Democrat Tulsi Gabbard Introduces Bill That Would Ban Biological Males From Women’s Sports

[DonS 3,063]

17 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

I didn't read this thread to see if I already posted this: 

 

 

Link to actual peer reviewed study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33288617/

TRANSPHOBE!!!!!   How dare you bring science into this, as only lefty approved science can be deemed as "real".

 

[Gutterboys Flip Flops 92]

35 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

This guy, always with the qualifiers. How about no? No to all of it. There are two genders. End of story. 

That's the true science,  all other so called genders are really nothing but mental disorders.  

Genders, it's where the "science" screamers dont like science.  

[Gladiators 1,903]

Just now, Gutterboys Flip Flops said:

That's the true science,  all other so called genders are really nothing but mental disorders.  

Genders, it's where the "science" screamers dont like science.  

[TimHauck 1,795]

33 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

I didn't read this thread to see if I already posted this: 

 

 

Link to actual peer reviewed study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33288617/

Thanks for sharing, that is interesting.

I had read a bunch about June Eastwood the runner at Montana (there's actually a thread on the letsrun message board about this very bill which discusses her), and basically most there seemed to think her times as a woman were pretty equivalent if not worse comparatively speaking to when she was a male.  Yes, she won a conference title so you could argue she took that away from a biological female, but she really wasn't very good on the national scene, and this is someone that had actually been pretty good as a male. 

Basically, the point is that it's a stretch that transgenders will ever "take over" women's sports, at least not for the next 100+ years.    In order for them to dominate after undergoing hormone therapy, they would have needed to already be at least pretty close to top level athlete as a male.  Which would likely be pretty rare.  So yeah, maybe there will be one here and there and sure maybe that could be worth putting up a major fight over, but it's not like this will mean the end of women's sports.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,588]

How about no? 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

27 minutes ago, Gutterboys Flip Flops said:

That's the true science,  all other so called genders are really nothing but mental disorders.  

Genders, it's where the "science" screamers dont like science.  

Yeah, the ongoing war on 50000 years of woman biology.  Pitting them up against man at every turn, and now literally on the racetrack.  And the poor woman think they are being freed.

[RLLD 3,455]

4 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

Yeah, the ongoing war on 50000 years of woman biology.  Pitting them up against man at every turn, and now literally on the racetrack.  And the poor woman think they are being freed.

I doubt women see this move as "freeing", but they know all too well that to speak up will result in cancellation.

So the net here is that for the tiny few people with gender dyphoria we harm thousands of women who have strived to develop to compete...... what is the harm in maybe creating another area of competition that is non-gender?  How about that?

[TimmySmith 2,782]

3 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I doubt women see this move as "freeing", but they know all too well that to speak up will result in cancellation.

So the net here is that for the tiny few people with gender dyphoria we harm thousands of women who have strived to develop to compete...... what is the harm in maybe creating another area of competition that is non-gender?  How about that?

We are not empowering whackos if they can't beat somebody, and wackos rate higher than women. 

The party of science is convinced they can empower fish to climb trees. 

 

[TBayXXXVII 2,106]

9 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Thanks for sharing, that is interesting.

I had read a bunch about June Eastwood the runner at Montana (there's actually a thread on the letsrun message board about this very bill which discusses her), and basically most there seemed to think her times as a woman were pretty equivalent if not worse comparatively speaking to when she was a male.  Yes, she won a conference title so you could argue she took that away from a biological female, but she really wasn't very good on the national scene, and this is someone that had actually been pretty good as a male. 

Basically, the point is that it's a stretch that transgenders will ever "take over" women's sports, at least not for the next 100+ years.    In order for them to dominate after undergoing hormone therapy, they would have needed to already be at least pretty close to top level athlete as a male.  Which would likely be pretty rare.  So yeah, maybe there will be one here and there and sure maybe that could be worth putting up a major fight over, but it's not like this will mean the end of women's sports.

