5 biological men roster wins Australian women's soccer league title & also undefeated this season

[Slobodan]

But I’m not the one that’s the bigot….

Whos the granny here if it’s not me? What granny then if you arent talking about my granny? My mom????

You ARE the granny here. You're also the same one that accused me of trashing your deceased grandmother. Didn't happen. Another made up lie.
Then you went on to say, such and such post of mine, on such and such page of this thread, shows I'm a racist. Didn't happen. Another made up lie.
Keeping men out of the women's restroom, when a female child is in it alone, makes me morally right. Bigot? Whatever. I wear that proudly.
Keeping MTF athletes out of female's sports, because they AREN'T female, makes me morally right. Go play co-ed. I wear that proudly, too.

When someone says they want to set women's rights back a good 20-years, you should receive the first call.

 

[dad4]

Here is a fine example of the concern you show for the needs of female athletes:

"Fairness" is an elusive concept, especially since from a Rawlsian perspective we are assigning merit based (in part...yes hard work plays a part in it) on accidents of birth. It is not as easy as saying a level playing field because that level playing field does not exist. One, in part it is a function of the rules which can be adjusted to favor one participant at the expense of another (the age line is an obvious example). For example, if I were to lower the height of a basketball hoop from where it is to 5'5'' shorter people would gain an advantage in defending that basket. Moreover, sports has other values including participation. Indeed, the entire argument for women's sport was not a merit one....in almost all sports women's sports is SUBSTANTIALLY worse so the best women's basketball or soccer game is a worse spectating event than the equivalent men's game on the same level.

I agree, however, that a level playing field is one of the goals we have in sports. Such a level playing field must be balanced with the other concerns such as participations. Otherwise, there is no effective purpose to having a separate women's category. Make it all coed.

In other words, "If you don't let XY people play as girls, then we might as well eliminate women's sports entirely."

Got it. In order to demonstrate your deep empathy for female athletes, you proposed getting rid of all women's sports.

( It couldn't possibly have been a lame attempt to create a truly awful proposal, in order to make your position look better by comparison. That would be dishonest. )

 

[Grace T.]

Here is a fine example of the concern you show for the needs of female athletes:



In other words, "If you don't let XY people play as girls, then we might as well eliminate women's sports entirely."

Got it. In order to demonstrate your deep empathy for female athletes, you proposed getting rid of all women's sports.

( It couldn't possibly have been a lame attempt to create a truly awful proposal, in order to make your position look better by comparison. That would be dishonest. )

A bit thick, huh? It was a hypothetical to get at reasoning for why it's important for women to have a separate sports category. Having a little trouble distinguishing between a hypothetical and an actual real world scenario? Hmmm.....I thought someone like you would have had to have done well on the SAT to get to teach math, but maybe I'm mistaken about that??? Baffling....I expect some low IQ stuff from Slobi, I don't generally expect it from you.

What was that reason? Because there is value is having women have a place where they can participate in sports without having the men dominate.

Then it points out your hypocrisy, because as I pointed out, you ONLY care about the women having a level playing field. You don't care about the level playing field for the trans person, despite your having said participation is important in sports. And if you answer is "f'em they deserve it", and that makes you feel uncomfortable, then don't complain to me.

That's on you, not me.

 

[Grace T.]

You ARE the granny here. You're also the same one that accused me of trashing your deceased grandmother. Didn't happen. Another made up lie.
Then you went on to say, such and such post of mine, on such and such page of this thread, shows I'm a racist. Didn't happen. Another made up lie.
Keeping men out of the women's restroom, when a female child is in it alone, makes me morally right. Bigot? Whatever. I wear that proudly.
Keeping MTF athletes out of female's sports, because they AREN'T female, makes me morally right. Go play co-ed. I wear that proudly, too.

When someone says they want to set women's rights back a good 20-years, you should receive the first call.

O.k. let's parse this apart.

