please explain wrote:
Honorable Military Veteran wrote:
Wrong
If you reported a comment yourself, how can it be true that the comment did not get reported?
What do you mean?
please explain wrote:
Honorable Military Veteran wrote:
Wrong
If you reported a comment yourself, how can it be true that the comment did not get reported?
What do you mean?
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Honorable Military Veteran wrote:
There is no grey area on showing respect. Sorry!
Semenya cheated athletes of greater ability when the advantage was removed. On that score she hurt more people than your admiration deserves. And Caster fought diligently for years to maintain that monopoly. If that truth is disrespect, so be it.
wow so you openly admit it
Honorable Military Veteran wrote:
please explain wrote:
If you reported a comment yourself, how can it be true that the comment did not get reported?
What do you mean?
You obviously know what I meant because you changed “reported” to “deleted” in the quoted post to hide what you originally said.
Honorable Military Veteran wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Semenya cheated athletes of greater ability when the advantage was removed. On that score she hurt more people than your admiration deserves. And Caster fought diligently for years to maintain that monopoly. If that truth is disrespect, so be it.
wow so you openly admit it
No one should ever be afraid of the truth.
You just can’t handle it. That conflicts with your distorted view of the world.
please explain wrote:
You obviously know what I meant because you changed “reported” to “deleted” in the quoted post to hide what you originally said.
This is actually really funny.
Lenny Leonard wrote:
People who say they are “inclusive” but see this as some kind of “fairness” can’t have it both ways.
Let her run against women. Period. If you disagree with that, then you are not “inclusive.” You have lost the ability to describe yourself with that term.
Women's events are a protected category. So are age-related events. Inclusivity only extends to those who conform to the necessary criteria for those events. Transgender and intersex athletes are able to compete in the women's category, but the rules as confirmed by the Swiss Appeal Court require hormonal suppression of their testosterone to biological female levels. Inclusivity balanced against fairness - to biological females.
please explain wrote:
Honorable Military Veteran wrote:
What do you mean?
You obviously know what I meant because you changed “reported” to “deleted” in the quoted post to hide what you originally said.
can't find what you're referring to. I think you're the one who changed their post and are now trying to cover it up
800 dude wrote:
please explain wrote:
You obviously know what I meant because you changed “reported” to “deleted” in the quoted post to hide what you originally said.
This is actually really funny.
what's so funny???
800 dude wrote:
please explain wrote:
You obviously know what I meant because you changed “reported” to “deleted” in the quoted post to hide what you originally said.
This is actually really funny.
rofl
George213 wrote:
800 dude wrote:
This is actually really funny.
rofl
I don't understand?
oops potato. wrote:
George213 wrote:
rofl
I don't understand?
I think we all knew that already.
Viking21 wrote:
oops potato. wrote:
I don't understand?
I think we all knew that already.
about what?
Armstronglivs wrote:
Lenny Leonard wrote:
People who say they are “inclusive” but see this as some kind of “fairness” can’t have it both ways.
Let her run against women. Period. If you disagree with that, then you are not “inclusive.” You have lost the ability to describe yourself with that term.
Women's events are a protected category. So are age-related events. Inclusivity only extends to those who conform to the necessary criteria for those events. Transgender and intersex athletes are able to compete in the women's category, but the rules as confirmed by the Swiss Appeal Court require hormonal suppression of their testosterone to biological female levels. Inclusivity balanced against fairness - to biological females.
You talk about it like it is a objective fact, when that "rule" is brand new and based off of an arbitrary metric. For her entire career, Caster was allowed to compete. Nothing had changed with her biology, except now you have the vote of some people that say she shouldn't.
If you are such a rule-follower, then you must agree that she was okay to compete in 2010 and 2012 and even 2018. Since nothing has changed with her, she should get to continue to compete against women.
oops potato. wrote:
Viking21 wrote:
I think we all knew that already.
about what?
confirming funniest set of posts of recent times
pupil3142 wrote:
oops potato. wrote:
about what?
confirming funniest set of posts of recent times
what's the joke?
????
