This whole lbiqtvxz etc.etc bs needs to stop. Your sex is your own business, nobody else's so if your'e one of those, just shut up. You are biological male or female, any other claim is simply a lie, fake, an uneducated opinion, a feel goody. And especially when that business is damaging to others it becomes a social crime.
-
36
-
Mikeh33 wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
It doesn't logically follow, as you claim. Competition in many sports should remain, as it still is, biologically determined - according to sex, age and weight (where that applies). It has long been so. It is only being argued now that this might change. However, there is no logic that requires exceptions be made to present biological criteria by those who don't feel included. They either need their own category or should undertake such medical measures as would nullify sex-determined advantages - which is the current official approach.
Of course, none of this was an argument at all until five years ago. Day before yesterday, people knew what men and women were, and acted accordingly. That’s all gone now.
Telling someone “You’re a woman everywhere else but in this sport” is not going to fly with these people or their enablers. Transgenderism as a movement is out to redefine sex to a conceptual choice. It is succeeding. The world is terrified of being called “transphobic” and being cancelled and thrown into the outer darkness. A lot of race organizers, education officials, coaches, even parents, will go along with allowing men to compete against women, just to avoid the negative consequences to their personal lives.
There won’t be a grand bargain with the transgender lobby. The cat is out of the bag. It is all or nothing.
They can't win this by themselves. A lot of other people would have to be persuaded. I don't think it will happen. There is a push-back occurring in sports. Hence, the debate.
21 -
agip wrote:
Chrisschrader wrote:
This will NEVER STOP until ALL the girls just sit down on the starting line and refuse to run.
+1
biological boys running as girls is wrong, unfair and shouldn't be allowed.
only girls can stop it though - and they probably won't. Boycotting races with biological boys would be one way to end it and I hope some girls have the courage to do that. Bad luck that they have to give up their own race, but they will be helping other girls.
I suppose the problem is that in XC, very few of the competitors are in the running for a win, or a top (whatever medals they hand out) spot. So you’d probably only have a small percentage motivated enough to protest, since most of the girls are basically just in it for the experience. It might be more likely if a boy joined girls soccer and was dominating. A team sport where either side could win or lose, you’d probably be more likely to see a staged protest.
But I really don’t even want high school athletes to have to take the lead on this issue anyway. This, like most issues around school age activities, needs to be fixed by the adults. I wouldn’t insist that a girl give up a race to protest. She shouldn’t have to. If she ever has to make that decision, the adults have already failed her.
41 -
malarko wrote:
But I really don’t even want high school athletes to have to take the lead on this issue anyway. This, like most issues around school age activities, needs to be fixed by the adults. I wouldn’t insist that a girl give up a race to protest. She shouldn’t have to. If she ever has to make that decision, the adults have already failed her.
If the high school athletes don't want to take the lead on it, then the issue should end there. There are transgender kids who play sports in my school district. The other players and parents don't care. It doesn't make the news because it doesn't fit the MSM narrative of: "Transgender athletes are ruining sports!"
If kids are not caring, it is NOT need to be "fixed by the adults." You are being told to be upset about this, and since you cannot think for yourself, you are upset about it.
49 -
RunRagged wrote:
S0so wrote:
I agree 100% that no one (male or female) should be precluded from trying out or being on a sports team (if they are good enough, they should have their place). When women and girls in the past were not allowed to try out solely due to sex, that was wrong and absolutely should not have occurred. It is a travesty that girls & women were banned from Little League, USA road running, and soccer - that there were gatekeepers who prevented women from trying out or participating due to their own insecurities.
However, this problem no longer exists in nearly the same way. If reasonable or "equal" accommodations are not made for a female athlete who makes a sports team, then sure, these cases can be settled just like any other grievance. Additional categories based on sex, however, are outdated, unnecessary, and by definition, sexist. No one is being precluded based on sex. Your thoughts on the matter are appreciated, and it's understandable that the solution to the initial issue that you correctly raised went off the rails long ago.
But having just one sports category for both sexes together automatically means all sports will end up male only, or almost entirely male, with a handful of exceptional female athletes sprinkled in here and there.
I disagree that "categories based on sex" in sports - and some other areas of life such as locker rooms, toilets and health care - are "outdated, unnecessary and, by definition, sexist."