1. I'm not a grandmother, so again, who were you referring to? Pew maintained when I said "go cry to your mama" I was referring to your actual mother, instead of saying "you are a whiney little baby instead of a real man". Unless you know something about my kids (in which case I thought the entire thing was we weren't bringing kids into this) that I don't, when did I become the granny? It must refer to someone else, hence my grandmother or my mother, right? Otherwise who's the granny? I don't get it.
2. I never said you were racist. I said you were fixated on black colleges (which you said exclude whites, which they don't) and then that african americans can use the n word but it's bad for white people. I asked the question why's that? If you're the one connecting the dots, you're doing that to yourself. So now you are lying.
3. As to your post 373, you never used the word "alone". You said "same public bathroom my daughter is in". You never qualified the age of your daughter, despite being invited to. You never qualified what you meant by "man". So those are all revisionist lies. What's worse is this now the 11th time you've been asked to qualify your statements, such as with "and that person is doing something illegal in there" that would justify your violence in self defense of others. Lie.
4. Proudly? Again I challenged you if you are so proud to unmask yourself. Let's hear it and see what society thinks about it. So another lie.
5. So you make this big deal about me finding your quote, and I finally do and it shows exactly what I said it did, with "target" and violence ("by the throat/jury") and you are trying to gaslight me now into that it doesn't say what I think it says, despite that you've been given 11 TIMES the chance to clarify your statement. Now you are lying not only to me, but to yourself and reality itself.
6. So for someone that is so incensed at my supposed lying, you seem to be engaging in quite a bit of hypocrisy here.
7. That would, by logical extension, make you not only a bigot, but also a liar and a hypocrite. Good times.

 

[Slobodan]

O.k. let's parse this apart.

1. I'm not a grandmother, so again, who were you referring to? Pew maintained when I said "go cry to your mama" I was referring to your actual mother, instead of saying "you are a whiney little baby instead of a real man". Unless you know something about my kids (in which case I thought the entire thing was we weren't bringing kids into this) that I don't, when did I become the granny? It must refer to someone else, hence my grandmother or my mother, right? Otherwise who's the granny? I don't get it.
2. I never said you were racist. I said you were fixated on black colleges (which you said exclude whites, which they don't) and then that african americans can use the n word but it's bad for white people. I asked the question why's that? If you're the one connecting the dots, you're doing that to yourself. So now you are lying.
3. As to your post 373, you never used the word "alone". You said "same public bathroom my daughter is in". You never qualified the age of your daughter, despite being invited to. You never qualified what you meant by "man". So those are all revisionist lies. What's worse is this now the 11th time you've been asked to qualify your statements, such as with "and that person is doing something illegal in there" that would justify your violence in self defense of others. Lie.
4. Proudly? Again I challenged you if you are so proud to unmask yourself. Let's hear it and see what society thinks about it. So another lie.
5. So you make this big deal about me finding your quote, and I finally do and it shows exactly what I said it did, with "target" and violence ("by the throat/jury") and you are trying to gaslight me now into that it doesn't say what I think it says, despite that you've been given 11 TIMES the chance to clarify your statement. Now you are lying not only to me, but to yourself and reality itself.
6. So for someone that is so incensed at my supposed lying, you seem to be engaging in quite a bit of hypocrisy here.
7. That would, by logical extension, make you not only a bigot, but also a liar and a hypocrite. Good times.

Let's not. I think everyone is pretty sick of reading you whining about me.

 

[Grace T.]

Let's not. I think everyone is pretty sick of reading you whining about me.

Because you can't defend it. That leaves you a bigot, a liar and a hypocrite. Nice!

Shall we talk about why this topic gets you so hot and bothered? Lashing out ain't a normal response including throwing around the slurs starting on page 1. Anything to say for yourself? Especially, since I say on page 1, on other topics, even the ones your feel passionately about, you tend to be quite thoughtful? I gave you possibilities, but in fairness I don't really know what your deal is....care to share?

