2SLGBTQQIA+

Serryah

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 3, 2008
10,034
2,420
113
New Brunswick
The only real issue is the grooming of kids.

Not an issue because grooming of kids is NOT happening. That's just a fear based lie put out by people who are anti-trans.

The same idiocy was used by the same people back in the 50's and up about gay people.

You've fallen for a lie that's 70 years plus old.

When they are of legal age, they can do whatever stupid things they want to their bodies. As long as taxpayers don't have to pay for it. Other than that, few people care.

That's absolute BS. "Few people care", really? If that were the case then what trans people do as adults would not be an issue. But that's NOT the case.

Oklahoma - a senator wants to pass a law that bans transition for anyone until they are above the age that the brain is 'fully developed', aka 23-26 years old. Now unless you want to start claims that a 23-26 year old is still a CHILD (and deal with the can of worms that would bring up)...

Missouri - "GOP Gov. Mike Parson on June 7 signed a bill that will restrict gender-affirming health care for minors and some adults in Missouri starting in late August." ( https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...e-and-which-states-have-restricted-it-in-2023 )

It's NOT "just about the kids" and it never was. It IS about people trying to prevent trans people from existing at all.

Semi related.

...

There was a news? article a while back about a woman that identified as a cat.

... You think that's related?

JFC...

Not even sure if it was true.

There are ALL KINDS of people out there that identify as a lot of things. You know what? It's none of your goddamn business.

Assuming it is true, should she get fur implants all over her body and a tail stitched on to make her look like she feels?

None of your business, or mine.

I don't see any difference between her? it? and any tranny.

Well to phobic people like you, there isn't, because people who aren't exactly like you are so freakin' scary that anything they do with their lives "should not be done!"

You know what? What if it IS real? Let the person make the case for it, defend their right to do whatever the fuck they want to their own bodies and unless you are anywhere near them that you might interact with them, just live your OWN life and worry about that.

But big hint - the two things are NOT related or even comparable at all.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Taxslave2

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,364
12,825
113
Low Earth Orbit
Not an issue because grooming of kids is NOT happening. That's just a fear based lie put out by people who are anti-trans.

The same idiocy was used by the same people back in the 50's and up about gay people.

You've fallen for a lie that's 70 years plus old.
Lies? The gender is a social construct Lue concocted by a madman and since disproven numerous times?

There are two genders but multiple sexual deviations.

Get with reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2

Serryah

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 3, 2008
10,034
2,420
113
New Brunswick
Does it matter? Her record was beaten by a biological male.

Biological... oh you mean they might have had enough flesh and blood to make a penis?

Wow you think so little of men...

Body shamer.

Howso? How do we know she's a she? Just because she MAY have a vagina, do we know ALL her body parts to make her a 'she'?

BTW, I accept your apology for being a dumbass and getting trans men/trans women status wrong. I know it must'a been hard after looking like a complete and utter cluless dipshit to do but... it takes strength to admit mistakes, Jin. I'm proud of you!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Taxslave2

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
58,097
8,349
113
Washington DC
Does it matter? Her record was beaten by a biological male.

Body shamer.
Just saying that from the photo, I see a human being with hair no longer than I've worn mine, back in the day, No secondary sexual characteristics to speak of.

It was the suit that convinced you, right? Cuz it's physically impossible for a male to wear that suit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Serryah

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,364
12,825
113
Low Earth Orbit
Just saying that from the photo, I see a human being with hair no longer than I've worn mine, back in the day, No secondary sexual characteristics to speak of.

It was the suit that convinced you, right? Cuz it's physically impossible for a male to wear that suit.
Pizza Pizza

Free delivery for orders over $19.99

THIS IS AN EXCERPT FROM INTRODUCTION TO SPORT LAW WITH CASE STUDIES IN SPORT LAW-2ND EDITION BY JOHN O. SPENGLER,PAUL ANDERSON,DAN CONNAUGHTON & THOMAS BAKER.​

TITLE IX​


In the late 1960s and early 1970s, few athletes at the high school or university level were female. Women who participated received little support from athletic department budgets. With the enactment of Title IX, women began to see exponential gains in athletic participation at the high school and university levels.