Female and male humans are physically different in myriad ways due to the fact that evolution has arranged for each of the two sexes to play markedly different roles in reproduction and perpetuation of our species.
Females can accomplish some truly amazing physical feats that males can't - get pregnant, gestate a new human being to the stage of viability, go through labor, give birth, keep babies alive, thriving and provide them with immunity simply by breastfeeding.
But because our bodies are built to shoulder the lion's share of the physical burdens of human reproduction, women and girls have a host of physical features compared to boys and men that mean we don't and can't perform as well in most sports as boys and men.
After all, nearly all sports were originally invented and designed by men for the explicit purpose of showcasing and highlighting the kinds of physical feats that male bodies, and male bodies alone, are built for and particularly good at. So no wonder boys and men outperform girls and women in sports by rates that in athletes 18 and up range from 10-12% to more than 60% - and in some specific physical tasks like throwing a punch, a ball, discus or javelin - by more than 160%.
The physical features that girls and women have which make it unfair - and unsafe - for us to have to play and compete in sports against boys and men include much smaller hearts and lungs even when height and weight are the same; lower CV capacity and lower hemoglobin; wider pelvis and hips, and thus more of Q angle, making for less efficient running and kicking; far less lean muscle mass, upper and lower body strength; bones that considerably less strong and sturdy; greater susceptibility to lower limb injuries and head and neck injuries, including concussion and whiplash; considerably less grip strength, arm strength, explosiveness and ability to jump high... and so on.
Of course, there is a place for mixed-sex sports like tennis doubles, volleyball, tag or flag football, mixed running and swimming relays. But mixed-sex competitive and recreational team sports are usually played under special rules to make them fair and safe for the female participants.
Plus, in our peak athletic years girls and women spend one week out of four menstruating, which can be very painful, and another week in the often physically uncomfortable or downwright difficult premenstrual phase. Moreover, many girls and women have various forms of gynecological issues - and female athletes who are sexually active with males all have to worry about, and deal with, pregnancy and contraception. In adulthood, most female athletes have their ability to participate in sports on par with males further diminished by pregnancy, childbirth, maternity, breastfeeding. And starting in our 40s, women have to deal with the enormous physical disadvantages caused by the yearslong process of peri-menopause and menopause.
So anyways, I disagree that "categories based on sex" in sports - and some other areas of life such as locker rooms, toilets and health care - are "outdated, unnecessary and, by definition, sexist." The complex "higher" organisms on our planet have been reproducing sexually for millions/billions of years, and sex and physical sex differences have always been at the heart of most animal, plant, mammalian, primate and human life.
I believe sexism, sex stereotyping, and rigid sex roles and expectations are outdated and unnecessary - and I'd like to seem them become things of the past. Which is why I am against the gender identity movement, which seeks to promote, reinforce and enshrine sexist stereotypes and make those stereotypes the basis for categorizing people and organizing society.
But human sex itself and all the physical differences that make the bodies of male and female humans totally dissimilar to one another in innumerable ways are not going anywhere. They are here to stay.
In fact, the research on human sex differences that's been done over the past 30 or so years using sophisticated methods to study human cells, genes, tissues, organs and body systems show that there are many, many more physical differences between male and female humans than many in medicine, science and the general public previously assumed.
As for your claim that a separate category of sports for females is sexist: the dictionary I use, Oxford defines sexism as "characterized by or showing prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex." Many would find your view that women and girls shouldn't have our own separate sports category to be sexist, not my view that we should. Because your view if put into practice would mean that the vast majority of girls and women would be excluded from sports entirely right off the bat - and it would mean no female athlete would ever get a chance at winning a podium place, obtaining a sports scholarship, receiving awards for excellence and achievement, obtaining a sports endorsement deal, sponsorship or getting a job in coaching, sports administration, refereeing, or working as a media sports commentator or journalist.
Since you think it's "sexist, outdated and unnecessary" to have categories in sport based on sex, I wonder: do you think sports categories based on other physical factors such as age, weight and disability are unfairly discriminatory, outdated and unnecessary too? Do you think age divisions are ageist, outdated and unecesssary, so they should be eliminated as well - and if this means 8 year-olds all get constantly trounced and injured by teenagers and adults, tough noogies, them's the breaks and those kids should just suck it up? Do you think it's disablist and outdated to have categories in sports for wheelchair users and Paralympics competitions, so those should be gotten rid of too? Or is is it only fair play for females in sports that you want to put an end to?
