Wyoming forfeits Volleyball matchup with San Jose State

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,100]

The misogyny and hate in this thread is fucking unreal. So not surprising given this thread originated in Daily Texan.

Some of you people need Jesus, and not Republican Jesus.

[52-80 19,145]

5 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

So you want to pretend that laws directly pertaining to this discussion don’t exist for the purposes of argument on this board? 

I dont pretend youre speaking on someones elses behalf and id rather you try do the same.

The purpose of the direct reply is to address someone. If you want make a general commentary on the law, do it without quoting me.

I asked who in here argued for excluding kids. You joked around it and then dropped a link to Florida. Do you see the disconnect?

 

[aggie08 21,482]

4 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

I asked who in here argued for excluding kids. You joked around it and then dropped a link to Florida. Do you see the disconnect?

 

Even ignoring your categorization of trans athletes as cheaters, it takes some real mental gymnastics here to convince yourself that you're not ultimately okay with excluding kids, even if deemed for the "greater good."

 

Quote

“What about people who are truly biologically dimorphic or socially nonbinary/trans in completely earnest manner and genuinely arent trying to cheat”. Compete in the open category. If your condition represents 1% of the population you should not get to supercede 50% of the population. Nothing against you in any other respect.

 

[Sawbonz 27,534]

4 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

asked who in here argued for excluding kids

This is the direct quote I responded to with pertinent links:

2 hours ago, 52-80 said:

 

Now would you explain who is floating the idea of blocking young girls from playing sports? Are they in the room with us now?

Now I’m sure you are going to try to say “are they in the room with us now?” Was a legitimate way to frame the discussion as limited to posters rather than sarcasm

 

as I said, stupid or a troll 

[wildcat09 29,341]

52-80's debate club schtick is so good. Just 100% JD Vance's "I was told there would be no fact checking!" whining.

[aggie08 21,482]

17 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

It's not an issue, as evidenced by the fact that the one time it occurs it causes national headlines and prompts a six-page (and counting) thread on the Surl.

If it were an issue, then it would be so commonplace that it wouldn't even earn your (or any other poster's) notice.  You'd be like "pfft--another one.  That's some bullshit."

Kind of like how Americans are about school shootings now.  That's an issue.  And Americans' callousness and non-recognition of when another one happens tells you just how big an issue it is.

This, however, is completely fabricated.

Nonsense! According to Rex, 90%+ of the population agree that the government should continue stepping in and defining gender to stop these huge, frequent injustices, and he's lucky to live in one of the 25 states with the courage to do so! And I'm sure if I were to list those 25 states, it wouldn't seem politically fabricated at all.

[52-80 19,145]

2 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Even ignoring your categorization of trans athletes as cheaters, it takes some real mental gymnastics here to convince yourself that you're not ultimately okay with excluding kids, even if deemed for the "greater good."

 

 

I didnt call them cheats. Thats your characterization. 

I said the class of biological males have undisputed athletic advantages over biological females, and therefore thats how they should be grouped. 

I said kids can play whatever they want. It’s low-stakes competition. Nothing lost nothing gained. 

Finally, I said that the ultimate authority belongs to the participants and organizers — the actual stakeholders. But as individuals we are entitled to have and express an opinion on it. 

Of course you of all people would misrepresent those points and distort it as hating kids and etc. Thats as predictable as the globetrotters beating the generals. 

[Incredulity 11,649]

In regards to those advocating sports being completely co-ed and solely based on performance.

I'd think about the psychological damage that would do to girls starting about the age of 13 when they will inevitably in large numbers get demoted from the advanced teams.

From my personal kids sports viewing I would think 100% performance based teams to be quite mixed gender until around that point.

 

Edited October 3 by Incredulity

[Bevo 13,560]

21 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Watching men’s 3 on 3 is damned near as bad - it’s a terrible game. That’s not because of gender, it’s because the game sucks.

You are partially right - Although, I've enjoyed watching a few games with guys like Carmelo who were unstoppable in a 3on3 setting. The difference is that the men are jacking up shitty 3s and throwing bad alley-oops. The women are all below the rim, missing layups, dribbling the ball out of bounds, passing out of bounds, and slow...

[Js1 85,269]

Just now, Bevo said:

missing layups, dribbling the ball out of bounds, passing out of bounds, and slow...