I think the issue starts before that.  Meaning, at the HS level.  There's a lot of high school boys who aren't good enough to get a scholarship to play men's athletics in college... yet, are substantially good enough to get one to play women's athletics.  Honestly, do you think that the UConn women's basketball team can beat the "average" high school boys team?  No f'ing way.  That's where it starts.  There will be 15 and 16 year old boys "transitioning" in order to get a college scholarship.  For every success story, you can guarantee that 10 more will follow.  You also know that the media will be rushing to jerk off the first the boy who does this and becomes an All-American in a women's sport.  That will add to the notoriety and popularity.

I think the people saying less than 10 years is overly aggressive, as do I think your 100+ years.  It'll be more than 10, but certainly less than 100.  Like I said, once the first boy does it, the flood gates WILL open.  If the current social agenda continues uninterrupted, I'd say that by the year 2050, about 25% of women's athletics (at the college level), will be transgender and as much as 75% of the professional ranks, WNBA & USWNT, for example.

[TheNewGirl 1,020]

18 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Thanks for sharing, that is interesting.

I had read a bunch about June Eastwood the runner at Montana (there's actually a thread on the letsrun message board about this very bill which discusses her), and basically most there seemed to think her times as a woman were pretty equivalent if not worse comparatively speaking to when she was a male.  Yes, she won a conference title so you could argue she took that away from a biological female, but she really wasn't very good on the national scene, and this is someone that had actually been pretty good as a male. 

Basically, the point is that it's a stretch that transgenders will ever "take over" women's sports, at least not for the next 100+ years.    In order for them to dominate after undergoing hormone therapy, they would have needed to already be at least pretty close to top level athlete as a male.  Which would likely be pretty rare.  So yeah, maybe there will be one here and there and sure maybe that could be worth putting up a major fight over, but it's not like this will mean the end of women's sports.

If a transwoman remains 12% faster, then the chances of them winning in an age group will go up regardless of their performance as a male. They are still faster and if you're referring to speed/endurance sports, I can see how they could be affected. I mean, I don't know how well it would go over for the Women's Olympic Marathon Team to have all three places go to transgenderwomen. You will have fewer bio-women even wanting to join the sport. Men are biologically faster than women; this is a fact. 

I think 100 years is rather generous. I think it will happen more often now; who doesn't want an opportunity to be on the podium even if it's a smaller local event? 

I am an endurance athlete, but rather average. But at the competitive/professional level, this could backfire IMO. 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

49 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

If a transwoman remains 12% faster, then the chances of them winning in an age group will go up regardless of their performance as a male. They are still faster and if you're referring to speed/endurance sports, I can see how they could be affected. I mean, I don't know how well it would go over for the Women's Olympic Marathon Team to have all three places go to transgenderwomen. You will have fewer bio-women even wanting to join the sport. Men are biologically faster than women; this is a fact. 

I think 100 years is rather generous. I think it will happen more often now; who doesn't want an opportunity to be on the podium even if it's a smaller local event? 

I am an endurance athlete, but rather average. But at the competitive/professional level, this could backfire IMO. 

This guy thinks it's possible that men competing with women can be fair under the right conditions.  He's a loon.  Save your breath.

[Fireballer 2,369]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

Thanks for sharing, that is interesting.

I had read a bunch about June Eastwood the runner at Montana (there's actually a thread on the letsrun message board about this very bill which discusses her), and basically most there seemed to think her times as a woman were pretty equivalent if not worse comparatively speaking to when she was a male.  Yes, she won a conference title so you could argue she took that away from a biological female, but she really wasn't very good on the national scene, and this is someone that had actually been pretty good as a male. 

Basically, the point is that it's a stretch that transgenders will ever "take over" women's sports, at least not for the next 100+ years.    In order for them to dominate after undergoing hormone therapy, they would have needed to already be at least pretty close to top level athlete as a male.  Which would likely be pretty rare.  So yeah, maybe there will be one here and there and sure maybe that could be worth putting up a major fight over, but it's not like this will mean the end of women's sports.

So we wait until the madness sways too for us to stomach, then reign it back in?  Nonsense. And we're not just talking about top class athletes.  Millions of bio women compete in smaller scale 10K races, cycling, swimming etc.   Stop it now.  What the point of this anyway?  This whole thing is just a really sick science experiment.

[jonmx 1,558]

This kind of sucks.  Just when there wss a chance to be a world class atheleyh they change the rules. 

