And then there’s this twist on the SB matchup

[JJRules]

I yearn for the days hopefully ahead where stories like this aren't necessary or noteworthy, and that we as a society view, judge, and accept people solely on their own merits and accomplishments and not by any aspect of their appearance, relationship preferences, or identity.

A world with no bigotry? That would be nice. I'm an author, as many know, and a guy just blew up his career protesting a lack of SWM on the Lifetime Achievement Ballot, saying that the people of color getting recognition were the agenda of woke members. He then went on to spout racists, sexist, homophobic, transphobic BS and just ended his career. And he was a big name (Tom Monteleone) in horror. He's now been removed from various organizations.

Yes, someday it would be nice if this world was all inclusive but we're not there yet. It's a great moment in Black history for these guys, and a great moment for the NFL in general.

I'm not familiar with him or the situation of which you speak, but I'm always happy to see hatemongers get their comeuppance.

I think a lot of these problems stem from people simply being, in general, the absolute worst.

[wickerkat1212]

I yearn for the days hopefully ahead where stories like this aren't necessary or noteworthy, and that we as a society view, judge, and accept people solely on their own merits and accomplishments and not by any aspect of their appearance, relationship preferences, or identity.

A world with no bigotry? That would be nice. I'm an author, as many know, and a guy just blew up his career protesting a lack of SWM on the Lifetime Achievement Ballot, saying that the people of color getting recognition were the agenda of woke members. He then went on to spout racists, sexist, homophobic, transphobic BS and just ended his career. And he was a big name (Tom Monteleone) in horror. He's now been removed from various organizations.

Yes, someday it would be nice if this world was all inclusive but we're not there yet. It's a great moment in Black history for these guys, and a great moment for the NFL in general.

I'm not familiar with him or the situation of which you speak, but I'm always happy to see hatemongers get their comeuppance.

I think a lot of these problems stem from people simply being, in general, the absolute worst.

Yep.

[FantasyFreak]

I refrained from this until now, but now that it's so far gone, it doesn't matter.

The "woke" comment has me confused, as a Canadian, studying American politics, it seems to me it's a word used by Conservatives, of all races, that has to do with the idea that identity politics is being used the liberals, and mainly the liberal media and party (Democrats). It's not a word that is uttered by specifically one racial group. It's the argument of group identity over that of the individual, and this is, in of itself, a slippery slope, and exactly where it can be applied, or if it's being mis-applied.

I'd be glad to be enlightened on this, at least into the thoughts of what people meant, because I watch a great deal on both sides of the political spectrum, and personally, I don't buy into one side or the other. I tend to look an an issue, from both sides, and decide where I lie on it. I don't consider myself a life long member of any political party or doctrine, but I seem to see a very polarizing topics, and the West, in general, is getting that way.

Whenever I see ad hominem's mentioned, I feel I'd like actual quotes. I am sorry, this is nothing personal, but what was is "transphobic" for instance? Biological men being allowed in women's sports or traditional women's spaces is an issue, for instance, and some consider that "transphobic", to disallow it, while others say it's "woke".

Words matter, and blanket statements that are difficult to define, are problematic. People start arguing on vague meanings, that in of itself, mean different things to different people. So if there's no consensus on what those things mean, if people don't get to the heart of what they mean when they use these broad terms, nobody will get closer to consensus, things will only get more polarized.

[wickerkat1212]

I refrained from this until now, but now that it's so far gone, it doesn't matter.

The "woke" comment has me confused, as a Canadian, studying American politics, it seems to me it's a word used by Conservatives, of all races, that has to do with the idea that identity politics is being used the liberals, and mainly the liberal media and party (Democrats). It's not a word that is uttered by specifically one racial group. It's the argument of group identity over that of the individual, and this is, in of itself, a slippery slope, and exactly where it can be applied, or if it's being mis-applied.

I'd be glad to be enlightened on this, at least into the thoughts of what people meant, because I watch a great deal on both sides of the political spectrum, and personally, I don't buy into one side or the other. I tend to look an an issue, from both sides, and decide where I lie on it. I don't consider myself a life long member of any political party or doctrine, but I seem to see a very polarizing topics, and the West, in general, is getting that way.

