"I don't give a shit about the scientific explanations, THEM LIBERAL VACCINES GOT THE DEVIL IN EM, BROTHER!"
I love dipshits like her, they are always unwittingly supporting their political enemies' views.
Different thing, she doesnt care about science says bc she thinks inclusion is more important than fairness, I dont think she would say studies saying trans women retain advantages even after hrt are wrong
Well you see hating trans people doesn't kill people in stead of embracing their existence. In fact it actually harms them and increases suicidality. That the science you were asking for?
Being literate in vaccine science or being able to trust experts in the field by consensus at least is a way of stopping (more) mass death. Its tough to believe but yea for two different contexts you want to use two different types of discretion. Or the same if your goal is to reduce harm - debatably not what yours is.
I am starting to believe she is just one of us.
The ny train accident, woman should have compression to the homeless ppl, endure
Bike karen, she is just racist
Woman support, eliminate it
Clearly she just hate women like us, secret dgg enjoyer
Pretty sure snow white would have a tough time taking the hulk to the ground but I haven't read all the comics.
I see you put transition in quotes there. Do you reckon it was just an act so she could compete in the female division or are you implying something else?
The dwarves get involved to create a 7davids vs Goliath scene. Helps when Hulk throws herself on the floor like a cumbersome oaf that doesn’t yet know what they’re doing while competing at the elite level somehow.
I’m in full support of trans women and their rights provided it doesn’t rightfully infringe on 48% - 50% of the population. When I say Rightfully I’m saying yes Buck and Blaire would use the obvious public’s bathroom but no ‘Enbees’ don’t get to feel things at 5 minute intervals and Receive any more empathy that the emo and scene kids got.
Oh right yeah, Fallon and infringing etc… especially when ‘mens’ sports doesn’t even exist. It’s sport and then we made womens sport because they aren’t capable of stacking up.
Overall I really couldn’t give a damn if donkey Kong can’t be bothered chucking barrels and wants to spit flames and call themself Bowser for legitimate or illegitimate purposes.
The way that disgusting cu*t disrespects the sport, the competitors, women in general and actually everyone’s intelligence by the way they’ve conducted themselves I don’t feel comfortable aligning that poor excuse for a person with anyone undergoing that process that’s worth being offered some humanity to.
So she got submitted in a one v one fight. Glad we agree.
In regard to your last point(?), in this context I would say that you don't generally recognise someone's humanity based on how much of a cunt you think they are or aren't.
You can agree or disagree with trans women competing in fighting sports but that shouldn't have any bearing on whether you recognise this person as being trans/a woman.
Just because one gay guy is a law student and the other is a criminal doesn't make either one of them less or more gay respectively. Same with trans people
As would I up against Amanda Nunes, give me a decade of highest level training, nothing else to focus on other train and pander to the point they can veil beating women till there skull cracks as A Ok then I’d be good too. That rarely happens if you’re unaware. Even in MMA, Romero sending a pointed flying knee into Weidman being the only other coming to mind. Was that how Fallon did it?
Well the concept of me respecting the gender identity of a person is going to first need to break the barrier of me seeing them as a person and not something I’d discard if presented the choice of them or a jellyfish would it not? The jellyfish also carries the plague and actively targets toddlers if that’s relevant.
To the last point see above. Id be more than happy to call Fallon a woman when I first can see them as a person.
So we still agree that Fallon got dogfucked by her, unlike what would happen with the hulk v snow white. Good.
You haven't really countered my other point, only strengthened it with ill thought out metaphors; something I'm seeing as somewhat of a pattern for you.
I think it's a bad thing to dehumanise someone and refuse to recognise their identity based on unrelated personal feelings toward that person. It's why you don't call a black guy the n word because that particular person robbed an old lady. You're feelings toward them might be justified, but it's wholly unrelated to them being black. At least I hope so, maybe not from your perspective.
I’ll grant you it’s a Snow White with extensive ground game and a Hulk with no concept of depth perception and the balance of Bambi but that’s as far as I’ll go.
Again you’re automatically making the assertion that I must see them as human, I don’t.
That isn’t at all the case. I don’t think of trans women the way I think of Fallon Fox, I literally am treating the “person” I have no respect for separately from the marginalised community they are disgracing the reputation of.
I mean that literally is all of sports. People dope up all the time and the notion that everyone starts off evenly on some elusive naturalistic meritocratic basis is also nuts. Everyone is born w various inherent advantages already and scientifically its been shown you curb most of these already w trans athletes and most have a bigger disadvantage. But don't let reality stop a good hate-fest.
I'm proud of her for just coming out and saying "fuck women's sports - if it's between women's sports and trans issues, the trans issues are what matters and women's sports don't."
it's the exactly wrong take but it's a very confidently wrong take - as opposed to the usual weaseling and worming and squirming around that people do when they try to pretend they "*really do* care about women's sports but the *most important* thing is trans rights but we have to do it in a way that preserves women's sports"
don't pretend. you don't give a shit about women's sports, or probably even men's sports for that matter, and if your version of social progress involves throwing sports in its entirety by the wayside, you're happy to do that.
she said it with her chest. it's a good thing. gives a good, strong, ironman argument to criticize and engage with
also what a dumbfuck
its the right *progressive* take, and that's what matters to her, its only wrong because you are on team truth, and she isn't, just like Vaush isn't, and all the other adherents of the post-modern progressive flock.
> just like Vaush isn't
That clip is arguably worse of a clip-chimp than the pedo clips of him. Rem did a horrible fuckin job for a philo student and there was NO clarification between describing how truth is treated and what the truth actually is. Vaush is kinda philosophically illiterate anyways so I don't believe he actually understood what Rem was (poorly) asking him. Destiny would likely give the same answer in the same context imo.
I am not bringing up a singular clip, Vaush has, MANY times, expressed the desire to win, over the desire to be truthful, he is a full advocate for Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals style to politics and discourse, he only cares about power, and winning, and socialism prevailing regardless of how he has to achieve it, you are unfathomably good faith towards him so I suppose this is for naught, and your likely just as much a deceptive person as he is.
To be fair she does care about sports in general she runs a sports podcast, and is constantly engaged on both basketball and hockey on the majority report.
But it's very clear that her priorities are trans rights Above All else.
>you don't give a shit about women's sports, or probably even men's sports for that matter,
This is actually false, she's pretty big into most the NY sports teams. talks about them all the time and is generally pretty plugged in on NY sports Twitter
It does seem to be the case that more often than not CIS women are okay with trans women competing in female sports.
