Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Trans individuals are killing female sports


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, BananaMash said:

This is just being pedantic at this point. It's the easiest simple explanation to somebody unfamiliar with the topic.

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Unintended or inadvertent, sure.  Deliberately?  Likely not.

I think its very likely to be deliberate when money is involved. If a trans-woman wins a 4 million dollar tennis tournament, i would think its far more likely to be deliberate than inadvertant, given what people are objectively capable of doing for $$. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of having a separate categorie for women is essentially they are a protected class of athlete. Otherwise it would just be open.

it is awfully hypocritica; to make a woman with naturally high testosterone suppress her levels to compete and then let someone who grew up with naturally higher testosterone levels compete.

if you are going to have a protected class then protect them and define that class as you will. You have every right to compete in sports but not necessarily to compete in a specific league or category. If a sport descides to let trans-gendered athletes compete in the gender they identify then that ruling has to be clear and apparent appropriate thresholds for male hormones need to be assessed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

I think its very likely to be deliberate when money is involved. If a trans-woman wins a 4 million dollar tennis tournament, i would think its far more likely to be deliberate than inadvertant, given what people are objectively capable of doing for $$. 

Depending on the proximity of when the individual transitioned vs won the tournament, maybe.

 

I agree that money talks, I have a harder time agreeing that somebody would put themselves through surgeries, therapy, et al for it though.  But I suppose it's possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Depending on the proximity of when the individual transitioned vs won the tournament, maybe.

 

I agree that money talks, I have a harder time agreeing that somebody would put themselves through surgeries, therapy, et al for it though.  But I suppose it's possible.

I’d eat a bug on the spot for a buck.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BananaMash said:

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.

You have no idea how bad English is, as a language- and as far as i can tell, most European languages fall into the 'structurally challenged' category.

 

I will share an anecdote with you: years ago, i was visiting with my gradmother - who never finished high school and doesn't speak any european language whatsoever. We were watching some english television, since she was curious about my 'new country'. A segment of the spelling bee came on. She thought it was nice we did shows with cognitively challenged children and gave them some fun, exposure, etc. I was confused and i pointed out that these kids wern't slow, these were 7 year olds spelling out onomatopoea or more complex words - they were geniuses. She was thunderstruck.

And then it dawned on me why : my mother tongue has 45 characters. Its an abiguda writing system, where any and all alphabet is mono-syllabic ( consonant as well as vowels). Roman script or Cyrillic, are what is called an 'abjad' writing system. As such, the 'pain' with abiguda is you end up with a lot more characters to learn ( and eventually, get into conjoined letters- like the 'ae' conjoination you find in books from 100 years ago in English for g).The advantage is simple - it is ridiculously phonetic and i can't think of a single word that 'isnt pronounced exactly as its written and its pronounced exactly one way, you write it differently if you wanna even say it with a different accent'. 

As such, in this language, spelling bees are nonsensical. I can spell 100% of the words in this language, even after decades of barely using it, including pronounce a 1000 year old inscription in the exact local dialect it was pronounced. To my grandma, it was simply a question of 'if you can't spell, you are either illiterate or you are slow'. This is just the tip of how much English or various other European languages are complete structural fails as a language.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

The point of having a separate categorie for women is essentially they are a protected class of athlete. Otherwise it would just be open.

it is awfully hypocritica; to make a woman with naturally high testosterone suppress her levels to compete and then let someone who grew up with naturally higher testosterone levels compete.

This is not done and not being done. If you are an XX,ie biologically female, you can have unlimited amount of testosterone your body can produce (ie, lack of any banned metabolites, aka evidence of doping). 

16 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

if you are going to have a protected class then protect them and define that class as you will. You have every right to compete in sports but not necessarily to compete in a specific league or category. If a sport descides to let trans-gendered athletes compete in the gender they identify then that ruling has to be clear and apparent appropriate thresholds for male hormones need to be assessed.

Yes, the class is female sports. In most of the world's languages. There is no such thing as 'womens sports' for bulk majority of mankind. Its 'female sports'. European cultures/languages need to just get on with this obvious fact and stop twisting itself into contortions. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Depending on the proximity of when the individual transitioned vs won the tournament, maybe.

Why ?

There are plenty of women and men achieve the best results of their careers 50-75% into their careers at their elite echelon. We see in tennis often a player shoot to #15-20 for 8-9 years, peak out at 7-10 range for 2-3 years of their peak, win big tourneys and then fade away. If i am a nobody guy in tennis at rank 200, i can transition as a woman in my early 20s, achieve my peak in my late 20s/early 30s and then fall off, like bulk majority of men and women. Doesn't change the fact that i went from 200 to 20 due to the unfair advantage of the XY specimens competing with non XY

Quote

 

I agree that money talks, I have a harder time agreeing that somebody would put themselves through surgeries, therapy, et al for it though.  But I suppose it's possible.