Sounds like a Shaka Smart Texas team 

[Bevo 13,560]

2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Sounds like a Shaka Smart Texas team 

 

What I really needed was a laugh, cry and fuck you analogy. Too much emotion to your point.

[aggie08 21,482]

23 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

I didnt call them cheats. Thats your characterization. 

What? YOU posted this verbatim: 

Quote

“What about people who are truly biologically dimorphic or socially nonbinary/trans in completely earnest manner and genuinely arent trying to cheat”. Compete in the open category. If your condition represents 1% of the population you should not get to supercede 50% of the population. Nothing against you in any other respect.

I haven't seen anyone else use the word "cheat" to describe these athletes. You introduced it. I don't think you meant anything malicious by it, but you did. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

In your example above--the "truly biologically dimorphic" athlete that fits better in most metrics as a female--and lives their life as a female--they aren't getting excluded because they can't physically hack it in the men's/open division?

23 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Of course you of all people would misrepresent those points and distort it as hating kids and etc.

I've done no such thing. I don't think you hate kids. I agree with a lot of what you've said here. You just distance yourself from why this discussion is happening so much more often, and the public manipulation taking place that's purposely bringing undo hate and discrimination upon vulnerable groups because it's the convenient thing to do. I mean, I get it. I don't even blame you. But it--and your schtick in general--is just tiring, dude. 

Edited October 3 by aggie08

[Dbeasy 15,040]

Unlike Immamac, I see this thread as important. This discussion is not about the volleyball game. It’s not about transgender participation in athletics. It’s about how the mind of the public is manipulated for political gain. 

The current Republican formula for successfully gaining support is to take an emotional issue, like this or immigration for example, and establish a very simple idea that people can rally around. “Of course no one wants to see transgender men unfairly have advantages over women in sports, they say. Of course we don’t want millions of people pouring across the border, they say.”

In a two minute sound bite society, most people have no time or interest to explore an issue further. Some of those people are bigots, racists, or misogynists.  But many aren’t. They just have a simple viewpoint based upon a ten second reflection. So better border control sounds good  banning men from women’s sports sounds reasonable.

Then the people who are more educated on the topic call those people racists, misogynists, and bigots. And in the meantime, the issue being raised often is not addressed over time, elevating its visibility. Those actions then harden the other group, cementing their tribe. No one wants to be called bigots, racists, or misogynists when they aren’t. It’s offensive. So then you hear the tribe cry “We will not be woke!”

To be honest, I’m a simple cave man often caught in the middle. It’s a tiring story plot that plays out a million times a day.  Yet almost everyone gets drawn into that same play all the time.  That’s the only thing I’ve really taken away from this thread  

 

[52-80 19,145]

25 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

This is the direct quote I responded to with pertinent links:

Now I’m sure you are going to try to say “are they in the room with us now?” Was a legitimate way to frame the discussion as limited to posters rather than sarcasm

 

as I said, stupid or a troll 

Post #284, even predating that one

Quote

 

I don't see how anything you wrote, or anybody wrote, suggests in anyway that results in young girls being denied to playing sports....and all the other baggage accompanying that.

If you misread both of those, you dont even get credit as a troll. 

never mind the fact that ive not once referenced libs, gops, conservatives, karens, ted cruz, or any other starring characters. i challenged the posts of people here, on their words.

you want to talk vaguely at me but at some strawman at the same time to gain some moral authority, enjoy your crown. 

[52-80 19,145]

7 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

What? YOU posted this verbatim: 

I haven't seen anyone else use the word "cheat" to describe these athletes. You introduced it. I don't think you meant anything malicious by it, but you did. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

In your example above--the "truly biologically dimorphic" athlete that fits better in most metrics as a female--and lives their life as a female--they aren't getting excluded because they can't physically hack it in the men's/open division?

You are correct actually. The way I wrote that implied there exists a class of intentional cheaters. 

I made the distinction to put the focus on the meaningful group - the ones I sympathize for. The point I was leading to was in the paragraph that followed: who has a set of fair and pragmatic rules? without one, my default inclination is to stick to the birth cohort. 

In truly gray zone, like with dismorphism, if we cant come up with a sensible rule, is it wrong to weight that 1 person wishes against all of their competitors? If its the discomfort of 1 person against 2 female competitors…or 5… or 10? thats essentially democracy isnt it. 

