But then recently I started taking estrogen and identifying as women competing in various women sports and it's been great. I'm like the Babe Ruth of women's softball (And I still sort of look like him too) I get a ton of satisfaction destroying records biological women worked their whole life to achieve. I've really made a mockery of things. And here's the kicker, I got to keep my dick and balls! And I even got some people calling me brave and a hero for all humanity. Suckers ahahaha!
Muddy, I think something needs to be done. I want to believe folks are transitioning for honest reasons, but there is a very cynical side of me that thinks some folks might be opportunists.
The males who transition to female, and then blow out womens records in certain sports, are very impressive athletes. But, they aren’t female. I think we are getting to the point where possibly a third gender must be inserted, as it’s unfair to allow this to continue.
When I was a teen, there was a guy who transitioned to female, and he was a decent club tennis player. He became a decent pro female doubles player, after his transition. She was known as Renee Richards, and previously he was a doctor. It was a big deal back then, and met with significant skepticism.
I think the huge difference now is that we must accept this transition as honest, or else we face backlash from so many militant groups. I’m sorry, but a decent male college swimmer decides to take hormones and then competes as a female and blows away the records, should be met with some skepticism. It seems too opportunistic!
When I was younger, I remember in some track and field events, the East Germans or USSR would have a few females who looked more masculine than many guys. They would definitely push the boundaries to win the events, at all costs.
I think there is much more acceptance for transitioning (and transitioned) folks now. However, we must question things that appear to be too opportunistic.
What would happen if a high ranked male tennis player decided to transition to female, with the intent of destroying Serena Williams records? How does that differ from the swimmer at Penn who is breaking so many women’s records now? The honest intent doesn’t make a difference, as these aren’t women. These are men taking hormones and exploiting specific gender rules.
We have moved from binary genders, and it is no longer appropriate to have male or female sports. A third gender is essential to fair results.
A USA Swimming official quit in protest of Lia Thomas (MTF trans) destroying everyone in a recent swim meet. Official said it best, bodies compete against bodies, not identities against identities.
We have an MTF trans on Jeopardy feted as the highest-earning woman of all time. Unless you believe the female brain is inherently disadvantaged, why would "highest-earning woman" matter?
^ I'm a registered Republican though I've never cottoned to Trump. On that grid of left vs right, libertarian vs authoritarian I'm like one small tick more conservative and one more libertarian then dead center.
My problem with the "wokes" is that they create their own problems like this. I have no problem calling people by their preferred pronouns, but pretending there is no biological difference between men and women is not science.
it wouldn't even surprise me if the person in charge of handling the jeopardy tv show gave a few answers in advance to that mtf person.
the "wokes" have to manufacture problems. it's their way to create drama, draw attention to like minded individuals and maybe even eke out a nice living.
Dems have a smaller "base" (defined as "my party right or wrong" types) but a larger "pool" (defined as those who are open to voting for them). The Dem base, nowadays, is mostly rich coastal progressives and single-issue activists who won't turn out if their hot button isn't getting pushed. If they don't have a generational talent (e.g. Obama) who can turn out everyone without harping on their major issues, they need to tack center. However, while Obama made the Dem coalition feel warm and fuzzy, he wasn't very good at pushing their agenda through. He played the legislative game on easy mode, with 60 senators, and still only got one bill passed, and that was with major concessions--and the GOP is still taking chunks out of it.* He was a master of what Robert Greene calls "diabolical language," that is, saying a lot of things that make people heard but ultimately mean little. Biden has neither Obama's talents nor his majorities, therefore I think BBB was doomed from the start.
Without an Obama, the Dems need to take center with kitchen-table issues that turn out their "pool," rather than just their "base." They did this in 2018, they're talking about doing it this year, but radical activists won't have it. Dem votes come from the "pool," but Dem energy and money comes from the "base." Progressives have allowed themselves to be deluded by surveys that appear to say that certain progressive priorities are popular, but don't take into account the cost. Yeah, if you talk about single payor healthcare as "free health care," it'll be popular, much like dining at the French Laundry sounds awesome, until you look at the tab. And climate change, don't even get me started--doing something about it is popular until you realize energy costs will triple (see Germany).**
I disagree that the progressive economic agenda would galvanize a huge Dem majority. If that were the case, we'd be in President Sanders' second term. There isn't anyone ready to run with their agenda either--the Squad comes off as petulant and extreme, even to my Dem friends. It's been shown that more homogeneous countries enjoy larger welfare states; we're not just less homogeneous than Denmark, we're more divided than at any point in the last century. If I were their chief strategist, I would embrace a pragmatic, kitchen table approach that stabilizes the ship (addressing the pandemic, the spiraling debt, inflation), disregards the culture war, and gets buy in on a long-term agenda.
On the other hand, Republicans have a larger "base" (they'll fall in line) but a smaller "pool" (a lot of people spooked off by the big social issues like abortion). They can play "not to lose," i.e. win by turning out the base and dodging the charges that they're too extreme. Seems like a lot of them are doomed by saying things like "evolution is a lie from the pit of hell" or strange philosophies about birth control and abortion or Trump's over-the-top personality (his views were pretty mainstream Repub), for one. Glenn Youngkin in Virginia was immune to the charge of extremism, he distanced himself from Trump and let Terry McAuliffe own-goal himself on CRT. Trump turned out the "base," and dipped into the "pool" by not being as much a culture warrior as many.
They have fewer Obamas, because "don't fuck things up" isn't as inspirational as an activist government wanting to actively drive change. But they're more easily turned out by fear, and the woke agenda*** generates fear like nobody's business, especially when there's tangible evidence of the increase in crime, indoctrinating children, etc.
