Current Affairs Gender Nonsence

[Dymak]

As would I, but I don’t believe this is happening now, which is what a previous poster loosely alluded to.

It's certainly happening in other sports, and there is an agenda to stop you from objecting to it.

 

[Kurt.]

It's certainly happening in other sports, and there is an agenda to stop you from objecting to it.

My question was directly related to boxing.

 

[Dymak]

My question was directly related to boxing.

And my answer relates to all sports.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

Transgender fighter Alana McLaughlin submits Celine Provost in MMA debut

Alana McLaughlin, just the second transgender fighter ever in mixed martial arts, submitted Celine Provost in the second round to win her MMA debut Friday night.

www.espn.co.uk

 

[d34noj]

But just to be clear, do you agree that there are currently no men beating women up in the boxing ring.

Apart from Imane Khelif, no - however that's an entirely different conversation as he/she is intersex not trans.

 

[Efcjake]

Transgender fighter Alana McLaughlin submits Celine Provost in MMA debut

Alana McLaughlin, just the second transgender fighter ever in mixed martial arts, submitted Celine Provost in the second round to win her MMA debut Friday night.

www.espn.co.uk

That link summary says "The second ever"

Make of that what you will.

 

[Wizard]

I don't know. But I would object to any law that would facilitate that scenario.

So you’re objecting to a hypothetical thing that you don’t know is even happening but in the future if it does you’re against it? But at the same time you’re really not that bothered about it?

 

[Kurt.]

Apart from Imane Khelif, no - however that's an entirely different conversation as he/she is intersex not trans.

She’s a woman last I heard.

 

[Kurt.]

And my answer relates to all sports.

Which I understand, but we weren’t discussing all sports … it was a specific point about boxing.

 

[wandyr79]

I think generally tone is important in this discussion. I am bothered about the tone if things being said.

Nobody is advocating rape.
Nobody is advocating for a male boxer to go into a ring and hit a female boxer.
Nobody is advocating for people to abuse the legal system to gain rights that they do not deserve.

However, I don't personally think that circumstances around somebodies personal situation and how they feel themselves is something that can be discussed in such a black and white manner.

It is branding a whole society as sexual deviants because there 'may' be some that look to use it as a way to rape and abuse women. At this time in society, how many public bathrooms are policed? Is the opportunity to go in to any bathroom and get away with stuff already there? How is letting a trans woman be a woman not the right thing to do? How is it not the right thing to do to let them be women in a legal sense?

OK, any law will have to be specific on the terms to reduce the chances if abusing that law. It is no different to any other law. Tax laws are there for a reason, people abuse them, should we punish the whole society and make it worse for everybody who pays taxes because a few people may abuse the system.

Sports, for me, is a whole different thing to cultural and societal barriers for trans people. There are just too many unknowns in a lot of the sports for somebody with limited knowledge of the physiology behind sporting decisions to have any strong opinion on it.

 

[Kever10]

No I am not - I already explained why you are wrong, you are just too stupid to comprehend it.


That's literally the opposite of what my post is.

No, you are virtue signalling, and your entire post is entirely emotional as it relates to your friends experience, and therfore, you cannot see the other inherent problems with the ideology. I feel sympathy for your friend, but to assume that these laws wont be used or manipulated by others is naive at best.

I never asked if you cared, I don't give a toss, I was giving context.


Again, it was context.

The context being you are gay so it means your opinion on Trans ideology is somehow more relevant? Ok.

What's your relationship with them? 100% you've never had this convo with them.

Friends sister, and no, i havent spoken with them for some time.

Your opening post in the CA forum was looking down your nose and sneering at the opinions of others in here and you've continued that since, so you're fooling no-one. Well, except maybe yourself.

My opening post was challenging the allarming onesidedness of the entire thread, born out of hatred for 1 man and used to attack and shoot down anyone who didnt agree. I didnt attack anyone personally, i made a comment on the environment.

Sounds familiar right?