[TimHauck 1,795]

3 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I think the issue starts before that.  Meaning, at the HS level.  There's a lot of high school boys who aren't good enough to get a scholarship to play men's athletics in college... yet, are substantially good enough to get one to play women's athletics.  Honestly, do you think that the UConn women's basketball team can beat the "average" high school boys team?  No f'ing way.  That's where it starts.  There will be 15 and 16 year old boys "transitioning" in order to get a college scholarship.  For every success story, you can guarantee that 10 more will follow.  You also know that the media will be rushing to jerk off the first the boy who does this and becomes an All-American in a women's sport.  That will add to the notoriety and popularity.

I think the people saying less than 10 years is overly aggressive, as do I think your 100+ years.  It'll be more than 10, but certainly less than 100.  Like I said, once the first boy does it, the flood gates WILL open.  If the current social agenda continues uninterrupted, I'd say that by the year 2050, about 25% of women's athletics (at the college level), will be transgender and as much as 75% of the professional ranks, WNBA & USWNT, for example.

As I said, at the high school level I agree, because you can't tell kids to take hormone therapy and if they haven't taken it they'll have a huge advantage.    But because of the hormone therapy currently required for the NCAA (although the rule is vague and there was a transgender that won a D2 championship in track in 2019 that some believe didn't actually take it), if they haven't already taken hormone therapy then their performance will decline which will limit the scholarship opportunities.   So unless they were a top athlete already, it's going to be extremely difficult for them to make it in D1, let alone the pros as you mention.  Similar to the wrestling conversation I was having earlier, I do think the UConn women would beat the "average" high school boys team.  Maybe not a "good" one though.  But again that is going up against guys who have not taken any hormone treatment.

 

3 hours ago, TheNewGirl said:

If a transwoman remains 12% faster, then the chances of them winning in an age group will go up regardless of their performance as a male. They are still faster and if you're referring to speed/endurance sports, I can see how they could be affected. I mean, I don't know how well it would go over for the Women's Olympic Marathon Team to have all three places go to transgenderwomen. You will have fewer bio-women even wanting to join the sport. Men are biologically faster than women; this is a fact. 

I think 100 years is rather generous. I think it will happen more often now; who doesn't want an opportunity to be on the podium even if it's a smaller local event? 

I am an endurance athlete, but rather average. But at the competitive/professional level, this could backfire IMO. 

The "chances" go up, but they still need to be good to begin with.   This particular bill is only referring to Title IX so only schools.

 

 

[TheNewGirl 1,020]

Just now, TimHauck said:

 

The "chances" go up, but they still need to be good to begin with.   This particular bill is only referring to Title IX so only schools.

 

 

So let's take kids when they are trying to fit in, play a sport as best as they can, and then be passed up by a person who will always be faster and stronger - because science. 

My daughter plays high school basketball at the competitive level. Telling her that she didn't make a team because a transgender woman did would be pretty tough to explain. She'd keep trying...but eventually, these bio-girls will give up playing sports altogether. This will create a LOT of resentment eventually. Why bother to try and get better when you're a kid then? 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,588]

How about no? 

[TimHauck 1,795]

2 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

So let's take kids when they are trying to fit in, play a sport as best as they can, and then be passed up by a person who will always be faster and stronger - because science. 

My daughter plays high school basketball at the competitive level. Telling her that she didn't make a team because a transgender woman did would be pretty tough to explain. She'd keep trying...but eventually, these bio-girls will give up playing sports altogether. This will create a LOT of resentment eventually. Why bother to try and get better when you're a kid then? 

For the third time, I don't think they should be allowed in high school sports.

[Fireballer 2,369]

41 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

As I said, at the high school level I agree, because you can't tell kids to take hormone therapy and if they haven't taken it they'll have a huge advantage.    But because of the hormone therapy currently required for the NCAA (although the rule is vague and there was a transgender that won a D2 championship in track in 2019 that some believe didn't actually take it), if they haven't already taken hormone therapy then their performance will decline which will limit the scholarship opportunities.   So unless they were a top athlete already, it's going to be extremely difficult for them to make it in D1, let alone the pros as you mention.  Similar to the wrestling conversation I was having earlier, I do think the UConn women would beat the "average" high school boys team.  Maybe not a "good" one though.  But again that is going up against guys who have not taken any hormone treatment.

