- Popular Post
BananaMash
-
Posts
18,072 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
45
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by BananaMash
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Mazanec is a cooler name than Miller.
We lost the trade boys.
-
6
-
Just now, 73 Percent said:
Best team on the third line
Hes getting top 6 mins here.
Was nyr the best team too?
We aren't a playoff team which means we literally have zero good players for Miller to play with. It's very sad, I am crying real tears.
-
4
-
-
Just now, Pickly said:
My thoughts too. If anyone complains about this cap hit look no further to Kevin Hayes and what he’s getting paid for similar numbers.
People still act like the cap is 52 million, is funny.
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Just now, BlastPast said:And yet people will complain.
Nobody loves misery and taking sports way too serious like a Canucks fan.
-
7
-
1
-
JT Miller is really cool, I am a happy boy.
-
Just now, canuckistani said:
This is not pedantic, this is decisive. I am not just familiar with the said topic, i am also familiar with HOW this topic is screwed up in English or many European languages PRECISELY for this pedantic reason.
You cannot call yourself a trans-female. Female and male are decisively sex related terms, not gender identity. You can go through surgery and if you are born male, i can determine that via analysing your skin cell. Same with women or intersex.
As such, in most of the world languages, there is no difference between the term 'male' and 'men' or 'female' and 'woman', in said cultures, trans people do NOT identify as 'trans-women' or 'trans-men'. They cannot. They have the trans category for themselves.
I'm gonna go ahead and say, I get what you mean now. English is definitely super screwy when it comes to this too, I agree.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, canuckistani said:
No. They have transitioned from a man to a woman. You cannot transition from male to female or otherwise. Medically impossible to do.
This is just being pedantic at this point. It's the easiest simple explanation to somebody unfamiliar with the topic.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, sam13371337 said:
its interesting people bring up intersex when defending trans positions. even though they are completely different. intersex is a genetic mutation affecting a tiny TINY percentage of people .
there are genetic mutations where people are born with 11 fingers. some people are born with 2 penises, some people are born with 3 arms etc etc etc . there are all sorts of anamolies and mutations etc.. that doesn't mean people start using those tiny exceptions as the rule.
in terms of trans. its becoming a serious issue. when you have a society and law system that segrates many things based on gender (ie. prisons, bathrooms, sports, changing rooms etc) and that same society sais you can now decide your own gender on a whim.... you have a serious SERIOUS problem
rapists can identify as women and demand to go to a female prison. Womens sport and any records and financial rewards associated with it will eventually become a trans competition. and you could have a lot of nasty people using this as an excuse to get into changing rooms of stores where young girls frequent.
this is a serious issue that needs serious discussion. the law as it stands is broken. anybody can just declare themselves a man/woman without any sort of standard. this is absurd
You're talking about a group of individuals who make up a whopping estimated 0.6% of the population, and then you have to boil it down further to pick out these who might be transitioning with nefarious intention (which is, I would argue, extremely unlikely).
There are intense deep running social issues that need to be addressed in terms of transgender people. Your posts reflects a portion them, but not in the way you think it does...
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, canuckistani said:
Sure and that needs to change. But to me, who has a cultural background of trans-women rejecting the label 'women' or trans-men doing the same, it definitely comes across as a fundamental failure to own the uniqueness of the term 'trans', when they want to be referred to as a woman.
ofcourse, in the culture i speak of, communication is gender-neutral for the most part, since we do not have 'he/she' or 'him/her' pronouns but that are gender neutral. Heck technically they are species-neutral, since the pronouns used to address singular or plural members of any species (including our own), has nothing to do with your sexual or gender identity, so there is no 'call me a miss/call me a mister' battle to be waged.Oh, don't get me wrong I won't say there aren't extreme social issues on both sides. There are, and it's causing more issues for people than it solves.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Alflives said:
Excuse my ignorance, but does trans woman mean born a man or the other way round?
I think people often fear what they don’t understand.
Trans-women are individuals who transitioned from male to female. Male at birth.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, canuckistani said:
False. There advantage of trans-gender people is not decisively established by medical community, as of yet. The only thing we know, decisively, is XY chromosomes have a decisive advantage over any other chromosomal makeup in physical benchmarks. Some medical journals THINK that the advantage is normalized with hormone replacement theraphy, whereas some medical journals think that Testosterone has a legacy effect by widening your bones and strengthening connective tissue during puberty. Thus, a biological male will always have a decisive physiological advantage over a biological female due to the legacy effect of testosterone. Should you require medical journals/evidence that this is also a major opinion in the medical field, i would be happy to provide.
I'm willing to accept that there's a whole multitude of possibilities. Like with most things as far as the medicine side of transition, I assume everything is "needs more research." By me saying the argument only holds real ground in relation to pre-transitioned individuals, I moreso mean that's the only situation I'd be comfortable saying the advantage is there definitively in most cases. I don't think you can use it as a fair argument in regard to those undergoing transition, at this point. You know what I mean?
-
5 minutes ago, canuckistani said:
This is where i find cultural differences are decisive and makes this whole trans aspect just a matter of culture.