Runragged Comments are bolded.
"But having just one sports category for both sexes together automatically means all sports will end up male only, or almost entirely male, with a handful of exceptional female athletes sprinkled in here and there."
That is untrue. At the younger ages, where most of the lessons through sport are taught (to society as a whole), boys and girls bodies and ability are not as different as they are after puberty. At the highest level, yes, those would be more more male than female (though given the challenge, we would like see females see greater improvement that what has been reached so far). Regardless, the number of men at the very top is very limited compared to the total number of male and female participants in sport. Very few men make it to the top as well!
Female and male humans are physically different in myriad ways due to the fact that evolution has arranged for each of the two sexes to play markedly different roles in reproduction and perpetuation of our species.
Females can accomplish some truly amazing physical feats that males can't - get pregnant, gestate a new human being to the stage of viability, go through labor, give birth, keep babies alive, thriving and provide them with immunity simply by breastfeeding.
But because our bodies are built to shoulder the lion's share of the physical burdens of human reproduction, women and girls have a host of physical features compared to boys and men that mean we don't and can't perform as well in most sports as boys and men.Completely agree. Women should be lauded, appreciated, cherished, and supported throughout for this miraculous ability that men simply can not do at all. None of this process should be considered mundane, not beneficial to society, or a hindrance toward other endeavors. Wouldn't it be silly for legislation to be pursued to mandate that there be pregnancy tests administered to men, an equal number of birthing centers, paternity wards, doctors, nurses, doulas, etc in order to allocate resources more "fairly"?
After all, nearly all sports were originally invented and designed by men for the explicit purpose of showcasing and highlighting the kinds of physical feats that male bodies, and male bodies alone, are built for and particularly good at. So no wonder boys and men outperform girls and women in sports by rates that in athletes 18 and up range from 10-12% to more than 60% - and in some specific physical tasks like throwing a punch, a ball, discus or javelin - by more than 160%.
Human endeavors and sport evolve just like everything else.
The physical features that girls and women have which make it unfair - and unsafe - for us to have to play and compete in sports against boys and men include much smaller hearts and lungs even when height and weight are the same; lower CV capacity and lower hemoglobin; wider pelvis and hips, and thus more of Q angle, making for less efficient running and kicking; far less lean muscle mass, upper and lower body strength; bones that considerably less strong and sturdy; greater susceptibility to lower limb injuries and head and neck injuries, including concussion and whiplash; considerably less grip strength, arm strength, explosiveness and ability to jump high... and so on.
Of course, there is a place for mixed-sex sports like tennis doubles, volleyball, tag or flag football, mixed running and swimming relays. But mixed-sex competitive and recreational team sports are usually played under special rules to make them fair and safe for the female participants.This is a red herring, and then you partially addressed you own red herring argument. In short, there would not be any want or desire to injure women. Everyone should also be able to assess risks. Do you think that most men could play in the NFL, or could that be dangerous? Obviously, ignoring that 99.9% of men could not have the skill / ability to see the field, if they somehow could, there would be (and are!) many rules to protect vulnerable players or players put in vulnerable positions.
(to be continued.... )
14 -
Plus, in our peak athletic years girls and women spend one week out of four menstruating, which can be very painful, and another week in the often physically uncomfortable or downwright difficult premenstrual phase. Moreover, many girls and women have various forms of gynecological issues - and female athletes who are sexually active with males all have to worry about, and deal with, pregnancy and contraception. In adulthood, most female athletes have their ability to participate in sports on par with males further diminished by pregnancy, childbirth, maternity, breastfeeding. And starting in our 40s, women have to deal with the enormous physical disadvantages caused by the yearslong process of peri-menopause and menopause.
This is all correct. Not everyone (women and men alike) has the ability to reach the highest levels of athleticism. All of what you mentioned above is related to women's ability to birth children, which men do not have.
I believe sexism, sex stereotyping, and rigid sex roles and expectations are outdated and unnecessary - and I'd like to seem them become things of the past. Which is why I am against the gender identity movement, which seeks to promote, reinforce and enshrine sexist stereotypes and make those stereotypes the basis for categorizing people and organizing society. But human sex itself and all the physical differences that make the bodies of male and female humans totally dissimilar to one another in innumerable ways are not going anywhere. They are here to stay.
