"if you want to chop your balls and penis off more power to you but accept the consequences that comes with that action. Take it like a man my boy...."
I'm putting this on a t-shirt... giving you full credit, of course.
5 biological men roster wins Australian women's soccer league title & also undefeated this season
- Thread starter Veritas
- Start date
I'm putting this on a t-shirt... giving you full credit, of course.
Putting satire aside, if I ever had a son or if any of my daughters chose to transition in the future, I would respect their decision. But with that respect comes a reality check: the path they’re choosing, especially when it involves irreversible changes like genital surgery, will have real-world consequences. Society may not always be kind or accepting, and it’s crucial they understand that.
If my hypothetical son, who loves soccer, decided to transition, I’d tell him the truth: life doesn’t always accommodate your desires. If you’ve been blessed with the athletic advantages of male puberty, that’s a gift not shared with biological women. Nature dealt you a certain hand, and society has its own rules, especially in competitive sports.
I teach my daughters who play ECNL that sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose. That’s life. No participation trophies, no special treatment just hard work and fair play. And that’s a lesson I’d extend to any of my children, no matter their gender identity.
To my hypothetical trans son: Do what makes you happy, but understand the consequences. If you’re aiming to compete in women’s soccer, it’s not going to happen. And when that reality hits, I hope you’re strong enough to handle it, because I didn’t raise you to be a victim. I raised you to face the world head-on, no excuses, no shortcuts. Life is about playing the cards you’re dealt, not rewriting the rules to suit your own narrative.
I note you can't get here without making a moral judgement about what's happening, where I think is my fundamental disagreement. Because otherwise:
Sorry son, you are ADHD, but you shouldn't take the medication...no short cuts and play the cards you're dealt.
Sorry son, you are autistic, but you shouldn't get school accommodations....no short cuts and play the cards you're dealt
Sorry son, you're a fatty, no ozempic for you...you made your choices, no short cuts and play the cards you're dealt.
Sorry son, you are gay, no marriage for you...you made your choices, no short cuts and play the cards you're dealt.
Sorry son, you married the black girl, people gonna hate that...you made your choices, no short cuts and play the cards you're dealt.
Sorry son, you married someone sterile, no IVF children for you....you made your choices, no short cuts and play the cards you're dealt.
More putting your words in other people’s mouths?
I see where you’re coming from, but I think there’s a key difference in how we view personal responsibility and the role of external interventions. The scenarios you mention like ADHD medication, school accommodations for autism, medical treatments such as Ozempic, or societal acceptance of marriage choices are about leveling the playing field so that individuals can thrive despite their inherent challenges. These are not shortcuts; they are tools that allow people to participate fully in life, given the cards they were dealt.
However, when it comes to competitive sports, especially in the context of male-to-female transition, we are not just talking about leveling the playing field; we are talking about fundamentally altering it. Sports are inherently about fairness, and the advantages conferred by male puberty cannot be negated by a change in gender identity. It is not about denying someone the right to live authentically; it is about maintaining the integrity of competition.
My philosophy is not about denying people the help they need or the love they deserve. It is about recognizing that every decision carries consequences. In competitive sports, where fairness is paramount, allowing a trans woman who has undergone male puberty to compete against cis women is not fair it gives one player an advantage that others simply do not have period and you agreed on this.
To my hypothetical trans son, I would say: I support you in living your truth, but I will not deny the reality of the situation. Life is not always fair, and sometimes, your decisions will limit your options. That is not a moral judgment; it is acknowledging the reality of competitive balance and the importance of playing fair in every sense of the word.
If Dad4 renounces his position on the mask, stand 6 feet away from me or else, wash your hands you sinners and the mandates on the jabs, then he and I can be online friends. It's coming down to your position on science regarding, "what is a woman."
Don't take any medication or jabs from Big Pharma. RFK Jr will be heading up a task force on al the poisons in our kids and a task force to finally let America know who killed his uncle and his dad. Bobby knows the truth. Hang tight Gracie, soon you will know more than you can handle.
Nope. It’s a common technique in Socratic methodology such as we use to teach law school. Drawing a logical extension of the principles drawn up and applying them to new situations.
Translator help me out
Translator: “I don’t like it when my own principles are used against me.”
Me: “oh”
A few observations:
-this is the same thing. All evidence points to a biological condition possibly linked to autism. So “level the playing field so individuals can thrive despite their inherent challenges”. No I hear you that in some cases the playing field cannot be leveled without costing someone else (cis women). Well in those cases it’s incumbent on you then to divert resources for a third level. It’s still gonna cost you at least money
-I’ve pointed out before there’s no such thing as fairness. It’s not a useful construct to analyze this. Fairness in this case is a function of birth accident and the rules, and can be entirely in the eye of the beholder
-a level playing field is a valid concern in sports. However it is not the only or even the paramount concern. Otherwise we would ped test all competitive youth athletes (efficiency) and we wouldn’t bother with a separate women’s division and just reward the best athlete which is almost always going to be a man (participation). We’re back to Aristotle’s flute and what really is the purpose, or telos, of sport.
-the fact remains you are willing to make accommodations in those circumstances but here it’s “too bad so sad”. Why?
If your in favor of the X and Y test, would you allow an XX to compete with excessive levels of testosterone? (I'm a yes, because if you set a standard I think you should "live and die" by that standard)
Would you allow a MTF adult that transitioned pre-puberty to compete in non-recreational women's sports? (I'm a maybe, but uncomfortable with all the issues with minors transitioning, which I believe should be exceptionally rare).