Whenever I see ad hominem's mentioned, I feel I'd like actual quotes. I am sorry, this is nothing personal, but what was is "transphobic" for instance? Biological men being allowed in women's sports or traditional women's spaces is an issue, for instance, and some consider that "transphobic", to disallow it, while others say it's "woke".

Words matter, and blanket statements that are difficult to define, are problematic. People start arguing on vague meanings, that in of itself, mean different things to different people. So if there's no consensus on what those things mean, if people don't get to the heart of what they mean when they use these broad terms, nobody will get closer to consensus, things will only get more polarized.

A lot of transphobia is not recognizing people's wishes. It's disrespect. It's saying "you're not real, you don't exist, shut up and sit down." I can't imagine being transgender, that sounds like a tortured existence, much like it used to be if you were gay. When I was in high school back in the 1980s if you came out as gay, you got your bleep kicked. People equated it to pedophiles, and that's not accurate. In the case of the horror writing community and Tom Monteleone specifically there was a transgender author—born female, is now non-binary. He called them a fat black chick. So, lots of problems there, especially when they knew their pronouns. It's simply honoring somebody's preferences—maiden name vs married name, your job title, your nickname. It's respect. I won't speak to trans athletes in sports as that's much more complicated and nuanced. Hate is hate, and it's usually pretty obvious. I appreciate your post here and I know all of this can be a rather complicated conversation.

I think it's exciting that we have two Black QBs in the Superbowl. For Black history it is significant. But for the history of the sport, I think they probably don't want to be reduced to "Black QB" and just be seen as elite QBs. But the history does matter.

[FantasyFreak]

I refrained from this until now, but now that it's so far gone, it doesn't matter.

The "woke" comment has me confused, as a Canadian, studying American politics, it seems to me it's a word used by Conservatives, of all races, that has to do with the idea that identity politics is being used the liberals, and mainly the liberal media and party (Democrats). It's not a word that is uttered by specifically one racial group. It's the argument of group identity over that of the individual, and this is, in of itself, a slippery slope, and exactly where it can be applied, or if it's being mis-applied.

I'd be glad to be enlightened on this, at least into the thoughts of what people meant, because I watch a great deal on both sides of the political spectrum, and personally, I don't buy into one side or the other. I tend to look an an issue, from both sides, and decide where I lie on it. I don't consider myself a life long member of any political party or doctrine, but I seem to see a very polarizing topics, and the West, in general, is getting that way.

Whenever I see ad hominem's mentioned, I feel I'd like actual quotes. I am sorry, this is nothing personal, but what was is "transphobic" for instance? Biological men being allowed in women's sports or traditional women's spaces is an issue, for instance, and some consider that "transphobic", to disallow it, while others say it's "woke".

Words matter, and blanket statements that are difficult to define, are problematic. People start arguing on vague meanings, that in of itself, mean different things to different people. So if there's no consensus on what those things mean, if people don't get to the heart of what they mean when they use these broad terms, nobody will get closer to consensus, things will only get more polarized.

A lot of transphobia is not recognizing people's wishes. It's disrespect. It's saying "you're not real, you don't exist, shut up and sit down." I can't imagine being transgender, that sounds like a tortured existence, much like it used to be if you were gay. When I was in high school back in the 1980s if you came out as gay, you got your bleep kicked. People equated it to pedophiles, and that's not accurate. In the case of the horror writing community and Tom Monteleone specifically there was a transgender author—born female, is now non-binary. He called them a fat black chick. So, lots of problems there, especially when they knew their pronouns. It's simply honoring somebody's preferences—maiden name vs married name, your job title, your nickname. It's respect. I won't speak to trans athletes in sports as that's much more complicated and nuanced. Hate is hate, and it's usually pretty obvious. I appreciate your post here and I know all of this can be a rather complicated conversation.

I think it's exciting that we have two Black QBs in the Superbowl. For Black history it is significant. But for the history of the sport, I think they probably don't want to be reduced to "Black QB" and just be seen as elite QBs. But the history does matter.

Yep, that's 2 completely different things. Thanks for clearing up the different perspectives, and issues. There's a totally different conversation for these 2 things, and going out of your way to use that term for this person, is indeed wrong, if he said that. That is indeed bigoted. No need for that. At all.

[wickerkat1212]

I refrained from this until now, but now that it's so far gone, it doesn't matter.