 

[Slobodan]

Because you can't defend it. That leaves you a bigot, a liar and a hypocrite. Nice!

Shall we talk about why this topic gets you so hot and bothered? Lashing out ain't a normal response including throwing around the slurs starting on page 1. Anything to say for yourself? Especially, since I say on page 1, on other topics, even the ones your feel passionately about, you tend to be quite thoughtful? I gave you possibilities, but in fairness I don't really know what your deal is....care to share?

You remind me of the guy that picks a fight, gets knocked the fuck out, wakes up 5 minutes later, puts his dukes up and wonders where everyone went.

 

[Grace T.]

You remind me of the guy that picks a fight, gets knocked the fuck out, wakes up 5 minutes later, puts his dukes up and wonders where everyone went.

You remind me that guy that picks that fight, beclowns himself, yet is so self delusional he thinks he is winning. You’re Charlie sheen. “Winning”.

 

[dad4]

A bit thick, huh? It was a hypothetical to get at reasoning for why it's important for women to have a separate sports category. Having a little trouble distinguishing between a hypothetical and an actual real world scenario? Hmmm.....I thought someone like you would have had to have done well on the SAT to get to teach math, but maybe I'm mistaken about that??? Baffling....I expect some low IQ stuff from Slobi, I don't generally expect it from you.

What was that reason? Because there is value is having women have a place where they can participate in sports without having the men dominate.

Then it points out your hypocrisy, because as I pointed out, you ONLY care about the women having a level playing field. You don't care about the level playing field for the trans person, despite your having said participation is important in sports. And if you answer is "f'em they deserve it", and that makes you feel uncomfortable, then don't complain to me.

That's on you, not me.

A hypothetical. Yes. Also known as "a lame attempt to create a truly awful proposal, in order to make your own position look better by comparison."

Real moderates don't need to invent radical positions to make themselves look reasonable.

 

[Grace T.]

A hypothetical. Yes. Also known as "a lame attempt to create a truly awful proposal, in order to make your own position look better by comparison."

Real moderates don't need to invent radical positions to make themselves look reasonable.

Dumb.
Again it's been entire way legal problems, philosophical problems, ethical problems and case studies in other fields (such as business and economics) are approached. The entire point is that participation is a valid value which is the entire bedrock of why we have women's sports. You just mad because it shows you up for a hypocrite because you don't extend the same value to the trans people. It makes you look like a bigot (which I don't think you are) or a fool (I don't think you are actually a fool, just that you didn't think things out and wound up painted into a corner) that didn't think things through and doesn't want to climb down, which is why you are mad. That (and not making my position look moderate, which BTW it already is considering the other side just wants to jam both FTM and MTF in the women's category) is the entire point of the exercise.
Dumb. You disappoint me. You're smarter than some of the rocks around here, which I can only assume means you know better and are just arguing in bad faith because that point is D-U-M-B.

 

[Veritas]

Some guys like being touched by another mans so much, that they have to fight off that struggle and desire. Many men who get all upset and homophobe are actually closet gay men. Veritas only said it makes him uncomfortable and I get it and respect that. Troy came highly recommended, and like I said earlier, I was not seeking a gay misuse. Veritas is the one who misses out on the magic hands of Troy because he will not let another man touch him. I respect Veritas. I also know a Chiropractor that does the back thing but also adds a 15-minute deep Thai massage. Veritas, would you let Dr. Jeff the Chiropractor massage you for 15 minutes after a nice adjustment?

As long Dr. Jeff does not jump on my back I might be open to it since he is a Doc right? The fact he’s a Doc just puts me at ease.

