Welcome to the club bro. I hold the record of trophies awarded but I'm looking to retire very soon. I have been reported the most as well.
5 biological men roster wins Australian women's soccer league title & also undefeated this season
- Thread starter Veritas
- Start date
Mr. Rodgers taught me this when I was a young boy.
Watch: https://1a-1791.com/video/s8/2/9/_/D/J/9_DJt.caa.mp4?b=1&u=ummtf
Watch: https://1a-1791.com/video/s8/2/9/_/D/J/9_DJt.caa.mp4?b=1&u=ummtf
I'm really starting to question it now. Could Grace really be a leftist in disguise if she agrees with this gender narrative? Very possible
Matt Walsh did a brilliant documentary on What is a Woman... You guys should watch it... Brilliant documentary that really exposes the leftists narrative behind gender identity.
www.documentaryarea.com
He has also just released his new comedy in theatres now. "Am i racist? Great film exposing leftist narrative.
What Is a Woman
It's the question you're not allowed to ask. The documentary they don't want you to see. Are gender......
www.documentaryarea.com
He has also just released his new comedy in theatres now. "Am i racist? Great film exposing leftist narrative.
With my memory, no. Plus its not really anything that would stand out in my mind. I used to go to a place in PB regularly because the place trained massage therapists and it was cheap.
Did you vote for Hillary? Crooked Joe? Everyone you voted are all the same wolf in sheep's clothing. Hate is very strong word, but it is the times we live in. The people WHO hate Trump have tried to kill him numerous times. My liberal pal told me off the record that if Trump was ASSasinated, his view of the country would be better. This guy is so scared of Trump. It makes me wonder what he has hidden in his closets.
Well, Tulsi (who I adore) is voting for Trump so I suppose anything is possible.
NO! If that's what you think then you haven't been paying attention for 50 odd pages. That's not the entire argument. That's not even THE argument except amongst some leftist (and rightist like Walsh) loons. The argument is that everyone, man, woman or trans, is entitled to a sports playing field that is reasonably level, reasonably safe, participatory and efficient. You don't get to say to any one group "we don't care, you don't matter".
OMG, whether you realize it or not you just made the argument trans people aren't entitled to rights??? Now, you've shown yourself to be extremely thoughtful so I'm fairly certain you aren't a bigot and are in an entirely different category as Slobi (and maybe pew who continues to avoid answering the uncomfortable questions). But there's no such thing as a "special" right. Something is a right, or it isn't. It's not special because an African American, or woman, or Jew or gay person asks for it. And the unfortunate reality is that no one here has been able to give a non-bigoted reason for why trans people aren't entitled to rights. What you just laid out here is a very radical, very shocking hard right position (akin to trans people get in the back of the bus, we don't care). I don't think you mean that.
No you're wrong here too. You do know that for over 50 years (since they first started performing transgender care) there were standards in place by the sports governing boards with rules that sought to provide over when MTF could participate in the women's sport. Those rules were written on a sports by sports basis. So it's always been complicated....since this issue arose it has never been simple. Three things changed. 1. It's been coming out in the last 10 years how much of an impact puberty actually has on development. The doctors used to think they could correct for that, for example by being x number of years post puberty It turns out that in at least some sports, you can't. we didn't know this because there were so few trans athletes that a study could simply not be made until the numbers recently increased; 2. title IX came and a lot of the arguments made here about needing full equality were raised by the men but were dismissed at the time (same in Europe BTW)...again a lot of the discrimination rubric is now defenders of women's sports getting hoisted by their own petard on the arguments they made in favor of title ix equal treatment; and 3. the left made it their position that gender is a spectrum and anyone should be free to play wherever they feel. But this is a situation which was relatively stabled for 40 years until the consensus was blown up. Did you not know the history of this? So it's not it's been this way forever, leftists why are you changing it? Both left and right, as well as new scientific understandings, blew up the consensus. But make no mistake, what YOU are arguing for is a different way of looking at it than what has happened the last 40 years.
So to conclude this argument, trans women aren’t biological women period. And they shouldn’t be given special rights in sports just because they’ve transitioned or have been placed in a special group. Especially in sports at the highest level... We can’t ignore biological reality for the sake of inclusion. That’s why fairness in competition demands we hold the line. Really how can anyone with common sense argue this fact? The fact that trans women are NOT WOMEN. This has been proven by biology and it’s the fundamental flaw in all courts entertaining this ridiculous argument. Mic Drop...
Again biology is irrelevant to this question. It's a question of individual rights since everyone has a right to a reasonably level playing field, to be reasonably safe, to participation and to efficiency. Yes I agree sports at the highest level is especially about the level playing field. But it is not the only value, particularly as you move down the pyramid.
As to the legalities, again there are different rubrics you have to squeeze this into. That's really all your choices:
1. Discrimination (in which case the result is MTF in F FTM in M; or MTF in M and FTM in F even if testosterone; take out what matters in sports...remove the merits and scholarships; or MTF and FTM in M but handicap the men...Scalia compared that to a Kurt Vonnaugut (sp?) story). Your simple solution depends on who has the power to ram it through.