Lenny Leonard wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Women's events are a protected category. So are age-related events. Inclusivity only extends to those who conform to the necessary criteria for those events. Transgender and intersex athletes are able to compete in the women's category, but the rules as confirmed by the Swiss Appeal Court require hormonal suppression of their testosterone to biological female levels. Inclusivity balanced against fairness - to biological females.
You talk about it like it is a objective fact, when that "rule" is brand new and based off of an arbitrary metric. For her entire career, Caster was allowed to compete. Nothing had changed with her biology, except now you have the vote of some people that say she shouldn't.
If you are such a rule-follower, then you must agree that she was okay to compete in 2010 and 2012 and even 2018. Since nothing has changed with her, she should get to continue to compete against women.
It's pretty early in the day, but I'm confident enough to say that this is the stupidest thing I will read today. Let's follow your argument to its logical conclusion. Since women were denied the right to vote before passage of the 19th amendment, it should be fine to prevent them voting today. Since it was legal to own slaves prior to the Emancipation proclamation, it should still be legal today. Fortunately, those classes are now protected by law, much like biological female athletes now enjoy a modicum of legal protection.
Viking21 wrote:
Lenny Leonard wrote:
You talk about it like it is a objective fact, when that "rule" is brand new and based off of an arbitrary metric. For her entire career, Caster was allowed to compete. Nothing had changed with her biology, except now you have the vote of some people that say she shouldn't.
If you are such a rule-follower, then you must agree that she was okay to compete in 2010 and 2012 and even 2018. Since nothing has changed with her, she should get to continue to compete against women.
It's pretty early in the day, but I'm confident enough to say that this is the stupidest thing I will read today. Let's follow your argument to its logical conclusion. Since women were denied the right to vote before passage of the 19th amendment, it should be fine to prevent them voting today. Since it was legal to own slaves prior to the Emancipation proclamation, it should still be legal today. Fortunately, those classes are now protected by law, much like biological female athletes now enjoy a modicum of legal protection.
Gotta work on your reading comprehension, homie.
You are the one married to the SAC, who sees them as unfallible and will agree with whatever law that anyone tells you.
MY viewpoint is: Women should have always had the right to vote. It doesn't matter what the law says.
Likewise, Caster should always be able to compete against women. It doesn't matter what the SAC says.
See, I'm consistent. You flip-flop with whatever fits your narrative at the time.
oops potato. wrote:
Viking21 wrote:
I think we all knew that already.
about what?
Anything.
Armstronglivs wrote:
oops potato. wrote:
about what?
Anything.
are you feeling ok?
Lenny Leonard wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Women's events are a protected category. So are age-related events. Inclusivity only extends to those who conform to the necessary criteria for those events. Transgender and intersex athletes are able to compete in the women's category, but the rules as confirmed by the Swiss Appeal Court require hormonal suppression of their testosterone to biological female levels. Inclusivity balanced against fairness - to biological females.
You talk about it like it is a objective fact, when that "rule" is brand new and based off of an arbitrary metric. For her entire career, Caster was allowed to compete. Nothing had changed with her biology, except now you have the vote of some people that say she shouldn't.
If you are such a rule-follower, then you must agree that she was okay to compete in 2010 and 2012 and even 2018. Since nothing has changed with her, she should get to continue to compete against women.
Rules have a purpose. If the purpose changes or the rules don't fit that purpose then they are changed. It isn't just sports that do that - it's what governments do. Laws - which are rules - change.
Athletics ruling body recognized it couldn't ensure fair competition in women's sport if biological males/intersex athletes were able to compete in women's sport without restriction. The IAAF has come to a compromise: those who identify as female can compete but have to do so on the same basis as biological women, which is to reduce their testosterone to female levels. (That still leaves them with the other physical advantages they have gained from their hypo-androgenism, such as greater muscle mass, stronger and bigger bones and greater cardiovascular capacity).
The sport tried to change the rules some years ago and for a period Semenya had to suppress her T-levels. She appealed and it is only now, several years later, that the issue has been legally resolved. I don't see women athletes protesting against the decision.