You don’t know what’s good for you. We know what’s good for you.
http://usatodayhss.com/2018/connecticut-parents-ban-transgender-track-athletes
http://usatodayhss.com/2018/connecticut-parents-ban-transgender-track-athletes
Liberals are like children
- Thread starter HighStickHarry
- Start date
So you relabel the events as XX or XY chromosome competitions as opposed to gender association. It isn't about your plumbing or what gender you associate to. It is about you competing on a level playing field with others of your physical capabilities.
Well I guess you could make steroids legal. Would that level things out?
The problem is your have people with lots of male hormones competing with people that don't have them. Legal steroids could solve the problem. Remember the east German female swim teams is the 70s.....
The problem is your have people with lots of male hormones competing with people that don't have them. Legal steroids could solve the problem. Remember the east German female swim teams is the 70s.....
LOL turn on the tv or pick up a paper. Conservatives are trying like hell to kill the weed legalization vote.
Totally ignore Oklahoma -- right outside your window -- and look to.... Connecticut for an example.
Killing the weed bill is stupid, no doubt. But it pales in comparison to allowing biological males compete vs females in sports and thinking it is “fair.” The biological male in the article who thinks he is a female looks like a high school WR recruit. It is total insanity.
I’m genuinely curious if you, @davidallen @CSCOTTOSUPOKES think this is ok.
Last edited:
I see both sides. I don't know precisely what a transexual is in this deal or how that impacts athletic performance, either. I don't know enough about it to form an educated opinion.
Playing devil's advocate at first blush, should a natural-born female with higher testosterone than her counterparts be banned? What about a female that takes HGH or or some other supplement be banned? Which ones are okay and which aren't? What about a female that has superior access to nutrition, supplements and personal coaches over her competitors? I'm just trying to figure out which advantages are okay and which aren't. That, and I don't really trust wingnuts to present that issue in a way that's even remotely intellectually honest, so I have no opinion. WHen lance armstrong was winning everything, he'd had chemo for testicular cancer and one of the drugs they frequently give in chemo helps replenish red blood cells. I thought at the time if there wasn't some type of sustained advantage if he stayed on that stuff, but even if he did, would it be wrong?
I can't figure out the OP though. If we do a lib vs. con overlay on this it seems the "government" seeking to regulate conduct is a conservative influence restricting the activities of a lib.
Yes, some men have more testosterone than other men and some women have higher testosterone than other women. Generally conservative men have higher testosterone than soy boy "progressives." Variance in testosterone levels is a totally normally phenomenon. What you are asking in your first question is "should RW McQuarters or Venice Williams have banned banned from playing sports vs their peers?" It is a ridiculous question and not at all relevant to the discussion.
In response to your second question, yes, HGH is performance-enhancing and is illegal in athletic competition and has been for a long time.
In response to your third question, yes, that is ok. It is called life and life isn't fair.
My question was is it ok for a biological male (who naturally will be bigger, stronger and faster than the vast majority of females and nevermind that the male in question here looks like a D1 WR recruit) to compete against females in your opinion?
That's a valid point, I will give you that for sure. In fact, I stand shoulder to shoulder with you.
I haven't been following this issue closely, but I hope like hell it will pass.
Do you think Oklahoma will vote legalization? What are your odds?
Any articles to share about it? I want to read up.
After Colorado legalized, their opioid abuse went down. Amongst many other positives.
Don't blow this Oklahoma. You can't claim to be for "limited government" and support locking people in a cell over a naturally growing plant with many health benefits.
Not to mention, if a doctor wants their patient to use high-CBD medical marijuana instead of some pharmaceutical with crazy side effects and high costs -- who is the government (representing big pharma) to step in?
And several other East German "female" athletes whose testosterone injections resulted in their clitorises growing into small penises. Of course, there was a trade off---the faster they ran the better it felt.
"Former female athletes have beards and a deep voice, and some saw their clitoris grow into a small penis. Depression, bulimia, and suicide are common, as are miscarriages and infertility. Some former athletes had children with partial paralysis, clump feet, or Down Syndrome. Others died before they even had children."
http://www.ironcurtainproject.eu/en...st-germany-abused-and-drained-their-athletes/
Gotta have 3 draft deferments to be a bona fide chicken. After 6, you're a hen. After 12, you're a Cheney.
I am still waiting for you to answer “is it ok for a biological male to compete against biological woman” instead of skirting the question. A simple yes/no answer will suffice.
Why doesn't your doctrine of "It is called life and life isn't fair" cover this one?
In lots of movies and TV shows, women regularly beat up men who are bigger than them.
Are they trying to make women think this is possible, to get them killed in real life?
Further to the TV / movie trend of women beating up men bigger then them --- check this trend in music videos from "strong and empowered" female artists.
Seriously, press play! Holy shit. And people wonder why women's depression levels and teen girl attempted suicides are skyrocketing.
Seriously, press play! Holy shit. And people wonder why women's depression levels and teen girl attempted suicides are skyrocketing.
So then if the rules say that biological males must compete as male and biological females as female, then we'll call it as "life isn't fair".
I think you can apply that default position to anything that's unfair. It's a perfect safety valve for any position that is unfair, so.... sure, if that's the agenda, just say "Well, life isn't fair" and characterize anyone that disagrees as a snowflake.
If a person can choose which category (male or female) they want to be part of, why do we have separate categories? Maybe we should ban women and men exclusive activities (ins't segregation in this manner sexist anyhow), and just say suck it up and be better. Then no one can care if Ze runs or doesn't because the categorization will have been eliminated.
Maybe so, I dont' know. Why do we have to require everyone to fit in a category at all? I intuitively don't enjoy the exercise of telling someone what "category" they will belong to. Unlike conservative authoritarians. OP likes to really pick them apart recreationally and put them in categories and mandate their "category" like an authoritarian. I'm more of a "be who you want" guy. You have the right to dress in a tutu or wear overalls. Or both. Free country.
Regarding a 100 yard dash, I kind of see your point. Kind of. I'm not a transgender advocate on this sports topic, I just don't trust the wingnut narrative on this. But if the competition is an athletic event, I don't know that I wanna see my daughter competing against a guy that had an estrogen shot either. I wouldn't want to be a school board member on this one.
Just make another group. If you are transgender whether male or female you run same race. Let them be the winner of the transgender group.
Video of the young two young men obliterating the females. This is “progressivism” in real life.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/3160...content=062316-podcast&utm_campaign=mattwalsh
https://www.dailywire.com/news/3160...content=062316-podcast&utm_campaign=mattwalsh
this entire statement is literally the opposite of true. Boldly and unflinchingly delivered, sure. But it couldn’t be less factual - considering that you play fast and loose with terms like authoritarian and conservative. Anyone can be “categorized” as these things by you, ironically.
Public service message #1:
Because all of human progress since the advent of the scientific method requires categorization.
Characteristics create categories.
In the softer, social sciences (like sociology), society (frequently) defines categories. However, this doesnt mean the definitions are accurate or correct if there's no adherence to underlying, distinct characteristics.
A jellyfish isnt in the same category as a bear for obvious reasons.
Bear. Jellyfish
Phylum. Chordata. Cnidaria
Class. Mammalia. Scyphozoa.
Order. Carnivora. Semaestomeae.
Family. Ursidae. Ulmaridae.
Genus. Ursus. Aurelia.
Species. Americanus. Aurita.
