^
There was a report of one dancing in one of the Akron dives. It could have been realrumdummembderdougster since she's a "guy" that doesn't wear pants.
It seems pretty loose - as it’s based on the athletes view of their gender. What’s to stop an athlete identifying as a dude in one race - and a chick in the next race? Then you’d have only a single winner for most events.
Title 9 could be a thing of the past with this sort of shit!
Flagoneer - the article is about track and field athletes - competing in races. It’s not a racist comment - it’s a comment about competing in track races.
I apologize if my post was interpreted as racist - as I didn’t think about my mentioning of track races sounded.
I've never really thought about the issue of whether transgender athletes should be able to complete with the gender they identify with. I don't really care either way. Leave it to the medical doctors to try to come up with some consistent rationale based on testosterone level, or something else. Who cares?
What's obvious is that a talented transgender attorney should't face discrimination in employment or housing. In the same way a geriatric elf like @Flag should be allowed to continue his job changing bedpans without any age discrimination. Most of the federal anti-discrimination laws are there for a purpose.
> At this rate she-males will be taking over girl's athletics in every "progressive" region of the country.
It worked for Japan's theater industry. That Kabuki stuff with old men playing both the leading man and the leading lady for every production is hot!! I can only wait for the day that women's basketball is dominated by males over 60 set because most of the biofems either don't want to share showers or have gotten tired of the constant gangbangs after games involving the bios who do...
@RandomMember said "What's obvious is that a talented transgender attorney should't face discrimination in employment or housing."
So let's say I need an attorney for a personal legal matter, and I'm looking at ads and websites trying to choose one. And let's say I see an ad for a transgender attorney and an ad for a biologically male attorney, and I choose the latter. And let's say this happens several times and it establishes a pattern. In fact, let's go a step further and assume that I always personally contact each lawyer and ask point-blank if they have had a sex change before making my decision. Should the Justice Department sue me to correct this "injustice"? After all, isn't this proof that I've discriminated? If your answer is no, and if you would answer differently if I were, say, a manager at a Fortune 500 company making a hiring decision, then surely you can see that there's a double-standard at work here. Every lefty progressive should agree that there shouldn't be one set of laws for the rich and powerful and another set of laws for everyone else. But that's exactly what anti-discrimination law amounts to. It's a real slippery slope, in my opinion. Besides, everyone discriminates every day, in a thousand different ways, every time we make a choice involving other people. It's natural and harmless.
Now remember my friend, I’m not saying you’re wrong about the hairless ape ladyboys. All ladyboy apes are kind of digusting. Now i could see myself experimenting with felid ladyboys. Maybe even an elephant or manatee ladyboy. But ape ladyboys? They make me want to cough up a furball.
It’s just that your strong feelings are un-rick-like. Just mellow. Just remember that I’ll eventually lead my big cat army in an uprising that culls 95% of the hairless ape herds.
Will ladyboys winning races matter then? I think not.
I think the Federal discrimination laws on the books apply to companies with over 20 employees, @Burlington. If you want to quiz each and every personal attorney about a possible sex change, it's perfectly legal (but hope they beat the shit out of you). However if a Fortune 500 refuses to hire a top intellectual property attorney because of a sex change -- which has absolutely nothing to do with his ability to do his job -- then that company deserves to be sued.
Thanks, that's exactly my point. I'm not an expert, but my understanding of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is that Title VII applies only to companies that hire 15 or more employees. So doesn't that seem arbitrary to you? Why should we treat a 15-person company differently than a 14-person company? (And no, I couldn't care less about the gender or sexual orientation of an attorney. I don't think I've ever hired a transgender person before, but I did choose a lesbian lawyer to help my parents with something once.)
Not an expert on labor laws @Burlington and I do work for a living. So there's an arbitrary lower limit to the employment laws, most likely needed in a practical sense to protect most citizens without overloading the courts. Just a guess. What's your point? Allow discrimination against blacks, Jews, geriatrics (e.g, @Flagooner), Mexicans (they're murderers and rapists), Muslims, Irish -- whatever -- because the law set a practical and arbitrary lower limit? Does that violate your nutty Libertarian sense of purity?
Pretty sure the Federal discrimination laws do not protect LBGTs, but I think it should be up for debate at the very least.