[Brian Fantana 6,678]

Let's bring one of the like less than 20 trans high school athletes in the country and put 'em on a polygraph so we can see which ones are dirty little cheaters.

[safe sex 11,696]

If you're arguing that trans people shouldn't get to participate in sports as children/teens and you haven't read the WaPo article in the queer thread, please cease your participation until you've read it. 

https://www.surlyhorns.com/board/topic/26441-lbgtq/?do=findComment&comment=6493544

[safe sex 11,696]

@PRONG HORN must have forgotten to write his thoughts down. He's got a lot of thoughts about trans kids playing sports, but he only ever seems to post transphobic cartoons about them. Weirdo 

[aggie08 21,482]

13 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

The point I was leading to was in the paragraph that followed: who has a set of fair and pragmatic rules? without one, my default inclination is to stick to the birth cohort. 

In truly gray zone, like with dismorphism, if we cant come up with a sensible rule, is it wrong to weight that 1 person wishes against all of their competitors? If its the discomfort of 1 person against 2 female competitors…or 5… or 10? thats essentially democracy isnt it. 

I get it. Can't possibly make everybody happy. I'm just skeptical of those 2 or 5 or 10's actual discomfort in truly gray area cases. Will the issue be them or their parents?

Edited October 3 by aggie08

[Skipper 6,127]

30 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

 

In a two minute sound bite society, most people have no time or interest to explore an issue further. Some of those people are bigots, racists, or misogynists.  But many aren’t. They just have a simple viewpoint based upon a ten second reflection. So better border control sounds good  banning men from women’s sports sounds reasonable.

 

This 100%.  The reason this is an effective strategy is because the concept of inequity as it comes to sports is absolutely a winner at a base level without gender issues layered on top.   Are some of people against this super transphobic? I'm sure.   But we had a little league game earlier this week where our 2nd grade boys team played a team with a bunch of known 3rd graders on it that were mashing and a bunch of the moms got all pissy about it.   Kind of like Highland Park parents (among others) are purportedly notorious for kindergarten "redshirting" their boys for sports purposes and enjoying that advantage in youth sports (which similarly gets people outside of highland park all pissy as I've heard this get brought up/bitched about in 3 or 4 different settings).   So you take a concept like sports inequity that draws people offsides anyways, slap transgender on top of it, and of course it accomplishes exactly what they want.

[Brian Fantana 6,678]

11 minutes ago, safe sex said:

@PRONG HORN must have forgotten to write his thoughts down. He's got a lot of thoughts about trans kids playing sports, but he only ever seems to post transphobic cartoons about them. Weirdo 

He got banned for a month for racism so he'll get back to you in November at 8AM Moscow time.

[Sawbonz 27,534]

14 minutes ago, safe sex said:

If you're arguing that trans people shouldn't get to participate in sports as children/teens and you haven't read the WaPo article in the queer thread, please cease your participation until you've read it. 

https://www.surlyhorns.com/board/topic/26441-lbgtq/?do=findComment&comment=6493544

That doesn't matter within the parameters @52-80 has set for purposes of this discussion!

 

[ChiTownDoc 21,140]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Like Mike Pence showing up at a Colts game just so he could storm out when athletes knelt during the national anthem. 

Ah, Mike Pence.  What a legend.  Has anyone pried the leopard off his face yet?

[Dahobbs 17,522]

53 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

You are correct actually. The way I wrote that implied there exists a class of intentional cheaters. 

I made the distinction to put the focus on the meaningful group - the ones I sympathize for. The point I was leading to was in the paragraph that followed: who has a set of fair and pragmatic rules? without one, my default inclination is to stick to the birth cohort. 

In truly gray zone, like with dismorphism, if we cant come up with a sensible rule, is it wrong to weight that 1 person wishes against all of their competitors? If its the discomfort of 1 person against 2 female competitors…or 5… or 10? thats essentially democracy isnt it. 

 

41 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

I get it. Can't possibly make everybody happy. I'm just skeptical of those 2 or 5 or 10's actual discomfort in truly gray area cases. Will the issue be them or their parents?