The "woke" comment has me confused, as a Canadian, studying American politics, it seems to me it's a word used by Conservatives, of all races, that has to do with the idea that identity politics is being used the liberals, and mainly the liberal media and party (Democrats). It's not a word that is uttered by specifically one racial group. It's the argument of group identity over that of the individual, and this is, in of itself, a slippery slope, and exactly where it can be applied, or if it's being mis-applied.

I'd be glad to be enlightened on this, at least into the thoughts of what people meant, because I watch a great deal on both sides of the political spectrum, and personally, I don't buy into one side or the other. I tend to look an an issue, from both sides, and decide where I lie on it. I don't consider myself a life long member of any political party or doctrine, but I seem to see a very polarizing topics, and the West, in general, is getting that way.

Whenever I see ad hominem's mentioned, I feel I'd like actual quotes. I am sorry, this is nothing personal, but what was is "transphobic" for instance? Biological men being allowed in women's sports or traditional women's spaces is an issue, for instance, and some consider that "transphobic", to disallow it, while others say it's "woke".

Words matter, and blanket statements that are difficult to define, are problematic. People start arguing on vague meanings, that in of itself, mean different things to different people. So if there's no consensus on what those things mean, if people don't get to the heart of what they mean when they use these broad terms, nobody will get closer to consensus, things will only get more polarized.

A lot of transphobia is not recognizing people's wishes. It's disrespect. It's saying "you're not real, you don't exist, shut up and sit down." I can't imagine being transgender, that sounds like a tortured existence, much like it used to be if you were gay. When I was in high school back in the 1980s if you came out as gay, you got your bleep kicked. People equated it to pedophiles, and that's not accurate. In the case of the horror writing community and Tom Monteleone specifically there was a transgender author—born female, is now non-binary. He called them a fat black chick. So, lots of problems there, especially when they knew their pronouns. It's simply honoring somebody's preferences—maiden name vs married name, your job title, your nickname. It's respect. I won't speak to trans athletes in sports as that's much more complicated and nuanced. Hate is hate, and it's usually pretty obvious. I appreciate your post here and I know all of this can be a rather complicated conversation.

I think it's exciting that we have two Black QBs in the Superbowl. For Black history it is significant. But for the history of the sport, I think they probably don't want to be reduced to "Black QB" and just be seen as elite QBs. But the history does matter.

Yep, that's 2 completely different things. Thanks for clearing up the different perspectives, and issues. There's a totally different conversation for these 2 things, and going out of your way to use that term for this person, is indeed wrong, if he said that. That is indeed bigoted. No need for that. At all.

Cool. Thanks. I personally don't think trans athletes in sports is an issue, as you won't find any men born female dominating as they transition, and I've seen very few women born men that have been successful crossing over outside of a few weightlifting examples. I've heard of some things at lower levels in wrestling maybe, but it seems to me it's a tiny percentage. But I know people have some strong feelings about it. The testosterone/estrogen levels have to be tested and in line, but that's not 100% either as there are some people who just have very high levels of hormones. I think there was a female track star, and didn't Phelps have very high levels? IDK. It's complicated, but I honestly don't really see it as an issue, but some people do. I'm not an expert. Though I am certainly derailing this thread LOL

https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/ ... s-debunked

[Anteaters]

I refrained from this until now, but now that it's so far gone, it doesn't matter.

The "woke" comment has me confused, as a Canadian, studying American politics, it seems to me it's a word used by Conservatives, of all races, that has to do with the idea that identity politics is being used the liberals, and mainly the liberal media and party (Democrats). It's not a word that is uttered by specifically one racial group. It's the argument of group identity over that of the individual, and this is, in of itself, a slippery slope, and exactly where it can be applied, or if it's being mis-applied.

I'd be glad to be enlightened on this, at least into the thoughts of what people meant, because I watch a great deal on both sides of the political spectrum, and personally, I don't buy into one side or the other. I tend to look an an issue, from both sides, and decide where I lie on it. I don't consider myself a life long member of any political party or doctrine, but I seem to see a very polarizing topics, and the West, in general, is getting that way.

Whenever I see ad hominem's mentioned, I feel I'd like actual quotes. I am sorry, this is nothing personal, but what was is "transphobic" for instance? Biological men being allowed in women's sports or traditional women's spaces is an issue, for instance, and some consider that "transphobic", to disallow it, while others say it's "woke".