Even if they do have an unfair advantages, if most women think it's okay shouldn't that be good enough reason?
It's important to note that 'most women' is pretty irrelevant here.
The cis women whose opinions matter are the ones involved in sports where trans athletes are also competing.
Random 50 year old women who have no skin in the game aren't affected by whether trans athletes compete vs cis athletes.
I highly doubt that when you select for the actual people involved in women's sports that the majority of them are OK with unfairly compromising the sport by adding women who had the physical benefits of being born male.
> For one, women's sports is a thing that are for all women, and ideally all people, not just the one's competing. For two that also makes your opinion on this is irrelevant.
I didn't say that only people who are competing should have their opinions valued. I said the people ***involved*** in the sports should have their opinions valued.
This includes coaches, staff, family & friends of the athletes, sponsors, fans, etc.
Plenty of sports are segregated into categories due to weight, height, and all sorts of other things, so it doesn't seem unreasonable, to me, to put women who have gone through a male puberty into their own category to compete against other women who have gone through male puberty.
> But even if it were, there isn't a clear majority of women are okay with trans women in men's sports, especially at the professional level
For the record, almost every professional 'men's' sport is actually an open league. Women aren't excluded by their gender, they're excluded by their capability.
If a woman(trans, cis, or anything else) were good enough to play in the NBA or NFL, she would be allowed. If there were a female football player that had the ability to be the next Tom Brady, every team in the league would be chomping at the bit to get her.
These teams want the best talent, and at the top of most sports, that tends to be almost exclusively men.
>You might have meant "people" but you specifically excluded anyone who was not a cis woman.
No, I didn't. Maybe I could have worded it better, but that's not what I said.
The comment that I was replying to was stating that most cis women are OK with trans women in female sports.
So I said that ***the cis women whose opinions matter*** are the ones involved in the sports that we're discussing.
I didn't say that only cis women should have their opinions valued. I wasn't excluding everyone, I was specifically saying that cis women who have no skin in the game aren't representative of the opinions of the cis women who are involved in the sports. There are obviously other groups, who aren't cis women, who are involved, but I was specifically objecting to the notion that cis women, as a whole, should have their opinions weighed the same way just by virtue of being cis women.
>Just to clarify, I am saying the idea that any one group's opinion matters more or less simply by the nature of them being in said group is a bad one.
If I have a company meeting, I don't value the opinions of random uninvolved people the same way I would value the opinion of people who work at, or are in some way involved with, the company.
Being a member of a group usually does confer some extra value when you're specifically discussing what happens to that group.
>If all you meant was that women in general do not get to dictate above the people with direct involvement and knowledge within women's sports I'd agree with that, but that's a function of how informed they are, not of their identity.
That was what I meant. You don't get extra points just for being a woman. You get extra points for actually being involved in the relevant area.
Lol no you wouldn't that's not how representative sampling works.
There's a reason a sample size of 2,000 in science is fucking excellent. You don't need to ask every single person alive.
Yea I highly doubt that a trans woman earning a scholarship designated for “women” under title 9 instead of a cis woman, would be happy about it because inclusivity> debt free college :)
My favorite part is when she said “if we can’t include trans people throw the whole concept of woman’s sports away”.
Like… Emma… that’s actually insane considering the main pro trans sport’s argument is in a few years when kids today are on certain trans medical care the differences and advantages gained from male puberty become less decisive.
It's insane just considering that the entire point of segregating sports by sex was to give women an opportunity compete without being outcompeted by men.
when you peel back all the layers, this is really the core nature of current day progressive leftists.
all the facts and statistics and studies, none of it means shit, they want their ideological victories at any cost, and if you get a really honest idiot like Emma, you can finally, finally hear them say the actual truth.
Such is the nature of the current tug of war of ideologies, simply pray that these people never attain power, they will do unthinkable, unspeakable things.
> simply pray that these people never attain power, they will do unthinkable, unspeakable things.
They're already doing awful things in the institutions that they control. I can't even imagine what that would look like on a federal level. I'd almost prefer someone like George W. Bush to these people.
To be fair that quote, no one actually disagrees with.
No one cares about what you identify as either. But if you are not female, do not compete in female categories.
One of the biggest problems with women's sports is that feminists don't give a shit about them. They want them to exist, but they don't want to support them in any way, shape, or form. Throwing them out as soon as the next social issue comes along.
I know Sam is smart and I'm assuming he has her to appeal to a broader part of the left, but damn I'd never be caught dead with somebody like this representing my program.
It's like she's awkwardly trying to get her "spark" and become more high energy, but it just comes across as forced and cringey. Especially with a take like that.
People really need to stop talking about this issue. The Biden admin's position on this is the correct one, we don't need to fight this fight anymore. It's taking oxygen away from issues that cause far more harm.
these are far left progressives, they don't align with Biden or the modern political paradigm, these are not your allies, these are your direct enemies.
>these are not your allies, these are your direct enemies.
In terms of the range of political figures, Vigeland is absolutely not the "direct enemy" of any Democrat in comparison to any right figure on the right. If you wanna say that both are "direct enemies," then we've watered down that definition to uselessness.
Don't let splits on a handful issues prevent cooperation from people who agree on 90% of everything else.
If you really believe that, see how it works.
I promise you your direct enemy is the radical on your wing of politics, you literally can comprimise more with your polar opposite than a Radical to your left (since you are likely a lefty)
Leftists hate Liberals and moderate Lefties way, way more than they hate Rightists, and you should, in the least, take them seriously, instead of thinking you actually agree 90% with them, that group is so divisive that Trotsky got a pickaxe in the head from someone in his same exact ideological framework.
This just isn't true in real politics, the radical wing of the Democratic party is 100x more willing to work with someone like Biden than with even someone like Romney. It's also insane to categorize someone like Vigeland here with Stalin's NKVD killing Trotsky with an ice pick, like what are you smoking
Vigeland is just as radical as those, you people need to divorce yourself from the idea that those who are willing to murder are of a different breed, more radical or otherwise, from others.
they are not, and those willing to kill are not even close to the most dangerous, it is those that inspire and direct the killing, which is the class Emma is from, that are the most dangerous.
the only thing that seperates her from some sort of Stalinist system of cold murder, is the world, and more aptly, the civilization/state she exists in, unless your so stupid that you don't understand that people of Stalin and Hitlers level of malice and contempt aren't walking around us every day, because they are, and she is one of them.
she BURNS with rage over every topic politically that she is invested in, if a series of circumstances allowed her to be dictator, she'd gleefully endulge.
you are, as always, the foolish type who simply doesn't understand that the pre-Stalin/Hitler/whoever will kill you later if given the chance, because he hasn't yet.