 

[Veritas]

Dumb.
Again it's been entire way legal problems, philosophical problems, ethical problems and case studies in other fields (such as business and economics) are approached. The entire point is that participation is a valid value which is the entire bedrock of why we have women's sports. You just mad because it shows you up for a hypocrite because you don't extend the same value to the trans people. It makes you look like a bigot (which I don't think you are) or a fool (I don't think you are actually a fool, just that you didn't think things out and wound up painted into a corner) that didn't think things through and doesn't want to climb down, which is why you are mad. That (and not making my position look moderate, which BTW it already is considering the other side just wants to jam both FTM and MTF in the women's category) is the entire point of the exercise.
Dumb. You disappoint me. You're smarter than some of the rocks around here, which I can only assume means you know better and are just arguing in bad faith because that point is D-U-M-B.

Grace, while participation is crucial, the creation of women’s sports wasn’t just about including women it was about providing a space where they could compete on a level playing field. It’s about ensuring that women can excel in sports without being at a biological disadvantage, which would make meaningful competition impossible.

In business and economics, we value inclusion, but we also recognize that rules exist to ensure fair competition. It’s the same with women’s sports, participation matters, but so does the fairness of that participation. Creating opportunities for women to compete with each other, without inherent physical disadvantages, is essential to maintaining the integrity of women’s sports. Without that balance, the entire foundation starts to crack.

At the highest level of competition, it’s about excellence and performance, not just participation. If the sole purpose were participation, then, logically, we'd have to include everyone, from novice to expert, which would undermine the very nature of elite competition. The point of elite sports is to identify and celebrate the best of the best athletes who have honed their skills, pushed their limits, and earned their place through merit within their level of biological playing field.

Participation is important at the grassroots and developmental levels, but at the top, it’s about rewarding those who have mastered their craft. That’s why we have categories, divisions, and qualifiers to ensure that competition remains fair and meaningful, and to maintain the integrity of the sport.

 

[Grace T.]

Grace, while participation is crucial, the creation of women’s sports wasn’t just about including women it was about providing a space where they could compete on a level playing field. It’s about ensuring that women can excel in sports without being at a biological disadvantage, which would make meaningful competition impossible.

In business and economics, we value inclusion, but we also recognize that rules exist to ensure fair competition. It’s the same with women’s sports, participation matters, but so does the fairness of that participation. Creating opportunities for women to compete with each other, without inherent physical disadvantages, is essential to maintaining the integrity of women’s sports. Without that balance, the entire foundation starts to crack.

At the highest level of competition, it’s about excellence and performance, not just participation. If the sole purpose were participation, then, logically, we'd have to include everyone, from novice to expert, which would undermine the very nature of elite competition. The point of elite sports is to identify and celebrate the best of the best athletes who have honed their skills, pushed their limits, and earned their place through merit within their level of biological playing field.

Participation is important at the grassroots and developmental levels, but at the top, it’s about rewarding those who have mastered their craft. That’s why we have categories, divisions, and qualifiers to ensure that competition remains fair and meaningful, and to maintain the integrity of the sport.

Good points. But I didn’t say participation was the only consideration. Just that it is and we have to give consideration for both the t and the cis f. Another consideration is efficiency which is why we don’t test peds in youth sports and group by year instead of month. Another consideration is the level playing field but that means caring both about a level playing for the ts (sticking them with the men ain’t it once they are on the meds) and the fs. I agree we should be more restrictive the higher up we go on the pyramid.

 

[dad4]

Dumb.
Again it's been entire way legal problems, philosophical problems, ethical problems and case studies in other fields (such as business and economics) are approached. The entire point is that participation is a valid value which is the entire bedrock of why we have women's sports. You just mad because it shows you up for a hypocrite because you don't extend the same value to the trans people. It makes you look like a bigot (which I don't think you are) or a fool (I don't think you are actually a fool, just that you didn't think things out and wound up painted into a corner) that didn't think things through and doesn't want to climb down, which is why you are mad. That (and not making my position look moderate, which BTW it already is considering the other side just wants to jam both FTM and MTF in the women's category) is the entire point of the exercise.
Dumb. You disappoint me. You're smarter than some of the rocks around here, which I can only assume means you know better and are just arguing in bad faith because that point is D-U-M-B.