It's also misleading to break it down as the discomfort of 1 vs some other number. In truth, the level of discomfort isn't even. The one will experience discomfort 100% of the time. The 2 or 5 or 10 will only experience discomfort (if they do at all) some small fraction of a percent of their total time in athletics.  

[Pods 7,551]

5 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

I don't want to be politically incorrect, but maybe the Mormons could try not being so fucking weird.

Mormon leadership is aggressively going the wrong direction and it's one of the big reasons you are seeing this push come from Mormon heavy states, such as Idaho, Wyoming and Utah. 

A new policy further eroding the civil rights and basic dignity of transgender members was just passed down at the end of August. It's fucking disgusting. 

https://apnews.com/general-news-cae38cf6254442ffb4a608b4a8fcf334

Quote

Mormon Church Broadens Restrictions for Transgender Members

The new guidance prohibits those pursuing gender transition from working with children, and bans baptism for those who have transitioned both medically and socially.

Aug. 27, 2024

The world headquarters of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in Salt Lake City.George Frey/Getty Images

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints expanded its restrictions on transgender members, issuing new guidance that includes prohibiting people who pursue transition from working with children.

The guidance, part of a sweeping update last week to the church’s General Handbook, a set of instructions and policies for leaders and members, also newly bars people from being baptized even if they have transitioned only socially, by changing their appearance, name or pronouns.

“Church leaders counsel against pursuing surgical, medical, or social transition away from one’s biological sex at birth,” the handbook states.

The changes drew condemnation from transgender Latter-day Saints and their supporters.

A longtime support group for current and former L.G.B.T.Q. church members, Leaders of Affirmation, said in a statement that before the latest restrictions transgender members of the church “could expect their gender identities to be respected through the use of their chosen names, to participate in church meetings aligning with their gender identities, and to have some opportunities to be called to serve within the Church.”

They added, “We hope that God will yet reveal better for our transgender siblings.”

A spokesman for the church, Doug Anderson, said the updates “seek to help Latter-day Saints follow Jesus Christ’s example of ministering with love, patience and respect.”

The new policies tighten rules introduced in 2020 that restricted volunteer opportunities and access to the temple.

At the time, church leaders explained that they had added the policies because “we’ve had an increase in questions coming from bishops and stake presidents saying, ‘What can a transgender person do? What are the guidelines?’” Anthony D. Perkins, director of the department that oversees the handbook, said in 2020.

The church, which has more than 17 million members worldwide, has in the last decade tried to refine its approach to gay and lesbian members, same-sex couples, and transgender people. In 2015, leaders called same-sex married couples “apostates” and restricted their children from blessings and baptisms. Four years later, they reversed the restrictions on rituals for children, and rolled back the “apostate” label.

Before same-sex marriage was legalized nationally in 2015, the church supported California Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the state. In recent years, leaders have walked back that approach, carving out some limited acceptance for L.G.B.T.Q. people in the church and in society, though it continues to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

The handbook defines “gender” as “biological sex at birth” and calls it “an essential characteristic in Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness.”

It acknowledges that some people experience a dissonance between their biological sex and their “inner sense of gender,” and states that the church takes no position on the cause of those feelings.

The handbook also commends members who have taken steps to transition but then “transition back to to their biological sex at birth,” stating that they may enjoy the full privileges of membership in the church.

Ruth Graham is a national reporter, based in Dallas, covering religion, faith and values for The Times. More about Ruth Graham

 

It's going to get worse too. The current President/Prophet just turned 100. The next guy in the line of succession was President of BYU while they were doing electroshock conversion therapy research on gay students. 

 

 

 

[DixonHur 11,292]

I've been deathly ill all week so I'm just catching up on all things Surly, and whoo boy is this thread a doozy.

Just finished the thread and here's my hot take...

Y'all can bash @52-80, but from my unbiased perspective he's been one of the more reasonable posters in this thread... along with @troph.  Although, I think her proximity to the issue clouds her at times.

I think we can all agree that nobody gives a shit about rec sports, so let's put a pin in that one.  

That leaves competitive level sports.  So, the question is, when does rec sports become competitive?  IE what it the definition of competitive level sports?  Is it simply based on average talent level? Age? Or does sponsorship money, or the potential for sponsorship money (NIL, pro sports, etc.) need to be present?