Yeah, basically. I don't want the government to discriminate, but if private citizens discriminate in their private lives, for whatever reason, well, so be it. Think about it this way: if you really believe that a hotel should be forced to rent a room to a black person, or that a baker should be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding, then you're fighting for the right to give money to a bigot. And if a company should be forced to hire a well-qualified transgender applicant, then you're saying that you want bigots to have access to the best employees, just like non-bigots do. Does this really seem like sound public policy? The root of the problem, I think, is that we've come to view employment as a one-way street, even though it really isn't. Sure, the employee gets paid, but the employer also gets a valuable service in return. If the trans lawyer is offering a valuable service, his/her credentials should speak for themselves. And if a bigoted company doesn't want to hire this person, well, that's their company's loss.
Pretty silly thinking that people will remain lawful in their conduct, when the law in no way protects them, but instead protects those who see them as less than human.
No society could ever function like that, or with the rest of your Libertarian views either.
I dont care what gender you think you are. You should compete in the gender you are born with otherwise it normally becomes an unfair advantage with male genes. Men have evolved with those characteristics as important to our survival as a species (at least what makes us up today from the past).
When I read this I almost think DEVO may have had it right that we are de-evolving as a species. Loser take all..
We can't all be attorneys like you (nor would I want to be), but that doesn't mean you have to be such an elitist ass. Even though it may be beneath you (literally and figuratively), bed pans do need to be changed and someone needs to do it.
I am, however, sorry to hear that you have faced discrimination in searching for employment and housing.
Fuck you 25. Worst insult I've ever received on this board.
No part of your criticism makes sense. What do you mean by "remain lawful in their conduct?" If it were legal to discriminate, then by definition, people who discriminate ARE being lawful in their conduct.
I understand why open discrimination would bother you guys, but isn't it better to have open discrimination than secret closeted bigotry? After all, you can't change anyone's mind when you don't even know how they feel in the first place.
And besides, progressives are always the first people to call for a boycott as soon as someone does something that they don't approve of, right? Well, if the bigots can't discriminate, then you won't know who they are. And if you don't know who they are, then you can't organize a boycott, am I right?
ime posted: "Men are bigger, stronger, and faster than women that is science,seems like an outcome you would expect with men competing against women."
Exactly. Some here may not care, but you would if you had daughters competing in these sports. Worse though, it can be downright dangerous in sports that involve contact.
There are very good reasons why the genders are normally separated in these sports and those concerns do not go away just because a tiny percentage of the population feels mis-categorized. I'd rather see a small number of she-males experience emotional pain than jeopardize the safety and athletic opportunities of all biological females participating in these sports.
It should come as no surprise that this happened in a place like CT, which makes me ever more grateful to be raising my kids in a place where this is unlikely to ever be an issue.
Something about this entire debate seems very weak to me. Women are allowed to serve in combat in the military now, and presumably most of the enemy soldiers they will face will be men. Women are also allowed to be police officers and firefighters. (Once again, presumably most of the criminals they'll be chasing will be men, and they may even have to drag a heavy man out of a burning building.) Quite a few women also lift weights and practice martial arts for self defense. And we are endlessly told how strong and resilient women are. So many vapid slogans. "It's your world, Girl!" "Girl Power!" "Who runs the World? Girls!" (That last one was probably a Beyonce lyric.) All this empowerment... and then they can't even run track against a few transexuals? This is pathetic.
I say, let them all compete in one single class: men, women, trannies, young, old, tall, short, black, white, etc. This applies to running track, boxing, weightlifting, football, basketball, MMA, etc. And then, if it turns out that the best boxers are all heavyweights, that the best runners are all Kenyan, that the best baseball players are mostly Hispanic, and that all the best athletes are men, well, so be it. It already turns out that the best basketball players are all black, for example, but we don't create a separate league for white players, now do we? The best basketball players are usually tall, too, and we also don't create a separate league for short people. The whole point should be to find out who is the best. Not to find out who is the best among the women or the best among the men or the best among the short people. Just the best. Period. And if women aren't as good as men (or trannies)? Well, then too bad. Unless they can compete with men, a trophy for "best among the women" will always be seen as nothing but a participation trophy to any honest person who thinks about it for more than a moment.
By the way, I also think it's ridiculous that the very first people who would complain about "snowflakes" will nonetheless want to protect their daughters from even the slight possibility of losing to a man in drag or being injured in competition. Pathetic. Truly pathetic.
Having said all this, to be absolutely clear, I don't believe this is a government decision at all. All of these decisions should be worked out privately. Also, thankfully, I'm not a sports fan and I don't have children. Because otherwise I would probably be a total hypocrite about all of this. Just like some of you already are.
