At that those schools you definitely can.

We are living in Seinfeld's Bizarro World where down is up, water is dry, and men can become women by just imagining that they are.

This would be such a great thing to do. I can just vision all the girls in the start position and only the guy jumps in the water. How long until he realizes he's the fool. Or elite track and field meet when the gun goes off and the runners stand in unity with each other. I guarantee you that the crowd that paid good money for a ticket would applaud. What a great movement this could be. I have already seen that some girls won't go to the mat and wrestle when a guy shows up. Great to see the booing during the trophy presentation.

2:18 at the casino (SLU grad) wrote:

This would be such a great thing to do. I can just vision all the girls in the start position and only the guy jumps in the water. How long until he realizes he's the fool. Or elite track and field meet when the gun goes off and the runners stand in unity with each other. I guarantee you that the crowd that paid good money for a ticket would applaud. What a great movement this could be. I have already seen that some girls won't go to the mat and wrestle when a guy shows up. Great to see the booing during the trophy presentation.

lmao too bad the world won't unfold in the style of a feel-good movie outline you just wrote. Maybe start passing the script around to studios though

Clean the title up.

A trans woman defeated a trans man in swimming.

Should this be a surprise?

Wejo, don’t become a Rojo. This is a try hard thread.

wejo wrote:

Looks like from what I can tell the Yale swimmer isn’t doping yet to become a transgender man so is the one at the biological disadvantage

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10382019/Trans-UPenn-swimmer-Lia-Thomas-wins-200m-freestyle-race-two-seconds.html

We are officially living in the bizzaro alternate universe.

i dont give a damn who defeated whom, PUT TRANS PEOPLE on THEIR separate category and it will be over.

girls will be boys and boys will be girls, its a mixed up mumbled up shook up world, except for LOLA

hill_runner wrote:

i dont give a damn who defeated whom, PUT TRANS PEOPLE on THEIR separate category and it will be over.

We tried that but the transphobes opposed that as well. Equal prizes and mediocre athletes getting money made them froth at the mouth.

Touche.

Tatar... wrote:

hill_runner wrote:

i dont give a damn who defeated whom, PUT TRANS PEOPLE on THEIR separate category and it will be over.

We tried that but the transphobes opposed that as well. Equal prizes and mediocre athletes getting money made them froth at the mouth.

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=10969683

According to one opinion survey, 28% support additional categories for trans athletes, while 10% support total ban of trans athletes from ANY category.

I am still cracking up about the transgender woman becoming the most winning "female" ever on jeopardy thus joining 5 males in the top 5 winners of all time. Of course, not everybody finds this funny or intriguing at all, especially one or more mods who will now delete this post, if not the whole thread, now.

Trans female proves men really are smarter than women. Not me of course, just categorically.

Tatar... wrote:

hill_runner wrote:

i dont give a damn who defeated whom, PUT TRANS PEOPLE on THEIR separate category and it will be over.

We tried that but the transphobes opposed that as well. Equal prizes and mediocre athletes getting money made them froth at the mouth.

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=10969683

Oh c'mon. That thread you linked to is not about trans-identified people making attempts to create a separate category of sports for those who "identify as" the opposite sex like Lia Thomas of Penn and Izsak Henig of Yale do. It's about the fact that the New York Marathon has already established a third category of competition for runners who identify as "non-binary" - meaning they "identify as" neither sex.

And guess who the first "non-binary" winner of the the NY Marathon was? A bog standard bloke named Zackary Harris with an unshaven face who calls himself "queer." Because all adding a third mixed-sex sports category does is create another sphere in which males will dominate and win.

You can see photos of "non-binary" Zack and read of the cross he bears and the woes and "humiliations" he claims to suffer as as a guy who looks like a zillion other ordinary guys here:

You write about humiliations "he claims to suffer" as if you really think he has never suffered any. I read the article and it asserts he was bullied for being gay.

Did you go to high school? You're pretty dense to suggest that gay guys aren't bullied there.