Words matter, and blanket statements that are difficult to define, are problematic. People start arguing on vague meanings, that in of itself, mean different things to different people. So if there's no consensus on what those things mean, if people don't get to the heart of what they mean when they use these broad terms, nobody will get closer to consensus, things will only get more polarized.

The term "woke" was first coined to describe the transition of being sleep/blind to racial facts, then becoming awakened/aware/cognizant through education on that topic. It was used by African-Americans to describe African-Americans who were making the efforts to break away from historical fallacies and assumptions foisted upon African-Americans. African-Americans used it to point out the difference between African-Americans who were fully aware of their history and potential, and African-Americans who had yet to awaken from the lies the majority society had fed them.

Example: In football, there was once an assumption/belief/theory (by many whites) that African-American athletes were not intelligent enough to be QBs on any level. Even when African-American QBs excelled at segregated high schools, those QBs were immediately forced to change position when they enrolled in PWI (primarily white colleges.) Even when Warren Moon proved otherwise, the NFL clung to this notion, and even some African-Americans believed there might be some merit to the theory. Realizing there are no mental limitations that prevent African-American athletes from being productive QBs is an example of becoming "woke". You can apply this to many other theories about the potential of African Americans, or broad brushed mis-characterizations of African Americans - such as AAs are more prone to crime, or more prone to use drugs, or more prone to break traffic laws and that's the reason more AAs are stopped by police while driving. Realizing the fallacy of such ridiculous beliefs is at each step, an example of becoming "woke".

This can be directly applied to football again by looking at the rise of Lamar Jackson. At every step, white coaches tried to force him away from QB. Even leading up to the NFL draft, television analysts and print reporters repeated the refrain that it would be in his best interest to change position. Oops, Lamar went on to win the NFL MVP as a QB in only his 2nd (or was it 3rd?) season. This isn't ancient history - it is still a belief that must be challenged. Not blindly adhering to such fallacies is an example of being "woke". A mother and son less "woke" than Lamar and his mother, might have given in to the pressure to switch positions because white people in power repeated and forcefully insisted Lamar could not be a good QB.

Back from that example, there are other similar ways of becoming woke in reference to African-American history and such.

EDIT: I'll refrain from going on about how and why the term "woke" was first used as a pejorative by conservatives and why conservatives continue to do so - and how it is used in conjunction with the horribly misnamed "culture wars". Unless you insist. And even then I'll resist.

[FantasyFreak]

A lot of transphobia is not recognizing people's wishes. It's disrespect. It's saying "you're not real, you don't exist, shut up and sit down." I can't imagine being transgender, that sounds like a tortured existence, much like it used to be if you were gay. When I was in high school back in the 1980s if you came out as gay, you got your bleep kicked. People equated it to pedophiles, and that's not accurate. In the case of the horror writing community and Tom Monteleone specifically there was a transgender author—born female, is now non-binary. He called them a fat black chick. So, lots of problems there, especially when they knew their pronouns. It's simply honoring somebody's preferences—maiden name vs married name, your job title, your nickname. It's respect. I won't speak to trans athletes in sports as that's much more complicated and nuanced. Hate is hate, and it's usually pretty obvious. I appreciate your post here and I know all of this can be a rather complicated conversation.

I think it's exciting that we have two Black QBs in the Superbowl. For Black history it is significant. But for the history of the sport, I think they probably don't want to be reduced to "Black QB" and just be seen as elite QBs. But the history does matter.

Yep, that's 2 completely different things. Thanks for clearing up the different perspectives, and issues. There's a totally different conversation for these 2 things, and going out of your way to use that term for this person, is indeed wrong, if he said that. That is indeed bigoted. No need for that. At all.

Cool. Thanks. I personally don't think trans athletes in sports is an issue, as you won't find any men born female dominating as they transition, and I've seen very few women born men that have been successful crossing over outside of a few weightlifting examples. I've heard of some things at lower levels in wrestling maybe, but it seems to me it's a tiny percentage. But I know people have some strong feelings about it. The testosterone/estrogen levels have to be tested and in line, but that's not 100% either as there are some people who just have very high levels of hormones. I think there was a female track star, and didn't Phelps have very high levels? IDK. It's complicated, but I honestly don't really see it as an issue, but some people do. I'm not an expert. Though I am certainly derailing this thread LOL

https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/ ... s-debunked

The ACLU is an extremely biased source IMO. Lia Phillips, everything that went on in Connecticut with 2 transgender athlete's destroying a ton of different girls records within a few years. There is a plethora of evidence that suggests males that go through puberty have a biological advantage over their female counterparts, regardless of hormones. From red blood cell count, lung capacity, bone density, down to the shape of your hips due to the biological necessity for child bearing.

