Female Athletes Sue NCAA Over Transgender Competitors in Sports

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

GD wrote:

This is where you're wrong. Plenty of men do care about girls and women's sports; some even make a lot of sacrifices so that girls and women they value an exceed at the highest levels. In addition to the many women that coach women and girls, boyfriends and husbands pace workouts and races. I've watched Jason Simpson pacing Jenny on the track in Boulder, seen videos of Molly Huddle doing mile repeats with Kurt; we know that Steve Magness did a lot of marathon training with Kara Goucher when she was with the Oregon Project. Marathons that attract Amercian women chasing the OTQ frequently have pacers, and most of the time, it's somebody's boyfriend or husband. Some of these guys run the entire 26.2 with a group of amateur women.

These are men that actually do value women's sports. They understand that competitive women have a different ceiling than competitive men, and they don't look down on the women because of it. It's the people who can't look at this difference and still see the greatness of competitive and elite women driving a lot of this nonsense. They're burying their sexism in a fog of faux social justice talk.

There are sexist men in the world, but don't go attacking the many men who actively contribute to girls and women's sports.

You seem to have a serious problem with reading comprehension. I didn't write men did not care about girls' and women's sports. I write I have problems with men who don't care about girls' and women's sports, and yet complain about trans athletes.

wejo wrote:

2) You act like the definition of words don't matter but defining what a woman is is essential to this debate. For the longest time for most people woman meant female. Now non "right-wingers" are changing what these words mean.

At first everyone was in agreement, we'll use the word transgender woman, denoting that a transgender woman was different than a biological woman. Everyone knows this. Then the goal posts shifted, and now some people want us to refer to transgender women and non-transgender women as women with no qualifier.

Extending this further, female no longer means female to some, so I've started using the term "biological female."

But essentially the changing language is trying to erase the sex differences out of the picture.

The end result of this for some is sex is not a biological thing at all, but defined at how you dress and what you wear. Pretty crazy in my opinion.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

Blind inclusion wrote:

The argument that states since there are trans females that are in the back of the pack or don't do as well as bio females, then that means there is no advantage, really bothers me. I am sure there are blind runners that can beat me in a race, however does that mean that I, as a seeing person, can or should compete against them? That's not fair, even if I come in 20th place...they have a specific division just for them so that they can compete in a more fair category with other blind people, I don't get to compete with them because I have no vision impairments. Same goes for XX athletes. XX athletes deserve their own category, even though XY athletes who's are trans don't always win.

No one makes that argument. This is not a discussion of whether transwomen have an advantage. It is a discussion of whether you consider their transgenderism to be legitimate.

Women (XX or XY, doesn’t matter) should run against women.

RunRagged wrote:

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

And I don't live in CA. I have visited the state many times, but have not been there since 2019. I live in a deep Red state, and even a deeper Red county that voted 70+% for Trump in both elections.

Sorry for mistakenly thinking you're in California.

I realize now that I probably mixed you up with the LRC poster "Wise Old Man," as he's another poster who appears to be a full-grown adult male who is intelligent like you but who's also made many, many posts over the years saying it's unjust, immoral, and unfair for males to be excluded from female sports the way you have.

I confuse you and Wise Old Man because his posts have made it clear he's a "liberal"and supporter of the Democratic Party who's just as angry, distressed and outraged over the idea of no males in female sports as you are.

Like you, Wise Old Man claims to be a "progressive" who supports women's rights and hews to the set of positions that "all good people" who consider themselves "forward thinking" today supposedly agree are correct, virtuous and just. Yet, like you, he claims that it's hateful, bigoted, transphobic, cruel, ignorant and just plain wrong for anyone - especially anyone female - to say and believe that female people have a right to fairness and safety in sports just as male people do, and that female students attending schools in the USA specifically should have just as much of a chance to participate, qualify, place, win, set records and generally shine in our own school sports category as males have always gotten in their school sports category.

crinkle wrote:

RunRagged wrote:

Sorry for mistakenly thinking you're in California.

I realize now that I probably mixed you up with the LRC poster "Wise Old Man," as he's another poster who appears to be a full-grown adult male who is intelligent like you but who's also made many, many posts over the years saying it's unjust, immoral, and unfair for males to be excluded from female sports the way you have.

I confuse you and Wise Old Man because his posts have made it clear he's a "liberal"and supporter of the Democratic Party who's just as angry, distressed and outraged over the idea of no males in female sports as you are.

Like you, Wise Old Man claims to be a "progressive" who supports women's rights and hews to the set of positions that "all good people" who consider themselves "forward thinking" today supposedly agree are correct, virtuous and just. Yet, like you, he claims that it's hateful, bigoted, transphobic, cruel, ignorant and just plain wrong for anyone - especially anyone female - to say and believe that female people have a right to fairness and safety in sports just as male people do, and that female students attending schools in the USA specifically should have just as much of a chance to participate, qualify, place, win, set records and generally shine in our own school sports category as males have always gotten in their school sports category.

