Dude don't try to rationalize with them. Argument is "orange man bad". Basically everyone has the same view on the trans situation. It ain't a "right wing nutjob" thing.
If by “basically everyone” you mean “basically everyone who gets their opinions on the news by hearing about it from their gal pal Glenda while you’re on your lunch break at the Walmart,” then I agree with you.
If you’re not a slack-jawed yokel with a ninth grade grasp of biology, psychology, and most importantly sports, then you are good with trans participation in sports.
Participate, yes.
Win at the cost of all the women in the field, no.
Dude don't try to rationalize with them. Argument is "orange man bad". Basically everyone has the same view on the trans situation. It ain't a "right wing nutjob" thing.
If by “basically everyone” you mean “basically everyone who gets their opinions on the news by hearing about it from their gal pal Glenda while you’re on your lunch break at the Walmart,” then I agree with you.
If you’re not a slack-jawed yokel with a ninth grade grasp of biology, psychology, and most importantly sports, then you are good with trans participation in sports.
It's hilarious that you think world-renowned sports stars and experts in sports physiology and policy like Paula Radcliffe, Martina Navratilova, Sharron Davies, Nancy Hogshead-Makar, Daley Thompson, Edwin Moses, Seb Coe, Linda Blade, Doriane Lambelet Coleman, Ross Tucker, Jon Pike, David Lappartient and Tim Hinchey III "get their opinions from their gal pal Glendawhile on their lunch break at the Walmart."
But since you've seen fit to slag off anyone who opposes males using gender identity claims to horn in on female sports as "a slack-jawed yokel with a ninth grade grasp of biology, psychology, and most importantly sports," it seems apt to note that resorting to casting aspersions on the presumed appearance, physical features, socioeconomic class, intelligence and educational levels of one's opponents in debates about public, social and sports policy is a sure sign of not having any sound, convincing arguments to rely on.
Moreover, unreasonable accusations made of others in these sorts of discussions are very often extremely telling admissions aboutone's own self.
I have more to say, but my manager just told me I have to take my lunch break now. So I'll have to save the rest for later.
If by “basically everyone” you mean “basically everyone who gets their opinions on the news by hearing about it from their gal pal Glenda while you’re on your lunch break at the Walmart,” then I agree with you.
If you’re not a slack-jawed yokel with a ninth grade grasp of biology, psychology, and most importantly sports, then you are good with trans participation in sports.
Participate, yes.
Win at the cost of all the women in the field, no.
After many discussions with her coach, it was decided that Fahey would compete at the 2019 Missouri Valley Conference Swimming and Diving Championships on the women’s team. Even though it would have been legal for her to score points (she had completed 12 months of estrogen), Fahey was entered as an exhibition swimmer.
Oh c'mon, you can't be serious. What is it about Natalie Fahey and others like Fahey that you think should make them eligible to participate in women's sports in any manner - even just for exhibition purposes?
Why should female swimmers and other female athletes be forced to undress and shower in women's locker rooms with someone like Fahey looking on? Why should female athletes have to see naked male bodies and dicks and balls in the ladies locker and change rooms?
Did Fahey "look on" while female swimmers at SIU undressed and showered? Did Fehey expose herself in the lock and change rooms? Your YouTube video didn't say one way or the other. But maybe you have the inside information.
After many discussions with her coach, it was decided that Fahey would compete at the 2019 Missouri Valley Conference Swimming and Diving Championships on the women’s team. Even though it would have been legal for her to score points (she had completed 12 months of estrogen), Fahey was entered as an exhibition swimmer.
Oh c'mon, you can't be serious. What is it about Natalie Fahey and others like Fahey that you think should make them eligible to participate in women's sports in any manner - even just for exhibition purposes?
Why should female swimmers and other female athletes be forced to undress and shower in women's locker rooms with someone like Fahey looking on? Why should female athletes have to see naked male bodies and dicks and balls in the ladies locker and change rooms?
Some of you saw the movie Porkys and thought it was a documentary. I’ve been in dozens of men’s locker rooms over 20 years, and I have never seen male genitalia in them. Don’t get confused, I definitely saw enough of my college teammates’ tackle that I could pick them out of a lineup, but that was mostly happening Saturday nights after a few crispy boys.
But locker rooms are not the exhibition houses that the 1980s movie industry would have you believe.
Some of you saw the movie Porkys and thought it was a documentary. I’ve been in dozens of men’s locker rooms over 20 years, and I have never seen male genitalia in them. Don’t get confused, I definitely saw enough of my college teammates’ tackle that I could pick them out of a lineup, but that was mostly happening Saturday nights after a few crispy boys.