I know even some females test for high levels of testosterone, but the idea of biological males being involved in competitive athletics I have done a lot of research on, in part because of my sister, but I don't agree that it's a non issue. There are such a small percentage of people that transition and are or become athletes, but if all of us males transitioned, there would be basically no females left in female sports. There is a very real biological advantage to being born male, athletically, and hormones are only a small portion of that.

I also don't want to de-rail the thread further, but this was never a FF thread at all.

[Cameron Giles]

I refrained from this until now, but now that it's so far gone, it doesn't matter.

The "woke" comment has me confused, as a Canadian, studying American politics, it seems to me it's a word used by Conservatives, of all races, that has to do with the idea that identity politics is being used the liberals, and mainly the liberal media and party (Democrats). It's not a word that is uttered by specifically one racial group. It's the argument of group identity over that of the individual, and this is, in of itself, a slippery slope, and exactly where it can be applied, or if it's being mis-applied.

You're on the right track.

Woke originally is AAVE (African American Vernacular English) for someone who is knowledgeable or privy to the racism, discrimination or injustices of marginalized races, communities, and groups.

The word has since been gentrified by Conservatives and "why does everything have to be about race" crowd to minimize the people and efforts that raise awareness to the marginalization of those groups and communities. (Why do black people need their own colleges and television channels? That's so woke.)

Basically, anyone who uses it in the context of these types of discussion is really not worth any ounce of energy and they're extremely ignorant to say the least.

[Two Cents]

As a black/brown person of color I think that the Super Bowl is the game where storylines of all variety are generally thrown at a wall to see what sticks. And while I can say that its not the most important thing to discuss, it is inevitably part of Black History that we are witnessing. Its similar to anything that's a first major milestone for people of color. So in my eyes I think its worth mentioning, but I don't think its worth celebrating, debating or discussing any further. Its just a cloud in the sky - its there, let it be. No need to judge for or against it and give it this much traction. Its not as big of a deal as having a black president or black/female vice president. Why is anyone digging into a side here?

Theres nothing wrong with stating that a player is black in the context of making history that may encourage younger generations of black and brown children. Now if we were mentioning it in the context of a man who was accused of committing a crime.....now that would be different.

¢¢

[wickerkat1212]

Yep, that's 2 completely different things. Thanks for clearing up the different perspectives, and issues. There's a totally different conversation for these 2 things, and going out of your way to use that term for this person, is indeed wrong, if he said that. That is indeed bigoted. No need for that. At all.

Cool. Thanks. I personally don't think trans athletes in sports is an issue, as you won't find any men born female dominating as they transition, and I've seen very few women born men that have been successful crossing over outside of a few weightlifting examples. I've heard of some things at lower levels in wrestling maybe, but it seems to me it's a tiny percentage. But I know people have some strong feelings about it. The testosterone/estrogen levels have to be tested and in line, but that's not 100% either as there are some people who just have very high levels of hormones. I think there was a female track star, and didn't Phelps have very high levels? IDK. It's complicated, but I honestly don't really see it as an issue, but some people do. I'm not an expert. Though I am certainly derailing this thread LOL

https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/ ... s-debunked

The ACLU is an extremely biased source IMO. Lia Phillips, everything that went on in Connecticut with 2 transgender athlete's destroying a ton of different girls records within a few years. There is a plethora of evidence that suggests males that go through puberty have a biological advantage over their female counterparts, regardless of hormones. From red blood cell count, lung capacity, bone density, down to the shape of your hips due to the biological necessity for child bearing.

I know even some females test for high levels of testosterone, but the idea of biological males being involved in competitive athletics I have done a lot of research on, in part because of my sister, but I don't agree that it's a non issue. There are such a small percentage of people that transition and are or become athletes, but if all of us males transitioned, there would be basically no females left in female sports. There is a very real biological advantage to being born male, athletically, and hormones are only a small portion of that.