Where? Be specific.

This entire thread.

I'd rather you'd just posted one of your crap Seinfeld gifs tbh

Thats a shame.

Yeah I agree mate, it’s only proper weirdos with no coherent argument who use ad hominem attacks;

You trawled through all my posts and came up with 3 of possibly the worst examples of Ad hominem attacks you could find.

1. I didnt mention anyone specifically, so not a personal attack, and the word "bozo" could be replaced interchangeably with "people" and it would still read the same.

And bozo is such an offensive term as well.

2. An example where a user posted the exact text that proved my point in attemot to "own" me, as opposed to their usual tactic of, you guessed it, ad hominem attacks. At worst this was sarcasm.

3. Me, preempting you and your mates by using your own tired and lame examples of ad hominem attacks in another sarcastic rebuttal to someone making a valid argument that you would likely take offense to on behalf of someone else (virtue signalling).

Then there’s this quote of yours from the now locked POTUS thread;

‘Mate, you are deluded.’

Oh its not ad hominem to suggest that something is deluded when it is in fact deluded.

Seems like you either don’t understand the phrase ad hominem or you’re a massive hypocrite. Or it could just be that you have the cognitive capacity of a bluebottle.

Seems like its you who doesn't understand what it means... Before proceeding to another ad hominem attack just to be sure.

There’s also your personal attacks on Kamala Harris and E Jean Carroll.

I'll agree these 2 may have been examples of ad hominem.

Well done.

And such personal attacks as well.

Its no wonder you were so personally affected by them.

 

[Dymak]

So you’re objecting to a hypothetical thing that you don’t know is even happening but in the future if it does you’re against it? But at the same time you’re really not that bothered about it?

I know that you think that sounds really clever, but I beg to differ. I've made my position clear. I object to men accessing women's sports, and any legislation that erodes women's rights. I'm not against, nor am I bothered by, the existence of trans people. It's really quite simple.

 

[bluestevon]

But to answer your question, I'm referring to ANY instance. Whether it be in the past, right now, or in the future. There should never, ever, be a scenario where men are allowed to twatt women in a boxing ring, or anywhere else for that matter. I don't care if the law is somehow manipulated to make it legal (and there really is an agenda to facilitate this) and that's what I am objecting to.

Arguably the greatest ever female boxer if all time Lucia Tinker, also a kickboxer, went unbeaten throughout her career in both 35-1-0 (25 kos) as a kickboxer, 17-0 as a boxer (14 kos) at the peak of her career started calling out male fighters to fight her.

She fought sn exhibition match at the very peak of her career v a bang average regional level Thai male kickboxer (most turned down fighting her as she was a woman)

Here's the resulting evidence of why women should never ever be allowed in combat sports especially to be competing against males

 

[Wizard]

I know that you think that sounds really clever, but I beg to differ. I've made my position clear. I object to men accessing women's sports, and any legislation that erodes women's rights. I'm not against, nor am I bothered by, the existence of trans people. It's really quite simple.

But you are quite clearly bothered about something that you yourself have said you don’t know whether it is happening or not.

I’m against loads of legislations that don’t exist too.

 

[wandyr79]

I know that you think that sounds really clever, but I beg to differ. I've made my position clear. I object to men accessing women's sports, and any legislation that erodes women's rights. I'm not against, nor am I bothered by, the existence of trans people. It's really quite simple.

Yes, but what if the science tells them that they are allowed to participate in the sport, the rules given by experts in that particular sport?

What if somebody gaining access to a different set of rights is not actually eroding the rights of anybody else?

This is the logic that I just cannot get on board with. It is not a black and white conversation. A trans woman obtains the right of a woman, can you explain how that will erode the rights of women?

Now, we get into the grey area, the loopholes and the abuse of the system. Well, this is not new and stopping valid concerns, valid claims of rights abuse because there may be loopholes is, again, just not the right way (in my humble opinion) to go about this, or any other, issue.