The legislative impetus for Title IX was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Its framework, which forced schools and employers to honor the civil rights of minority students and employees, also forced schools and employers to recognize the rights of women. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq., 2015) provides the following:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex,(not make believe gender) be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

Simply stated, Title IX prohibits programs that receive federal funding from excluding people from participating in the programs or denying people access to the benefits that the programs might provide. The focus of Title IX is to prohibit discrimination against the underrepresented sex, which historically has been women.

Although the law's prohibition of discrimination seems clear, many questions remain. Title IX says nothing about athletics; instead, its focus is on educational programs. But courts quickly understood that athletic participation is a benefit within an overall educational program. As a result, the focus of Title IX litigation has been athletic departments and organizations.

There has also been confusion over what programs or activities receive federal financial assistance and therefore come under Title IX. At first, courts determined that the law applied only to programs that received federal funding. Therefore, athletic departments were not covered unless it was clear that the department itself directly received federal funding. In fact, in 1984 the U.S. Supreme Court found that only the specific department receiving federal funding should be required to comply with Title IX (Grove City College et al. v. Bell, 1984).

In the case of Grove City College, a private liberal arts college refused to agree to Title IX's nondiscrimination provisions as required by the Department of Education. As a result, the Department of Education pulled grant and loan money for students. The school sued so that it could get the funding back. The Supreme Court agreed that the Department of Education could pull the funding because the school did not comply with Title IX, but the court limited its decision to the specific programs at the school that received federal financial assistance.

The results of this case were staggering. Because most universities have separate financial aid offices that provide student financial aid, athletic departments could avoid review under Title IX because the athletic departments themselves did not receive direct federal financial aid. But 3 years later Congress passed the Civil Rights Restoration Act (2015), overturning the Supreme Court and making clear that as long as any part of a program or activity receives federal financial assistance, Title IX applies (20 U.S.C. § 1687, 2015). As a result, because virtually every American university and high school receives some form of federal funding, Title IX applies to all schools.

Although Title IX applies to virtually every school, it does not apply directly to every athletic organization. For instance, the Supreme Court has held that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is not subject to Title IX because the organization does not directly receive federal funds (NCAA v. Smith, 1999). Renee Smith sued the NCAA because its rules barred her from participating in volleyball at one institution after she had already graduated from another institution. The Supreme Court found that the NCAA only indirectly received federal funds from the dues paid by its member schools and that this was not enough to force the NCAA to be subject to Title IX. Regardless, the NCAA has voluntarily agreed to work toward compliance with the law and has been at the forefront of providing equitable opportunities for women.

There was also early confusion over who could bring a lawsuit to push for equitable opportunities under the law. Title IX does not provide any specific way for an individual to sue to enforce the law. But in 1979 the Supreme Court held that there is an implied private right of action under Title IX (Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago,1979). In Cannon,afemale student who was denied admission to a medical school sued the school for violating Title IX. The Supreme Court found that an individual can sue under Title IX even though this right is not spelled out in the language of the statute itself. After this case, private individuals, from students to coaches, could sue, arguing that a school or program violated Title IX.

For many years it was unclear what a successful plaintiff could receive if she won a Title IX lawsuit. The law provides that federal funding can be pulled from any school that violates Title IX (20 U.S.C. §1682, 2015), but this punishment has never been imposed. In 1992 the Supreme Court ruled that monetary damages could be available to people who were successful in lawsuits alleging intentional violations of Title IX (Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 1992). (See more about this case in the accompanying e-book, Case Studies in Sport Law, Second Edition [Pittman, Spengler, & Young, 2016] .)

The resticus.

 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
26,273
9,618
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
1694484364023.jpeg
Which nation? Any Olympic medals?
Quick Google says at the 2020 Olympic Games she won a silver medal in the 400 IM with a time of 4:32.76 and member of the 2020 U.S. Olympic Swimming Team.
1694486105201.jpeg
And I've seen sheets of plywood with a better rack. Are you SURE "she" is female?
You need to be more selective of your lumber. 😉
Does it matter? Her record was beaten by a biological male.