In the end, I'm a Republican of the "don't fuck things up" camp, I don't want charisma, I want a boring, competent manager in the WH who understands that sudden change goes wrong much more frequently, severely, and irreversibly than it goes right.
* I was against the ACA when it came out, but wouldn't undo it now. Healthcare is my field, and my views go much deeper than talking points.
** It is my firm believe that we will innovate, not regulate, our way out of burning fossil fuels.
*** And it scares the fuck out of me too, because we're already divided and the left has thrown the first punch in every recent battle of the culture war.
12 comments
jes sayin
SJG
The males who transition to female, and then blow out womens records in certain sports, are very impressive athletes. But, they aren’t female. I think we are getting to the point where possibly a third gender must be inserted, as it’s unfair to allow this to continue.
When I was a teen, there was a guy who transitioned to female, and he was a decent club tennis player. He became a decent pro female doubles player, after his transition. She was known as Renee Richards, and previously he was a doctor. It was a big deal back then, and met with significant skepticism.
I think the huge difference now is that we must accept this transition as honest, or else we face backlash from so many militant groups. I’m sorry, but a decent male college swimmer decides to take hormones and then competes as a female and blows away the records, should be met with some skepticism. It seems too opportunistic!
I think there is much more acceptance for transitioning (and transitioned) folks now. However, we must question things that appear to be too opportunistic.
What would happen if a high ranked male tennis player decided to transition to female, with the intent of destroying Serena Williams records? How does that differ from the swimmer at Penn who is breaking so many women’s records now? The honest intent doesn’t make a difference, as these aren’t women. These are men taking hormones and exploiting specific gender rules.
We have moved from binary genders, and it is no longer appropriate to have male or female sports. A third gender is essential to fair results.
We have an MTF trans on Jeopardy feted as the highest-earning woman of all time. Unless you believe the female brain is inherently disadvantaged, why would "highest-earning woman" matter?
My problem with the "wokes" is that they create their own problems like this. I have no problem calling people by their preferred pronouns, but pretending there is no biological difference between men and women is not science.
the "wokes" have to manufacture problems. it's their way to create drama, draw attention to like minded individuals and maybe even eke out a nice living.
Dems have a smaller "base" (defined as "my party right or wrong" types) but a larger "pool" (defined as those who are open to voting for them). The Dem base, nowadays, is mostly rich coastal progressives and single-issue activists who won't turn out if their hot button isn't getting pushed. If they don't have a generational talent (e.g. Obama) who can turn out everyone without harping on their major issues, they need to tack center. However, while Obama made the Dem coalition feel warm and fuzzy, he wasn't very good at pushing their agenda through. He played the legislative game on easy mode, with 60 senators, and still only got one bill passed, and that was with major concessions--and the GOP is still taking chunks out of it.* He was a master of what Robert Greene calls "diabolical language," that is, saying a lot of things that make people heard but ultimately mean little. Biden has neither Obama's talents nor his majorities, therefore I think BBB was doomed from the start.
Without an Obama, the Dems need to take center with kitchen-table issues that turn out their "pool," rather than just their "base." They did this in 2018, they're talking about doing it this year, but radical activists won't have it. Dem votes come from the "pool," but Dem energy and money comes from the "base." Progressives have allowed themselves to be deluded by surveys that appear to say that certain progressive priorities are popular, but don't take into account the cost. Yeah, if you talk about single payor healthcare as "free health care," it'll be popular, much like dining at the French Laundry sounds awesome, until you look at the tab. And climate change, don't even get me started--doing something about it is popular until you realize energy costs will triple (see Germany).**
I disagree that the progressive economic agenda would galvanize a huge Dem majority. If that were the case, we'd be in President Sanders' second term. There isn't anyone ready to run with their agenda either--the Squad comes off as petulant and extreme, even to my Dem friends. It's been shown that more homogeneous countries enjoy larger welfare states; we're not just less homogeneous than Denmark, we're more divided than at any point in the last century. If I were their chief strategist, I would embrace a pragmatic, kitchen table approach that stabilizes the ship (addressing the pandemic, the spiraling debt, inflation), disregards the culture war, and gets buy in on a long-term agenda.
On the other hand, Republicans have a larger "base" (they'll fall in line) but a smaller "pool" (a lot of people spooked off by the big social issues like abortion). They can play "not to lose," i.e. win by turning out the base and dodging the charges that they're too extreme. Seems like a lot of them are doomed by saying things like "evolution is a lie from the pit of hell" or strange philosophies about birth control and abortion or Trump's over-the-top personality (his views were pretty mainstream Repub), for one. Glenn Youngkin in Virginia was immune to the charge of extremism, he distanced himself from Trump and let Terry McAuliffe own-goal himself on CRT. Trump turned out the "base," and dipped into the "pool" by not being as much a culture warrior as many.
They have fewer Obamas, because "don't fuck things up" isn't as inspirational as an activist government wanting to actively drive change. But they're more easily turned out by fear, and the woke agenda*** generates fear like nobody's business, especially when there's tangible evidence of the increase in crime, indoctrinating children, etc.
In the end, I'm a Republican of the "don't fuck things up" camp, I don't want charisma, I want a boring, competent manager in the WH who understands that sudden change goes wrong much more frequently, severely, and irreversibly than it goes right.
* I was against the ACA when it came out, but wouldn't undo it now. Healthcare is my field, and my views go much deeper than talking points.
** It is my firm believe that we will innovate, not regulate, our way out of burning fossil fuels.
*** And it scares the fuck out of me too, because we're already divided and the left has thrown the first punch in every recent battle of the culture war.
Must be the New Year.
Hoping for more of this, and less thunder and lighting.
And lots of titty talk, of course.