You heard something and went running with no actual evidence. Had this been 1935 I'm sure you'd have heard that the jews were stealing all the money and causing all the problems in Germany as well.
US 2024 Presidential Election
- Thread starter gorfias
- Start date
Point us to a source that outright says that upon testing the athlete has been proven to have an XY configuration.
You just chug ALL the koolaid don't you?
Try being less credulous and you may actually learn to live in the real world with the rest of the real adults.
Aaaaaaand you're on ignore. If that's the best argument you can make, you have nothing worthwhile to say.
True, the Asian guy is new and I haven't hear much yet. The Algerian man? Heard the necessary.
Found this earlier
Might be fun to do a national poll on that one. Who wouldn't call the drag queen with demon horns reading to little children anything other than depraved freak?
But I kinda have an answer to my question: should what appears to be a drive to rape children and legalize it, normalize it, be a Trump position in 2024. Everyone that already sees it happening is voting for him. Those who don't appear to be willful so, my advice to Trump? Talk about the dollar, immigration, inflation, war in Ukraine.
Not that it matters but, " IBA President Umar Kremlev told the Russian news agency Tass last year the disqualifications were because “it was proven they have XY chromosomes.” "
Boxer Imane Khelif, who faced gender-eligibility claim, wins Olympic bout - The Washington Post
and
Olympic Boxer at Center of Gender Controversy Clinches Medal | National Review
It doesn't matter as my question to you is, do you support biological men identifying as women being allowed to compete in women's sports or not.
If you do, I think you insane and harmful.
But for terms of this thread, would it help Trump or not to bring this (and a pro-normalization and decriminalization of raping children) into the debate. I'm thinking not as there are too many crazy bitter childless cat ladies out there that just wont care. You're not going to convert any of them from Cackles to Trump on this issue.
Ahh yes, famously trustworthy and reliably Tass.ru, and I assume that you are also fluent in russian as to ensure that no mistranslations or misunderstandings took place? And of course you'll vouch for the reliability of IBA, right?
And wait, doesn't this source explicitly note
" It remains unclear what standards Khelif and Lin Yu Ting of Taiwan failed last year to lead to the disqualifications. "
But wouldn't that indicate that there wasn't actually a clear statement that the athlete has the XY configuration?
And to make it even better the WP, in an uncharacteristic show of investigative journalism, even notes
" there never has been evidence that either Khelif or Lin had XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone."
But, regardless, I'm sure third time will prove the charm.
" sparking rumors after the Khelif-Carini match that Khelif is transgender. "
Ohh dear, Rumors, yikes, I've heard that those carry a lot of weight in the scientific community, or was I thinking of facts? Guess we'll never know.
" Point to note, the athletes did not undergo a testosterone examination but were subject to a separate and recognized test, whereby the specifics remain confidential. "
Ahh, there we go the famous "I'm not going to tell you what the test is or what the exact results were, but they support my findings completely" also known as the "trust me bro, I can always tell" test.
" In a separate statement, the IOC disputed the results of the IBA’s test that led the boxing association to disqualify Khelif and Lin. "
Well, the gall of that darned IOC, just going about and disputing perfectly valid biased findings, shame on them.
My response is that I don't give a hoot, which is, coincidentally, still more than you'd have cared if this wasn't a chance to bash at your imagined enemy, or perhaps go to bat for your dear leader. None of your ilk care about women in sports, you only want to use them as a cudgel, self serving pricks that you are.
But, for the sake of argument, you're suggesting that someone being born a certain way might provide them a genetic advantage in a field of competition and hence we should ensure that only people of similar genetic disposition compete?
Since 1984 there hasn't been a white, asian, or latin winner of the 100 metres race in the olypmics, whereas you can find plenty of examples of transpeople losing to non-trans athletes. By your own standards we should establish competitions based on race so that everyone is on the same level?
You're a fucking moron, try to be a better person.
Their ability to decide such would be exactly the same after this Act as it is currently. And yet the chance of that happening remains a fevered, hysterical nothing.
It's nothing. There is no legal impact. Their fearmongering was bollocks back then, and we duly ignored it. It's bollocks now too.
I'm talking about your claim that Dems were aiming to normalise and legalise child rape. You have exactly as much basis to claim it for this law as for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, since they both contain equivalent provisions.
You heard wrong-- no doubt because you get your information from liars who try to stoke culture wars. They're both biological women-- assigned female at birth. Right-wing grifters and a Kremlin stooge have been spreading misinformation otherwise because one of them beat a Russian athlete a while ago.