 

The "chances" go up, but they still need to be good to begin with.   This particular bill is only referring to Title IX so only schools.

 

 

You keep referring to the hormone therapy being the equalizer.  Its not.  The trans still has height, size, lung and heart capacity, and reaction time advantages that will never be taken away. Its not a fair playing field no matter how much estrogen you pump into someone.   Also, if  I recall, a U15 boys soccer team mopped he field with the USWNT a few years ago. We're talking about world class talent on the women's side v/s a team full of 9th graders that are a dime a dozen.  Mediocre talent and more work capacity easily overcame that talent. If you pumped those boys full of estrogen, they still win. Their longer legs, ability to run faster for longer, and reacting to the ball faster connot be erased with hormones.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,588]

Blah blah blah. No. 

[jerryskids 5,169]

45 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

For the third time, I don't think they should be allowed in high school sports.

Regardless of the level of transgenders, for each of them there are a bunch of biological women who are disenfranchised by making a single person feel better.  From a utilitarian perspective,  there is no model where this is a net good 

Prove me wrong.

[Strike 3,947]

Trans cyclist who didn't start competing until "her" 40's 5 years ago has won 20 races.  But no, nothing to see here. 

https://nypost.com/2023/03/23/transgender-cyclist-wins-nyc-womens-race/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPTwitter

[Reality 2,710]

Hopefully we see more of this, and soon.

 

[Dizkneelande 839]

6 hours ago, Strike said:

Trans cyclist who didn't start competing until "her" 40's 5 years ago has won 20 races.  But no, nothing to see here. 

https://nypost.com/2023/03/23/transgender-cyclist-wins-nyc-womens-race/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPTwitter

This is one of the most ridiculous ones yet. Well done leftists you should be proud which you probably are because you all suffer from a mental condition.

[RLLD 3,455]

8 hours ago, Strike said:

Trans cyclist who didn't start competing until "her" 40's 5 years ago has won 20 races.  But no, nothing to see here. 

https://nypost.com/2023/03/23/transgender-cyclist-wins-nyc-womens-race/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPTwitter

I remain fascinated that the Feminazi's are not all over this.  Imagine the fear required to silence that clutch of pit vipers!

Did you see that Kasparian from the Turks recently tried to stand up for women and was viciously attacked online? FOCKING>>>>HILARIOUS.....

[BuckSwope 654]

Not sure what it's gonig to take (well, unfortunately I have a guess), but this needs to be shut down and addressed.    You probably do feel like a superhero when you stand 6" over the competition and have to put in 1/5 the work.    

Besides a catastrophic injury, I think what it will take is more and more women retiring, declining to participate, or teams forfeiting.   That is a tough ask in today's climate when anybody who does that risks getting nuked.  

 

[DonS 3,063]

I'd like to see a WNBA team bring in a bunch of trannies and start dominating the league.  It would be like MLB teams with huge payrolls stacking their lineups while the cheaper teams fall to the wayside.

The rest of the teams would need to follow suit in order to compete.  Gradually the number of actual "women" in the WNBA would start to diminish.  The best part is that anyone that actually gives a fock about the WNBA can't say a G0ddamn thing or else they'll get the JK Rowling treatment.

[Engorgeous George 1,154]

Two divisions, open, and chromosomal female.  Males, females, trannies, hermaphrodites, castrati, mutants, freaks, the possibly Canadian, all are fully welcome in the open division.  There is a place for any and all to compete.  Then their is a woman's division, chromosomal, from birth, no pillar and stones hanging out, simple.  No y chromosome.  Triple or quadruple x, fine, no y chromosome.

[BuckSwope 654]

4 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Two divisions, open, and chromosomal female.  Males, females, trannies, hermaphrodites, castrati, mutants, freaks, the possibly Canadian, all are fully welcome in the open division.  There is a place forany and all to compete.  Then their is a woman's division, chromosomal, from birth, no pillar and stones hanging out, simple.  No y chromosome.  Triple or quadruple x, fine, no y chromosome.