Edited October 3 by DixonHur

[Pods 7,551]

14 minutes ago, Pods said:

Mormon leadership is aggressively going the wrong direction and it's one of the big reasons you are seeing this push come from Mormon heavy states, such as Idaho, Wyoming and Utah. 

A new policy further eroding the civil rights and basic dignity of transgender members was just passed down at the end of August. It's fucking disgusting. 

https://apnews.com/general-news-cae38cf6254442ffb4a608b4a8fcf334

 

It's going to get worse too. The current President/Prophet just turned 100. The next guy in the line of succession was President of BYU while they were doing electroshock conversion therapy research on gay students. 

 

 

 

Accidentally posted the wrong link to the section I quoted. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/27/us/mormon-church-transgender.html

[Skipper 6,127]

6 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

 

That leaves competitive level sports.  So, the question is, when does rec sports become competitive?  IE what it the definition of competitive level sports?  Is it simply based on average talent level? Age? Or does sponsorship money, or the potential for sponsorship money (NIL, pro sports, etc.) need to be present?

Sports "inequality" is a hot topic no matter the level.   Starting at Kindergarten redshirts, to high school "transfers" or Allen refusing to split up their high schools, all the way to Tampa Rays fans bitching about the Yankees payroll and lack of a real salary cap in MLB.  Or 90% of CFB teams bitching about Texas NIL.   That's my point.  It's a successful argument because everyone already has hot sports opinions (literally) about inequity in sports.  So throw transgender and the mere thought of a "male" dropping 30 and 15 in a girls high school playoff game (regardless of whether it is actually happening or not, as it isn't) and it's a winner to fire people up that aren't going to research whether or not there is an actual issue.

[royiv 9,247]

1 minute ago, Skipper said:

it's a winner to fire people up that aren't going to research whether or not there is an actual issue.

TBH, if I may, I’m more worked up about the litter boxes in classrooms.

[Nivek 16,916]

2 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

It's not an issue, as evidenced by the fact that the one time it occurs it causes national headlines and prompts a six-page (and counting) thread on the Surl.

If it were an issue, then it would be so commonplace that it wouldn't even earn your (or any other poster's) notice.  You'd be like "pfft--another one.  That's some bullshit."

Kind of like how Americans are about school shootings now.  That's an issue.  And Americans' callousness and non-recognition of when another one happens tells you just how big an issue it is.

This, however, is completely fabricated.

What a man and a gun do in the privacy of a public school is very different and much less harmful to the handful of young ladies who play sports with a transgendered student go through.  And if it is not, that's only because I don't actually care.  /GQP

[Nivek 16,916]

2 hours ago, Bevo said:

 

What I really needed was a laugh, cry and fuck you analogy. Too much emotion to your point.

What you are saying is that we need a new reaction that transitions?  You arrogant ass.  You killed us all. 

[Pods 7,551]

45 minutes ago, royiv said:

TBH, if I may, I’m more worked up about the litter boxes in classrooms.

100% agree. Me too.

Once a man gets into his 40's, his focus invariably shifts to a constant awareness of where he can piss at a moment's notice. 

[DixonHur 11,292]

54 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Sports "inequality" is a hot topic no matter the level.   Starting at Kindergarten redshirts, to high school "transfers" or Allen refusing to split up their high schools, all the way to Tampa Rays fans bitching about the Yankees payroll and lack of a real salary cap in MLB.  Or 90% of CFB teams bitching about Texas NIL.   That's my point.  It's a successful argument because everyone already has hot sports opinions (literally) about inequity in sports.  So throw transgender and the mere thought of a "male" dropping 30 and 15 in a girls high school playoff game (regardless of whether it is actually happening or not, as it isn't) and it's a winner to fire people up that aren't going to research whether or not there is an actual issue.

Your post, and that of many I've read on this thread, seem to be conflating results with process.

[Dahobbs 17,522]

2 hours ago, DixonHur said:

I've been deathly ill all week so I'm just catching up on all things Surly, and whoo boy is this thread a doozy.

Just finished the thread and here's my hot take...

Y'all can bash @52-80, but from my unbiased perspective he's been one of the more reasonable posters in this thread... along with @troph.  Although, I think her proximity to the issue clouds her at times.

I think we can all agree that nobody gives a shit about rec sports, so let's put a pin in that one.  