Reduced to personal insults already? That was quick. I'll take the win.

Participation is important. But there is no level playing field for trans athletes on the women's side. You can't build a body for 20 years with high testosterone, pull a switch, and think you've undone 20 years of hormone directed growth. Nor can you give a bunch of testosterone to an XX athlete and pretend it's still an equal competition.

There isn't even a level playing field within the trans community. Some people choose a purely social transition, while others go all in for surgery and full testosterone suppression. They're both trans, but it's not at all similar athletically. You could try to devise some kind of multiple levels thing, but you'd run out of participants before you filled the rosters.

If you want a level playing field, the only place you'll find enough people of similar speed and strength is within the men's leagues. Or, decide that social aspects are more important, and create a trans league despite the performance mismatches. Either one is a good way to encourage sports participation among the trans community.

 

[Grace T.]

Reduced to personal insults already? That was quick. I'll take the win.

Participation is important. But there is no level playing field for trans athletes on the women's side. You can't build a body for 20 years with high testosterone, pull a switch, and think you've undone 20 years of hormone directed growth. Nor can you give a bunch of testosterone to an XX athlete and pretend it's still an equal competition.

There isn't even a level playing field within the trans community. Some people choose a purely social transition, while others go all in for surgery and full testosterone suppression. They're both trans, but it's not at all similar athletically. You could try to devise some kind of multiple levels thing, but you'd run out of participants before you filled the rosters.

If you want a level playing field, the only place you'll find enough people of similar speed and strength is within the men's leagues. Or, decide that social aspects are more important, and create a trans league despite the performance mismatches. Either one is a good way to encourage sports participation among the trans community.

It’s not a personal insult. I specifically said you weren’t the fool or the bigot. It’s that you boxed yourself into a corner so now you just lash out. All you needed to do to get yourself out of that corner was say “yes trans people are entitled to participation and a level playing field, to the extent we can”. But instead you went with the dumb argument… one of the dumber arguments you’ve ever made on this site.

This latest argument, by contrast is very thoughtful. I think it’s great point that you can’t give an xx athlete a bunch of testosterone after puberty and expect them to compete with men. One of my points is we’ve been unfair to ftm athletes. But there are a few flaws. The first is sticking the mtf with men provides an equal playing field. That’s intellectually dishonest of you. We know it doesn’t because the moment you suppress t or introduce estrogen they won’t be able to compete. The second error is the playing field needs to be perfectly level. Social transitions would at the higher levels where we test not be allowed to compete in the open level if their t is high. They have testosterone to compete with the men. There isn’t a level playing field concern there…only a participation one (again the hammer beckons to you) that you’d need to figure out to make it work. As to post transition it’s not even clear the ftm mtf will be equivalent but again one concern we have in sports is efficiency. Because there is nothing “fair” (and you know this is a very sore subject with me) of having a December birthday compete with a January birthday in youth soccer. In some sports post transition protocols (eg a certain number of years post surgery) may be enough. In some sports we may have to measure it by t values (including bumping up high t women who refuse to suppress or who are found to have gone through the equivalence of male puberty, or low t men). Again it won’t be perfect but then the age line divisions aren’t perfect either.

I like your latest post. Other than the obvious errors (still not sure what to do about the hammer are you? Come on. Australia deux. It will be fun!), it’s very well reasoned and thoughtful.

 

[Grace T.]

Reduced to personal insults already? That was quick. I'll take the win.

Participation is important. But there is no level playing field for trans athletes on the women's side. You can't build a body for 20 years with high testosterone, pull a switch, and think you've undone 20 years of hormone directed growth. Nor can you give a bunch of testosterone to an XX athlete and pretend it's still an equal competition.

There isn't even a level playing field within the trans community. Some people choose a purely social transition, while others go all in for surgery and full testosterone suppression. They're both trans, but it's not at all similar athletically. You could try to devise some kind of multiple levels thing, but you'd run out of participants before you filled the rosters.