I agree absolutely. You've easily pointed out differences in men and women, which certainly does affect expectations (because these differences do indeed affect performance). However, it was not that long ago that proponents of Title 9 argued that women were just as able as men in athletic sport, and required "fair" treatment in order to fully realize their woman/personhood. This plainly denied reality (as you've detailed very well), but it was verboten to mention. Anyone who would suggest that women as a whole will not ever perform as well as men would be dismissed as a hateful misogynist. Objective truth was supplanted through popular bullying. Now, that same line of argument is used today for people who seek to compete as women.
As for your claim that a separate category of sports for females is sexist: the dictionary I use, Oxford defines sexism as "characterized by or showing prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex." Many would find your view that women and girls shouldn't have our own separate sports category to be sexist, not my view that we should. Because your view if put into practice would mean that the vast majority of girls and women would be excluded from sports entirely right off the bat - and it would mean no female athlete would ever get a chance at winning a podium place, obtaining a sports scholarship, receiving awards for excellence and achievement, obtaining a sports endorsement deal, sponsorship or getting a job in coaching, sports administration, refereeing, or working as a media sports commentator or journalist.
Yes, the definition agrees with what I've argued. Yes, people will think and do and think many things that are not correct to hang onto the status quo. When more people think differently than you on the trans issue, will that mean that you will concede that you've had it wrong all along? We may have already reached that point. My view absolutely does NOT preclude women from participating in sport in any way. That is your misconception of my view. It's an overstatement to say that no female athlete would ever be any of the things you mentioned. However, it likely would be fewer, yes. Better allotment of exceedingly wonderful resources (for everyone) is a good thing, no?
Since you think it's "sexist, outdated and unnecessary" to have categories in sport based on sex, I wonder: do you think sports categories based on other physical factors such as age, weight and disability are unfairly discriminatory, outdated and unnecessary too?
Yes, if all people of all different ages, weights, and abilities (who all wanted to be pro) were mandated to be afforded the exact same resources as the highest performers, I would find this to be completely unnecessary and unfair. But that is neither here nor there.
Or is is it only fair play for females in sports that you want to put an end to?
No, I want fair play for females (and everyone) in sport, while you are the one advocating for unfairness. An us vs them viewpoint that seeks to have "equal treatment" for people who have different abilities (rooted in biology) has been very detrimental to society as a whole. When you say that it seems like I am desiring a "comeuppance" for women, that is not true. It is our society that has denied basic truths and not appreciated other's abilities and differences that is receiving its comeuppance.
04 -
agip wrote:
Chrisschrader wrote:
This will NEVER STOP until ALL the girls just sit down on the starting line and refuse to run.
+1
biological boys running as girls is wrong, unfair and shouldn't be allowed.
only girls can stop it though - and they probably won't. Boycotting races with biological boys would be one way to end it and I hope some girls have the courage to do that. Bad luck that they have to give up their own race, but they will be helping other girls.
Trans athletes are already banned from HS sports in 18 states. There are attempts to do the same in at least a dozen other states, including Washington. And those are not the results of mass boycott.
Next time the Republicans win the White House and both chamber of the Congress, there could be a nationwide ban. Dems are not going to filibuster, because it is not a winning issue for them.
They may not do that because once this issue is settled, they will have not find another outrage theater to mobilize their base. But as long as there is ONE state that does not ban trans athletes, they can use that in the next campaign ads.
22 -
Mocazilla wrote:
It'll never be fair but we have to draw the line somewhere.... I am all for letting trans folks participate but they should not take opportunities away from deserving females.
This can be easily done in sports like cross country. Just let the trans athlete run, without counting her for the official awards or team scoring. Having one extra runner on the course is not a big problem. The same thing for field events. Even tracks and swimming pools usually have extra lanes they can use.
21 -
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
Trans athletes are already banned from HS sports in 18 states.
Are they really? I thought the laws in those 18 states simply prohibit males from participating in female scholastic sports. Male athletes who "identify as" trans still can participate in their correct sex category.
Plenty of females who "identify as" trans and other gender identities and aren't taking exogenous T are participating in female scholastic sports in the USA today without any hue and cry or discrimination - there's been no attempt to ban them.