You are constantly confused about what is said because you lack reading comprehension for one. The general ailment is chowderheadism.

RunRagged wrote:

wejo wrote:

2) You act like the definition of words don't matter but defining what a woman is is essential to this debate. For the longest time for most people woman meant female. Now non "right-wingers" are changing what these words mean.

At first everyone was in agreement, we'll use the word transgender woman, denoting that a transgender woman was different than a biological woman. Everyone knows this. Then the goal posts shifted, and now some people want us to refer to transgender women and non-transgender women as women with no qualifier.

Extending this further, female no longer means female to some, so I've started using the term "biological female."

But essentially the changing language is trying to erase the sex differences out of the picture.

The end result of this for some is sex is not a biological thing at all, but defined at how you dress and what you wear. Pretty crazy in my opinion.

Another sign of how crazy things have gotten is that you wrote a sentence referring to women - meaning adult human females - as "non-transgender women."

What's more, in your sentence you put the actual women in second place after the faux wanna-be women - "transgender women and non-transgender women" - as though "transgender women" are the default and norm, and actual women are the outliers and oddballs playing second fiddle to the "male women."

We used to be known as just plain women. Then the genderists insisted we be called "cisgender women" even though most of us reject that modifier and find it offensive.

But now we're increasingly being referred to as "non-transgender women," which is even more demeaning and galling.

Recently I saw a court of appeals decision in a "transgender inclusion case" where the panel of judges ruled in favor of biological reality and sex-based distinctions in school sports and facilities like school locker rooms and bathrooms. But still, the judge who wrote the ruling referred to the two different groups under consideration whose rights had to be balanced as "transgender girls and non-transgender girls" (in that order too, with the male girls coming first) instead of as "girls and boys." Apparently, this alarming phrasing passed muster with all the other judges, law clerks and adminstrative staff who saw the decision in various draft forms before it was finally agreed upon, signed off on and published.

But at least "non-transgender girls" isn't quite as insulting as the host of other demeaning names the gender identity cult has invented for the female half of our species, many of which are truly dehumanizing - and are bound to do extreme damage to the self-esteem, dignity and mental wellbeing of girls and young women growing up now and in the future: vagina-havers, cervix-havers, uterus-owners, bleeders, menstruators, gestators, birthing people, people with the capacity for pregnancy, birthing bodies, milk producers, non-men...

I wonder if one day in the future, we'll be talking about the physical sex differences between "female girls" and "male girls," "women-women" and "men-women," and "female female athletes" and "male female athletes."

RunRagged wrote:

Another sign of how crazy things have gotten is that you wrote a sentence referring to women - meaning adult human females - as "non-transgender women."

What's more, in your sentence you put the actual women in second place after the faux wanna-be women - "transgender women and non-transgender women" - as though "transgender women" are the default and norm, and actual women are the outliers and oddballs playing second fiddle to the "male women."

We used to be known as just plain women. Then the genderists insisted we be called "cisgender women" even though most of us reject that modifier and find it offensive.

But now we're increasingly being referred to as "non-transgender women," which is even more demeaning and galling.

Recently I saw a court of appeals decision in a "transgender inclusion case" where the panel of judges ruled in favor of biological reality and sex-based distinctions in school sports and facilities like school locker rooms and bathrooms. But still, the judge who wrote the ruling referred to the two different groups under consideration whose rights had to be balanced as "transgender girls and non-transgender girls" (in that order too, with the male girls coming first) instead of as "girls and transgender girls." Apparently, this alarming phrasing passed muster with all the other judges, law clerks and adminstrative staff who saw the decision in various draft forms before it was finally agreed upon, signed off on and published.

But at least "non-transgender girls" isn't quite as insulting as the host of other demeaning names the gender identity cult has invented for the female half of our species, many of which are truly dehumanizing - and are bound to do extreme damage to the self-esteem, dignity and mental wellbeing of girls and young women growing up now and in the future: vagina-havers, cervix-havers, uterus-owners, bleeders, menstruators, gestators, birthing people, people with the capacity for pregnancy, birthing bodies, milk producers, non-men...

I wonder if one day in the future, we'll be talking about the physical sex differences between "female girls" and "male girls," "women-women" and "men-women," and "female female athletes" and "male female athletes."

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

GD wrote:

How is this a reading comprehension question? You wrote something about MEN speaking out about this issue, and in a roundabout/manipulative way, said that these men don't care about women's sports. My point is that lots of men contribute to the success of female distance runners. I've seen these men speak out, and though they don't get nearly the vitriol that women do, they often get accused of not caring about women's sports otherwise. This is nonsense.

How could you possibly know that the men on these threads don't care about women's sports? Why would they respond to this conversation if they didn't care?

Okay. Now I understand you don't have a reading comprehension problem. You have problem of willfully distorting other posters' writings.

Most of the male "defenders of women's sports" on this board never respond to Title IX conversation or conversations on sexual assault / harassment by male coaches. That's all I know.