The Democrat Utopia

[JJ Husker]

The more I think about this trans women in sports thing the more I realize that really isn’t the problem I have with it. Yeah it triggers fairness issues but I really don’t give a rip about women’s sports and TBH I care even less about providing competitive opportunities for trans women. My daughter is done with competitive sports so I don’t have to be concerned with her being placed at an unfair disadvantage. My main problem is that anyone thinks it is okay. I guess that’s what annoys me most about the whole deal. It’s just completely insane.

 

I say bar them from normal competition and, if the demand makes it necessary, give them their own trans women’s sports classification.

 

I’m sure this will piss some people off. Just know that I don’t care so you can save the virtue signaling diatribe for somebody else.

[Born N Bled Red]

7 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

The more I think about this trans women in sports thing the more I realize that really isn’t the problem I have with it. Yeah it triggers fairness issues but I really don’t give a rip about women’s sports and TBH I care even less about providing competitive opportunities for trans women. My daughter is done with competitive sports so I don’t have to be concerned with her being placed at an unfair disadvantage. My main problem is that anyone thinks it is okay. I guess that’s what annoys me most about the whole deal. It’s just completely insane.

 

I say bar them from normal competition and, if the demand makes it necessary, give them their own trans women’s sports classification.

 

I’m sure this will piss some people off. Just know that I don’t care so you can save the virtue signaling diatribe for somebody else.

 

One thing I wonder. Could there simply be a trans division that features anyone transitioning from one sex to the other, biologically speaking? Male transitioning to female has the benefit of increased testosterone during puberty and a differing physiology. Female transitioning to male have the benefit of increased levels of testosterone in the present sense. Would this create an equal playing field? 

[JJ Husker]

14 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

One thing I wonder. Could there simply be a trans division that features anyone transitioning from one sex to the other, biologically speaking? Male transitioning to female has the benefit of increased testosterone during puberty and a differing physiology. Female transitioning to male have the benefit of increased levels of testosterone in the present sense. Would this create an equal playing field? 

I can’t imagine that would provide a truly equal playing field. But sure, a single 3rd class of athlete would be more economically viable than 4. I mean I really doubt anything more than 2 is viable but maybe that is a possible solution. It could be entertaining as they become hypocrites while each side argues over how it is or isn’t fair.

 

I imagine (I don’t really know) the more important aspect for trans people is to be accepted as their new gender and not so much with a level sporting field. So a 3rd  or 4th classification probably would just alienate them further from what they desire.

[Enhance]

8 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Are you saying that a trans woman could maybe be able to compete unless they are to good at the sport?  If so, I fail to see how that could work.  So, a sprinter starts competing, if they win races then....sorry, you can't compete anymore.  But, if you place 5th, that's fine.

No, I probably wasn't as clear as I could've been. I'm not deep into the science and biology of say transitioning from a man to a woman, but I wager there are biological and/or physical markers that might suggest a transitioned female has a clear physiological advantage over a person born female. Whatever those markers may be. I don't think we should wait to see if they're good or not and THEN decide.

 

Personally, I don't really know where I've landed on the trans athlete discussion. Part of me think it probably isn't a big deal in most cases, but the other part of me thinks it will unsettle the playing field in some circumstances, and that that's a choice somebody will have to live with if it is ultimately decided they can't compete.

[Lorewarn]

On 3/18/2022 at 12:58 PM, ColoradoHusk said:

This swimmer dominating as a woman, when she was average as a guy is an interesting situation. 

 

 

For clarity want to come back to this point for a second.

 

The 'average as a guy' ranked in the 400s narrative isn't actually true, or is at least dramatically misleading. I'm still far from an expert on swimming but they were CollegeSwimming national swimmer of the week, an all-american and placed in 2nd in all 3 events they competed in as a man in the Ivy League championships.

 

It actually looks like she got worse as a woman overall relative to her competition if you compare her times to the median of the top 8 in Ivy League championship placing.

[BigRedBuster]

18 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

For clarity want to come back to this point for a second.

 

The 'average as a guy' ranked in the 400s narrative isn't actually true, or is at least dramatically misleading. I'm still far from an expert on swimming but they were CollegeSwimming national swimmer of the week, an all-american and placed in 2nd in all 3 events they competed in as a man in the Ivy League championships.

 

It actually looks like she got worse as a woman overall relative to her competition if you compare her times to the median of the top 8 in Ivy League championship placing.

If he’s that good, keep competing there after transition. I’m sure she would find a level she could compete at and be happy. 

[Lorewarn]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

If he’s that good, keep competing there after transition. I’m sure she would find a level she could compete at and be happy. 

 

She did compete in men's swimming the first year of transitioning and undergoing hormone therapy, and has lost over 15 seconds on her 500 time. Per her account in an SI article, she actually was hesitant to begin hormone therapy for some time because she was fearful she'd lose the ability to swim competitively (not in terms of not being allowed, but in terms of losing so much ability.