I also don't want to de-rail the thread further, but this was never a FF thread at all.

CNN biased too? https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/22/sport/nc ... index.html

50 out of 200,000 college athletes. As the article says, people don't transition for sports. They transition, because to do otherwise, is an existence rife with depression and suicide. I don't know what the answer is here. I have seen men transition to women and dominate, but IIRC it's very few people, but Lia IS an example. IDK. The olympics have one standard, NCAA has another. I want it to be fair, for sure, and I'm not sure what that looks like. It's a WIP IMO. I respect your opinions here, and I certainly don't have all the answers.

[FantasyFreak]

Cool. Thanks. I personally don't think trans athletes in sports is an issue, as you won't find any men born female dominating as they transition, and I've seen very few women born men that have been successful crossing over outside of a few weightlifting examples. I've heard of some things at lower levels in wrestling maybe, but it seems to me it's a tiny percentage. But I know people have some strong feelings about it. The testosterone/estrogen levels have to be tested and in line, but that's not 100% either as there are some people who just have very high levels of hormones. I think there was a female track star, and didn't Phelps have very high levels? IDK. It's complicated, but I honestly don't really see it as an issue, but some people do. I'm not an expert. Though I am certainly derailing this thread LOL

https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/ ... s-debunked

The ACLU is an extremely biased source IMO. Lia Phillips, everything that went on in Connecticut with 2 transgender athlete's destroying a ton of different girls records within a few years. There is a plethora of evidence that suggests males that go through puberty have a biological advantage over their female counterparts, regardless of hormones. From red blood cell count, lung capacity, bone density, down to the shape of your hips due to the biological necessity for child bearing.

I know even some females test for high levels of testosterone, but the idea of biological males being involved in competitive athletics I have done a lot of research on, in part because of my sister, but I don't agree that it's a non issue. There are such a small percentage of people that transition and are or become athletes, but if all of us males transitioned, there would be basically no females left in female sports. There is a very real biological advantage to being born male, athletically, and hormones are only a small portion of that.

I also don't want to de-rail the thread further, but this was never a FF thread at all.

CNN biased too? https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/22/sport/nc ... index.html

50 out of 200,000 college athletes. As the article says, people don't transition for sports. They transition, because to do otherwise, is an existence rife with depression and suicide. I don't know what the answer is here. I have seen men transition to women and dominate, but IIRC it's very few people, but Lia IS an example. IDK. The olympics have one standard, NCAA has another. I want it to be fair, for sure, and I'm not sure what that looks like. It's a WIP IMO. I respect your opinions here, and I certainly don't have all the answers.

Not the argument I am making (but yes CNN is biased. At least a lot of us up here in Canada see CNN and Fox as Party affiliates. Main Stream News outlets are almost always certainly biased, that shouldn't be news They all spew constant rhetoric and leading stories, let's not be childish ). Biological males, inherently have more advantages for sports. It's why Women's sports were created in the first place. If you are a biological male, you have inherent benefactors over your female counterparts, even after hormone treatment.

You're making an argument about things outside of the field, and suggesting a small minority of people be given an advantage over the majority (biological females) that weren't able to participate in the first place, and had the very creation of their sport due to that. Female sports were created because they couldn't compete in co-ed sports. If you add men to the equation they become irrelevant, and that's the point, despite the fact only a few people transition, they can still massively disrupt the sport in the region they are in, just like if all males transitioned and entered sports, basically no biological women would exist in that sport anymore. It's genetics, it's beyond ideology.

It really gets down to an ideological stand point, now. Prior, it was about sex based sports, because women weren't able to compete with men based on genetics. Now, we are re-determining what a woman is. So, is it based on feelings, and each organization then re-determines the level of biological changes based on scientific advancements needed to meet that? How far are people having to take what "becoming a woman or man is" when it was simply a biological fact at birth previous?

Biological woman are at the foreground of this. Some say it's "misogyny". The reality is there aren't records being broken by biological women transitioning to men, anywhere. It's pretty self explanatory, if you take a truthful, scientific based approach on the subject. Biological men have an inherent athletic advantage to biological women.

The problem with our culture, is we can't seem to discern between the things you spoke about, like speaking to the author in question who was attacked, who wants to be called a woman. I have zero issues with someone wanted to be called she,etc. in a social context.