These arent professional athletes unless you made special rules like you need X amount of girls on a team, women would not get to play as they would not make a team. So its better to let everyone play against each other, which means only men would play against each other ans women would not get to play. Sports are not military or police work, they are competitive recreation on most levels. Playing against your own biological sex is fairest and has worked for a very long time. Sorry Burl your just wrong on this one, it is not war or police work where people are armed.
Should males and females compete against each other in combat sports like boxing or mma, no way it is physiologically unfair to women even if they weigh the same.
I don't know. So you're ok with a female police officer getting into a fist fight with a male suspect... or with a female firefighter dragging a man out of a burning building... but you're not ok with them playing lacrosse against someone who's transgendered?
Still, you're right about the nature of sports. And it's more than just size that matters. Testosterone matters much more. But surely you've noticed that there are very few Asian men in the NBA... so there must be something beyond merely having testosterone and being biologically male. I can't imagine someone proposing an Asian American Basketball Association, and yet we do have a WNBA.
Should beta-males have their own sports leagues? And should men with low testosterone have their own sports leagues? I don't know. I guess if they want to, I'm fine with it. We already have a Special Olymipics, so why not go one step further? It would just be more bullshit for me to not watch. While we're at it, maybe guys who suck at sports should have their own leagues, too. I think I would qualify for their draft LOL. This is all above my pay grade.
But you are absolutely right about one thing: if everyone played in the same league, most of the men would have a built-in advantage over most of the women. And in the end the leagues would end up being all male, which means that the women would all eventually leave and start their own leagues anyway. And we would be right back where we started. Still, it makes me wonder why slow runners have never left to form their own sports leagues ;)
37 comments
There was a report of one dancing in one of the Akron dives. It could have been realrumdummembderdougster since she's a "guy" that doesn't wear pants.
Title 9 could be a thing of the past with this sort of shit!
And what is it with your comment about the "next" race? Do you rank order races?
WTF!!!
I apologize if my post was interpreted as racist - as I didn’t think about my mentioning of track races sounded.
I should have known Flagoneer was fucking with me.
What's obvious is that a talented transgender attorney should't face discrimination in employment or housing. In the same way a geriatric elf like @Flag should be allowed to continue his job changing bedpans without any age discrimination. Most of the federal anti-discrimination laws are there for a purpose.
It worked for Japan's theater industry. That Kabuki stuff with old men playing both the leading man and the leading lady for every production is hot!! I can only wait for the day that women's basketball is dominated by males over 60 set because most of the biofems either don't want to share showers or have gotten tired of the constant gangbangs after games involving the bios who do...
> I apologize if my post was interpreted as racist - as I didn’t think about my mentioning of track races sounded.
Yeah, sure. How long before you start going on about niggardly SC customers who nurse a drink for hours and don't tip?
I admit that we were both pretty loaded but remember that i went off with a female orangutan and you sucked that ladyboy’s spiny cock but good!
Maybe you’re repressing something when you’re sober.
ROAR!!!
So let's say I need an attorney for a personal legal matter, and I'm looking at ads and websites trying to choose one. And let's say I see an ad for a transgender attorney and an ad for a biologically male attorney, and I choose the latter. And let's say this happens several times and it establishes a pattern. In fact, let's go a step further and assume that I always personally contact each lawyer and ask point-blank if they have had a sex change before making my decision. Should the Justice Department sue me to correct this "injustice"? After all, isn't this proof that I've discriminated? If your answer is no, and if you would answer differently if I were, say, a manager at a Fortune 500 company making a hiring decision, then surely you can see that there's a double-standard at work here. Every lefty progressive should agree that there shouldn't be one set of laws for the rich and powerful and another set of laws for everyone else. But that's exactly what anti-discrimination law amounts to. It's a real slippery slope, in my opinion. Besides, everyone discriminates every day, in a thousand different ways, every time we make a choice involving other people. It's natural and harmless.
It’s just that your strong feelings are un-rick-like. Just mellow. Just remember that I’ll eventually lead my big cat army in an uprising that culls 95% of the hairless ape herds.
Will ladyboys winning races matter then? I think not.
ROAR!!!
Pretty sure the Federal discrimination laws do not protect LBGTs, but I think it should be up for debate at the very least.
Yeah, basically. I don't want the government to discriminate, but if private citizens discriminate in their private lives, for whatever reason, well, so be it. Think about it this way: if you really believe that a hotel should be forced to rent a room to a black person, or that a baker should be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding, then you're fighting for the right to give money to a bigot. And if a company should be forced to hire a well-qualified transgender applicant, then you're saying that you want bigots to have access to the best employees, just like non-bigots do. Does this really seem like sound public policy? The root of the problem, I think, is that we've come to view employment as a one-way street, even though it really isn't. Sure, the employee gets paid, but the employer also gets a valuable service in return. If the trans lawyer is offering a valuable service, his/her credentials should speak for themselves. And if a bigoted company doesn't want to hire this person, well, that's their company's loss.