In many cultures, the word for gender and the word for sex are the same damn thing. Females are women and males are men. Not as a matter of social construct, but language construct. And in many such cultures, a third category is created, where its the umbrella category for all the people who do not identify with their gender/sex, as well as the intersex.
In my view, i see THAT as the true liberation of trans or intersex: celebrate what you are and never be told that you are any less because of your difference. A trans-woman is not a woman, a trans-woman is a trans-person. Same with trans-men. Shoe-horning into the 'men' 'women' category may work in languages that are ambiguous about the terms of gender and sex, but it won't work in languages that do not have such distintion. Nor should it. A cis-gendered woman and a trans-gender woman are DIFFERENT. The trans-gender ones acknowledge this tacitly, as they definitively do not identify with the term 'cis-gendered'.
If English or most European languages were not crappy enough to have different gender and different sex terms, trans people could actually just own and rock the term 'trans', without having a language battle, nor require the superfluous and unnecessary terms like 'cis'.I agree with some of your points in an perfect world, but at the same time I think that requires an environment where people aren't abused/socially outcast for identifying as transgender for it to work properly. Which, at least in North America, isn't the case. One of my friends is the type to own that she's a trans-woman very openly, and with pride, yet has been physically assaulted for it several times purely out of hatred. From what she's told me, many of her friends in the trans-community would love to take pride in the fact that that's who they are, but it's dangerous. Even in Canada.
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Alflives said:
What you’re born with is you. Great athletes are gifted. That’s why they’re great. Trying to level the playing field sounds too much like “Harrison Bergeron”.
However, people having surgery, and taking chemicals to alter their birth biology need to be categorized in a different way for sports. How close are we to a “Six Million Dollar Man” or “Bionic Woman”?
Maybe, for sports, the answer is easy? What ever gifts or advantages you’re born with are how you compete?
Not even remotely close in the slightest, to be honest.
Medical transition simply doesn't work that way. It's extremely closely monitored. For example, an individual transitioning from female to male will be monitored by doctors to be sure that hormone levels are falling within standard ranges for males.
The genetic advantage argument only really has any ground when it comes to pre-transition individuals identifying as the other gender without having begun hormone replacement therapy (and gender reassignment surgery really doesn't play into it as much as you'd think). But, splitting pre-medical transition and successfully medically transitioned individuals is another slippery slope discussion that I can't pretend to have enough knowledge on to really talk about. Too many different social connotations that I don't understand, as I'm not trans myself.
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, Alain Vigneault said:
It doesn't.
Assuming we are talking about the same type of scholarships (post-secondary, post-graduate, athletic-based, etc), I would say - and I have no evidence or literature to back this up - that I'm fairly certain no person between the ages of 14 - 25 (roughly, the 'typical' school age range) is transitioning for any reason that is separate from their own body/gender/sex dysmorphia.
Until the particular women who are involved band among themselves to raise the volume on this issue (perhaps, they already have?) and qualify reasons as to why this is problematic, there is no reason why you, I, or anybody here needs to feel this is an injustice or threatening in any sense.
Again, we shouldn't form slopes when there aren't any.
The most discourse you're going to get in regard to women feeling "negatively impacted" by trans-women in any context is from the trans-exclusionary feminists, and those conversations are going to be little more than thinly-veiled transphobia masqueraded behind problems that don't really exist. Which is honestly how a lot of this thread feels too.
There's definitely interesting discussion to be had in regard to this, but the way it's being presented is shameful. I understand the idea of a genetic advantage in sports, but the grey area is being totally ignored due to misunderstanding of transition. In North America most hormone replacement therapies are a combination of spironolactone (to block testosterone) and estrogen. It changes the body to an astounding degree, and one of the biggest side effects for most people is massive losses in strength, muscle mass, and endurance. When you no longer have the hormonal makeup of a male, is that genetic advantage gone? I can't answer that question, but I can say it's far different than men pretending to be girls.
It's disheartening to see people buy into the idea that this is a huge issue. It's a discussion to be had, and most trans-women would probably tell you the same thing. I have a couple of very close friends who are trans, and they understand more than anybody that their social place and ability to participate in certain things is still foggy. They're not trying to "invade" anybody, they just want to live their life as happily as possible and have people actually work with them in terms of acceptance/finding where they fit instead of being met with rejection and scorn everywhere.
-
1
-
2
-
-
I'll be honest, the constant push to take human error out of hockey in general is something I don't particularly care for past reviews of goals. Sports for me are pure entertainment. I'm here for the dramatics/heartbreak just as much as the success. When you start trying to work flaws out of it and dehumanize what's happening, I think you lose some of the entertainment value.
I understand why things have trended that way and I also understand when people enjoy it, but it's not how I personally like to consume entertainment. I want the unexpected, not perfection.
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
14 minutes ago, combover said:To bad ownership won’t move on from their mistake -JB.
Oh well who needs all those 4th and 5th picks and prospects that we have nothing to show for.
Besides maybe the dreadful and thin comets and a Canucks team that has very little depth at any position or in the farm .lol.
Glad pooalots gone he was horrible from day one. Pedan would have been better if he was gifted icetime like poopoo not to mention allowed to make stupid mistakes with no repercussions every game.
