2SLGBTQQIA+

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
14,704
2,438
113
Toronto, ON
It is not misogyny to note that men are biologically stronger than women. A trans man does not gain the bulk and the muscle and the strength by transitioning to a man. He does not gain advantage over the competition by the transition. And I think in the end the only non-sexist, non judgemental way to settle this for everybody is to remove the distinction between male and female sports. Have everybody compete in one competition and let the chips fall where they may.
 

Serryah

Executive Branch Member
Dec 3, 2008
9,142
2,128
113
New Brunswick
It is not misogyny to note that men are biologically stronger than women.

That's not what the misogyny is about.

The misogyny comes from the idea of trans women daring to be women and deny their "manhood" by doing so. As if women are lesser. And the majority of the public agree with this, even if they don't realize it. That's why there's the upset over trans women.

It's why there's rarely issues from people - men mostly - about trans men. What you hear in protest about trans men comes from women who say they're 'gender traitors' or they have 'bought into the patriarchy'.

But arguments from men, not so much.

A trans man does not gain the bulk and the muscle and the strength by transitioning to a man.

Maybe not as much bulk as a non-trans man, or maybe they do, it depends on time of transition, hormone treatments, etc.

Not all men are bulky, strong, muscular men, after all.

He does not gain advantage over the competition by the transition.

Doesn't he though? I mean, having a "Female body" would make a trans man - by your logic - lighter, thus faster so a trans man should excel in sports demanding speed, for instance. A trans man would do better in gymnastics than a straight man too, right?

And I think in the end the only non-sexist, non judgemental way to settle this for everybody is to remove the distinction between male and female sports. Have everybody compete in one competition and let the chips fall where they may.

That's one way to solve it. Another would be - as biased and bigoted and sexist as it is - to have a trans only competition. Though the downside of that would be the number of participants; there'd be a lot of golds going out since there might only be one or two trans competitors in the sport.

And then you'd have to define the people who participate; are they only trans people, or people who just have unnaturally high hormones, or low hormones? And how do you determine these things? Do you genetic test all those athletes and anyone except the XX/XY are pushed into the 'trans' events?

As kids, before puberty, it doesn't matter really if the teams are mixed or not; the playing field is literally even. Only when they hit puberty do the differences start and as pointed out in the piece, denying trans women from sports invalidates all women and puts them at second class, because now you have even non-trans young women being suspected of being trans, all because they're good at a sport.

It's not a matter of uniting the genders into a sport, it's a matter of people needing to grow the hell up and realize that trans people - regardless of which gender - are that gender and are equal to others of that gender. And to "Fix" the issues usually cried about from the anti-trans types, is to allow trans kids to transition beyond socially at an earlier age; meaning allowing trans kids after they have been defined as trans to take the proper hormones asap, and not wait until they're older and the wrong hormones have done the damage already.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
110,314
11,795
113
Low Earth Orbit
That's not what the misogyny is about.

The misogyny comes from the idea of trans women daring to be women and deny their "manhood" by doing so. As if women are lesser. And the majority of the public agree with this, even if they don't realize it. That's why there's the upset over trans women.

It's why there's rarely issues from people - men mostly - about trans men. What you hear in protest about trans men comes from women who say they're 'gender traitors' or they have 'bought into the patriarchy'.

But arguments from men, not so much.



Maybe not as much bulk as a non-trans man, or maybe they do, it depends on time of transition, hormone treatments, etc.

Not all men are bulky, strong, muscular men, after all.



Doesn't he though? I mean, having a "Female body" would make a trans man - by your logic - lighter, thus faster so a trans man should excel in sports demanding speed, for instance. A trans man would do better in gymnastics than a straight man too, right?



That's one way to solve it. Another would be - as biased and bigoted and sexist as it is - to have a trans only competition. Though the downside of that would be the number of participants; there'd be a lot of golds going out since there might only be one or two trans competitors in the sport.

And then you'd have to define the people who participate; are they only trans people, or people who just have unnaturally high hormones, or low hormones? And how do you determine these things? Do you genetic test all those athletes and anyone except the XX/XY are pushed into the 'trans' events?

As kids, before puberty, it doesn't matter really if the teams are mixed or not; the playing field is literally even. Only when they hit puberty do the differences start and as pointed out in the piece, denying trans women from sports invalidates all women and puts them at second class, because now you have even non-trans young women being suspected of being trans, all because they're good at a sport.

It's not a matter of uniting the genders into a sport, it's a matter of people needing to grow the hell up and realize that trans people - regardless of which gender - are that gender and are equal to others of that gender. And to "Fix" the issues usually cried about from the anti-trans types, is to allow trans kids to transition beyond socially at an earlier age; meaning allowing trans kids after they have been defined as trans to take the proper hormones asap, and not wait until they're older and the wrong hormones have done the damage already.
Do you want to fight. I'll punch you as Jane and when you wake up I'll punch you as Pete. Who will hit harder? Jane or Peter?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Dixie Cup

Taxslave2

House Member
Aug 13, 2022
2,996
1,812
113
That's not what the misogyny is about.

The misogyny comes from the idea of trans women daring to be women and deny their "manhood" by doing so. As if women are lesser. And the majority of the public agree with this, even if they don't realize it. That's why there's the upset over trans women.

It's why there's rarely issues from people - men mostly - about trans men. What you hear in protest about trans men comes from women who say they're 'gender traitors' or they have 'bought into the patriarchy'.

But arguments from men, not so much.



Maybe not as much bulk as a non-trans man, or maybe they do, it depends on time of transition, hormone treatments, etc.