If you want a level playing field, the only place you'll find enough people of similar speed and strength is within the men's leagues. Or, decide that social aspects are more important, and create a trans league despite the performance mismatches. Either one is a good way to encourage sports participation among the trans community.

Ps if you take out the part about trans on t blockers, post surgery or estrogen being able to compete (which you know they can’t since being on t is a performance enhancing drug) with men this argument would be really solid. I know why you don’t: because it would force you to acknowledge a problem you can’t resolve very easily and you want this to be simple, but it isn’t, and you are struggling with it. The other portion you are struggling with is the hammer (which surprises me but ok…we all grow as people). But otherwise this is getting to be a pretty solid piece.

 

[pewpew]

A bit thick, huh? It was a hypothetical to get at reasoning for why it's important for women to have a separate sports category. Having a little trouble distinguishing between a hypothetical and an actual real world scenario? Hmmm.....I thought someone like you would have had to have done well on the SAT to get to teach math, but maybe I'm mistaken about that??? Baffling....I expect some low IQ stuff from Slobi, I don't generally expect it from you.

What was that reason? Because there is value is having women have a place where they can participate in sports without having the men dominate.

Then it points out your hypocrisy, because as I pointed out, you ONLY care about the women having a level playing field. You don't care about the level playing field for the trans person, despite your having said participation is important in sports. And if you answer is "f'em they deserve it", and that makes you feel uncomfortable, then don't complain to me.

That's on you, not me.

Resorting to personal attacks a.k.a "The Cornered Rat Syndrome". They taught you that in law school didn't they? Ask me how I know.
If they didn't they should've.

 

[pewpew]

Where, in the past 50 pages, do you ever place a value on the needs of female athletes?

Your track record speaks for itself here.

I think we could end the thread right here.

 

[pewpew]

Here is a fine example of the concern you show for the needs of female athletes:



In other words, "If you don't let XY people play as girls, then we might as well eliminate women's sports entirely."

Got it. In order to demonstrate your deep empathy for female athletes, you proposed getting rid of all women's sports.

( It couldn't possibly have been a lame attempt to create a truly awful proposal, in order to make your position look better by comparison. That would be dishonest. )

Or here.

 

[pewpew]

Grace, while participation is crucial, the creation of women’s sports wasn’t just about including women it was about providing a space where they could compete on a level playing field. It’s about ensuring that women can excel in sports without being at a biological disadvantage, which would make meaningful competition impossible.

In business and economics, we value inclusion, but we also recognize that rules exist to ensure fair competition. It’s the same with women’s sports, participation matters, but so does the fairness of that participation. Creating opportunities for women to compete with each other, without inherent physical disadvantages, is essential to maintaining the integrity of women’s sports. Without that balance, the entire foundation starts to crack.

At the highest level of competition, it’s about excellence and performance, not just participation. If the sole purpose were participation, then, logically, we'd have to include everyone, from novice to expert, which would undermine the very nature of elite competition. The point of elite sports is to identify and celebrate the best of the best athletes who have honed their skills, pushed their limits, and earned their place through merit within their level of biological playing field.

Participation is important at the grassroots and developmental levels, but at the top, it’s about rewarding those who have mastered their craft. That’s why we have categories, divisions, and qualifiers to ensure that competition remains fair and meaningful, and to maintain the integrity of the sport.

And if those two weren't enough..we could end it here.

But @Grace T. won't be having that...will you Grace?

 

[pewpew]

It’s not a personal insult. I specifically said you weren’t the fool or the bigot. It’s that you boxed yourself into a corner so now you just lash out. All you needed to do to get yourself out of that corner was say “yes trans people are entitled to participation and a level playing field, to the extent we can”. But instead you went with the dumb argument… one of the dumber arguments you’ve ever made on this site.

I like your latest post. Other than the obvious errors

Are you the pot or the kettle with this reply?

Nice back-handed compliments too. Bravo counselor!! (Slow sarcastic clap ensues.)