This is probably the best option.    I don't think a 3rd division is much of an option because there would be little competition, and it seems too many of the trans athletes won't go for that because they are "women/men".    Of course that is also a roadblock for this solution as well, because trans women will still be saying they are women and belong in that division as they are now.   

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,566]

Circus?  They can go play for the savannah bananas

[Engorgeous George 1,154]

2 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

This is probably the best option.    I don't think a 3rd division is much of an option because there would be little competition, and it seems too many of the trans athletes won't go for that because they are "women/men".    Of course that is also a roadblock for this solution as well, because trans women will still be saying they are women and belong in that division as they are now.   

Naturally the self-interested will object to the reasonable solution.  they are welcome to start their own divisions and their own leagues with their own rules.  My program is inclusive and welcoming, and clearly defined. But to your point, there will be wailing and the rending of garments.  I no longer care.  I am done with torturing langiage and logic and science by a bunch of B.A.s in liberal arts studies.

[KSB2424 3,082]

Lebronette James shouldn’t be allowed to play in the WNBA.  This is an easy one folks.  
 

Move on to the difficult conversations. 

[jerryskids 5,169]

4 hours ago, Engorgeous George said:

Two divisions, open, and chromosomal female.  Males, females, trannies, hermaphrodites, castrati, mutants, freaks, the possibly Canadian, all are fully welcome in the open division.  There is a place forany and all to compete.  Then their is a woman's division, chromosomal, from birth, no pillar and stones hanging out, simple.  No y chromosome.  Triple or quadruple x, fine, no y chromosome.

But not the Irish.   

[Engorgeous George 1,154]

37 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

But not the Irish.   

Well tolerance does have limits.  I agree with you and Howard Johnson.

[TimHauck 1,795]

7 hours ago, DonS said:

I'd like to see a WNBA team bring in a bunch of trannies and start dominating the league.  It would be like MLB teams with huge payrolls stacking their lineups while the cheaper teams fall to the wayside.

The rest of the teams would need to follow suit in order to compete.  Gradually the number of actual "women" in the WNBA would start to diminish.  The best part is that anyone that actually gives a fock about the WNBA can't say a G0ddamn thing or else they'll get the JK Rowling treatment.

 

Lol, keep dreaming.  While I agree biological males shouldn’t be playing women’s sports, this would never happen unless they start using guys that don’t actually identify as women.   A trans woman would have had to already have been at least D3 level to be able to “dominate” the WNBA.

[DonS 3,063]

4 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Lol, keep dreaming.  While I agree biological males shouldn’t be playing women’s sports, this would never happen unless they start using guys that don’t actually identify as women.   A trans woman would have had to already have been at least D3 level to be able to “dominate” the WNBA.

Who says they need skill?  Just pick a couple huge trannies and camp them in the paint.  Let the skilled biological females handle actually moving the ball.

 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,493]

38 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Lol, keep dreaming.  While I agree biological males shouldn’t be playing women’s sports, this would never happen unless they start using guys that don’t actually identify as women.   A trans woman would have had to already have been at least D3 level to be able to “dominate” the WNBA.

Dude - they already have videos of regular dudes dominating professional female basketball players.  D3 my a$$.

[TimHauck 1,795]

34 minutes ago, DonS said:

Who says they need skill?  Just pick a couple huge trannies and camp them in the paint.  Let the skilled biological females handle actually moving the ball.

 

Are there many 7 foot trannies?

[TimHauck 1,795]

2 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Dude - they already have videos of regular dudes dominating professional female basketball players.  D3 my a$$.

Link?

[DonS 3,063]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

Are there many 7 foot trannies?

I'm sure there are plenty of tall mentally disturbed "ladies".  How many WNBA teams are there anyways?  Just a couple tall freaks is all you'd need. 

[TimHauck 1,795]

4 minutes ago, DonS said:

I'm sure there are plenty of tall mentally disturbed "ladies".  How many WNBA teams are there anyways?  Just a couple tall freaks is all you'd need. 

A couple unathletic giants aren’t going to dominate the WNBA, sorry.  They already have some tall women that size that would “dominate” them if they don’t have actual skills.