2. Disability (in which case you must make an accommodation but only to the extent reasonable) or
3. No protection (in which case you have to have a way to distinguish why trans individuals are not entitled to rights, particularly if there is a neurological component, and no calling them "special" doesn't handwaive them away).
Prediction time. Based on the information dad4 provided with respect to Fina, I suspect the ECJ is going to go the disability route. The US in part depends on the election (which makes this issue somewhat winner take all) but eventually we are going to have a problem with an athlete in California being not allowed to play in Florida and an equal protection of the laws case goes up to the Supreme Court (whoever controls it at the time). As I wrote previously, given the Olympics are to be hosted in Los Angeles, there's a lot of room for some enterprising leftists to make mischief. If you think it's a mess now, errrr...wait until 2028 (and no, I suspect given who runs Florida and California I don't think the federal courts are going to settle this regardless of who wins the 2024 election...I don't see either Florida or California backing down).
I don't how you are able to articulate so fast Grace but let me start with this one
Grace, I see how you interpreted my point, but I want to clarify. First stop putting words in my mouth that I did not say.
When I say we can’t hand out special rights, I’m referring to changing the competitive structure of women’s sports to accommodate individuals who have gone through male puberty and retain those physical advantages. It’s not about denying trans people their rights in general, it’s about preserving the fairness of competition that women’s sports were created to protect. Sports aren’t about identity; they’re about physical capability, and that’s why we separate athletes based on biology in the first place. This you don't seem to comprehend.
So no, I’m not advocating for trans people to be “put in the back of the bus.” I’m saying that in the specific context of competitive sports, the rules need to reflect biological realities to maintain fairness. This isn’t about denying trans rights; it’s about ensuring that women’s sports remain a fair competition between biological women. That’s not a radical position it’s one rooted in the integrity of the game. I'll get back to you on the rest later... lol I have no time now.
Grace, I see how you interpreted my point, but I want to clarify. First stop putting words in my mouth that I did not say.
This isn’t about denying trans people their rights far from it. Everyone, including trans people, is entitled to basic human rights, like dignity, respect, and freedom from discrimination. What I’m talking about here is specific to sports, which are built on the concept of fair competition within biological categories.
When I say we can’t hand out special rights, I’m referring to changing the competitive structure of women’s sports to accommodate individuals who have gone through male puberty and retain those physical advantages. It’s not about denying trans people their rights in general, it’s about preserving the fairness of competition that women’s sports were created to protect. Sports aren’t about identity; they’re about physical capability, and that’s why we separate athletes based on biology in the first place. This you don't seem to comprehend.
So no, I’m not advocating for trans people to be “put in the back of the bus.” I’m saying that in the specific context of competitive sports, the rules need to reflect biological realities to maintain fairness. This isn’t about denying trans rights; it’s about ensuring that women’s sports remain a fair competition between biological women. That’s not a radical position it’s one rooted in the integrity of the game. I'll get back to you on the rest later... lol I have no time now.
I SPECIFICALLY said that I thought you misspoke and didn't mean what you wrote. But you were the one that chose to call the rights "special". BTW, that's the exact same phrase the segregationist lawyers made to the courts in trying to keep in place separate but equal. It's THE EXACT SAME WORDING. but I know you didn't know that, and didn't intend to mean it that way, so I am glad you clarified
No as to the wording....SPECIFIC TO SPORTS....it's a decent argument. Perhaps a hard conservative court (harder BTW than the current SCOTUS since I think ECB and the chief both reject this interpretation given the PGA precedent) would rule that sports are somewhat different and you can draw a blue line around it. But I don't think it survives anything short of that. The reason is because we know sports are about more than just a level playing field, because of the arguments surrounding title IX regarding participation. Again, men arguing against title IX made the VERY SAME argument which was rejected. That argument was surrendered the moment title ix got put into place and I don't think you can argue "well we really didn't mean it" without undermining title IX itself (which BTW, might be in the end the result you get in a hard conservative court which has always had hostility towards both Title IX and Title XI). TANSTAAFL.
Again the first question is irrelevant. For legal and ethical purposes it stops as soon as you say "trans". That means rights are triggered.
And it's not that my logic is flawed. Again, you are complaining about the logic used to put in place Title IX. If you are arguing that, you are arguing against the equality principle in title IX since that logic then doesn't make sense either. And if you get your wish and a hard right court were actually to agree with you, the result you might get is that certain protections under title ix and title xi get swept right out the window along with it. TANSTAAFL.
p.s. if you were to tell me right here right now, o.k. I get the participation argument of title IX was wrong. Women's sports have advanced as far as they can from a participation point of view and sports are different. I get it. Men and women can never be equal, including participation, so thanks title ix, like affirmative action, it's time for you to go. Then, 1. I'm going to be outraged for woman, but 2. I'll also declare o.k. you win....draw a blue around sports....they are special, but 3. then it's not about the women....it maybe as simple as your desire for simplicity, or in the case of people like Slobi bigotry, but it's not about the women.