Its very very easy to do so and bulk majority of humans would easily take some discomfort and social scorn/danger for 15-20 years of their lives for enough money to take care of the next 4 generations. 

 

If you are telling me that there arnt men out there, who'd seriously consider putting their sex lives, moods etc. through hell, grow boobs and put up with scorn to make 5 million dollars before 40, then hope, pray and cross your fingers to use 1 million of that to 'go back to who you were as much as possible', i'd say thats an extremely naive idea. 


Pro sports has tons of money in it. The trans-lady who smushed the cycling record and won a major cycling women's meet made a quarter million dollars due to it. Her career isn't over either. I have no reason to think her intentions are honest, when the most objective evidence of dishonest-inducing behavior in history of species homo sapiens is present in the equation: money. 

 

Edited by canuckistani
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BananaMash said:

 

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.

Yah but haters gotta be intolerant and hate on someone ... right ?     People that appear  or act differently   are such easy targets....

 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, canuckistani said:

Why ?

There are plenty of women and men achieve the best results of their careers 50-75% into their careers at their elite echelon. We see in tennis often a player shoot to #15-20 for 8-9 years, peak out at 7-10 range for 2-3 years of their peak, win big tourneys and then fade away. If i am a nobody guy in tennis at rank 200, i can transition as a woman in my early 20s, achieve my peak in my late 20s/early 30s and then fall off, like bulk majority of men and women. Doesn't change the fact that i went from 200 to 20 due to the unfair advantage of the XY specimens competing with non XY

 

Its very very easy to do so and bulk majority of humans would easily take some discomfort and social scorn/danger for 15-20 years of their lives for enough money to take care of the next 4 generations. 

Perhaps, this works for tennis.  I'm not sure if it would for other sports.  

 

The last paragraph is opinion.  In-fact, most cost-benefit analyses would argue against your idea if money is the end goal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

This is not done and not being done. If you are an XX,ie biologically female, you can have unlimited amount of testosterone your body can produce (ie, lack of any banned metabolites, aka evidence of doping). 

Yes, the class is female sports. In most of the world's languages. There is no such thing as 'womens sports' for bulk majority of mankind. Its 'female sports'. European cultures/languages need to just get on with this obvious fact and stop twisting itself into contortions. 

 

I don’t think you have been following the news. They are forcing Caster Semenya to artificially lower her testosterone level to continue to compete as a female athlete even though she is an XX female who has a naturally occurring advantage. That is what sport is meant to be, using your natural advantage and training to win.  

They never would have forced a man to alter his hormonal regulation (nor likely a white woman).

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Perhaps, this works for tennis.  I'm not sure if it would for other sports.  

 

The last paragraph is opinion.  

So is the idea that most are inadvertent miscreants and not deliberately culpable. Intent is rationally nearly impossible to prove without a shadow of doubt one way or another, so it boils down to if you are a cynic, an optimist or inbetween. How likely you are to consider someone bumbling into a crime or deliberately doing it, is mostly speculaton.

15 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

In-fact, most cost-benefit analyses would argue against your idea if money is the end goal.

Most cost-benefit analysis would argue decisively in favor of M to F transitioning with money being the end goal and empiric benchmark. Winning quarter million dollars for cycling in a field where its far harder to earn that money as a male, for people who love to do it anyways, is a decisive cost-to-benefit advantage. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

I don’t think you have been following the news. They are forcing Caster Semenya to artificially lower her testosterone level to continue to compete as a female athlete even though she is an XX female who has a naturally occurring advantage. That is what sport is meant to be, using your natural advantage and training to win.  

They never would have forced a man to alter his hormonal regulation (nor likely a white woman).

Caster Semanya is NOT an XX female. I have already posted a detailed article evidence of this specific case many pages ago. She is a XY with a SRY gene mutation, which makes her an intersex who is bilogically 'almost' a male. She has testes. You CANNOT genetically code testes without XY gene in species homo sapiens. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I wonder if there will ever be a Godwin's Law involving Trump's name some day in the future? 

I'm curious to know if this is a legitimate question or an attempt at being clever.  I'm guessing the latter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, canuckistani said:

Caster Semanya is NOT an XX female. I have already posted a detailed article evidence of this specific case many pages ago. She is a XY with a SRY gene mutation, which makes her an intersex who is bilogically 'almost' a male. She has testes. You CANNOT genetically code testes without XY gene in species homo sapiens. 

Fair enough, I had not looked into it in detail, just saw the story on the news.  Interesting case though. 

Very funny spot for female sport. There are always the rare indeterminately gendered individuals.   

I will take issue though with you saying there is no such thing as women’s sport but female. It is right in the name, WNBA and Women’s hockey. 

