|
|
Post by huskerholiday on Jan 23, 2018 23:31:41 GMT -5
here we go....anyone that disagrees with the crying choir boys is an awful human being that hates gays, transgenders, and Jesus. Lets not talk about if its fair or they will throw a hissy fit.
|
|
|
|
Post by huskerholiday on Jan 23, 2018 23:32:29 GMT -5
The best? That is a bold claim, with no support. Furthermore, the player is legally considered a woman and is allowed to play in the women’s division. The current logic applied by governing bodies is that with appropriate hormone therapy she competes fairly against as a woman. The only published study of elite transgender women athletes demonstrates no unfair advantage. No published study offers any proof to the contrary. The only arguments against her playing is that she has an unfair advantage, having lived XX years as a man. Many other women have unfair genetitc advantages, like height, or unfair social advantages, like being born into wealth. I (and others) accept that it is fair for her to compete based on a combination of legal, medical, scientific, and ethical information available to me. It is that simple. You don’t accept that it is fair for whatever reasons you have. Conversation over. get him daddy get him Daddy? Are we in a bad porn movie and no one told me? |
|
|
|
Post by Fight On! on Jan 23, 2018 23:43:20 GMT -5
here we go....anyone that disagrees with the crying choir boys is an awful human being that hates gays, transgenders, and Jesus. Lets not talk about if its fair or they will throw a hissy fit. My post directly describes why I think it is fair and does not include any of the “crying,” accusation of being a bad person, or claiming people hate anyone. So, it appears to me that you are the poster attempting to perpetuate the name calling, ad hominem attacks, etc. at this point. Good work. |
|
|
|
Post by Fight On! on Jan 23, 2018 23:44:57 GMT -5
The best? That is a bold claim, with no support. Furthermore, the player is legally considered a woman and is allowed to play in the women’s division. The current logic applied by governing bodies is that with appropriate hormone therapy she competes fairly against other women. The only published study of elite transgender women athletes demonstrates no unfair advantage. No published study offers any proof to the contrary. The only arguments against her playing is that she has an unfair advantage, having lived XX years as a man. Many other women have unfair genetitc advantages, like height, or unfair social advantages, like being born into wealth. I (and others) accept that it is fair for her to compete based on a combination of legal, medical, scientific, and ethical information available to me. It is that simple. You don’t accept that it is fair for whatever reasons you have. Conversation over. 'The best'. I'm not talking about this athlete. Did you read and understand my first post before pushing it and this aside? I'm guessing the crux of this is people feel ill at ease to say a transitioned elite male in the future (then female) can be the #1 female. 7ft, ect. I'm just wanting to know if people would be okay with a transitioned former elite male player being the number #1 female player? I'm not talking about at birth stuff. But late transition. I guess I have my non-answer from you along with your non-comprehension of what I wrote. I can’t help it if you write poorly, making your initial post hard to understand. |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jan 23, 2018 23:48:44 GMT -5
here we go....anyone that disagrees with the crying choir boys is an awful human being that hates gays, transgenders, and Jesus. Lets not talk about if its fair or they will throw a hissy fit. You sound like a broken record. |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jan 23, 2018 23:59:47 GMT -5
The best? That is a bold claim, with no support. Furthermore, the player is legally considered a woman and is allowed to play in the women’s division. The current logic applied by governing bodies is that with appropriate hormone therapy she competes fairly against other women. The only published study of elite transgender women athletes demonstrates no unfair advantage. No published study offers any proof to the contrary. The only arguments against her playing is that she has an unfair advantage, having lived XX years as a man. Many other women have unfair genetitc advantages, like height, or unfair social advantages, like being born into wealth. I (and others) accept that it is fair for her to compete based on a combination of legal, medical, scientific, and ethical information available to me. It is that simple. You don’t accept that it is fair for whatever reasons you have. Conversation over. 'The best'. I'm not talking about this athlete. Did you read and understand my first post before pushing it and this aside? I'm guessing the crux of this is people feel ill at ease to say a transitioned elite male in the future (then female) can be the #1 female. 