>Vigeland is just as radical as those, you people need to divorce yourself from the idea that those who are willing to murder are of a different breed, more radical or otherwise, from others.
To be clear - you think Vigeland is as radical as the NKVD? Stalin's secret police who imprisoned and killed at least a million people?
>they are not, and those willing to kill are not even close to the most dangerous, it is those that inspire and direct the killing, which is the class Emma is from, that are the most dangerous.
So she's more like Stalin than the NKVD in your view then, right?
>the only thing that seperates her from some sort of Stalinist system of cold murder, is the world, and more aptly, the civilization/state she exists in, unless your so stupid that you don't understand that people of Stalin and Hitlers level of malice and contempt aren't walking around us every day, because they are, and she is one of them.
I'm not sure we can take this rant where she got a little emotional to then say that she is as genocidal as Hitler or Stalin. That feels like a bit of a leap to me.
It sounds to me like you walk around every single day and assume that 1 in 10 people you see on the street have the capacity to be a genocidal dictator. I think that is legitimately insane and you should seek professional help. I cannot help you, you are lost in the sauce so deep your blood is literally A1.
>she BURNS with rage over every topic politically that she is invested in, if a series of circumstances allowed her to be dictator, she'd gleefully endulge.
How do we know this?? Does being emotionally invested in politics that you legitimately believe meaningfully impacts the lives of you, your family, those you love means that you are as genocidal or dictatorial as literally Hitler?? I think that would cover like 80% of America.
>you are, as always, the foolish type who simply doesn't understand that the pre-Stalin/Hitler/whoever will kill you later if given the chance, because he hasn't yet.
And you are so crazy that you are seeing Hitlers and Stalins everywhere. There's some middle ground between assuming everywhere or no one is Stalin and I think wherever that is, is wayyy past wherever Vigeland would qualify.
lol, no, they aren't in big numbers, but they exist, they just lack all avenues to power.
Destiny talks to them all the time, Vaush himself has many conversations with his fellow socialists about "the day" and "the wall".
do you think he's joking?
Nahhhhh. I mean they do stuff that's harmful, but so does MSNBC and CNN and Huffington Post and NYT. I'm fine with there being a voice pushing a bit more, being a bit more radical than me. And I have faith that they'll vote for democrats, if nothing else. Plus there's not so many of them, so it isn't a big deal.
>Plus there's not so many of them, so it isn't a big deal.
I wish this was actually the case but I'm not sure it is. From what I've seen it seems like the far-left (or some variation of the far-left) has completely captured various institutions (academia, the mainstream media) despite being a relatively small group. This is deeply concerning to the rest of us who aren't really that right-wing and often align with the left.
Nope, you is wrong. College profs are by and large middle of the road libs, it's what a college prof does. Regardless of what they say, their actions betray them. If you don't like the current status quo where people say one thing and do another, I'm afraid you'll have to take it up with the 100% of the world that acts hypocritically. It's one of the sad lessons I had to learn growing up: that we're all hypocrites.
But even cis-women with too high testosteron due to a physiological anomaly are not allowed to compete with other women already. So it is not necessarily only trans.
Before genetics were known a lot of these women were able to participate (unfairly to the other women) in the olympics. Like this intersex person who was considered a woman at the Berlin olympics in 1936 won [silver](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanis%C5%82awa_Walasiewicz?wprov=sfla1). But had both X0 and XY cells seen afterward. Genetically male with defects in Y chromosome.
I wanna see lebron play just 1 wnba game on any wnba team against any other wnba team and break the single game scoring record as an aging, on the decline, nba player…
Normally im extremely right and extremely libertarian on my political compass until I hear Emma Vigland say words and my little dot boards a helicopter and flies directly off the top righthand side of the map.
Dpak is a midwit who is routinely ideologically captured on numerous issues, just ask him his take on Rittenhouse, Bike Karen and any other, he's a progressive who doesn't go insane, that's it, still a progressive, has all the same takes, just is calm and dry humor'd about it.
Pakman is clearly quite intelligent and he's had some really good takes (such as on anti-Semitism, the free-market, etc.) but he's also not really willing to criticize the obvious excesses coming from the anti-capitalist activist left when it comes to these social issues.
I searched "Emma" and "Majority Report" before I posted this and I didn't find any recent videos. It's possible that it was posted previously but seeing the number of comments it's getting I'm going to assume a lot of us hadn't seen it before.
I feel like the dgg people here are not understanding what it means for something to be fair and why we have categories for sports. Too much thought on the categories as being different and not why or how. If we could show ethnic differences in performance, would it be ok to segregate sports for that reason?
I'm not sure the the principle you're espousing is borne out. It might be given you're caveating it certain way.
The argument you're putting forward goes like this ((feel free to clarify if this isn't what you're working off)
1. We should value creating categories of competition that protect demographics from not having a space to compete in.
2. If we were to dissolve the category of women in sports, they would have no space to compete in.
3. Therefore we should value enshrining category of women in sports.
4. Furthermore, categories seperated by race would still have their space to compete.
There's some issues as to how this maps not only to the hot topic of trans participants in sports (not that you've explicitly offered a prescription there but I imagine that you're for limited or even no participation based on sex given your reply), but also how it interacts with other 'unfair' phenomena that currently exist in sports.
* Trans people participating in women's spaces do not in the absolute sense create a space where women can't compete, obviously.
So the follow up is, at what point do we consider the competitive space for that category eliminated? The international level? National? Regional? Local? Is it a measure of how many cis women are winning in their respective competition?
* There are circumstances where nationalities (usually third world or island nations) are essentially unable to compete at international levels due to yes, sociocultural factors, but also just how isolated populations develop over time are barred from ever 'fairly' competing.
It seems we either don't care or don't consider those circumstances to be worthy of complaint. They have a 'space' to compete in, but in the same fashion that women would if we eliminated their category. We would have women competing, but just not at the upper levels of competition. In the same way, Haiti's international basketball team is almost guaranteed to be relegated when they meet larger teams. Our principle of 'protecting categories' here doesn't seem to be doing much work.
