GoldenGate
GOLD
Uh, trans girls have been playing in ECNL for years without any problems. If your daughter is so terrible that she can't cope with a trans player, there is always rec.
Surf cup controversy
- Thread starter J0g0_B0nit0
- Start date
Uh, trans girls have been playing in ECNL for years without any problems. If your daughter is so terrible that she can't cope with a trans player, there is always rec.
SoccerSpoiler
SILVER ELITE
Because it goes against nature and what biology naturally produces, male and female. if the difference in the genetic code was normal then we would have as many trans people as there are males or females. All these new gender types are all woke diction. They are not natural to the evolutionary process. If it were then there would be a natural way to reproduce these genders.
GoldenGate
GOLD
I see. So having red hair is an error in the genetic code also? Having green eyes? Being left handed? And, uh, there is clearly a "natural way" to reproduce transgender people, which is for two people to have sex, which then produces a trans person. Just like two brunettes creating a ginger.
Your last formal education in genetics was obviously the D+ your HS biology teacher gave you just so he wouldn't have to see your clueless arse again the following year.
GoldenGate
GOLD
So Darwin, god only creates people with genetic codes the way you like them? So, if god didn't make transgender people, who did? Is there a second god? Did god create children with down syndrome? Sickle cell anemia? Did he create gay people, or did the other god do that too? Only 16% of the world's population is black. Is that a genetic error also? If nature can't produce trans people, why do trans people keep being produced?
Is there such a thing as biblical geneticism? Did you learn "genetics" in bible study?
Soccer Dad & Ref
SILVER ELITE
I'm honestly surprised this caveman (SoccerSpoulir, not you) even knew how to spell the word evolution, as he certainly doesn’t know what it means. Or he does, and doesn’t really believe in it though, right?
GoldenGate
GOLD
I have no idea how someone can honestly claim god made man and women while trying to explain how evolution words. But it seem clear that someone who believes "on faith" in an all powerful perfect and being in the sky will believe anything.
SoccerSpoiler
SILVER ELITE
red hair green eyes all those things are diversity within the genetic code. Same way dogs and cats are different color. So if a human was born with no legs, wouldn’t that be an error in the genetic code? Yes. It’s not natural to the nature of a human being. transsexuals born with the wrong sexual organs are also an error in the genetic code. If you are born with male genitalia but you feel like you are a woman then something went wrong. It’s either that or it’s mental illness. transgender, gender neutral, non-binary, agender, pangender, genderqueer, two-spirit, third gender, and all, none or a combination of these. Silliness… Woke people who are mentally disturbed is what this is.
To make another human being all you need is the dna of a man and a woman. A binary and a Trans cannot make another human being. When you have someone who is stuck in the wrong body and wants to change their sex then it’s an error in the genetic code or possibly mental illness. Something went wrong during birth or they experienced some traumatic event in their life. That’s not natural. Wether you believe in God or evolution is not the point. The point is that there are only 2 genders. Male or female. And you need only a male and a female to make another human being. Anything else is an error in the genetic code. There are clues clues within this universe that there is a duality to all things. Good or Bad. Yes and No. day and night.
+ and - true or false. Male or female. Case closed
GoldenGate
GOLD
You are conflating genetic differences with "right and wrong". The only reason you are ok with green eyes, but not transgender status, is you've rationalized that one is due to "diversity" and the other is "wrong", when the reality is they're both due to diversity. Idiots like you made the same bs argument about left-handed people being "wrong" too, and that is indefensible for the same reason.
Honestly, it's crazy that you think a transgender woman cannot make another human being, but that's not surprising since transphobes like you are so sexually repressed that you don't understand the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity. Let me give you a quick education in terminology you can understand. Gender identity is someone's internal sense of being and has nothing to do with where they want to stick their genitalia. Sexual orientation, on the other hand, is the latter. In short, transgender people have all the tools necessary to make it happen in the way that you want babies to be made "naturally", especially if they're a transgender woman who likes other women or a trans man who is into other men.