The issue of being able to allow people to use social context to bypass biological realities can be problematic, as in women's sports, and prison, bathrooms etc. It's different dynamic, and biological women that have issues with this are being called bigots, and worse, and that is problematic.

The reality is IMO, there has to be a social and biological reality. In the case of sports, it's a reality that biological men have an inherent advantage vs women. The argument is, if we should allow people who want to transition into sports. There is social and biological realities at play here. I have no issues calling a person "she", in a social context, but I'd have an issue with her competing in sports vs my sister in the context of a scholarship on the line, for instance. Those two things aren't the same. One is social, on is biological. We have women's sports due to biology in the very first place.

[wickerkat1212]

The ACLU is an extremely biased source IMO. Lia Phillips, everything that went on in Connecticut with 2 transgender athlete's destroying a ton of different girls records within a few years. There is a plethora of evidence that suggests males that go through puberty have a biological advantage over their female counterparts, regardless of hormones. From red blood cell count, lung capacity, bone density, down to the shape of your hips due to the biological necessity for child bearing.

I know even some females test for high levels of testosterone, but the idea of biological males being involved in competitive athletics I have done a lot of research on, in part because of my sister, but I don't agree that it's a non issue. There are such a small percentage of people that transition and are or become athletes, but if all of us males transitioned, there would be basically no females left in female sports. There is a very real biological advantage to being born male, athletically, and hormones are only a small portion of that.

I also don't want to de-rail the thread further, but this was never a FF thread at all.

CNN biased too? https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/22/sport/nc ... index.html

50 out of 200,000 college athletes. As the article says, people don't transition for sports. They transition, because to do otherwise, is an existence rife with depression and suicide. I don't know what the answer is here. I have seen men transition to women and dominate, but IIRC it's very few people, but Lia IS an example. IDK. The olympics have one standard, NCAA has another. I want it to be fair, for sure, and I'm not sure what that looks like. It's a WIP IMO. I respect your opinions here, and I certainly don't have all the answers.

Not the argument I am making (but yes CNN is biased. At least a lot of us up here in Canada see CNN and Fox as Party affiliates. Main Stream News outlets are almost always certainly biased, that shouldn't be news They all spew constant rhetoric and leading stories, let's not be childish ). Biological males, inherently have more advantages for sports. It's why Women's sports were created in the first place. If you are a biological male, you have inherent benefactors over your female counterparts, even after hormone treatment.

You're making an argument about things outside of the field, and suggesting a small minority of people be given an advantage over the majority (biological females) that weren't able to participate in the first place, and had the very creation of their sport due to that. Female sports were created because they couldn't compete in co-ed sports. If you add men to the equation they become irrelevant, and that's the point, despite the fact only a few people transition, they can still massively disrupt the sport in the region they are in, just like if all males transitioned and entered sports, basically no biological women would exist in that sport anymore. It's genetics, it's beyond ideology.

It really gets down to an ideological stand point, now. Prior, it was about sex based sports, because women weren't able to compete with men based on genetics. Now, we are re-determining what a woman is. So, is it based on feelings, and each organization then re-determines the level of biological changes based on scientific advancements needed to meet that? How far are people having to take what "becoming a woman or man is" when it was simply a biological fact at birth previous?

Biological woman are at the foreground of this. Some say it's "misogyny". The reality is there aren't records being broken by biological women transitioning to men, anywhere. It's pretty self explanatory, if you take a truthful, scientific based approach on the subject. Biological men have an inherent athletic advantage to biological women.

The problem with our culture, is we can't seem to discern between the things you spoke about, like speaking to the author in question who was attacked, who wants to be called a woman. I have zero issues with someone wanted to be called she,etc. in a social context.

The issue of being able to allow people to use social context to bypass biological realities can be problematic, as in women's sports, and prison, bathrooms etc. It's different dynamic, and biological women that have issues with this are being called bigots, and worse, and that is problematic.

The reality is IMO, there has to be a social and biological reality. In the case of sports, it's a reality that biological men have an inherent advantage vs women. The argument is, if we should allow people who want to transition into sports. There is social and biological realities at play here. I have no issues calling a person "she", in a social context, but I'd have an issue with her competing in sports vs my sister in the context of a scholarship on the line, for instance. Those two things aren't the same. One is social, on is biological. We have women's sports due to biology in the very first place.