But locker rooms are not the exhibition houses that the 1980s movie industry would have you believe.
Huh? This has nothing whatsoever with men's locker rooms - it's about women's locker rooms. I've used women's locker and change rooms - in various school settings, at sports clubs, gyms, municipal pools, spas and so on - for a lot longer than 20 years, and I can attest from firsthand experience that they are places where women and girls change our clothing, get naked and take showers. In many locker rooms, we wrangle little kids and nurse babies too.
Those who swim competitively or professionally especially need to strip down and shower after using the pool each time coz of all the chlorine in the pool water. When I swam as part of a team as a kid, it often meant changing and showering in the ladies locker room twice a day. When I worked as a pool lifeguard as a teen and young woman, I'd often change my suit and shower more often than that in the course of a day.
The point is, women don't want to put up with adolescent or adult males in women's locker rooms whether the males are fully clothed, stark naked or in between. Nor do we want adolescent and adult males in such places looking at us when we ourselves and our daughters have our tops or knickers off or we are totally undressed.
The custom has always been that the only males traditionally allowed into women's locker rooms are boys under age 8 when with their mums or other female carers. My own experience as the mother of sons is that most boys balk at using ladies' communal change facilities, showers, fitting rooms and restrooms with mom, gran or big sis much earlier than age 8. When some women try to bring older sons or male charges into women's changing rooms, showers and loos - as sometimes happens, especially in the case of helicopter moms and moms and carers of developmentally and physically disabled older boys - other women tell them it's inappropriate and they need to make other other arrangements.
Female members of the Penn women's swim team forced to share locker rooms with Lia Thomas have said they were embarrassed, discomfited and dismayed to have to get undressed in front of a heterosexual adult male, and they were upset and distressed further on occasions when Thomas sometimes let the towel slip to expose Thomas's clearly male "privates."
What is customary for males using men's locker rooms is immaterial here. The norms and codes of conduct that govern how males behave and treat one another in men's spaces are not my concern - those are matters for guys to work out amongst yourselves.
My concern is about how the new doctrine of "trans inclusion" impacts the female people who are now being forced to share women's locker rooms, change rooms, showers and other facilities where we undress, shower and tend to our intimate bodily needs with adult and adolescent males like Fahey and Thomas simply because such male persons now say they "identity as" and "feel like" women/girls.
Why should people who genuinely are girls and women be made to forfeit our rights to bodily privacy, dignity, safety, comfort and peace of mind when we are at our most exposed and vulnerable in order to "affirm" and "validate" the identity claims some males make? Why do the feelings of males like Thomas and Fahey count for so much when the feelings of the girls and women such males are intruding upon seem not to matter at all?
I don't know the exact motivation behind The 80s Called's post, but it was incredibly stupid or a lie. RunRagged, as a representative of the entire Male sex, I am here to tell you that men do get naked in locker rooms and show their junk, and it's quite normal and if a woman were to walk into the male locker room, there would be a similar reaction to the one you described. Either it was just a 1-in-a million chance that he happened not to see another guys junk in a locker room EVER, or he's just making sh!t up to bolster his argument. One thing I've found with people on the side of these far-leftists debates is how willing they are to lie or bend the truth in order to make a point, I mean I still see on these boards people claiming that there are no transgender women in female sports and that it's all just a conservative boogeyman-issue.
Why do the feelings of males like Thomas and Fahey count for so much when the feelings of the girls and women such males are intruding upon seem not to matter at all?
It’s not that they don’t “matter at all” but you are reasonable in your expectation of privacy, and also right in that your right to privacy and *possible* risk to safety is assumed to be dominated by a trans woman’s existential identity. The principle of innocent until proven guilty extends to giving trans women the benefit of doubt, which is implicitly lacking in saying “such males are intruding”.
A universal tenet of common law is that one can not hurt someone by inaction (except in gross negligence of duty) or simply by being, including simply being around.
Why do the feelings of males like Thomas and Fahey count for so much when the feelings of the girls and women such males are intruding upon seem not to matter at all?
It’s not that they don’t “matter at all” but you are reasonable in your expectation of privacy, and also right in that your right to privacy and *possible* risk to safety is assumed to be dominated by a trans woman’s existential identity. The principle of innocent until proven guilty extends to giving trans women the benefit of doubt, which is implicitly lacking in saying “such males are intruding”.
A universal tenet of common law is that one can not hurt someone by inaction (except in gross negligence of duty) or simply by being, including simply being around.