32 -
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
agip wrote:
+1
biological boys running as girls is wrong, unfair and shouldn't be allowed.
only girls can stop it though - and they probably won't. Boycotting races with biological boys would be one way to end it and I hope some girls have the courage to do that. Bad luck that they have to give up their own race, but they will be helping other girls.
Trans athletes are already banned from HS sports in 18 states. There are attempts to do the same in at least a dozen other states, including Washington. And those are not the results of mass boycott.
Next time the Republicans win the White House and both chamber of the Congress, there could be a nationwide ban. Dems are not going to filibuster, because it is not a winning issue for them.
They may not do that because once this issue is settled, they will have not find another outrage theater to mobilize their base. But as long as there is ONE state that does not ban trans athletes, they can use that in the next campaign ads.
Thats an interesting take on how sports are governed in the U.S.
12 -
RunRagged wrote:
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
Trans athletes are already banned from HS sports in 18 states.
Are they really? I thought the laws in those 18 states simply prohibit males from participating in female scholastic sports. Male athletes who "identify as" trans still can participate in their correct sex category.
Plenty of females who "identify as" trans and other gender identities and aren't taking exogenous T are participating in female scholastic sports in the USA today without any hue and cry or discrimination - there's been no attempt to ban them.
Most, if not all, of those 18 states also ban trans boys (natal females who identify as male) from participating in boys' sports. I have no idea how that protects girls' sports. Why would anyone want Mack Beggs of the world to compete in girls' sports?
11 -
I'm pretty sure few even on the "lib" side favor guys racing girls. I'm a former moderate R now centrist independent (ie never Trumper) and I am 100% opposed to biological males competing against females.
41 -
coachcommentsnicely wrote:
carmine9 wrote:
The Dersh has already pushed for pedophilia.
Alan Dershowitz made overtures to American and Israeli officials last year to see if they would support a plan to release a convicted pedophile from jail so that he could continue backchannel work in Middle East peace talks, The New York Times reported on Monday.
The report said the high-profile lawyer was trying to ascertain whether then-US president Donald Trump would commute the 10-year sentence of George Nader, who was a senior adviser to Mohammed bin Zayed, the crown prince of Abu Dhabi and de facto leader of the United Arab Emirates. Nader also testified as a key witness in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.
According to the report, Dershowitz helped build a proposal, which allies of Nader were led to believe was raised with the Trump administration, whereby the convicted pedophile would be released from prison and “self-deport” by boarding a private jet provided by the United Arab Emirates.In 1997, Alan Dershowitz, who has been accused of rape and pedophilia by alleged female victims involved with the Jeffrey Epstein pedophile ring, wrote an opinion column headlined “Statutory rape is an outdated concept”:
He then suggests that the age of consent should be lowered to 15, or perhaps even 14.
Facing a barrage of criticism — for his handling of the Epstein plea deal, for the allegations against him and now for this column — Dershowitz has been unapologetic. He told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency earlier this month that “I have no misgivings and I will continue to represent controversial people. That’s what I do. If I’m in a case, my job is to get the best possible result.”
He similarly defended the 1997 column in a series of tweets. He said there should be “Romeo and Juliet exceptions” to statutory rape.
“I stand by the constitutional (not moral) argument I offered in my controversial oped,” he wrote. “[I]f a 16 year old has the constitutional right to have an abortion without state or parental interference, how could she not have the constitutional right to engage in consensual sex? … I did not suggest that it is moral to have sex with a 16 year old, but rather that the issue presents a constitutional conundrum worthy of discussion.”
This is a typical legalistic shell game called “reducto ad absurdum,” which attempts to prove the absurdity of a premise (statutory rape) by implying essentially that teenagers “rape” each other every time then engage in sexual activity.
Statutory rape laws are not in place to protect teenage girls from necessarily engaging in illicit sex with teenage boys, and Dershowitz knows this. Those laws are in place so that adult sexual predators like Jeffrey Epstein and allegedly his close friend Alan Dershowitz cannot exploit underage girls without criminal consequences.I’d like to point out the connection between Dersh, Kentler, Money and early sexologist (the biggest ones are German during the 1920s-30s).
but I’d hate to sound like Kanye.
Say what you want to say, don't be coy and try to imply things. If you want to make some sort of connection don't be a coward.
00 -
agip wrote:
Chrisschrader wrote:
This will NEVER STOP until ALL the girls just sit down on the starting line and refuse to run.