I would personally say yes to this because you can fix that issue with a T suppressor. She is a biological woman.
For me, it feels uncomfortable because a child would have to make such a significant decision at a young age, which could lead to negative moral consequences in the future. If that young adult later regrets the decision, recognizing that they were too young to have made it, who should bear the blame the child or the parents? However, if the situation arises where the child transitions and, due to hormone suppressants, did not go through male puberty, I would be open to the idea of them competing as a "trans woman" in the women's division. If this can be explained with objective common sense, it's something I could accept.
Yes but I agree the incentives are all wrong. I think we really really don’t want minors transitioning except in very exceptional cases. One way to fix those incentives is to allow a functional route forward where they can still participate in sports so it’s not an all or nothing choice. I think the Europeans also have it right in severely restricting the ability of minors to transition. The effects are permanent and cannot be undone.
You know that's complete bullshit. Everywhere else, but apparently law school, that's considered a strawman. Plus a lot of law isn't about what's "right or wrong"/"true or false" it's what you can get the jury or the adversarial party to believe.
You used to be a good faith debater/poster. Why are you resorting to mischaracterizing people's opinions? You keep telling us to consider all the variables and not to oversimplify things, yet you paint others with a "black and white" characterization of their opinions. (i.e. if you believe A to be true, then B is true)
I miss the old GraceT.
Again I take you back to the bev cart girls. What is their purpose? Is their purpose to flirt with old rich men or is their purpose to be mobile bartenders? If it’s the former it makes no sense to dress you up in a frilly outfit and have you ride around in a pink buggy chatting up old dudes looking for your Mrs degree. If it’s the latter then we don’t have a right to deny you a profession because you can tend bar as well as the next.
Aristotle is kicking himself in his grave btw….
Ahh.. So you want to attack me with the telos of sports... lol Good ole Aristotle would be very proud of you Grace! But let’s not forget, while the purpose of a flute may be to play music, the purpose of sport is Competition, and competition thrives on fairness, as elusive as that concept may seem to you Grace. Sure, fairness might be in the eye of the beholder, but in sports, we attempt to define it with rules that keep the game honest right?
Now, when it comes to creating a third category the 'other et al' category I’m actually for it. It could be a great way to include those who don’t fit neatly into the existing divisions. But let’s also be realistic. Resources are finite, and even with the best intentions, we might not be able to create a separate division for every variation in ability or identity. Still, I believe it’s worth exploring because it offers a potential solution that respects everyone’s rights while preserving the integrity of competition.
As for accommodations, yes, I believe in them where they make sense and don’t fundamentally alter the playing field. ADHD medication, school accommodations these level the playing field without giving anyone an unfair advantage in direct competition. But when it comes to sports, especially in cases where the physical advantages from male puberty are in play, the scales tip too far to simply shrug it off as a birth accident.
So why am I willing to make accommodations in some areas but not here? Because in this arena, fairness or at least our best attempt at it ensures that competition remains meaningful. And if fairness is too abstract, let’s just say I’m advocating for the integrity of the sport. We don’t hand out gold medals for the best flute performance at a piano recital, after all.
Not what I’m doing. I’m testing propositions by expanding the principles to new circumstances. If “having a place to play” even if you can’t realistically compete is fine for one group why isn’t it fine for another. If a marriage contract should not be held up unless it’s in writing why not a real estate contract. If free speech is ok for this one group why isn’t it ok when you disagree with it. I’m not saying you literally think girls should be thrown into the men’s division. I’m point out that’s where the rule you articulated leads to. Because otherwise you are forced to distinguish it
My translator is sad btw: “I miss when you agreed with me”. I miss that too, but unlike some people (ahem), I respect your reasoning
That’s a good argument. Two nits:
There are some accommodations like added time that people object to
We do hand out awards for the best flute and ppiano layers all the time
Is this "right" or "fair" to require someone to take a serious biology changing medication to compete? Did you know that in international track and field that the IAAF testosterone test only applies to women athletes with a DSD condition? Non-DSD women with excessive levels of T are not required to reduce their T with T suppressants. If high T is a performance enhancer than its seems arbitrary to apply the rule to only certain woman. This is not to mention that the level of T that disqualifies someone from competition is subjective. Who gets to decide how masculine is too masculine?
Also the IAAF rules on high T only applies to certain events. For instance it applies to the 400m but not the 200m. For setting rules of competition this just seem far too arbitrary and why I favor a simple X and Y test.
Good points, Grace Added time in sports is a bit like that extra scoop of ice cream, some think it’s a sweet deal, others cry foul over the extra calories. But here’s the thing... it’s a rule applied across the board, so everyone’s still playing the same game, just with a little extra time on the clock.
Now, about those musical awards, I agree we recognize talent across different instruments. But that’s exactly why we don’t have a flutist and a pianist battling it out for the same trophy right? Imagine the confusion if we did...
We keep them in their own categories because even in music, fairness matters.So when it comes to sports, it’s the same principle. We need to keep the lanes clear don’t mix up the sprint with the marathon. And if someone’s bringing a whole new game to the field, maybe it’s time to create a new category, like the ‘other et al’ division. After all, just like we wouldn’t judge a pianist on their flute skills, we shouldn’t throw everyone into the same competition and call it fair. Let’s celebrate everyone’s unique talents just without asking the flutist to win a piano contest you think?