There's a reason that spaces where people will be naked are separated by sex in the first place, and it's mostly a preventative measure for people being harassed or attacked. By keeping men from entering female spaces, you're not implicitly saying all men are rapists or perverts, you're just creating a practical stopgap from certain misbehavior occurring. The fear that I think RunRagged is expressing is men (whether transgender or not) entering bathrooms or locker rooms in bad faith to look at or even assault women if such restrictions were lifted. I get it, people can still do this now, but it becomes much harder to prevent if men are allowed to inhabit these spaces.
It’s not that they don’t “matter at all” but you are reasonable in your expectation of privacy, and also right in that your right to privacy and *possible* risk to safety is assumed to be dominated by a trans woman’s existential identity. The principle of innocent until proven guilty extends to giving trans women the benefit of doubt, which is implicitly lacking in saying “such males are intruding”.
A universal tenet of common law is that one can not hurt someone by inaction (except in gross negligence of duty) or simply by being, including simply being around.
There's a reason that spaces where people will be naked are separated by sex in the first place, and it's mostly a preventative measure for people being harassed or attacked. By keeping men from entering female spaces, you're not implicitly saying all men are rapists or perverts, you're just creating a practical stopgap from certain misbehavior occurring. The fear that I think RunRagged is expressing is men (whether transgender or not) entering bathrooms or locker rooms in bad faith to look at or even assault women if such restrictions were lifted. I get it, people can still do this now, but it becomes much harder to prevent if men are allowed to inhabit these spaces.
Yeah well nudity is only a big deal because people make it a big deal. People like RunRagged act like their bodies are some sort of hidden treasure. This is all a cultural construct which some see as bs.
There's a reason that spaces where people will be naked are separated by sex in the first place, and it's mostly a preventative measure for people being harassed or attacked. By keeping men from entering female spaces, you're not implicitly saying all men are rapists or perverts, you're just creating a practical stopgap from certain misbehavior occurring. The fear that I think RunRagged is expressing is men (whether transgender or not) entering bathrooms or locker rooms in bad faith to look at or even assault women if such restrictions were lifted. I get it, people can still do this now, but it becomes much harder to prevent if men are allowed to inhabit these spaces.
Yeah well nudity is only a big deal because people make it a big deal. People like RunRagged act like their bodies are some sort of hidden treasure. This is all a cultural construct which some see as bs.
Eh, idk, just about every culture has rules about regarding nudity. I would like to think there's an actual reason behind that besides just arbitrary social norms. Most obviously because the nude body has the ability to elicit a sexual response.
I would just like to point out the absurdity of the leftist types demanding that women let biological males into female-only spaces and see them naked. Such bizarre times we live in, especially since a lot of the same people on that side of the issue were all about the #MeToo movement just a few years ago.
Will lia thomas need her prostate examined how does any of this work?
Yep, as much as they want to they cannot defy biology. This is just people disappointed with the sex they were born with, and getting encouragement to change it. Most kids at some stage question their sex, its natural. A lot of them imagine how it would be as the opposite sex. Yes, you can try to pretend you are, for as long as you want to, but you cannot change an X into a Y
I emailed the few people who wrote me on this but didn't post anything on here.
But I listened to your feedback and ended up taking down April Fools piece and issuing an apology. It definitely missed the mark and unnecessarily offended people.
Here's what has replaced the piece:
Originally, this article was a satirical April Fool’s editorial that said we had changed our position on transgender women competing in elite female sport. We wrote that we did not think people born as biological males had an unfair advantage competing against females.
We missed the mark with the piece. We are sorry.
The intent was to parody the argument that transgender women do not have an unfair advantage in elite female sport.
Many people who support our view on not allowing transgender women to compete in elite female sport told us that the piece failed at any attempt at humor. They thus viewed the piece as punching down and unnecessarily mean.
We support the right of every individual to live their life as the gender that they identify as, but when it comes to sport specifically, our desire is to protect the fairness of elite female competition. Your messages in private, on social media, and on our forum have made it clear to us that our editorial was counterproductive to that goal and unnecessarily offensive. For this reason, we are replacing the editorial with this apology.
If Rojo had a "daughter" with a penis, he would have a son, not a daughter. If his son felt that he was a girl in his mind, that's fine. Put on a dress and live as a woman, but you should not be allowed to participate in woman's sports. Why do you think that men and women's sports are separate? Sports are based on biology!
You got 'chickedwithadicked' by a transgender athlete in your last race?