7ft, ect. I'm just wanting to know if people would be okay with a transitioned former elite male player being the number #1 female player? I'm not talking about at birth stuff. But late transition. I guess I have my non-answer from you along with your non-comprehension of what I wrote. You have a very roundabout way of making your point. I think this thread proves that’s not the crux of the issue because Tiffany is far from the number 1 player and people are still claiming fairness is lost. If you’re actually curious I think we have to view these people as humans first, athletes second. The world is evolving in terms of our understanding of sex and gender, and more specifically, how those intersections interact with sports. Putting aside the fact that I highly doubt this will ever become the norm or popular or significant in sports culture/competitiveness, I think that we should first celebrate the person in question for living their truth, finding happiness, persevering in a very cisnormative world, and then evaluate competitiveness. |
|
|
|
Post by SuperSpike on Jan 24, 2018 1:18:37 GMT -5
This thread will never end as long as the same 3-4 people continue to be outraged that Abreu is allowed to be accepted as being a woman. Hm. Really? Mike you're too smart do pull that crap. Leave that for Shhh and Doubletrojan. Anyway I'd suggest that the people who feel the most emotion about this are likely the ones who: 1. make observable attempts at redirection ('your specific question was discussed, move along' no DoubleTrojan it wasn't) 2. disingenuously represent emotions, arguments etc of others (Yes volleytalk, I'm 'outraged' over this, Mike is right) 3. invalidate the opinions, experiences, thoughts, questions of others ('Conversation OVER' that's not how life works Doubletrojan) The LBGQT community needs better representation on here. That's what I'm taking from this thread. (Actually DoubleTrojan did respond to me after a few attempts to invalidate my specific question, so I'll recognize that. But then said the discussion is over, attempting to invalidate any questions/thoughts that differ from his/hers). So volleytalk, who in this thread is emotionally invested to the degree that they are: diverting, misrepresenting, invalidating rather than discussing with some integrity? Rather than accepting people have thoughts, questions, want discussion. It does bother me to see such disingenuous practices to quiet and label others. Let it be known volleytalk, I'm 'Outraged!' - Per Mike Garrison Let it be known volleytalk, 'Conversation is over' - Per DoubleTrojan --- At the end of the day the goal of my question was to see if you all could see the perspective of the other side. How women's athletics could be impacted if top athletes transition Male to Female. But you all seem very very skitish about discussing the outflow of this and would rather resort to disingenuous attempts to stop conversation. There are legitimate questions here ranging from 'how' to implement structure to maintain fairness, to questions of how future women's athletics could be impacted. But feel free to name call, misrepresent, say my thoughts are invalid, and the conversation is 'over'. I'm not 100% sure what to think the various pieces of this issue, but right now, I feel mostly bemused by the almost childlike attempts at conversation manipulation by certain posters. Gravitation to the mean I suppose. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 24, 2018 1:31:55 GMT -5
There are legitimate questions here ranging from 'how' to implement structure to maintain fairness, to questions of how future women's athletics could be impacted. These questions have been asked and answered for more than 50 years now. Either you aren't aware of that, in which case you should educate yourself before you go posting about it, or you are aware of it and you just don't like the answers. If you can propose better rules than we have now, do so. If not, then I'll continue to assume any further complaining about this is whining due to outrage. |
|
|
|
Post by SuperSpike on Jan 24, 2018 2:46:49 GMT -5
'The best'. I'm not talking about this athlete. Did you read and understand my first post before pushing it and this aside? I'm guessing the crux of this is people feel ill at ease to say a transitioned elite male in the future (then female) can be the #1 female. 7ft, ect. I'm just wanting to know if people would be okay with a transitioned former elite male player being the number #1 female player? I'm not talking about at birth stuff. But late transition. I guess I have my non-answer from you along with your non-comprehension of what I wrote. You have a very roundabout way of making your point. I think this thread proves that’s not the crux of the issue because Tiffany is far from the number 1 player and people are still claiming fairness is lost. If you’re actually curious I think we have to view these people as humans first, athletes second. The world is evolving in terms of our understanding of sex and gender, and more specifically, how those intersections interact with sports. Putting aside the fact that I highly doubt this will ever become the norm or popular or significant in sports culture/competitiveness, I