Interesting. Some good points. So then what do we do with transgender athletes? Just tell them they can't compete anymore? Make them compete in the gender they are born? I'm not sure what the solution is. That's why I mentioned testing. If everyone has a testosterone level between A and B doesn't that make it fairly even? IDK.

I know I've derailed this topic, I honestly thought it would be locked by now. I appreciate the intelligent discourse.

[Jigga94]

CNN biased too? https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/22/sport/nc ... index.html

50 out of 200,000 college athletes. As the article says, people don't transition for sports. They transition, because to do otherwise, is an existence rife with depression and suicide. I don't know what the answer is here. I have seen men transition to women and dominate, but IIRC it's very few people, but Lia IS an example. IDK. The olympics have one standard, NCAA has another. I want it to be fair, for sure, and I'm not sure what that looks like. It's a WIP IMO. I respect your opinions here, and I certainly don't have all the answers.

Not the argument I am making (but yes CNN is biased. At least a lot of us up here in Canada see CNN and Fox as Party affiliates. Main Stream News outlets are almost always certainly biased, that shouldn't be news They all spew constant rhetoric and leading stories, let's not be childish ). Biological males, inherently have more advantages for sports. It's why Women's sports were created in the first place. If you are a biological male, you have inherent benefactors over your female counterparts, even after hormone treatment.

You're making an argument about things outside of the field, and suggesting a small minority of people be given an advantage over the majority (biological females) that weren't able to participate in the first place, and had the very creation of their sport due to that. Female sports were created because they couldn't compete in co-ed sports. If you add men to the equation they become irrelevant, and that's the point, despite the fact only a few people transition, they can still massively disrupt the sport in the region they are in, just like if all males transitioned and entered sports, basically no biological women would exist in that sport anymore. It's genetics, it's beyond ideology.

It really gets down to an ideological stand point, now. Prior, it was about sex based sports, because women weren't able to compete with men based on genetics. Now, we are re-determining what a woman is. So, is it based on feelings, and each organization then re-determines the level of biological changes based on scientific advancements needed to meet that? How far are people having to take what "becoming a woman or man is" when it was simply a biological fact at birth previous?

Biological woman are at the foreground of this. Some say it's "misogyny". The reality is there aren't records being broken by biological women transitioning to men, anywhere. It's pretty self explanatory, if you take a truthful, scientific based approach on the subject. Biological men have an inherent athletic advantage to biological women.

The problem with our culture, is we can't seem to discern between the things you spoke about, like speaking to the author in question who was attacked, who wants to be called a woman. I have zero issues with someone wanted to be called she,etc. in a social context.

The issue of being able to allow people to use social context to bypass biological realities can be problematic, as in women's sports, and prison, bathrooms etc. It's different dynamic, and biological women that have issues with this are being called bigots, and worse, and that is problematic.

The reality is IMO, there has to be a social and biological reality. In the case of sports, it's a reality that biological men have an inherent advantage vs women. The argument is, if we should allow people who want to transition into sports. There is social and biological realities at play here. I have no issues calling a person "she", in a social context, but I'd have an issue with her competing in sports vs my sister in the context of a scholarship on the line, for instance. Those two things aren't the same. One is social, on is biological. We have women's sports due to biology in the very first place.

Interesting. Some good points. So then what do we do with transgender athletes? Just tell them they can't compete anymore? Make them compete in the gender they are born? I'm not sure what the solution is. That's why I mentioned testing. If everyone has a testosterone level between A and B doesn't that make it fairly even? IDK.

I know I've derailed this topic, I honestly thought it would be locked by now. I appreciate the intelligent discourse.

This thread was already a lost cause and run its course many times over (there wasnt much discussion to be had to begin with). The discussion you guys had above was at least intelligible.

My 2 cents is that you can't allow Born males to compete in women's sports. Maybe thats harsh, or not inclusive enough. But it isn't fair to the women, who have worked so hard to compete against other women their whole lives, that now have to compete against a born male (because of the biological differences FF mentioned).

I don't necessarily see an issue with the opposite situation though. A Born female competing in male sports. I mean, I'm pretty sure they can do that already (without being trans) right?

[MFundercover]

.