If you're bitter about people who don't want to reproduce your way, your real beef is with gay people who, although they too are perfectly capable of putting parts where you would prefer (and sometimes do), don't typically make babies the way you would like. I couldn't help notice, however, that you excluded them from your laundry list of people you hate as "unnatural", suffering form genetic "error" and possibly "mental illness". Is that because there are so many of them that it looks a lot like "genetic diversity" instead of "error" and undermines your ridiculous bs genetics nonsense? Or did you leave them off your hate list because you're chicken to voice an offensive bs opinion about such a large part of the population? C'mon, I know you want to say that being gay is also wrong and an "error" in the genetic code and "possibly mental illness", so just be a "man" and say it.
And what's your problem with non-binary? Why is it a genetic "error" for a biological dude to like bjs from both men and women, but it's perfectly fine if they only get them from the ladies? Or is everyone who likes bjs also suffering from a genetic "error" because they like something that isn't reproductive sex? Is it ok if a dude puts where the sun don't shine with a woman, or is it only a genetic "error" when it's another guy? Can you please explain to us exactly which sex acts are ok and which are the result of "genetic error" Mr. Darwin?
I could make the same argument about red hair.
I mean, there aren't many gingers out there. What more proof do you need of their degeneracy?
Happened again
SILVER ELITE
oh gawd sweetie, you are so confused but yet are able to weave such masterful sentences that don't say anything but reads like a lot. Tell me again the difference between gender identity and sexual orientation? I suppose you skipped science and biology when they talked about sex....it's possible.
Explain to me how someone without a uterus can have: a baby, a period? And please spare me, transwomen can certainly have PMS and PMDD, the science is pretty clear when it comes to hormone treatment. But having a baby without a uterus is nearly impossible...it's impossible without the other woman bits. I suspect you'll be feverishly using the google.
SoccerSpoiler
SILVER ELITE
true about red hair. @GoldenGate must not be male nor female in its mind. The only thing I’m arguing here is that there is only 2 cases for what biology suppose to do when it comes to mammals. Create a male or a female. That’s it. Every other one of those genders mentioned is a modern invention by man to distort reality in this new woke society. It’s an illusion of the mind to make woke people feel normal I guess. They can think what they want to think but in the majority of sane people’s minds they are male or female. I think it’s ridiculous to teach this extra gender BS to children. It can really damage their minds.
GoldenGate
GOLD
What does this uterus nonsense have to do with your buddy's argument that being trans is a genetic "error" but being a ginger is just genetic "diversity"?
The reason my sentences are masterful is because they're the truth and you have nothing to say in response, so you just change the subject. Why is it that you hate trans people so much? Your buddy is worried that they'll damage your child's mind? Is that what your real fear is? They'll make her a sexual deviant? Or just that she'll learn that trans people aren't scary like her scared little daddy keeps telling her, and that daddy's religion is such bs?
SoccerSpoiler
SILVER ELITE
Suppose we met a race of creatures—fairly clearly non-rational animals—that was very different from us: on Mars, say. And the question arises: are these creatures sexed? and if so, can we distinguish male and female? We need to think now how we would go about finding out these answers. We would not do it by investigating their psyches, nor even merely by just looking at (or cutting up) individuals. We would try to find out how they reproduced and what was the role of the different organs of the different individuals involved in reproduction. Thus, sex is a biological and teleological notion. Anything else which is called sexual is so called ultimately because it has some relation to this process, to these organs.
If we observe that the members of a species reproduce asexually, then we rightly conclude that neither male nor female exist in that species. But if we observe that two are required for reproduction to occur, we rightly conclude that the species reproduces sexually by the union of the two. We name these two types differently—as male and female—based upon the roles they play in reproduction. Such is why Aquinas held to a binary account of sex: “The distinction of the sexes is ordained in animals to the generation which occurs through coitus.” If human beings had no ordering to reproduction, or no sexual reproduction occurred, not only would one have no concept of gender, there would be no biological sex in human beings.