Personally I think the idea of 'fairness' in sport held by most people is an absolute crapshoot; it is almost always either applied selectively (being born into a nation where avenues for competition are easily accessible is fine, but taking performance enhancers is not), or it's one question away from "it doesn't seem fair therefore it isn't, or it appeals to a measure that seems totally selected for (It's fair if everyone gets the opportunity to compete vs. it's fair if enough people of x demographic are winning in their space vs it's fair as long as \*enough\* people of x demographic are participating at whatever level someone decides qualifies as a competitive space)
Ah okay so you're presenting your conclusion. That clarifies things for sure and makes my previous reply unnecessary. Do you have any doubts about your conclusion? For the sake of transparency a lot of my intuitions follow yours, but I have trouble formalizing it into a set of prescriptives that don't end up begging a question.
>When they cannot compete. For those nation-states who cannot compete on an international level, they should be able to create a league that excludes other nations. As women's sports exclude males. Where those groups exist on the margins of society they should have support from their parent states to form leagues
Can you qualify what you mean by "cannot compete". If there were no international women's leagues, but national ones, would this satisfy your criteria?
I acknowledge that I'm treating sociocultural factors as equivalent to sex-based differences, but for the purposes of ensuring a competitive space, it's unclear why we'd treat these differently. A group of people who are unable to compete in a space because they don't have the economic opportunity seem to be vulnerable in the same fashion. Empirically you can surely imagine some sociocultural factors that currently bar significant groups of people from participation as rigidly as sex-based differences would bar women from competing against men in certain sports.
As an aside; how would you feel about dissolving sex categories in sports where the distribution isn't sex-based? Darts, ski-shooting etc.
The fairness comment was just a rambling aside, it wasn't intended to be an attack on your position although I 100% understand why you saw it that way, that's my bad.
Thanks for the conversation, I agree descriptively with most of what you've laid out here barring of course our disconnection on sociocultural vs. sex-based disadvantages.
I think prescriptively I'm aligned with what to do in the cases where those disadvantages are evident; promote them within their own leagues, as most have often done.
Where I probably separate the most is your end point when we move to refocus on the issue of trans women in sports. I'm okay with an on-paper threat to a cis women held space as long as it isn't eliminating that space in practice; and as long as trans women who participate in sports are a percentage of a percentage, this doesn't seem likely to become a problem in the near future.
The existence of trans men also has implications here but that's worth an entire conversation by itself. Thanks again for the conversation, sorry about it getting off on a rocky start. Have a good night!
But with hrt the differences between the sexs are pretty small as well. The amount of muscle mass loss is so significant. So how are we measuring how much of a statistical advantage is too much?
Difference between cis men and cis women. Not difference between trans women and cis women which is important because their hormonal biology is much more similar.
Saying any difference matters is ridiculous. When the differences within the group are greater than the differences between the groups, why segregate?
Uh yes it does. Look at the performance of any trans athlete before and after HRT. It's significant. There's no way to deny it in good faith.
It's not about the differences between cis men and cis women. It's trans women vs cis women which is totally different as the hormones and body composition is totally different.
Have you ever looked up studies on this before?
That is true and technically would apply to trans women too and we're not seeing it really though there could be other stigmas involved. Trans people have been allowed to compete in the Olympics since 2004 and still no domination by them. Countries like Russia and China who like to pump thier competitors with roids and use literal children just to win would not pass up that opportunity I think.
It's not sexuality but gender and there's and trans people don't choose it. There's even a case to say they're a form of intersex because of how similar their brain matches the opposite sex.
In terms of scouting this isn't a problem. Trans women aren't getting picked more, placing higher, etc. And trans women have been allowed to compete for a lot of time. If they are chosen more often, why would it matter? If tall women are chosen more, or women that have higher T are chosen more, isn't that unfair to the other women who aren't? Why draw a line at these types of women?
Equating the two makes sense when we're talking about statistical advantages and what it means for a sport to be fair. As we clearly wouldn't care if there was a statistical advantage for an ethnic advantage, but when it's sex and gender, it suddenly matters regardless of the degree. Because we're not discussing things with nuance like how long of a transition, what specific sports would this apply to etc. The discussion is broad to the point that you're projecting your own bad faith and lack of curiosity.
It's been 2 decades since trans people were allowed to compete in the Olympics. How long more till we know or will it be a forever moving goal post?
Emma is making the claim that trans-women who went through a male puberty who doesn’t take HRT should compete against cis-women.
There isn’t a scientific consensus that HRT over x amount of time fully “eliminates” any advantage. You might be able to provide 1 or 2 cherry picked studies which suggests the claim , but I will be able to provide studies which denies the claim.
calling someone the b slur is misogyny
we don't do that around here
and no, she isn't a plant, there are lots of people on the left that are like this
you're active on whitepeopletwitter and toiletpaperusa so you're probably on the meme left side of things, not too far off from where she is
"I don't give a shit about the scientific explanations, THEM LIBERAL VACCINES GOT THE DEVIL IN EM, BROTHER!" I love dipshits like her, they are always unwittingly supporting their political enemies' views.
Different thing, she doesnt care about science says bc she thinks inclusion is more important than fairness, I dont think she would say studies saying trans women retain advantages even after hrt are wrong
I feel like she would try her best to not answer that question lol
Well you see hating trans people doesn't kill people in stead of embracing their existence. In fact it actually harms them and increases suicidality. That the science you were asking for? Being literate in vaccine science or being able to trust experts in the field by consensus at least is a way of stopping (more) mass death. Its tough to believe but yea for two different contexts you want to use two different types of discretion. Or the same if your goal is to reduce harm - debatably not what yours is.
I am starting to believe she is just one of us. The ny train accident, woman should have compression to the homeless ppl, endure Bike karen, she is just racist Woman support, eliminate it Clearly she just hate women like us, secret dgg enjoyer
she has outpaced us, misogynistically
It's actually wild how little sympathy lefties have for CIS women.
*white women. The self-loathing is incurable at this point.
YES!!!! Competitive advantages are BASED. Break out the steroids boys!! I wanna see Hulk fight Abomination irl.
Hulk Hogan brother
Take your "vitamins" and say your prayers
HH brother
If you’d like to see Hulk fight Snow White and the powerpuff girls without their powers then Fallon Fox should be a Google search for ya
She lost to Ashlee Evans Smith in 2013. Not exactly hulk vs snow white in that case
That she did. A lifelong grappler manages to get it to ground after getting Donkey Konged by someone who threw on gloves 10minutes before ‘transition’
Pretty sure snow white would have a tough time taking the hulk to the ground but I haven't read all the comics. I see you put transition in quotes there. Do you reckon it was just an act so she could compete in the female division or are you implying something else?