Not all men are bulky, strong, muscular men, after all.



Doesn't he though? I mean, having a "Female body" would make a trans man - by your logic - lighter, thus faster so a trans man should excel in sports demanding speed, for instance. A trans man would do better in gymnastics than a straight man too, right?



That's one way to solve it. Another would be - as biased and bigoted and sexist as it is - to have a trans only competition. Though the downside of that would be the number of participants; there'd be a lot of golds going out since there might only be one or two trans competitors in the sport.

And then you'd have to define the people who participate; are they only trans people, or people who just have unnaturally high hormones, or low hormones? And how do you determine these things? Do you genetic test all those athletes and anyone except the XX/XY are pushed into the 'trans' events?

As kids, before puberty, it doesn't matter really if the teams are mixed or not; the playing field is literally even. Only when they hit puberty do the differences start and as pointed out in the piece, denying trans women from sports invalidates all women and puts them at second class, because now you have even non-trans young women being suspected of being trans, all because they're good at a sport.

It's not a matter of uniting the genders into a sport, it's a matter of people needing to grow the hell up and realize that trans people - regardless of which gender - are that gender and are equal to others of that gender. And to "Fix" the issues usually cried about from the anti-trans types, is to allow trans kids to transition beyond socially at an earlier age; meaning allowing trans kids after they have been defined as trans to take the proper hormones asap, and not wait until they're older and the wrong hormones have done the damage already.
Where in the hell do you come up with this shit?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 55Mercury

Taxslave2

House Member
Aug 13, 2022
2,996
1,812
113
Why don't we find trans men in the trades or labour?
I do know of one. This is going back about 20 years, when my son worked at Kelowna Flightcraft. There was a guy worked in the office, had a sex change, came back as a woman working on the shop floor. Getting to be lots of women working in trades. Seem to be evenly split between straight and lesbian. I think the lesbians are easier to work with.
 

Dixie Cup

Senate Member
Sep 16, 2006
5,797
3,644
113
Edmonton
That's not what the misogyny is about.

The misogyny comes from the idea of trans women daring to be women and deny their "manhood" by doing so. As if women are lesser. And the majority of the public agree with this, even if they don't realize it. That's why there's the upset over trans women.

It's why there's rarely issues from people - men mostly - about trans men. What you hear in protest about trans men comes from women who say they're 'gender traitors' or they have 'bought into the patriarchy'.

But arguments from men, not so much.



Maybe not as much bulk as a non-trans man, or maybe they do, it depends on time of transition, hormone treatments, etc.

Not all men are bulky, strong, muscular men, after all.



Doesn't he though? I mean, having a "Female body" would make a trans man - by your logic - lighter, thus faster so a trans man should excel in sports demanding speed, for instance. A trans man would do better in gymnastics than a straight man too, right?



That's one way to solve it. Another would be - as biased and bigoted and sexist as it is - to have a trans only competition. Though the downside of that would be the number of participants; there'd be a lot of golds going out since there might only be one or two trans competitors in the sport.

And then you'd have to define the people who participate; are they only trans people, or people who just have unnaturally high hormones, or low hormones? And how do you determine these things? Do you genetic test all those athletes and anyone except the XX/XY are pushed into the 'trans' events?

As kids, before puberty, it doesn't matter really if the teams are mixed or not; the playing field is literally even. Only when they hit puberty do the differences start and as pointed out in the piece, denying trans women from sports invalidates all women and puts them at second class, because now you have even non-trans young women being suspected of being trans, all because they're good at a sport.

It's not a matter of uniting the genders into a sport, it's a matter of people needing to grow the hell up and realize that trans people - regardless of which gender - are that gender and are equal to others of that gender. And to "Fix" the issues usually cried about from the anti-trans types, is to allow trans kids to transition beyond socially at an earlier age; meaning allowing trans kids after they have been defined as trans to take the proper hormones asap, and not wait until they're older and the wrong hormones have done the damage already.
Isn't becoming a "trans woman" denying their manhood? Inquiring minds want to know.
 

Serryah

Executive Branch Member
Dec 3, 2008
9,142
2,128
113
New Brunswick

Proof that yes, being gay is STILL seen as wrong, evil, and that anyone who is GLBTQIA+ STILL have things to fear. And even with SSM being a thing, partners can still be denied coverages and so on.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Taxslave2

Serryah

Executive Branch Member
Dec 3, 2008
9,142
2,128
113
New Brunswick
In all honesty, he could have used the men's room and nobody would have been the wiser. Just turn off the cameras and do your business.

(I stopped watching at the "word from the sponsor").

Well you not watching the video doesn't help you any. Had you, you might have seen why he couldn't have used the men's room.

Youtube videos either have forced in commercials, or 'sponsors' by the creators. If that's your excuse to not watch a video, then do you even watch TV?
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
14,704
2,438
113
Toronto, ON
Well you not watching the video doesn't help you any. Had you, you might have seen why he couldn't have used the men's room.

Youtube videos either have forced in commercials, or 'sponsors' by the creators. If that's your excuse to not watch a video, then do you even watch TV?
I got his point before the sponsor. But why could he not use the men's room? Nobody would have gone into a stall with him. Nobody does a dick check at the door. Yes, it would have been technically against the law but he would not have been caught (assuming he didn't go in with cameras rolling and create a scene).

And I routinely stop watching videos at an embedded ad or sponsor. I don't mind a couple thrown at the beginning. But once I am watching, I don't want to be interrupted (assuming not a real long video which does have a few 'breaks').
 
  • Like
Reactions: petros