That leaves competitive level sports.  So, the question is, when does rec sports become competitive?  IE what it the definition of competitive level sports?  Is it simply based on average talent level? Age? Or does sponsorship money, or the potential for sponsorship money (NIL, pro sports, etc.) need to be present?

If you think that, then you're following for the same schtick. There are two distinct issues:

(1) What is a reasonable way for a sport to handle this situation

And 

(2) Why is this situation being elevated to national importance. 

I think overall this thread has had reasonable discussion on #1. 

#2 is clearly bigotry. That's all it is. It is part and parcel of claims that the gays and transgenders are molesting and grooming children. It is fear mongering designed to get idiots worked up about something that has a near 0% chance of affecting them and that quite frankly they never cared about before (women's athletics).

We can have a polite discussion about #1. But the truth about #2 should undeniable to any truly unbiased person. 

[Brisketexan 105,057]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

If you think that, then you're following for the same schtick. There are two distinct issues:

(1) What is a reasonable way for a sport to handle this situation

And 

(2) Why is this situation being elevated to national importance. 

I think overall this thread has had reasonable discussion on #1. 

#2 is clearly bigotry. That's all it is. It is part and parcel of claims that the gays and transgenders are molesting and grooming children. It is fear mongering designed to get idiots worked up about something that has a near 0% chance of affecting them and that quite frankly they never cared about before (women's athletics).

We can have a polite discussion about #1. But the truth about #2 should undeniable to any truly unbiased person. 

This this this.

This issue is entirely about #2.

Because if it was REALLY about #1, we'd be talking a lot more about things that have a much bigger impacts.  Bee stings, which kill 50-100 people each year.  Hell, six people die each year from vending machines falling on them.....I haven't heard of ANYONE being killed by competing against a trans athlete.  WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE PEOPLE KILLED WHILE TRYING TO GET THAT STUCK BAG OF ANDY CAPP'S HOT FRIES???"

Seriously.  It's not a good faith conversation being held for good faith reasons.  So, demanding that we start with "okay, so assuming this is a good-faith conversation about an important issue" is a non-starter.  It is an almost entirely made-up issue that is being used as a CENTRAL CAMPAIGN ISSUE by....exactly who you would expect to use it.  This conversation is in bad faith for bad faith reasons.

[TwiceHorn 31,438]

9 hours ago, troph said:

This may surprise you but I agree the forfeiture doesn’t fucking matter and no one including me would even know about it but for a known confirmed hater posting click bait here.

but make no mistake about it, the media campaign and the political strategy end game is full eradication of my people from polite society. They started with bathroom, moved to healthcare for kids, and athletic bans, but they want it all. And I’m not going to stand for that as we actively are looking for places in another state to spend at least half the year to protect my existence from the political end game here in Texas.

I need you to know that no one is more tired of these discussions than me.  I’ve spent the better part of my time on this board since 2015 advocating for my people, because I’m an advocate it’s just what I am. And in doing so I know I have gained the attention, respect, understanding and even agreement of many posters here. So I simply cannot let the haters occupy this space without speaking up. 

And thank you for doing so despite the trauma that sometimes comes with it.  I have gained a much deeper understanding of trans folk thanks to you.

[BurntOrange&White 39,930]

Biological males should not be competing in women’s sports plain and simple. 
 

easiest solution is to create trans leagues. 

[safe sex 11,696]

PLaiN aNd SimPLe

🙄

[DixonHur 11,292]

58 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

#2 is clearly bigotry. That's all it is. It is part and parcel of claims that the gays and transgenders are molesting and grooming children. It is fear mongering designed to get idiots worked up about something that has a near 0% chance of affecting them and that quite frankly they never cared about before (women's athletics).

We can have a polite discussion about #1. But the truth about #2 should undeniable to any truly unbiased person. 

If you believe this you may be as, if not more, narrow minded than those you are attempting the castigate.  You're basically telling people that they either think like you or they are bigoted.  How is that constructive to the debate?  More to the point, how does that leave any room for debate?

Believe it or not, two things can be true.  Some, maybe much, of the push back against trans women competing against cis women might be a result of bigoted thinking.  That doesn't mean all of it is.  Nor does it mean it shouldn't be discussed.