think that we should first celebrate the person in question for living their truth, finding happiness, persevering in a very cisnormative world, and then evaluate competitiveness. Thank you. So I understand that you believe it comes down to personal truth and individual happiness of the transitioned athlete being very important (implied: more than the experiences of the top (lifetime) female athletes). Right now, in this case I might agree. I'm trying to get responses about whether people would feel ok allowing transitioned Musersky/Lebron to compete vs WVB/WNBA? To me this really only becomes a significant issue for top (lifetime?) female athletes when: Either A: Larger quantities of elite men transition Or B: One-two TRULY elite male player transition then leverage height etc to become #1 woman The discussion really revolves around fairness, which would be most infringed upon with the transition of a more elite male. That's what I was wanting opinions on. Not this athlete, but as I stated in two sentences originally, I'm curious what the LBGTQ perspective on VT is regarding the transition of a peak athlete. Women's volleyball federations/leagues and sports in general operate within predefined rules as a means to create some fairness. I think we all agree that sport has less value and appeal if fairness is eroded. So when top male athletes are beginning to transition in various sports, I do think there is legitimacy in discussing how to set rules to insure sports continue to have as much fairness as possible. My question the page before was to probe the water in this thread and see if those who are saying 'nothing to see here, move along' can be honest in admitting that a 7ft male to female could pose legitimate questions regarding fairness. The responses after were: 1. A few outraged ppl keep bringing this up. 2. It was already discussed (I won't say where, and don't ask) 3. 'Discussion over' (your questions/thoughts/you are irrelevant) 4. Shhh cheering Trojan on... I wish BarcelonaBob was hear to smack some of these posters upside the head. Maybe after the daddy comments. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 24, 2018 3:15:14 GMT -5
I'm laughing right now, thinking of LeBron James becoming a woman so that he could dominate the WNBA. Yeah, that would surely be a awesome career move for him.
|
|
|
|
Post by SuperSpike on Jan 24, 2018 3:18:03 GMT -5
There are legitimate questions here ranging from 'how' to implement structure to maintain fairness, to questions of how future women's athletics could be impacted. These questions have been asked and answered for more than 50 years now. Either you aren't aware of that, in which case you should educate yourself before you go posting about it, or you are aware of it and you just don't like the answers. If you can propose better rules than we have now, do so. If not, then I'll continue to assume any further complaining about this is whining due to outrage. Okay volleytalk. To have Mike's official permission to post you must do 2 hours of research. Do that or be labeled as an 'outraged' poster. The irony is this. The the purpose of my post was to see if you and others saying 'shut up' can see any perspective other than their own. The answer is that you are as narrow as you seemed, this being the last in a string of attempts to avoid answering and instead invalidate and silence. It's not hard people. Mike just be honest, what would you think about Lebron to female playing in the WNBA? P.S. Do you usually whine when you are outraged Mike? Hm you really are an eccentric. =b |
|
|
|
Post by SuperSpike on Jan 24, 2018 3:26:13 GMT -5
I'm laughing right now, thinking of LeBron James becoming a woman so that he could dominate the WNBA. Yeah, that would surely be a awesome career move for him. Who said he'd do it so he could dominate the WNBA? He'd do it because he's always been a woman inside, however the byproduct would be stomping the WNBA. Legitimate because increasingly elite athletes will transition across a variety of sports, and yeah you probably will eventually get top athletes. Unless top male athletes are too heterosexual? Are you saying LeBron James couldn't in his heart of hearts be a woman? Truly when discussing policies you do try to look into the future and here a distinct possibility is more elite athletes transitioning. I'm not even arguing it's bad. I'm arguing for you and some others to be honest and say 'yeah I could see how that could be difficult for the women getting stomped'. I'm wondering if you and others have the integrity to acknowledge that a female LeBron/Musersky etc would slightly erode our idea of 'fair'. Like Falyn Fox, but with a muuch better athlete. |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jan 24, 2018 10:07:13 GMT -5
I'm laughing right now, thinking of LeBron James becoming a woman so that he could dominate the WNBA. Yeah, that would surely be a awesome career move for him. Who said he'd do it so he could dominate the WNBA? He'd do it because he's always been a woman inside, however the byproduct would be stomping the WNBA.