Body shamer.
Biological... oh you mean they might have had enough flesh and blood to make a penis?

Wow you think so little of men...
I don’t think (I’m assuming) Jinentonix was pointing to genitals affecting their hydrodynamic properties, but perhaps to a male (XY who’s gone through male puberty) having (generally) larger lungs, wider airways, and greater lung diffusion capacity than the other people being competed against in the woman’s swim whatever….or perhaps denser bone and muscle mass…or perhaps on average longer limbs, larger hands & feet, etc…the things that would affect performance in a sport like what was being discussed.
Howso? How do we know she's a she? Just because she MAY have a vagina, do we know ALL her body parts to make her a 'she'?
You have a point. Let’s line them all up and do a DNA profile to see what’s what I guess. Either they are (they being plural as in all the competitors) or they aren’t and let chips fall where they may then. Is that the answer?
BTW, I accept your apology for being a dumbass and getting trans men/trans women status wrong. I know it must'a been hard after looking like a complete and utter cluless dipshit to do but... it takes strength to admit mistakes, Jin. I'm proud of you!
It is something to wrap your head around. The terms are counterintuitive but with some mental gymnastics and some reading the new basics do come. Until recently I thought I needed a program to try & keep up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
26,273
9,618
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
I was gonna catch the above video but it’s 30 minutes & a school night… so maybe on a Saturday or Sunday morning….

Men aren’t from Mars. Women aren’t from Venus. They’re the same species from the same planet….but there’s definitely a Uranus joke in there somewhere.

Genetically, men and women’s DNA is 98.5 percent identical. They even have the same hormones….but…there are some differences.
 

Dixie Cup

Senate Member
Sep 16, 2006
6,032
3,819
113
Edmonton
Which is part of gender affirming care.



No, psychological referrals are part of gender affirming care.



Not really; or rather, that's not the set protocols.



I know you don't give a shit enough to look this stuff up but honestly, Jin, why bother to comment on any of this when you don't even bother or want to learn anything about trans issues? Right now, you just look like a fucking moron with all this ignorance of yours.
As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as "gender affirming care" - there is just an ideological opinion that a guy can be a girl or vice versa & there is NOTHING CARING about encouraging young people, (who can't vote, drive, drink or take a bloody pill at school without parental permission), to do something they have no knowledge of nor do they understand what "transitioning" even means physically, emotionally and mentally. That is not "caring" it's manipulative & vile. Let the kids be kids until they can make their own decisions - easy peasey. If we simply treated these children as having Mental Health issues, that would be MUCH MORE CARING than the transitioning B.S..

When they become adults & still want to mangle their bodies, then let them go for it! They'll have no one to blame afterwards but themselves for not taking a better approach or, at the very least, research their issue(s) for a better outcome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,364
12,825
113
Low Earth Orbit
As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as "gender affirming care" - there is just an ideological opinion that a guy can be a girl or vice versa & there is NOTHING CARING about encouraging young people, (who can't vote, drive, drink or take a bloody pill at school without parental permission), to do something they have no knowledge of nor do they understand what "transitioning" even means physically, emotionally and mentally. That is not "caring" it's manipulative & vile. Let the kids be kids until they can make their own decisions - easy peasey. If we simply treated these children as having Mental Health issues, that would be MUCH MORE CARING than the transitioning B.S..

When they become adults & still want to mangle their bodies, then let them go for it! They'll have no one to blame afterwards but themselves for not taking a better approach or, at the very least, research their issue(s) for a better outcome.
It's an easy way to convince people with mental health issue to be sterilized. They are going to kill themselves eventually so why let them breed?

The sick and twisted use the sick and twisted to do their bidding.

Perfect example....the KKK has been trying to get rid of images of people of colour off of products for over a century. Thanks to the pimped radical left KKK types can now enjoy sports and shopping in a purely white world.

Who won?
 

harrylee

Man of Memes
Mar 22, 2019
3,446
4,634
113
Ontario