Grace, I see what you’re getting at, but I’m not arguing that Title IX’s participation argument was wrong back when it was created. Title IX was essential in giving women the opportunity to compete on a level playing field and get the same access to sports that men had. It worked because it addressed a genuine imbalance in access. But we have to acknowledge that fair competition was also at the heart of Title IX & not just participation. Women were granted their own categories because their biological realities required it to ensure fair competition.
Now, fast forward to today. Women’s sports have come a long way, thanks to Title IX, but the conversation has shifted. The issue now isn’t just about participation anymore; it’s about maintaining that fairness for the women who have worked so hard to carve out these spaces. Allowing trans women, who still carry the biological advantages of male puberty, to compete in women’s sports changes the whole dynamic. It’s not about inclusion vs. exclusion but about protecting the fairness that Title IX was built to uphold.
So no, I’m not saying Title IX’s participation argument was wrong. But the reality is that we can’t apply the same logic to trans athletes without undermining the fairness that was the bedrock of Title IX from the start. Sports are different because competition inherently involves categories based on physical realities, and those categories need to be respected if we want to keep things fair. Do you get this Grace?
It’s not about bigotry or simplicity. It’s about recognizing that biological differences still matter in sports and that we need to protect the fairness and integrity of competition for all athletes, especially the women Title IX was designed to support in the first place.
@Grace T. So while we both agree that trans women and biological women are different, I’m arguing that this difference is precisely why MTF athletes shouldn’t compete in women’s sports after they have gone through male puberty. It’s not about exclusion; it’s about keeping the competition fair for the women who have worked so hard to compete in their own category. That's it and if you can agree to that then I have nothing else to argue about. The original Topic on this thread is "
Based on my argument above... What Australia allowed in their women's soccer league is not fair
"5 biological men roster wins Australian women's soccer league title & also undefeated this season"
Based on my argument above... What Australia allowed in their women's soccer league is not fair
You can have the fair competition without having the equality principle in place. But in fact, the equality principle runs against biological requirements, because otherwise you should let biology have at it and let the chips fall where you may...if there wind up being more men in sports than women, then so be it....that's biology and the way nature has set up things. Some people sometimes argue that affirmative action was necessary at the time to deal with the after math of segregation but is now longer necessary now. If so, removing the equality principle of title IX would mean that women's sports should be able to continue without interruption because the market will take care of it now since it was a temporary measure needed to address the imbalances created by the patriarchy. Any takers? What if we were to tell to your daughters, o.k. here's the tradeoff, we're going to ban all trans (FTM MTF) at all levels of women's sports, but we are losing the equality principle of title IX and letting the market dictate where things fall, do you think they'd take it? Because that's what a conservative court is likely to do since they've always hated the equality principle of title IX (as well as some of the problems that have resulted from title XI). Fair trade off?
And for the record, no I'm not actually advocating this. If that's the tradeoff, y'all know I vote no...I like my equality principle. TANSTAAFL.
Hey I could be wrong on this....but didn't someone mention that was a rec or semi pro league? If so, that's outside the scope of your elite athletes so what are you complaining about? If not, sorry I misheard someone and I'm sorry.
researching this again yes you are right... This is not the top league in Australia. So yea who cares then
CASE CLOSED
Fifty plus pages when we could have been done in 1researching this again yes you are right... This is not the top league in Australia. So yea who cares then
Well, I appreciate the debate and it was fun. Your arguments were really great and really challenged me. Great job! Putting on my lawyer cap, the actual best argument I think for the segregation side is a technical one: one where the supreme court rules that transgendered people are not a protected class for sports purposes simply because Congress did not expressly include transgendered people into title ix. There are two issues with that. Firstly, if you get a D president and congress, and they blow up the filibuster (or ram it through as part of reconciliation funding) it's an easy, tiny legislative fix. But assuming not, the legal result then is, like Dobbs, it gets kicked back to the states. The result in California is very clear: you get to play where you preferred gender. The result in Florida is equally clear to the contrary. But given higher level sports takes place nationally, it's going to head for a collision because people on either side are going to argue full faith and credit to the laws of their state. What happens after that is anyone's guess, but by then I'm fairly certain we'll have an ECJ ruling in Europe that definitive applies discrimination law, making a further mess of things.
It was a great debate @Grace T. I have to admit I was quite challenged myself as well. Took me back to my college days for sure…Fifty plus pages when we could have been done in 1
Putting on my lawyer cap, the actual best argument I think for the segregation side is a technical one: one where the supreme court rules that transgendered people are not a protected class for sports purposes simply because Congress did not expressly include transgendered people into title ix. There are two issues with that. Firstly, if you get a D president and congress, and they blow up the filibuster (or ram it through as part of reconciliation funding) it's an easy, tiny legislative fix. But assuming not, the legal result then is, like Dobbs, it gets kicked back to the states. The result in California is very clear: you get to play where you preferred gender. The result in Florida is equally clear to the contrary. But given higher level sports takes place nationally, it's going to head for a collision because people on either side are going to argue full faith and credit to the laws of their state. What happens after that is anyone's guess, but by then I'm fairly certain we'll have an ECJ ruling in Europe that definitive applies discrimination law, making a further mess of things.