[Dbeasy 15,040]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

If you think that, then you're following for the same schtick. There are two distinct issues:

(1) What is a reasonable way for a sport to handle this situation

And 

(2) Why is this situation being elevated to national importance. 

I think overall this thread has had reasonable discussion on #1. 

#2 is clearly bigotry. That's all it is. It is part and parcel of claims that the gays and transgenders are molesting and grooming children. It is fear mongering designed to get idiots worked up about something that has a near 0% chance of affecting them and that quite frankly they never cared about before (women's athletics).

We can have a polite discussion about #1. But the truth about #2 should undeniable to any truly unbiased person. 

 

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

This this this.

This issue is entirely about #2.

Because if it was REALLY about #1, we'd be talking a lot more about things that have a much bigger impacts.  Bee stings, which kill 50-100 people each year.  Hell, six people die each year from vending machines falling on them.....I haven't heard of ANYONE being killed by competing against a trans athlete.  WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE PEOPLE KILLED WHILE TRYING TO GET THAT STUCK BAG OF ANDY CAPP'S HOT FRIES???"

Seriously.  It's not a good faith conversation being held for good faith reasons.  So, demanding that we start with "okay, so assuming this is a good-faith conversation about an important issue" is a non-starter.  It is an almost entirely made-up issue that is being used as a CENTRAL CAMPAIGN ISSUE by....exactly who you would expect to use it.  This conversation is in bad faith for bad faith reasons.

 

2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

If you believe this you may be as, if not more, narrow minded than those you are attempting the castigate.  You're basically telling people that they either think like you or they are bigoted.  How is that constructive to the debate?  More to the point, how does that leave any room for debate?

Believe it or not, two things can be true.  Some, maybe much, of the push back against trans women competing against cis women might be a result of bigoted thinking.  That doesn't mean all of it is.  Nor does it mean it shouldn't be discussed.

Just like several other issues, anyone who disagrees on this issue MUST! bE a bIgoT. Dahobbs and Brisket you guys are both smarter than this. Dixon is right. Do better. 

[DigglerontheHoof 21,175]

I believe this is my first post on this thread.

I'm 58, divorced, no kids.  That this subject on a forum based on mutual interest of Longhorn football has this many replies on a college fucking volleyball issue blows my fucking mind.

 

Outside of Olympic women's beach volleyball, I've never watched more than 30 minutes at-a-time of volleyball.  And that was the end of the Texas women's championship match last year.  I'm guessing most of the folks bitching about this unfairness fall within my give-a-shit level of women's volleyball. 

I don't understand why something that has zero effect on anyone outside of maybe 200 people in the US is a fucking thing. 

 

 

[Dahobbs 17,522]

5 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

If you believe this you may be as, if not more, narrow minded than those you are attempting the castigate.  You're basically telling people that they either think like you or they are bigoted.  How is that constructive to the debate?  More to the point, how does that leave any room for debate?

Believe it or not, two things can be true.  Some, maybe much, of the push back against trans women competing against cis women might be a result of bigoted thinking.  That doesn't mean all of it is.  Nor does it mean it shouldn't be discussed.

You're not listening. I don't have any issue with discussion of the rules. The question is why is it a national issue. When did you start feeling strongly about women's sports? Why? Did you think transgendered individuals didn't exist before? How many people do you think this affects? Do you think that sports bodies are incapable of developing rules to cover these very niche situations? Do you really think this is important enough that state and national legislation needs to be involved? 

Again, this is a national for one reason and one reason only: bigotry. That's why folks are pushing this issue. You've seen the same commercials and comments from politicians claiming that these are degenerates that are grooming children. Do you really believe all this hate is unrelated? That the same people now care strongly about fairness in women's athletics for any other reason than their hatred? Come the fuck on and grow the fuck up. 

[tchookem 3,900]

Biological males should not be competing in women’s sports plain and simple. 
 
easiest solution is to create trans leagues. 

Transgender League...

[Dahobbs 17,522]

4 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

 

 

Just like several other issues, anyone who disagrees on this issue MUST! bE a bIgoT. Dahobbs and Brisket you guys are both smarter than this. Dixon is right. Do better. 

You do better. Stop pretending it is anything else driving this conversation. 

Yes, people can feel that males shouldn't participate in female sports without being bigots. I have no issue with that discussion. But if you cant see that the burning need to push an issue on the national level that affects .0001% of the population is driven by hate, then you're either a fucking fool or a bigot. If that hurts your feelings, tough shit. It is the truth. 