Do you support biological men identifying as women being allowed to compete in women's sports or not.
Thank you. Your position is erasing women in sports. Title 9 exists for a reason.
And gay marriage wasn't on Barney Frank's radar. Then suddenly the USSC discovered a constitutional right to it. Things can change very quickly. Sometimes in ways you support. Others can be in ways you cannot support. But always, if you disagree with it? Could be a looooong time in reversing.
I doubt it but for the sake of argument, never mind this instance. Do you support biological men that identify as women competing against women in women's sports or not? @dreng3 above holds that this isn't worth a hoot. Your opinion?
Aaaaaaand if he think protecting children from being raped is like denying civil rights, good riddance.
Last edited:
Holy shifting goalposts Batman.
If this was a real-time conversation I'd challenge you to name three different women who took a medal in the 2020 olympics and I'd be sure you couldn't,nor could I, for that matter (I think Rapino took gold (Only player in US soccer that I know) and I suspect Biles might have taken a medal before leaving the competition). Truth is, you don't give a shit about women in sports, I don't give much of a shit about women in sports either, but I'm not the one using it to target anyone and calling for their exclusion, you are.
Again, the woman I care most about in sports is my daughter. She got to play with other biological girls without having her head slammed in by a biological male, as she was protected by Title 9. For now. Biden admin tried to unilaterally apply Title 9 to Trans! Blocked in 26 states so far. https://www.washingtonpost.com/educ...itleix-courts-gender-identity-discrimination/
I hope one day to have grand children. I want them protected as well.
But I'm learning: I just don't think this issue will help Trump for reasons. Best to stick to inflation, international strength of the US dollar, the invasion at our southern border and maybe election integrity.
Trying to think up some more stuff pissing me off. My kids, both in skilled/professional jobs making good money, cannot afford a house.
Any other topics y'all think can swing this election one way or the other?
So you don't care about women in sports, you care about your daughter. That kinda proves the point, doesn't it, people like you only ever care when it directly affects you or when you can use it to bludgeon someone you don't like.
It is the same as the abortion issue, "every abortion is amoral except for mine". Disgusting.
This is not an argument. As soon as its pointed out that the impact of the Act is factually not what you said it was, you just start talking about other unrelated past situations as if they prove something.
But they show us nothing about the Act we're discussing. It remains true that the Act gives the judicial branch no more power than they already had to rule on statutory rape. It remains true that the law will do absolutely nothing in that area. You're either lying, or (more likely) you've been lied to by the far-right, outrage-peddling media you consume and are repeating it uncritically.
Last edited:
It's really depressing to see people who seemed otherwise decent, with some quirky views, go full hateful bigot. Guess the political climate these days really is encouraging people to drop the masks.
Nate Silver Says Harris Now Has Slight Advantage Over Trump
Harris has now taken a slight lead against Trump ahead of the presidential election in November, according to data published by Silver’s Substack on Sunday.
www.thedailybeast.com
How did you get from me writing I care most about my daughter (and hopefully one day my grand daughter) not getting their heads smashed in by a biological male: that they deserve Title 9 protection to me not caring unless it directly affects me?
Um, "What's past is prologue"
ITMT: gotta look into this reported poll:
EDIT: Found this... dunno who these people are. Biased poll?
Polymarket - 2024 Presidential Election Predictions
2024 Presidential Election Predictions. Trust markets, not presidential polls. Live and accurate forecasts by the world's largest prediction market.
polymarket.com
2nd Edit: Dunno if this issue will help Trump or not but he is taking this on:
Trump promises to ban transgender women from sports if re-elected
The former president also specifically targeted Lia Thomas, a trans University of Pennsylvania swimmer.
...but the past doesn't provide any precedent for your position. Given that the judiciary have had exactly the same provisions for other groups since 1964, and they've never been used to legalise paedophilia. And dozens of other countries, plus 20+ states, have had protections for orientation, and none have ever used them to legalise paedophilia.
If "the past is prologue", it goes to show that anti-discrimination protections don't lead to the ridiculous end-point you're speculating they would. What you're speculating about has no precedent whatsoever.
Last edited:
Given that you are bringing that up in the context of paedophilia it is obviously not an insult of endearment or anything like that, you are calling them a depraved freak as a statement on their morals. And I have yet to see anything to indicate that this individual has done anything immoral, other than you spouting additional views of what the overall context supposedly is.
Eh, they've been like that for a while. But yeah, bout the time of Trump's first election, Gorfias was saying he didn't vote for the pussy grabber.