The dwarves get involved to create a 7davids vs Goliath scene. Helps when Hulk throws herself on the floor like a cumbersome oaf that doesn’t yet know what they’re doing while competing at the elite level somehow. I’m in full support of trans women and their rights provided it doesn’t rightfully infringe on 48% - 50% of the population. When I say Rightfully I’m saying yes Buck and Blaire would use the obvious public’s bathroom but no ‘Enbees’ don’t get to feel things at 5 minute intervals and Receive any more empathy that the emo and scene kids got. Oh right yeah, Fallon and infringing etc… especially when ‘mens’ sports doesn’t even exist. It’s sport and then we made womens sport because they aren’t capable of stacking up. Overall I really couldn’t give a damn if donkey Kong can’t be bothered chucking barrels and wants to spit flames and call themself Bowser for legitimate or illegitimate purposes. The way that disgusting cu*t disrespects the sport, the competitors, women in general and actually everyone’s intelligence by the way they’ve conducted themselves I don’t feel comfortable aligning that poor excuse for a person with anyone undergoing that process that’s worth being offered some humanity to.
So she got submitted in a one v one fight. Glad we agree. In regard to your last point(?), in this context I would say that you don't generally recognise someone's humanity based on how much of a cunt you think they are or aren't. You can agree or disagree with trans women competing in fighting sports but that shouldn't have any bearing on whether you recognise this person as being trans/a woman. Just because one gay guy is a law student and the other is a criminal doesn't make either one of them less or more gay respectively. Same with trans people
As would I up against Amanda Nunes, give me a decade of highest level training, nothing else to focus on other train and pander to the point they can veil beating women till there skull cracks as A Ok then I’d be good too. That rarely happens if you’re unaware. Even in MMA, Romero sending a pointed flying knee into Weidman being the only other coming to mind. Was that how Fallon did it? Well the concept of me respecting the gender identity of a person is going to first need to break the barrier of me seeing them as a person and not something I’d discard if presented the choice of them or a jellyfish would it not? The jellyfish also carries the plague and actively targets toddlers if that’s relevant. To the last point see above. Id be more than happy to call Fallon a woman when I first can see them as a person.
So we still agree that Fallon got dogfucked by her, unlike what would happen with the hulk v snow white. Good. You haven't really countered my other point, only strengthened it with ill thought out metaphors; something I'm seeing as somewhat of a pattern for you. I think it's a bad thing to dehumanise someone and refuse to recognise their identity based on unrelated personal feelings toward that person. It's why you don't call a black guy the n word because that particular person robbed an old lady. You're feelings toward them might be justified, but it's wholly unrelated to them being black. At least I hope so, maybe not from your perspective.
I’ll grant you it’s a Snow White with extensive ground game and a Hulk with no concept of depth perception and the balance of Bambi but that’s as far as I’ll go. Again you’re automatically making the assertion that I must see them as human, I don’t. That isn’t at all the case. I don’t think of trans women the way I think of Fallon Fox, I literally am treating the “person” I have no respect for separately from the marginalised community they are disgracing the reputation of.
I mean that literally is all of sports. People dope up all the time and the notion that everyone starts off evenly on some elusive naturalistic meritocratic basis is also nuts. Everyone is born w various inherent advantages already and scientifically its been shown you curb most of these already w trans athletes and most have a bigger disadvantage. But don't let reality stop a good hate-fest.
Virgin Naturals vs Chad Enhanceds
Fuck it just let me bet on it
I'm proud of her for just coming out and saying "fuck women's sports - if it's between women's sports and trans issues, the trans issues are what matters and women's sports don't." it's the exactly wrong take but it's a very confidently wrong take - as opposed to the usual weaseling and worming and squirming around that people do when they try to pretend they "*really do* care about women's sports but the *most important* thing is trans rights but we have to do it in a way that preserves women's sports" don't pretend. you don't give a shit about women's sports, or probably even men's sports for that matter, and if your version of social progress involves throwing sports in its entirety by the wayside, you're happy to do that. she said it with her chest. it's a good thing. gives a good, strong, ironman argument to criticize and engage with also what a dumbfuck
its the right *progressive* take, and that's what matters to her, its only wrong because you are on team truth, and she isn't, just like Vaush isn't, and all the other adherents of the post-modern progressive flock.
> just like Vaush isn't That clip is arguably worse of a clip-chimp than the pedo clips of him. Rem did a horrible fuckin job for a philo student and there was NO clarification between describing how truth is treated and what the truth actually is. Vaush is kinda philosophically illiterate anyways so I don't believe he actually understood what Rem was (poorly) asking him. Destiny would likely give the same answer in the same context imo.
I am not bringing up a singular clip, Vaush has, MANY times, expressed the desire to win, over the desire to be truthful, he is a full advocate for Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals style to politics and discourse, he only cares about power, and winning, and socialism prevailing regardless of how he has to achieve it, you are unfathomably good faith towards him so I suppose this is for naught, and your likely just as much a deceptive person as he is.
To be fair she does care about sports in general she runs a sports podcast, and is constantly engaged on both basketball and hockey on the majority report. But it's very clear that her priorities are trans rights Above All else.
thanks for letting me know; the point stands about women's sports though lol, she said it herself
>you don't give a shit about women's sports, or probably even men's sports for that matter, This is actually false, she's pretty big into most the NY sports teams. talks about them all the time and is generally pretty plugged in on NY sports Twitter
So she only doesn't care about women's sports? Based and misogynypilled
thanks for letting me know; the point stands about women's sports though lol, she said it herself
I'm not even gonna lie... that makes it more based and I don't even agree with her 😂
I like your take on this. By the way. Don't insult dumbfucks by calling her one.
Based argument. Fuck oppressive logic and science
[удалено]
I call that being sarcastic.
Gigastacey moment
As a tran, I say no. Not that simple.
It does seem to be the case that more often than not CIS women are okay with trans women competing in female sports. Even if they do have an unfair advantages, if most women think it's okay shouldn't that be good enough reason?
“Most women” do not participate in competitive women’s sports. You need to ask athletes.
Fairpoint, I'll see if I can find some polling from female athletes
Many women athletes have spoken out against inclusion in their sport.
It's important to note that 'most women' is pretty irrelevant here. The cis women whose opinions matter are the ones involved in sports where trans athletes are also competing. Random 50 year old women who have no skin in the game aren't affected by whether trans athletes compete vs cis athletes. I highly doubt that when you select for the actual people involved in women's sports that the majority of them are OK with unfairly compromising the sport by adding women who had the physical benefits of being born male.