[C-Man 27,184]

I believe this is my first post on this thread.
I'm 58, divorced, no kids.  That this subject on a forum based on mutual interest of Longhorn football has this many replies on a college fucking volleyball issue blows my fucking mind.

 
Outside of Olympic women's beach volleyball, I've never watched more than 30 minutes at-a-time of volleyball.  And that was the end of the Texas women's championship match last year.  I'm guessing most of the folks bitching about this unfairness fall within my give-a-shit level of women's volleyball. 
I don't understand why something that has zero effect on anyone outside of maybe 200 people in the US is a fucking thing. 
 

 

Because this is exactly how the GOP dog whistles and takes people’s attention off the fact that they don’t have any policy issues other than tax cuts for the rich and sometimes blatant racism.

[Dahobbs 17,522]

@Dbeasy do you truly believe this deserves to be a national issue? Do you believe there is some pressing need for laws governing who can participate in female athletics? How many people in this country do you think it affects? Do you truly not see a relationship between this effort and other efforts to demonize those the in the lbgtq community? Do you really believe claims of grooming and pedophile are driven by anything but hate? 

Again, this discussion isn't about whether makes should compete in female sports. It just isn't. If you think they shouldn't, I don't care. I don't think that means you're a bigot. But you have to see this should, at most, item #100,000 on the list of concerns of the country. You have to see that the attempts to elevate an issue that you otherwise wouldn't give a fuck about because it would have zero impact on your life or the life of anyone you know is done for nefarious purposes. Stop being fucking fooled by the hatred of others. 

[elfenix 34,223]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

ANDY CAPP'S HOT FRIES

underrated snack

 

 

 

can we start a policy where any time @52-80 starts punching down in defense of the status quo then thread gets moved here? because that's a single circle venn diagram for threads started outside CR that are definitely CR.

[Hmbre97 6,305]

Why is it no one ever gives a shit about the transgender player that's coming off the bench?

[Brisketexan 105,057]

52 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

 

 

Just like several other issues, anyone who disagrees on this issue MUST! bE a bIgoT. Dahobbs and Brisket you guys are both smarter than this. Dixon is right. Do better. 

Then perhaps I did a poor job communicating.

My issue is not with Dixon's take on the issue.  My issue is on WHY IT IS EVEN A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION.  This "issue" is for all intents and purposes not a "thing."  It is a teeny tiney eensy weensie issue, which affects next to no one.  Seriously, vending machines killing people is objectively and empirically a much more serious issue.  So....why are we discussing this?  There is one reason, and one reason only: a faction of society that has a vested interest in creating an enemy, and in condemning all gay and trans people "DEMONIC PEDOPHILE GROOMERS WHO WANT TO MOLEST OUR DAUGHTERS AND HAVE DRAG SHOWS AND BE GIANT MEN TACKLING LITTLE TINY GIRLS ON THE FIELD BECAUSE THEY ARE SICKOS!"

It is not a good-faith topic.  If is fruit of a poisoned tree.  THAT is the fucking issue -- that this is a manufactured issue created for the purpose of ginning up hate and enmity against the weak, for political and power advantage.  THAT is fucking sick.  THAT is causing real harm.  You want a problem and issue to talk about?  There it is.

I promise you more trans kids commit suicide every fucking month than there are girls who missed out on a volleyball trophy because a trans girl was on the other team.  But none -- not one -- of the people who screams "we have to protect our kids!" gives a single shit about THOSE kids.  Why?  Well....because they're evil demonic perverts, that's why.

Sorry, I don't cotton to purposeful cruelty, which is all this issue is.  It's fucking mean, cruel, and destructive of the least among us.  That's just peak shittiness.

[Thatguy 8,671]

11 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

She plays on a travel team all over the country. My daughters are very long and fast and springy. Appreciate your presumptions. You should type longer posts. 

You just said glad she is in Texas which tells me that you think she doesn't have to deal with it. If she indeed does play top level club "all over the country" then you wouldn't say that. Sounds like someone is lying or at the very least doesn't understand that high school ball is irrelevant. To recruiters what you do in club is what matters. You know, against all those trans kids from those blue states that you are worried about.