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, Lorewarn said:

 

She did compete in men's swimming the first year of transitioning and undergoing hormone therapy, and has lost over 15 seconds on her 500 time. Per her account in an SI article, she actually was hesitant to begin hormone therapy for some time because she was fearful she'd lose the ability to swim competitively (not in terms of not being allowed, but in terms of losing so much ability.

So????  
 

I fail to see how this makes ok fir her to then compete in women’s swimming. 
 

I just don’t get it. 

[nic]

Lia Thompson and other trans athletes should not be allowed to compete with women. Totally ruins womens sports.  If trans athletes can compete with men and succeed fine.  Women have fought hard to get where they are and now they have to deal with this. If I was women athlete I would be pissed.

 

 The genderless levels of competition is bad for women too. We would still have professional level mens sports and college mens sports, but it would ruin sports for women when men or trans athletes that cannot compete at the higher levels start to mix in women’s competitions. Would a sport like gymnastics have to mix events? 
 

I think the solution is to let trans athletes compete with men and let the chips fall where they may. 

[Lorewarn]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

So????  
 

I fail to see how this makes ok fir her to then compete in women’s swimming. 
 

I just don’t get it. 

 

 

Just offering more info.

[nic]

Not sure why the judge was asked this question but we have gotten to the point where we are afraid to define what a women is. Absolutely nuts. I am surprised women’s groups are not speaking up more. I assume we are headed to a genderless society because constantly coming up with new genders is not sustainable. People are already throwing up their hands up at it. Teenage kids are writing made up genders into job applications because they think it’s funny. What does a genderless society look like? 

 

 

 

[teachercd]

24 minutes ago, nic said:

Not sure why the judge was asked this question but we have gotten to the point where we are afraid to define what a women is. Absolutely nuts. I am surprised women’s groups are not speaking up more. I assume we are headed to a genderless society because constantly coming up with new genders is not sustainable. People are already throwing up their hands at it. Teenage kids are writing made up genders into job applications because they think it’s funny. What does a genderless society look like? 

 

 

 

Like I said it will be the end of some parts of Title 9...

 

This is sort of like people fighting ACT/SAT for college entrance.  All it is going to do is make things more difficult to get admission to some schools.  

 

People don't think.

[Archy1221]

10 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

So????  
 

I fail to see how this makes ok fir her to then compete in women’s swimming. 
 

I just don’t get it. 

Exactly.  There is no rational point to be made that would make it ok for that person to compete in female athletics.   People are just twisting very hard because they can’t accept that their position is wrong. 

[Enhance]

9 hours ago, nic said:

Not sure why the judge was asked this question but we have gotten to the point where we are afraid to define what a women is. Absolutely nuts. I am surprised women’s groups are not speaking up more. I assume we are headed to a genderless society because constantly coming up with new genders is not sustainable. People are already throwing up their hands up at it. Teenage kids are writing made up genders into job applications because they think it’s funny. What does a genderless society look like? 

 

I think the question served two purposes - first, indirectly gaining insight into how Judge Jackson would potentially rule in cases related to transgender/gender rights/"progressive politics." Second, partisan political points to rile up conservatives. The latter has become common place in these hearings. I don't know which intent Sen. Blackburn was aiming for but I have my inclinations...

 

I don't personally get too caught up in the gender identity debate. I don't give a rip what someone wants to identify as. I'll do my best to accommodate their preference, but I'm also not going to apologize for defaulting to man/woman, because I think that's how the majority of people view themselves.

 

I am supporter of transgender rights, though, specifically the ability to work and have equal opportunities without being discriminated against. So if Sen. Blackburn shares that viewpoint and wants to work towards a less discriminatory world then great! But, that's definitely not the vibe given off by the line of questioning.

[nic]

1 hour ago, Enhance said:

I think the question served two purposes - first, indirectly gaining insight into how Judge Jackson would potentially rule in cases related to transgender/gender rights/"progressive politics." Second, partisan political points to rile up conservatives. The latter has become common place in these hearings. I don't know which intent Sen. Blackburn was aiming for but I have my inclinations...

 

I don't personally get too caught up in the gender identity debate. I don't give a rip what someone wants to identify as. I'll do my best to accommodate their preference, but I'm also not going to apologize for defaulting to man/woman, because I think that's how the majority of people view themselves.

 

I am supporter of transgender rights, though, specifically the ability to work and have equal opportunities without being discriminated against. So if Sen. Blackburn shares that viewpoint and wants to work towards a less discriminatory world then great! But, that's definitely not the vibe given off by the line of questioning.

Too often these hearings are used to score political points and sometimes far worse agendas are on display. This hearing will not be different, although to be fair, this one seems far less contentious than the last three….so far. I thought Barrett was impressive and she destroyed the committee. The Kavanaugh hearing ended up a joke and was embarrassing.