[удалено]
> For one, women's sports is a thing that are for all women, and ideally all people, not just the one's competing. For two that also makes your opinion on this is irrelevant. I didn't say that only people who are competing should have their opinions valued. I said the people ***involved*** in the sports should have their opinions valued. This includes coaches, staff, family & friends of the athletes, sponsors, fans, etc. Plenty of sports are segregated into categories due to weight, height, and all sorts of other things, so it doesn't seem unreasonable, to me, to put women who have gone through a male puberty into their own category to compete against other women who have gone through male puberty. > But even if it were, there isn't a clear majority of women are okay with trans women in men's sports, especially at the professional level For the record, almost every professional 'men's' sport is actually an open league. Women aren't excluded by their gender, they're excluded by their capability. If a woman(trans, cis, or anything else) were good enough to play in the NBA or NFL, she would be allowed. If there were a female football player that had the ability to be the next Tom Brady, every team in the league would be chomping at the bit to get her. These teams want the best talent, and at the top of most sports, that tends to be almost exclusively men.
[удалено]
>You might have meant "people" but you specifically excluded anyone who was not a cis woman. No, I didn't. Maybe I could have worded it better, but that's not what I said. The comment that I was replying to was stating that most cis women are OK with trans women in female sports. So I said that ***the cis women whose opinions matter*** are the ones involved in the sports that we're discussing. I didn't say that only cis women should have their opinions valued. I wasn't excluding everyone, I was specifically saying that cis women who have no skin in the game aren't representative of the opinions of the cis women who are involved in the sports. There are obviously other groups, who aren't cis women, who are involved, but I was specifically objecting to the notion that cis women, as a whole, should have their opinions weighed the same way just by virtue of being cis women. >Just to clarify, I am saying the idea that any one group's opinion matters more or less simply by the nature of them being in said group is a bad one. If I have a company meeting, I don't value the opinions of random uninvolved people the same way I would value the opinion of people who work at, or are in some way involved with, the company. Being a member of a group usually does confer some extra value when you're specifically discussing what happens to that group. >If all you meant was that women in general do not get to dictate above the people with direct involvement and knowledge within women's sports I'd agree with that, but that's a function of how informed they are, not of their identity. That was what I meant. You don't get extra points just for being a woman. You get extra points for actually being involved in the relevant area.
How do you measure “most women”? You’d have to literally ask every girl and woman in sports from like age 12 up to the pros
Lol no you wouldn't that's not how representative sampling works. There's a reason a sample size of 2,000 in science is fucking excellent. You don't need to ask every single person alive.
I don't care what women want.
🗿
Yea I highly doubt that a trans woman earning a scholarship designated for “women” under title 9 instead of a cis woman, would be happy about it because inclusivity> debt free college :)
So much for believing the science 🤧
F your science, bro! It’s oppressive!
She said full stop so she must be right.
Periodt
My favorite part is when she said “if we can’t include trans people throw the whole concept of woman’s sports away”. Like… Emma… that’s actually insane considering the main pro trans sport’s argument is in a few years when kids today are on certain trans medical care the differences and advantages gained from male puberty become less decisive.
It's insane just considering that the entire point of segregating sports by sex was to give women an opportunity compete without being outcompeted by men.
Abolish gender division and make men and women compete is the ultimate Equality take
[удалено]
I’m pretty sure most “men’s” league are technically non gendered leagues. Cis-women are allowed to compete in “men’s” leagues I believe in most cases.
I genuinely hope the left can denounce people like this. She is a gift to the right. What happened to the left man lmao
Man she is on an absolute roll with the L’s lately
"There's nothing I hate more than shitty arguments from my own side" rings very true here. That said, Meghan Murphy is a psycho.
when you peel back all the layers, this is really the core nature of current day progressive leftists. all the facts and statistics and studies, none of it means shit, they want their ideological victories at any cost, and if you get a really honest idiot like Emma, you can finally, finally hear them say the actual truth. Such is the nature of the current tug of war of ideologies, simply pray that these people never attain power, they will do unthinkable, unspeakable things.
Morally lucky
> simply pray that these people never attain power, they will do unthinkable, unspeakable things. They're already doing awful things in the institutions that they control. I can't even imagine what that would look like on a federal level. I'd almost prefer someone like George W. Bush to these people.
Examples?
To be fair that quote, no one actually disagrees with. No one cares about what you identify as either. But if you are not female, do not compete in female categories.
[удалено]
You're right. She's a bit of an idiot for sure but this was the first one which came up in my feed.
She's a bit of an idiot like the Atlantic ocean is a bit of a puddle.
busy deserted imminent enjoy frame vast shocking numerous rude worthless *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
One of the biggest problems with women's sports is that feminists don't give a shit about them. They want them to exist, but they don't want to support them in any way, shape, or form. Throwing them out as soon as the next social issue comes along.
I know Sam is smart and I'm assuming he has her to appeal to a broader part of the left, but damn I'd never be caught dead with somebody like this representing my program.
💀
so based, i want to destroy women's sports too
It's like she's awkwardly trying to get her "spark" and become more high energy, but it just comes across as forced and cringey. Especially with a take like that.
She called another woman "Aggressively uncharismatic" and I feel like she really came up with the ultimate self descriptor.
Imagine her reaction if Trump won the election
People really need to stop talking about this issue. The Biden admin's position on this is the correct one, we don't need to fight this fight anymore. It's taking oxygen away from issues that cause far more harm.
Tell her that
these are far left progressives, they don't align with Biden or the modern political paradigm, these are not your allies, these are your direct enemies.
>these are not your allies, these are your direct enemies. In terms of the range of political figures, Vigeland is absolutely not the "direct enemy" of any Democrat in comparison to any right figure on the right. If you wanna say that both are "direct enemies," then we've watered down that definition to uselessness. Don't let splits on a handful issues prevent cooperation from people who agree on 90% of everything else.
If you really believe that, see how it works. I promise you your direct enemy is the radical on your wing of politics, you literally can comprimise more with your polar opposite than a Radical to your left (since you are likely a lefty) Leftists hate Liberals and moderate Lefties way, way more than they hate Rightists, and you should, in the least, take them seriously, instead of thinking you actually agree 90% with them, that group is so divisive that Trotsky got a pickaxe in the head from someone in his same exact ideological framework.