No society could ever function like that, or with the rest of your Libertarian views either.
SJG
When I read this I almost think DEVO may have had it right that we are de-evolving as a species. Loser take all..
We can't all be attorneys like you (nor would I want to be), but that doesn't mean you have to be such an elitist ass. Even though it may be beneath you (literally and figuratively), bed pans do need to be changed and someone needs to do it.
I am, however, sorry to hear that you have faced discrimination in searching for employment and housing.
Fuck you 25. Worst insult I've ever received on this board.
No part of your criticism makes sense. What do you mean by "remain lawful in their conduct?" If it were legal to discriminate, then by definition, people who discriminate ARE being lawful in their conduct.
I understand why open discrimination would bother you guys, but isn't it better to have open discrimination than secret closeted bigotry? After all, you can't change anyone's mind when you don't even know how they feel in the first place.
And besides, progressives are always the first people to call for a boycott as soon as someone does something that they don't approve of, right? Well, if the bigots can't discriminate, then you won't know who they are. And if you don't know who they are, then you can't organize a boycott, am I right?
Exactly. Some here may not care, but you would if you had daughters competing in these sports. Worse though, it can be downright dangerous in sports that involve contact.
There are very good reasons why the genders are normally separated in these sports and those concerns do not go away just because a tiny percentage of the population feels mis-categorized. I'd rather see a small number of she-males experience emotional pain than jeopardize the safety and athletic opportunities of all biological females participating in these sports.
It should come as no surprise that this happened in a place like CT, which makes me ever more grateful to be raising my kids in a place where this is unlikely to ever be an issue.
I say, let them all compete in one single class: men, women, trannies, young, old, tall, short, black, white, etc. This applies to running track, boxing, weightlifting, football, basketball, MMA, etc. And then, if it turns out that the best boxers are all heavyweights, that the best runners are all Kenyan, that the best baseball players are mostly Hispanic, and that all the best athletes are men, well, so be it. It already turns out that the best basketball players are all black, for example, but we don't create a separate league for white players, now do we? The best basketball players are usually tall, too, and we also don't create a separate league for short people. The whole point should be to find out who is the best. Not to find out who is the best among the women or the best among the men or the best among the short people. Just the best. Period. And if women aren't as good as men (or trannies)? Well, then too bad. Unless they can compete with men, a trophy for "best among the women" will always be seen as nothing but a participation trophy to any honest person who thinks about it for more than a moment.
By the way, I also think it's ridiculous that the very first people who would complain about "snowflakes" will nonetheless want to protect their daughters from even the slight possibility of losing to a man in drag or being injured in competition. Pathetic. Truly pathetic.
Having said all this, to be absolutely clear, I don't believe this is a government decision at all. All of these decisions should be worked out privately. Also, thankfully, I'm not a sports fan and I don't have children. Because otherwise I would probably be a total hypocrite about all of this. Just like some of you already are.
Should males and females compete against each other in combat sports like boxing or mma, no way it is physiologically unfair to women even if they weigh the same.
I don't know. So you're ok with a female police officer getting into a fist fight with a male suspect... or with a female firefighter dragging a man out of a burning building... but you're not ok with them playing lacrosse against someone who's transgendered?
Still, you're right about the nature of sports. And it's more than just size that matters. Testosterone matters much more. But surely you've noticed that there are very few Asian men in the NBA... so there must be something beyond merely having testosterone and being biologically male. I can't imagine someone proposing an Asian American Basketball Association, and yet we do have a WNBA.
Should beta-males have their own sports leagues? And should men with low testosterone have their own sports leagues? I don't know. I guess if they want to, I'm fine with it. We already have a Special Olymipics, so why not go one step further? It would just be more bullshit for me to not watch. While we're at it, maybe guys who suck at sports should have their own leagues, too. I think I would qualify for their draft LOL. This is all above my pay grade.
But you are absolutely right about one thing: if everyone played in the same league, most of the men would have a built-in advantage over most of the women. And in the end the leagues would end up being all male, which means that the women would all eventually leave and start their own leagues anyway. And we would be right back where we started. Still, it makes me wonder why slow runners have never left to form their own sports leagues ;)