+1
biological boys running as girls is wrong, unfair and shouldn't be allowed.
only girls can stop it though - and they probably won't. Boycotting races with biological boys would be one way to end it and I hope some girls have the courage to do that. Bad luck that they have to give up their own race, but they will be helping other girls.
Those women don't have the balls to do it. There is a lack of bravery here, there was a lack of bravery in college swimming with Thomas, and the same goes for every event where this happens.
Until the girls are willing to make the fmpainful sacrifice of forfeiting their races nothing will happen. It may be an unfair burden but then again so is sending 18 year olds to die in the dessert.
24 -
Lia Thomas walked around half erect
20 -
heuwuehehsu27u22g wrote:
Those women don't have the balls to do it. There is a lack of bravery here, there was a lack of bravery in college swimming with Thomas, and the same goes for every event where this happens.
Until the girls are willing to make the fmpainful sacrifice of forfeiting their races nothing will happen. It may be an unfair burden but then again so is sending 18 year olds to die in the dessert.
Yeah, nothing will happen, right?
01 -
heuwuehehsu27u22g wrote:
agip wrote:
+1
biological boys running as girls is wrong, unfair and shouldn't be allowed.
only girls can stop it though - and they probably won't. Boycotting races with biological boys would be one way to end it and I hope some girls have the courage to do that. Bad luck that they have to give up their own race, but they will be helping other girls.
Those women don't have the balls to do it. There is a lack of bravery here, there was a lack of bravery in college swimming with Thomas, and the same goes for every event where this happens.
Until the girls are willing to make the fmpainful sacrifice of forfeiting their races nothing will happen. It may be an unfair burden but then again so is sending 18 year olds to die in the dessert.
What kind of "dessert" is that? Too much blancmange?
21 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
heuwuehehsu27u22g wrote:
Those women don't have the balls to do it. There is a lack of bravery here, there was a lack of bravery in college swimming with Thomas, and the same goes for every event where this happens.
Until the girls are willing to make the fmpainful sacrifice of forfeiting their races nothing will happen. It may be an unfair burden but then again so is sending 18 year olds to die in the dessert.
What kind of "dessert" is that? Too much blancmange?
Typical narcissist sociopath behavior from Armstrong. Whenever anyone points out his spelling mistakes he insults that person, telling them they are weak, focusing on the mistake instead of the post's content.
But he never fails to point out other people's spelling mistakes. You see, narcissists have a need to humiliate others. Putting others down makes them feel superior.Narcissists like Armstrong are a cancer.
22 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
Mikeh33 wrote:
You’ll lose that argument, I’m afraid. We can’t tell young people they can be anything they want to be, that gender has no meaning, you can get a doctor to give you shots and perform surgeries that make you the sex you believe yourself to be, and then tell them they can’t compete in the category of their choice. You’ve already given away the logical high ground. Once we decided that “man” and “woman” have no meaning, the rest is just a mopping up operation.
It doesn't logically follow, as you claim. Competition in many sports should remain, as it still is, biologically determined - according to sex, age and weight (where that applies). It has long been so. It is only being argued now that this might change. However, there is no logic that requires exceptions be made to present biological criteria by those who don't feel included. They either need their own category or should undertake such medical measures as would nullify sex-determined advantages - which is the current official approach.
Medical measures? You mean poisoning themselves with an onslaught of cross-sex hormones and an onslaught of suppressors of their natural hormones? Those are anti-medical measures designed to usher in a fantasy existence at the huge expense of health.
52 -
heuwuehehsu27u22g wrote:
agip wrote:
+1
biological boys running as girls is wrong, unfair and shouldn't be allowed.
only girls can stop it though - and they probably won't. Boycotting races with biological boys would be one way to end it and I hope some girls have the courage to do that. Bad luck that they have to give up their own race, but they will be helping other girls.
Those women don't have the balls to do it. There is a lack of bravery here, there was a lack of bravery in college swimming with Thomas, and the same goes for every event where this happens.
Until the girls are willing to make the fmpainful sacrifice of forfeiting their races nothing will happen. It may be an unfair burden but then again so is sending 18 year olds to die in the dessert.
These sacrifices should be made over a transgender girl that ran 20:00? Should the girl who beat Hoffman by over 2 minutes at state have boycotted as well?
Since you are so willing to make sacrifices for the issue you should attend a meet and tackle the transgender athlete.
13
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.