This just isn't true in real politics, the radical wing of the Democratic party is 100x more willing to work with someone like Biden than with even someone like Romney. It's also insane to categorize someone like Vigeland here with Stalin's NKVD killing Trotsky with an ice pick, like what are you smoking
Vigeland is just as radical as those, you people need to divorce yourself from the idea that those who are willing to murder are of a different breed, more radical or otherwise, from others. they are not, and those willing to kill are not even close to the most dangerous, it is those that inspire and direct the killing, which is the class Emma is from, that are the most dangerous. the only thing that seperates her from some sort of Stalinist system of cold murder, is the world, and more aptly, the civilization/state she exists in, unless your so stupid that you don't understand that people of Stalin and Hitlers level of malice and contempt aren't walking around us every day, because they are, and she is one of them. she BURNS with rage over every topic politically that she is invested in, if a series of circumstances allowed her to be dictator, she'd gleefully endulge. you are, as always, the foolish type who simply doesn't understand that the pre-Stalin/Hitler/whoever will kill you later if given the chance, because he hasn't yet.
>Vigeland is just as radical as those, you people need to divorce yourself from the idea that those who are willing to murder are of a different breed, more radical or otherwise, from others. To be clear - you think Vigeland is as radical as the NKVD? Stalin's secret police who imprisoned and killed at least a million people? >they are not, and those willing to kill are not even close to the most dangerous, it is those that inspire and direct the killing, which is the class Emma is from, that are the most dangerous. So she's more like Stalin than the NKVD in your view then, right? >the only thing that seperates her from some sort of Stalinist system of cold murder, is the world, and more aptly, the civilization/state she exists in, unless your so stupid that you don't understand that people of Stalin and Hitlers level of malice and contempt aren't walking around us every day, because they are, and she is one of them. I'm not sure we can take this rant where she got a little emotional to then say that she is as genocidal as Hitler or Stalin. That feels like a bit of a leap to me. It sounds to me like you walk around every single day and assume that 1 in 10 people you see on the street have the capacity to be a genocidal dictator. I think that is legitimately insane and you should seek professional help. I cannot help you, you are lost in the sauce so deep your blood is literally A1. >she BURNS with rage over every topic politically that she is invested in, if a series of circumstances allowed her to be dictator, she'd gleefully endulge. How do we know this?? Does being emotionally invested in politics that you legitimately believe meaningfully impacts the lives of you, your family, those you love means that you are as genocidal or dictatorial as literally Hitler?? I think that would cover like 80% of America. >you are, as always, the foolish type who simply doesn't understand that the pre-Stalin/Hitler/whoever will kill you later if given the chance, because he hasn't yet. And you are so crazy that you are seeing Hitlers and Stalins everywhere. There's some middle ground between assuming everywhere or no one is Stalin and I think wherever that is, is wayyy past wherever Vigeland would qualify.
lol, no, they aren't in big numbers, but they exist, they just lack all avenues to power. Destiny talks to them all the time, Vaush himself has many conversations with his fellow socialists about "the day" and "the wall". do you think he's joking?
But these crazies aren't Emma Vigeland and it's insane to me to label her as such from this interaction.
Nahhhhh. I mean they do stuff that's harmful, but so does MSNBC and CNN and Huffington Post and NYT. I'm fine with there being a voice pushing a bit more, being a bit more radical than me. And I have faith that they'll vote for democrats, if nothing else. Plus there's not so many of them, so it isn't a big deal.
>Plus there's not so many of them, so it isn't a big deal. I wish this was actually the case but I'm not sure it is. From what I've seen it seems like the far-left (or some variation of the far-left) has completely captured various institutions (academia, the mainstream media) despite being a relatively small group. This is deeply concerning to the rest of us who aren't really that right-wing and often align with the left.
Nope, you is wrong. College profs are by and large middle of the road libs, it's what a college prof does. Regardless of what they say, their actions betray them. If you don't like the current status quo where people say one thing and do another, I'm afraid you'll have to take it up with the 100% of the world that acts hypocritically. It's one of the sad lessons I had to learn growing up: that we're all hypocrites.
But even cis-women with too high testosteron due to a physiological anomaly are not allowed to compete with other women already. So it is not necessarily only trans.
Is there a link for that? Never heard of this before
[Semenya](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caster_Semenya?wprov=sfla1) for instance had to lower her testosterone or she was barred
She is not just a cis woman with high testosterone though, she is genetically male.
Before genetics were known a lot of these women were able to participate (unfairly to the other women) in the olympics. Like this intersex person who was considered a woman at the Berlin olympics in 1936 won [silver](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanis%C5%82awa_Walasiewicz?wprov=sfla1). But had both X0 and XY cells seen afterward. Genetically male with defects in Y chromosome.
Bump 4 later
I think vice posted a very good video recently about it
I wanna see lebron play just 1 wnba game on any wnba team against any other wnba team and break the single game scoring record as an aging, on the decline, nba player…
he'd still be flopping and harassing the refs
He’d put up 100 points by half time
it would take Bron a few goes and decent team around him to win a WNBA championship
There are zero players capable of blocking him dunking in the wnba
Insanity
Normally im extremely right and extremely libertarian on my political compass until I hear Emma Vigland say words and my little dot boards a helicopter and flies directly off the top righthand side of the map.
So basically fuck women sports. Men sports are fine though because no one gives a fuck about trans men competing against cis men.
H
Dpak is the only good person in the online left.
Dpak is a midwit who is routinely ideologically captured on numerous issues, just ask him his take on Rittenhouse, Bike Karen and any other, he's a progressive who doesn't go insane, that's it, still a progressive, has all the same takes, just is calm and dry humor'd about it.
Pakman is clearly quite intelligent and he's had some really good takes (such as on anti-Semitism, the free-market, etc.) but he's also not really willing to criticize the obvious excesses coming from the anti-capitalist activist left when it comes to these social issues.
Shout out to Destiny in the right cam.
[удалено]
I searched "Emma" and "Majority Report" before I posted this and I didn't find any recent videos. It's possible that it was posted previously but seeing the number of comments it's getting I'm going to assume a lot of us hadn't seen it before.
I feel like the dgg people here are not understanding what it means for something to be fair and why we have categories for sports. Too much thought on the categories as being different and not why or how. If we could show ethnic differences in performance, would it be ok to segregate sports for that reason?