Legitimate because increasingly elite athletes will transition across a variety of sports, and yeah you probably will eventually get top athletes. Unless top male athletes are too heterosexual? Are you saying LeBron James couldn't in his heart of hearts be a woman? Truly when discussing policies you do try to look into the future and here a distinct possibility is more elite athletes transitioning. I'm not even arguing it's bad. I'm arguing for you and some others to be honest and say 'yeah I could see how that could be difficult for the women getting stomped'. I'm wondering if you and others have the integrity to acknowledge that a female LeBron/Musersky etc would slightly erode our idea of 'fair'. Like Falyn Fox, but with a muuch better athlete. I was listening to you until you made this outrageous comment. I thought you were asking about an insane hypothetical for the sake of discussion but it appears as if you think your question is realistic. There is ZERO evidence that "more elite athletes [will transition]." This point has been made numerous times in this thread, I'm sorry no one held your hand to find it. Even if you were still maintaining this point hypothetically, it fuels false slippery slope arguments that take form in transphobic discourse that creates hysteria around improbable scenarios that distract from the individual and progress that has been made regarding gender identity. If you are really "not even arguing it's bad," I would think about the ill-informed reactions your broadcasted statements can cause. |
|
|
|
Post by Fight On! on Jan 24, 2018 13:14:38 GMT -5
This thread will never end as long as the same 3-4 people continue to be outraged that Abreu is allowed to be accepted as being a woman. Hm. Really? Mike you're too smart do pull that crap. Leave that for Shhh and Doubletrojan. Anyway I'd suggest that the people who feel the most emotion about this are likely the ones who: 1. make observable attempts at redirection ('your specific question was discussed, move along' no DoubleTrojan it wasn't) 2. disingenuously represent emotions, arguments etc of others (Yes volleytalk, I'm 'outraged' over this, Mike is right) 3. invalidate the opinions, experiences, thoughts, questions of others ('Conversation OVER' that's not how life works Doubletrojan) The LBGQT community needs better representation on here. That's what I'm taking from this thread. (Actually DoubleTrojan did respond to me after a few attempts to invalidate my specific question, so I'll recognize that. But then said the discussion is over, attempting to invalidate any questions/thoughts that differ from his/hers). So volleytalk, who in this thread is emotionally invested to the degree that they are: diverting, misrepresenting, invalidating rather than discussing with some integrity? Rather than accepting people have thoughts, questions, want discussion. It does bother me to see such disingenuous practices to quiet and label others. Let it be known volleytalk, I'm 'Outraged!' - Per Mike Garrison Let it be known volleytalk, 'Conversation is over' - Per DoubleTrojan --- At the end of the day the goal of my question was to see if you all could see the perspective of the other side. How women's athletics could be impacted if top athletes transition Male to Female. But you all seem very very skitish about discussing the outflow of this and would rather resort to disingenuous attempts to stop conversation. There are legitimate questions here ranging from 'how' to implement structure to maintain fairness, to questions of how future women's athletics could be impacted. But feel free to name call, misrepresent, say my thoughts are invalid, and the conversation is 'over'. I'm not 100% sure what to think the various pieces of this issue, but right now, I feel mostly bemused by the almost childlike attempts at conversation manipulation by certain posters. Gravitation to the mean I suppose. Your question was written so poorly, I couldn’t understand what it meant. And wow. I simply described the arguments that those of us who support her right to play have relied on. There has been absolutely nothing new discussed on the issue in many pages. If you want to talk %*$# about me, then tag me, and don’t be passive aggressIve. |
|
|
|
Post by Fight On! on Jan 24, 2018 13:22:53 GMT -5
There are legitimate questions here ranging from 'how' to implement structure to maintain fairness, to questions of how future women's athletics could be impacted. These questions have been asked and answered for more than 50 years now. Either you aren't aware of that, in which case you should educate yourself before you go posting about it, or you are aware of it and you just don't like the answers. If you can propose better rules than we have now, do so. If not, then I'll continue to assume any further complaining about this is whining due to outrage. Right. Plus, the case of Renee Richards has been brought up repeatedly in the thread, which no one who wants to talk about the future of women’s sports has been willing to discuss because it doesn’t conveniently fit into their doom and gloom narrative. They don’t know the history of the issue, don’t care to learn about it, don’t care to learn the available current evidence from experts, and simply want to demand the right to whine continuously that people aren’t entertaining their ridiculous hypothetical scenarios. |
|