There, thus, can only be two biological sexes for human beings. In syllogistic form, what I am arguing is this:
Consider the case of plants that reproduce sexually. When we discover a plant missing parts of its sexual organs, we do not thereby conclude that we have discovered a third sex. Rather biologists rightly concur that what you have found is a defective plant. Likewise, in human beings, when one has an extra chromosome, or defective genitalia, you have just that: a sexual defect at the physical level. Such people often are wonderful, loving, and morally upright persons, but physically something has gone wrong.
Hermaphrodites are individuals with both pairs of sex organs. While in very rare cases some human beings have both pairs of genitalia, in no case whatsoever has it ever been observed that both pairs are fully functioning. True human hermaphrodites with both male and female sexual organs that fully function don’t exist. Such is why no cases of self-fertilization have ever been recorded in human beings.
Even if we did discover an individual human being with both pairs of fully functioning sex organs, such a case would not disprove the binary distinction. What you would have is someone who is both male and female; one who is able to act either as male or female depending upon the other sex with which that individual desired to reproduce. Hermaphroditism, rather than disproving the traditional binary distinction, actually reinforces it. We would not even know hermaphrodites existed, let alone be able to speak of them, unless we knew of the male-female binary.
Differentiating Potencies
How we fundamentally distinguish male and female then is based upon the two biological roles in reproduction. A human individual that has the basic capacity to reproduce with the female is biologically and truly a male. A human individual that has the basic capacity to reproduce with a male is biologically and truly a female. Male and female are defined in reference to each other, which is why they are correlative terms.
If we observe that the members of a species reproduce asexually, then we rightly conclude that neither male nor female exist in that species. But if we observe that two are required for reproduction to occur, we rightly conclude that the species reproduces sexually by the union of the two. We name these two types differently—as male and female—based upon the roles they play in reproduction. Such is why Aquinas held to a binary account of sex: “The distinction of the sexes is ordained in animals to the generation which occurs through coitus.” If human beings had no ordering to reproduction, or no sexual reproduction occurred, not only would one have no concept of gender, there would be no biological sex in human beings.
There, thus, can only be two biological sexes for human beings. In syllogistic form, what I am arguing is this:
- Biological sex is defined in relation to the roles played in sexual reproduction.
- Sexual reproduction involves only two, namely, male and female.
- Thus, biological sex is only two, namely, male or female.
Consider the case of plants that reproduce sexually. When we discover a plant missing parts of its sexual organs, we do not thereby conclude that we have discovered a third sex. Rather biologists rightly concur that what you have found is a defective plant. Likewise, in human beings, when one has an extra chromosome, or defective genitalia, you have just that: a sexual defect at the physical level. Such people often are wonderful, loving, and morally upright persons, but physically something has gone wrong.
Hermaphrodites are individuals with both pairs of sex organs. While in very rare cases some human beings have both pairs of genitalia, in no case whatsoever has it ever been observed that both pairs are fully functioning. True human hermaphrodites with both male and female sexual organs that fully function don’t exist. Such is why no cases of self-fertilization have ever been recorded in human beings.
Even if we did discover an individual human being with both pairs of fully functioning sex organs, such a case would not disprove the binary distinction. What you would have is someone who is both male and female; one who is able to act either as male or female depending upon the other sex with which that individual desired to reproduce. Hermaphroditism, rather than disproving the traditional binary distinction, actually reinforces it. We would not even know hermaphrodites existed, let alone be able to speak of them, unless we knew of the male-female binary.
Differentiating Potencies
How we fundamentally distinguish male and female then is based upon the two biological roles in reproduction. A human individual that has the basic capacity to reproduce with the female is biologically and truly a male. A human individual that has the basic capacity to reproduce with a male is biologically and truly a female. Male and female are defined in reference to each other, which is why they are correlative terms.
SoccerSpoiler
SILVER ELITE
For the sake of argument, let us grant that it might be physically possible for a female to have a complete sex change operation that she had a fully functioning male genitalia, male hormones, and male chromosomes that were fully integrated into her body. In this case she would cease to be female, but become a male. Even if complete sex change operations were possible (which they will most likely never be), such operations would be no argument against the traditional binary distinction. In such a case, the woman would not become a third sex; she would cease to be female and become a male.