This is a rare statement for me but I think they should probably err on the side of exclusion. Female sports again are a protected class where as the “men’s” is usually open to all.  There is an alternative essentially open class so if you can’t mee the standard you can compete in the open class.

same thing with doping, if unclear, exclude. Sport isn’t a rite.

Ooh from such a left leaning libtard like myself this whole post feels strange to write. 

 

Now, I will try to make up for my white male privelage and start with a hot take. We should name a woman President of the Canucks. Time to break the white male hegemony. The NBA brought in a woman coach, time for the NHL to get more inclusive.  Looks like a Trump cabinet meeting with all those white male faces in the NHL offices. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DrJockitch said:

Fair enough, I had not looked into it in detail, just saw the story on the news.  Interesting case though. 

Very funny spot for female sport. There are always the rare indeterminately gendered individuals.   

I will take issue though with you saying there is no such thing as women’s sport but female. It is right in the name, WNBA and Women’s hockey. 

it is not in the bulk majority of the world's population's languges. Indian languges, Mandarin and Arabic do not differentiate between female and women. They make up over 50% of the planet. Ergo, there is no such thing, except fail of a quirk of a subsection of human languages - european languages. I know this, because i speak one of those languages where the word is female sports. 

 

1 minute ago, DrJockitch said:

Now, I will try to make up for my white male privelage and start with a hot take. We should name a woman President of the Canucks. Time to break the white male hegemony. The NBA brought in a woman coach, time for the NHL to get more inclusive.  Looks like a Trump cabinet meeting with all those white male faces in the NHL offices. 

No. merit trumps anything. If there is a female coach with enough qualification to be in the position, by all means. Else, no. I couldn't care less if its a cow with a stephen hawkin voice-brain whatever translator through computer talking and coaching the canucks. So long as its the best damn brain for the job, they get it. Being a cow, a woman, a 12 fingered person, etc. are irrelevant. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, canuckistani said:

it is not in the bulk majority of the world's population's languges. Indian languges, Mandarin and Arabic do not differentiate between female and women. They make up over 50% of the planet. Ergo, there is no such thing, except fail of a quirk of a subsection of human languages - european languages. I know this, because i speak one of those languages where the word is female sports. 

 

No. merit trumps anything. If there is a female coach with enough qualification to be in the position, by all means. Else, no. I couldn't care less if its a cow with a stephen hawkin voice-brain whatever translator through computer talking and coaching the canucks. So long as its the best damn brain for the job, they get it. Being a cow, a woman, a 12 fingered person, etc. are irrelevant. 

 

There is a big difference between half the planet not distinguishing and not existing. Besides the nature of the inclusion into the women’s division is really up to the sporting body so it exists if they want it to exist. These aren’t intrinsic human features or linguistic constructs they are sporting bodies which are silly organizations with silly rules that have people doing silly things.  They can make up whatever rules they desire with only moderate input from governing bodies, governments etc.

 

i agree ultimately the test of fairness is that the best person for the job gets should get the job. This is also the argument that has always been used to exclude groups from jobs they haven’t typically had. When the only difference between upper management and middle management and the entry level workers is the age of their white male face, you may need to make a few extra efforts to be inclusive. Okay jumping to President was a little tongue in cheek but there are plenty of women coaches and management out there in hockey that we should have seen an assistant coach or AGM by now. At some point you have to look at it and say this seems intentional. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Most cost-benefit analysis would argue decisively in favor of M to F transitioning with money being the end goal and empiric benchmark. Winning quarter million dollars for cycling in a field where its far harder to earn that money as a male, for people who love to do it anyways, is a decisive cost-to-benefit advantage. 

Yes but only ff everything, according to your plan, happened the way it was supposed to happen (i.e athlete had enough skill, enough self-esteem to deal with scorn/alienation, etc)

 

We both know that's not how it works though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Yes but only ff everything, according to your plan, happened the way it was supposed to happen (i.e athlete had enough skill, enough self-esteem to deal with scorn/alienation, etc)

 

We both know that's not how it works though.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Cost to benefit analysis begins and ends with how much the 'cost of the given up lifestyle' would be, vs how much they stand to gain. 

Everything going according to plan ? Self esteem to deal with scorn ??? Sports is fundamentally adversarial. most sports-people do not care one jot if they are loathed or not. Plenty of men and women. Caster Semanya does not give  jot she is hated, she does it. Steffi Graf didnt give a jot being openly called out by Navratilova or such for being a crap tennis personality ( she refused interviews, said 3 words and screwed off, even saying she is here to play tennis, not answer your questions), etc. Its naive to think that for pro sportsmen ' what others to think' is a big enough factor to forego millions in a decade and half. Especially when they are willing to make the same millions by the boatloads by objectively endangering their bodies and destroying their lives by doping by their droves. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • SNuck locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...