Good riddance.
I’m sure jimmies next blunder isn’t far away.
I don't think Jim Benning is perfect by any means, but how do you enjoy hockey at all when you're just radiating negativity 24/7 lmao
It's just sports yo.
-
3
-
5
-
14
-
Just now, Alain Vigneault said:
Pretend its 2011 and come back
you drive a hard bargain.
maybe for next season, I'm probably going back to school so I'll have more time again :D
-
On 4/23/2019 at 12:54 PM, Alain Vigneault said:
im still here bb i just dont fantasy hockey because im lazy
-
1
-
-
On 3/12/2019 at 6:41 PM, Alflives said:
I hear comparisons to the King’S goalie. What’s his name? Anyway, i like our kid, but dowonder if short guys can be NHL to notch goalies anymore?
I'll think you'll see it become more of a thing again as the league continues to get faster. Things happen so fast I truly believe the athleticism of smaller guys will have value again in net. Big athletic goalies will always have favor, but I don't think pure technical ability will work as well going forward. The ability to make a desperation save will be a must.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
1 hour ago, Kanukfanatic said:Yeah...why bring back Edler. The only D you mentioned anywhere close to a 1st pairing D.
Good god.
Edler is such a peasant having 30 points in 51 games. Totally washed up and awful.
-
5
-
4
-
2
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
24 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:I don't think they're the same kind of player. Age comparison is okay, but I don't think Goldy will ever be as good defensively or along the boards. Baertschi's more of an opportunistic offensive player. Plays a reliable 200ft game then jumps into holes & makes plays quickly. Goldy's effectiveness comes with the puck on his stick.
In junior I thought Goldy could be a guy who drives offense himself in the NHL, but that hasn't been the case. He was good feeding off Pettersson, but hasn't been able to replicate that with Horvat or Gaudette. I'll never forget when he dangled/embarrassed Doughty & scored. But he's not talented enough to do that night in & night out.
At this point he's a depth offensive player to me, like a Spooner or Gagner type. Which is fine to bring back if there are no other options but I wonder if Green is running out of patience with Goldy.
Baertschi is also a significantly better passer. Goldobin has way higher creativity in the passes he attempts, but they don't tend to be very smart. It's like the Pettersson flair with very little idea how to execute on it tape to tape. Occasionally one goes through and it makes him look better than he's actually playing, though.
I really wish Sven didn't have all these concussion issues derail him. He's like a 45-50 point guy, but nobody else works as well with Horvat. He's also extremely stable in his role. Missed by the team big time, imo.
-
1
-
4
-
48 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:
I don't understand people getting on Green about this. The guy has 2 goals & 4 points in 23 games since December. That's a 7g 14p pace over 82.
Even including how he started the season, he's still only on pace for 9 goals & 35 points. If he's an offensive player he has to generate offense.
He's been given ample opportunity. Every time he plays he starts with Horvat or Pettersson. The Canucks are one of the lowest scoring teams in the league, the door is wide open for him & he simply hasn't been good enough.
His flashy degree of skill distracts many from his lack of production. I've been pulling for him to get it together, but for every great play or effort he throws out, nothing happens. Either his pass goes to the other team, he misses the net, or he gets burned defensively.
Sort of reminds me of Burmistrov.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
58 minutes ago, Generational.EP40 said:https://twitter.com/radburgerz/status/1106000631242752000
That’s shocking. We have almost nothing of significance to show for over JB 5 year tenure.
I want to know what exactly is so shocking about this ins-and-outs list? Looking at the outs, almost all of the players traded are absolutely useless at the NHL level. Either that, or they were well past their prime when traded. Burrows, Hansen, Bieksa, and Garrison had short NHL careers after leaving here (or flat out played poorly, like Vanek). Then there are guys like Gagner and MDZ who provided absolutely nothing, and were therefor traded for very little. Is the shocking part supposed to be the prospects portion? Because the team definitely isn't hurting due to having moved on from Jensen, Shinkaruk, Lain, or Fox.
The best player's on the out list are Kesler, Nilsson, and Kassian... The first of which handcuffed our team (and then Anaheim with a gross contract). The other two are fringe NHL level talent at best.
What's shocking? What is this proving? All it shows is he brought in three really nice pieces, and unloaded a mountain of crap in the process. The picks suck to lose, but he's seemingly stopped the trend of trading them. I really don't understand how this supports any degree of "fire Benning," and I'm not even the biggest Benning fan to begin with.
Weak argument, in my opinion.
-
4
-
7
-
24 minutes ago, Kanukfanatic said:
Thank god we didn't take that russian like lots of canuck fans wanted!! Sheesh.
Nichushkin was a very tempting prospect at the time, he's who I wanted. His size, speed, and strength together seemed like all the pieces of a future NHL all-star. Fortunately I'm not the GM, because Bo hit the turbo button and developed into everything I thought Nich was going to be (along with the benefit of being a centre).
Funny how it worked out, though. Horvat definitely isn't the same slower two-way forward I watched play for the Knights.-
2
-
Nils Hoglander | #21 | LW
in Current Roster
Posted
Absolutely sick pick.
Dude's got greasy hands, and is very creative.