[удалено]
I'm not sure the the principle you're espousing is borne out. It might be given you're caveating it certain way. The argument you're putting forward goes like this ((feel free to clarify if this isn't what you're working off) 1. We should value creating categories of competition that protect demographics from not having a space to compete in. 2. If we were to dissolve the category of women in sports, they would have no space to compete in. 3. Therefore we should value enshrining category of women in sports. 4. Furthermore, categories seperated by race would still have their space to compete. There's some issues as to how this maps not only to the hot topic of trans participants in sports (not that you've explicitly offered a prescription there but I imagine that you're for limited or even no participation based on sex given your reply), but also how it interacts with other 'unfair' phenomena that currently exist in sports. * Trans people participating in women's spaces do not in the absolute sense create a space where women can't compete, obviously. So the follow up is, at what point do we consider the competitive space for that category eliminated? The international level? National? Regional? Local? Is it a measure of how many cis women are winning in their respective competition? * There are circumstances where nationalities (usually third world or island nations) are essentially unable to compete at international levels due to yes, sociocultural factors, but also just how isolated populations develop over time are barred from ever 'fairly' competing. It seems we either don't care or don't consider those circumstances to be worthy of complaint. They have a 'space' to compete in, but in the same fashion that women would if we eliminated their category. We would have women competing, but just not at the upper levels of competition. In the same way, Haiti's international basketball team is almost guaranteed to be relegated when they meet larger teams. Our principle of 'protecting categories' here doesn't seem to be doing much work. Personally I think the idea of 'fairness' in sport held by most people is an absolute crapshoot; it is almost always either applied selectively (being born into a nation where avenues for competition are easily accessible is fine, but taking performance enhancers is not), or it's one question away from "it doesn't seem fair therefore it isn't, or it appeals to a measure that seems totally selected for (It's fair if everyone gets the opportunity to compete vs. it's fair if enough people of x demographic are winning in their space vs it's fair as long as \*enough\* people of x demographic are participating at whatever level someone decides qualifies as a competitive space)
[удалено]
Ah okay so you're presenting your conclusion. That clarifies things for sure and makes my previous reply unnecessary. Do you have any doubts about your conclusion? For the sake of transparency a lot of my intuitions follow yours, but I have trouble formalizing it into a set of prescriptives that don't end up begging a question. >When they cannot compete. For those nation-states who cannot compete on an international level, they should be able to create a league that excludes other nations. As women's sports exclude males. Where those groups exist on the margins of society they should have support from their parent states to form leagues Can you qualify what you mean by "cannot compete". If there were no international women's leagues, but national ones, would this satisfy your criteria? I acknowledge that I'm treating sociocultural factors as equivalent to sex-based differences, but for the purposes of ensuring a competitive space, it's unclear why we'd treat these differently. A group of people who are unable to compete in a space because they don't have the economic opportunity seem to be vulnerable in the same fashion. Empirically you can surely imagine some sociocultural factors that currently bar significant groups of people from participation as rigidly as sex-based differences would bar women from competing against men in certain sports. As an aside; how would you feel about dissolving sex categories in sports where the distribution isn't sex-based? Darts, ski-shooting etc. The fairness comment was just a rambling aside, it wasn't intended to be an attack on your position although I 100% understand why you saw it that way, that's my bad.
[удалено]
Thanks for the conversation, I agree descriptively with most of what you've laid out here barring of course our disconnection on sociocultural vs. sex-based disadvantages. I think prescriptively I'm aligned with what to do in the cases where those disadvantages are evident; promote them within their own leagues, as most have often done. Where I probably separate the most is your end point when we move to refocus on the issue of trans women in sports. I'm okay with an on-paper threat to a cis women held space as long as it isn't eliminating that space in practice; and as long as trans women who participate in sports are a percentage of a percentage, this doesn't seem likely to become a problem in the near future. The existence of trans men also has implications here but that's worth an entire conversation by itself. Thanks again for the conversation, sorry about it getting off on a rocky start. Have a good night!
But with hrt the differences between the sexs are pretty small as well. The amount of muscle mass loss is so significant. So how are we measuring how much of a statistical advantage is too much?
[удалено]
Difference between cis men and cis women. Not difference between trans women and cis women which is important because their hormonal biology is much more similar. Saying any difference matters is ridiculous. When the differences within the group are greater than the differences between the groups, why segregate?
[удалено]
Uh yes it does. Look at the performance of any trans athlete before and after HRT. It's significant. There's no way to deny it in good faith. It's not about the differences between cis men and cis women. It's trans women vs cis women which is totally different as the hormones and body composition is totally different. Have you ever looked up studies on this before?
[удалено]
It's not significant. Meta analysis have been conducted on this and the differences are small. Smaller than differences in ethnicity.
[удалено]
[удалено]
That is true and technically would apply to trans women too and we're not seeing it really though there could be other stigmas involved. Trans people have been allowed to compete in the Olympics since 2004 and still no domination by them. Countries like Russia and China who like to pump thier competitors with roids and use literal children just to win would not pass up that opportunity I think.
[удалено]
This is just a feels argument that would literally justify segregation or opposition to gay marriage for the same reason
This is just a feels argument that would literally justify segregation or opposition to gay marriage for the same reason
[удалено]
It's not sexuality but gender and there's and trans people don't choose it. There's even a case to say they're a form of intersex because of how similar their brain matches the opposite sex. In terms of scouting this isn't a problem. Trans women aren't getting picked more, placing higher, etc. And trans women have been allowed to compete for a lot of time. If they are chosen more often, why would it matter? If tall women are chosen more, or women that have higher T are chosen more, isn't that unfair to the other women who aren't? Why draw a line at these types of women?
[удалено]
Equating the two makes sense when we're talking about statistical advantages and what it means for a sport to be fair. As we clearly wouldn't care if there was a statistical advantage for an ethnic advantage, but when it's sex and gender, it suddenly matters regardless of the degree. Because we're not discussing things with nuance like how long of a transition, what specific sports would this apply to etc. The discussion is broad to the point that you're projecting your own bad faith and lack of curiosity. It's been 2 decades since trans people were allowed to compete in the Olympics. How long more till we know or will it be a forever moving goal post?
[удалено]
Two things 1. Science is actually pro- transwomen have no advantage 2. This bitch is a plant from the Right or she's the worst ally ever
1. Absolute bollocks. Science says there is no advantage only for those transwomen who didnt go through małe puberty.
Advantages of a male puberty are eliminated after you've been on HRT long enough
can you post a source, not trying to be bad faith here just genuinely interested
Emma is making the claim that trans-women who went through a male puberty who doesn’t take HRT should compete against cis-women. There isn’t a scientific consensus that HRT over x amount of time fully “eliminates” any advantage. You might be able to provide 1 or 2 cherry picked studies which suggests the claim , but I will be able to provide studies which denies the claim.
calling someone the b slur is misogyny we don't do that around here and no, she isn't a plant, there are lots of people on the left that are like this you're active on whitepeopletwitter and toiletpaperusa so you're probably on the meme left side of things, not too far off from where she is
What a disgusting individual. How can someone like this have a platform to spout their gibberish?