Given that human beings reproduce sexually, they are biologically either only male or female. Men are men, and women are women. True hermaphrodites with fully functioning sexual organs do not exist in human beings. There is no third gender or any of these other nonsense woke terms
Given that human beings reproduce sexually, they are biologically either only male or female. Men are men, and women are women. True hermaphrodites with fully functioning sexual organs do not exist in human beings. There is no third gender or any of these other nonsense woke terms
Happened again
SILVER ELITE
You a
Talk to me about this statement below. And your nonsensical accusations of transphobia are tiresome. Oh, and...you completely miffed it..I was making fun of your "masterful" prose...but I figured you may have gotten a little excited about some positivity.
quickly now, talk to me about your statement below. Popcorn in hand and text books open. And please give me the correct context and no gibberish about gender and orientation..this is straight up biology. We'll eventually circle back and talk about surf cup or whatever else was being discussed.
"Honestly, it's crazy that you think a transgender woman cannot make another human being, but that's not surprising since transphobes like you are so sexually repressed that you don't understand the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity"
Talk to me about this statement below. And your nonsensical accusations of transphobia are tiresome. Oh, and...you completely miffed it..I was making fun of your "masterful" prose...but I figured you may have gotten a little excited about some positivity.
quickly now, talk to me about your statement below. Popcorn in hand and text books open. And please give me the correct context and no gibberish about gender and orientation..this is straight up biology. We'll eventually circle back and talk about surf cup or whatever else was being discussed.
"Honestly, it's crazy that you think a transgender woman cannot make another human being, but that's not surprising since transphobes like you are so sexually repressed that you don't understand the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity"
GoldenGate
GOLD
I already explained the difference between gender identity and sexual orientation.
And no, whether a 10 year old girl who may or may not be trans can play on a girls team is not a matter of "straight up biology". Once again, it is strictly a matter of the participation rules and whether you hate little trans kids so much that you feel the need to out them on social media.
Happened again
SILVER ELITE
Ahh, yes, there you go...10 year old transchild playing on a team doesn't involve biology. Giving birth involves biology. I know you have problems concentrating on your thought streams. I dunno, I didn't even talk about people having babies until you did. I was just making sure that you knew that a uterus was involved in that process. Maybe you need to take A&P class online. It will set you straight about human sex.
And your continued silly little accusations of me hating transgender children is funny. I didn't know you had access to my social media. You would be bored really..nothing really controversial - pinterest, girly stuff, soccer stuff.
GoldenGate
GOLD
Giving birth is not in the soccer rulebook. It obviously makes you incredibly angry that youth soccer leagues, CIF, the NCAA, the Olympics, the NWSL and others allow for transgender participation. Again, if your little girl can't handle it emotionally or physically, there is always rec league.
Yes, the gay lobby has effectively scared the bureaucrats into submission. Just accuse your opponents of being homophobes until they go away.
This will work until each sport finds their own Lia Thomas. Then, after a year or two of of woke hand-wringing, the governing bodies will fix the rules and you’ll end up with something like FINA implemented.
Which is unfortunate. The FINA rules require medical treatment to be started by 12. That’s far to much pressure to put on some 12 year old kid. It is kinder to just to say “play with your birth gender” like MacDre’s daughter proposed.
Pollo Elastico
BRONZE
We shouldnt be starting medical treatments on kids at that age. They are too young. Too many things/changes occur. If someone wants to go through treatments, they should be an adult. At 12? and younger? That is malpractice.
GoldenGate
GOLD
He is just making a strawman argument to make himself feel better about hating trans children. He's trying to rationalize how he's "helping" trans children by opposing a need to go through hormone therapy as minors in order to participate in sports, but it's just cover for his desire to exclude them completely.
Regardless, FINA has nothing to do with youth soccer.