![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
edy420 » May 2nd, 2019, 4:53 pm wrote:Having four daughters, I would hate to see them train their whole lives to be competitive at their sport, only to be beaten by a Male. Or worse, knocked out by one.
The look on girls faces when they see two guys win the track and field.
If we abolish the men and womans division altogether,
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Fighting sports are idiotic already. What's one more person with brain-damage?
Show me. How often has this happened?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
edy420 » May 2nd, 2019, 6:50 pm wrote:
Let's say for arguments sake, it's only happened once.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Lomax » May 2nd, 2019, 7:18 pm wrote: How do we deal with the shades of grey?
How many divisions are necessary, or possible, or practical?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
edy420 » May 2nd, 2019, 2:14 pm wrote:When its comes to physical attributes, men generally have an advantage. At the elite level, the differences are definitive. This is why we dont have Brock Lesnar fight Ronda Rousey in the UFC.
But according to the trans community this is a figment of my imagination. I am delusional to think that biological men differ from biological woman in any way. Must have been all the pot I smoked.
Now, biological men are smashing woman's world records, in weight lifting, track and field etc. They are competing in womans team sports and even fighting in the UFC. (Biological men knocking out biological woman)
Organizations are scrambling to defend their right to differentiate, but it's a losing battle for them. They can not even turn to science, as a valid defense, because the trans-womans feelings are at stakes.
I'm trying to think of a nice way to ask a question on this topic, but I have nothing nice to say, so I won't say it. What I will do is provide the answer and open discussion..
We have a womans division. We have a men's division. Now that we have trans-people, let's open a trans-people division where they can set their own new records.
You're welcome.
New York City Just Passed a Gender-Neutral Birth Certificate Law
“New Yorkers should be free to tell their government who they are, not the other way around,” said Mayor DeBlasio.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Nick_A » May 2nd, 2019, 9:42 pm wrote:
.... it just goes to show how far we have sunk.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Serpent » 03 May 2019, 14:28 wrote:edy420 » May 2nd, 2019, 6:50 pm wrote:
Let's say for arguments sake, it's only happened once.
Let's not. Show me the girl's face.
It's very frustrating because I, and my friends have put in a lot of effort to take down our times and to compete ourselves better, but we are not physically able to be competitive against someone who is biologically a male
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Serpent » May 3rd, 2019, 2:33 am wrote:How many divisions are necessary, or possible, or practical?
No idea. We somehow managed to figure out women's voting, the abolition of capital punishment and desegregation in schools. This can't be insurmountable.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
How do we deal with the shades of grey? How many divisions are necessary, or possible, or practical?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
edy420 » May 3rd, 2019, 5:11 am wrote:
Perhaps your willing to argue, [fighting]its inhuman?
Despicable and disgusting.
Men should not be allowed to bash woman,.
I'd be open to removing gender division, but it oppresses womans opportunity. It's a step backwards in equality. That means we must discriminate between genders with different advantages. I'm a little lost. Please tell me I'm right, at least upto this point?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Being open minded to the trans community is an example of how far society has progressed, I think, more so than an example of how far we've sunk. People should be allowed to be themselves and freely express themselves as such. But, in the case of athletes, they should not be allowed to destroy the beliefs and life work of others, ie woman dedicating their lives to being the best woman at something. Nor should they be allowed to break a womans skull!
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Nick_A » May 3rd, 2019, 10:25 am wrote:The reason I mentioned how far we've sunk
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Serpent » May 3rd, 2019, 12:05 pm wrote:Nick_A » May 3rd, 2019, 10:25 am wrote:The reason I mentioned how far we've sunk
From what? Where and when was the legal and social condition that you consider the high point?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Nick_A » May 3rd, 2019, 2:32 pm wrote:You refer to legal and social conditions and I am referring to the ideal of the nuclear family known in the Judeo Christian traditions essential for freedom avoiding the government adopting the obligations of the nuclear family. Its high point was at the beginning
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Transgender athlete Mary Gregory (shown) has reportedly “shattered” four women’s powerlifting world records on Sunday, but only Gregory seems to be celebrating.
A biological male who identifies as a female, Gregory set records in women’s squat, bench press, and deadlift, and scored a Masters world total record.
Gregory took to social media to celebrate his victory and remarked on how well he was treated by fans and officials. "What a day, 9 for 9! Masters world squat record, open world bench record, masters world dl record, and masters world total record!" Gregory posted to Instagram.
"A huge thank you to [RAW Powerlifting Federation], from the bottom of my heart! As a transgender lifter I was unsure what to expect going into this meet and everyone — all the spotters, loaders, referees, staff, meet director, all made me welcome and treated me as just another female lifter — thank you!" the athlete continued. "And thanks to all the fans in the audience who cheered me on and congratulated me!"
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Serpent » May 3rd, 2019, 4:23 pm wrote:Nick_A » May 3rd, 2019, 2:32 pm wrote:You refer to legal and social conditions and I am referring to the ideal of the nuclear family known in the Judeo Christian traditions essential for freedom avoiding the government adopting the obligations of the nuclear family. Its high point was at the beginning
(my bold)
The beginning of what? the nuclear family? 200,000,000 years ago, with birds? 100,000 years ago, with humans? 3500 years ago with Judaism - except, no, that won't work, because not only the OT Jews, but most other civilizations were male-dominated, polygamous, treating women and children, along with bondsmen, captives and slaves, as the patriarch's property. So, that freedom of which you prate didn't exist. Doesn't exist in enforced families now. And never could exist in that kind of family for those who, due to various accidents of birth, don't fit your standard model of plug-in unit.
So, where we sunk from didn't happen yet. Which makes the distance or depth of the sinking difficult to measure.
Just wanted to clarify that.
It’s easy to think of the nuclear family as a modern invention, or as a product of the industrialized world. However, historians Peter Laslett and Alan MacFarlane found that this wasn’t generally the case. Prior to the research from these historians, it was generally agreed that extended families were common throughout western countries like England.
Laslett and MacFarlane’s research showed this wasn’t the case. They discovered that the nuclear family (a mother, father, and child or children in a house) was the “dominant arrangement in England stretching back to the thirteenth century.”
Thanks to this research, Laslett and MacFarlane dispelled the notion that nuclear families were a new phenomenon, or that they had only appeared with the rise of industrialization. Their research showed that the nuclear family was much older – at least in England.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
The important thing is if you feel it has value essential for our species to have a free society. If you do then you'll support the ideal of the nuclear family.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Nick_A » May 3rd, 2019, 4:21 pm wrote:
Again, the nuclear family is an ideal which reflects the religious value of receiving from above and giving to below. As such it cannot be considered a widely accepted concept anymore than freedom can be an accepted goal.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
edy420 » May 3rd, 2019, 11:38 am wrote:I'd be open to removing gender division, but it oppresses womans opportunity. It's a step backwards in equality. That means we must discriminate between genders with different advantages. I'm a little lost. Please tell me I'm right, at least upto this point?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Lomax » May 3rd, 2019, 7:10 pm wrote:The preference for jumping to answers is why Serpent thinks that everybody who engages in combat sports is merely being stupid, for example.
we're not just faced with a practical problem but a problem of principle.
![]() |
![]() |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests