High School Boy Wins All-State Honors In Girls Track And Field

a reply to: Brotherman

Still separate but equal.

People used that argument (separate but equal) when some suggested separate bathrooms.

Then, they were for equality.

But no one, other than myself, has been saying that gender identity sports separation has got to go away.

Privates
Identity
Sports
Separation

That's what I'm against!

a reply to: DBCowboy

Bear Grylls would like a word with you

a reply to: DBCowboy

High School sports are not prepared for this at all, let alone society.

There is no good way to handle this that will even remotely satisfy both sides of the argument.

Where does a hermaphrodite place in this argument?

If you had to do it so that all were compared equally (and removing all emotion from the issue), you'd have to have a baseline physical map (hormone levels and all that stuff) of males and females to test against and see if the person involved falls to one side or the other.

(I don't want to discuss said baseline. I am not a doctor nor do I know what normal levels should be for men and woman or what those levels do to the sexes.)

a reply to: wdkirk

Teams would be comprised of the best athletes.

Gender, gender identity, would be taken out of the equation.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: MysticPearl

That's right. Just like professional combat. It's about weight class and type of fighting. Or in UFC just weight class.

You could pit Rousey against a guy of her same weight class and the win could go either way. Pit her against an untrained guy above her weight class and she'd take them too.

That's not entirely true. There are more physiological, biological differences than just in weight. Men tend to have quicker reactions, denser bone, be more powerful. Men are more powerful. Women tend to have better endurance, but they are slighter.

Rousey would not fight a man in her weight class because she knows she'd get slaughtered.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: wdkirk

Teams would be comprised of the best athletes.

Gender, gender identity, would be taken out of the equation.

And just like with the ratio of whites and blacks in pro sports, you would expect to see really no girls on the teams anymore.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: wdkirk

Teams would be comprised of the best athletes.

Gender, gender identity, would be taken out of the equation.

And just like with the ratio of whites and blacks in pro sports, you would expect to see really no girls on the teams anymore.

Equality sucks, don't it!

hahahaha

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: DBCowboy

Bear Grylls would like a word with you

a reply to: ketsuko

Ok fine. Then that's why women can't do anything a man can do. That's why they don't get paid the same. That's why they are whores for sleeping around instead of players.

Sorry ladies, no equality for you.

But at least you still get to go first with the children when the ship is sinking.

Now we will get locker room reality TV...if this person has a swinging dick he must be on the boys track team...no ifs ands or buts.
cheers

originally posted by: Brotherman
a reply to: Annee

Yeah sorry its Effed up the link doesn't work, I own a copy of the book

Looks like an awesome book.

It is a bit old for this subject though.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Brotherman

Still separate but equal.

People used that argument (separate but equal) when some suggested separate bathrooms.

Then, they were for equality.

But no one, other than myself, has been saying that gender identity sports separation has got to go away.

I feel the same way about combat units training to fight in wars but others here have called me a misogynist and a bigot for saying what I think and feel being a former infantryman and trainer/ warfighter in other capacities within the USMC and other organizations.

Look at the private sector PMC's like triple canopy or dyncorps proactive employment, they don't hire woman as agents in certain fields and also justify it by saying that they believe it is bad for business. Also by allowing woman into combat arms might change this paradigm the idea a private sector does not embrace this "progressive" idea first is very backwards to the rest of big business in America today, I find myself curious about this but also draw on my real life experience and have a hard time thinking through this clearly between the two of them being both experienced. Most guys that fight wars also want to win the princess, not fight with the princess and feel like they need protection. The other countries that use woman as troops for combat also have all female units and integration is not very included when it comes to everything else like berthing, chow, training, operations, force continuum and battle assessment. American Allies in the most recent wars never utilized all female combat units even though they talked about an all female fire team the called "the lionesses's" that used to walk a perimeter around a very well secured base that may once in awhile get hit with inaccurate mortars or random rpg fire. *cough al-asad*

I do not like the smell of this whole apparent thing, I like girls, I have been to war, I don't like war or the idea of people in general having to fight them, I don't like even more fighting is an equality thing like it is being said much less the idea that being transgender stuff is common. I think it is all F###ING CRAAAAAZY!

a reply to: ketsuko

That's true, but the idea one can promote equal rights and also suggest "you can never hit a woman" is utterly false.

How about a knife wielding woman hopped up on meth threatening her family? I've personally seen a few woman go ballistic and smack the crap out of their boyfriends, turn extremely violent. In those cases, a quick smack and putting them in their place would be encouraged.

There's a difference between suggesting a fit, 180 lb male should never walk up and hit a woman and that a few woman feel they can act as crazy and violent as they want simply because they're women. Cops regularly have to get physical with and subdue out of control women. The idea they can act crazy and do anything because they're women is ludicrous and certainly isn't equal rights.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: ketsuko

Ok fine. Then that's why women can't do anything a man can do. That's why they don't get paid the same. That's why they are whores for sleeping around instead of players.

Sorry ladies, no equality for you.

But at least you still get to go first with the children when the ship is sinking.

It depends on what we are talking about.

When it comes to mental things, women can compete just fine, but yes, when the job is one requiring sheer, raw physical power, women have problems. There is a reason why you don't see many women firefighters, for example. You don't see women in many forward combat roles or the elite forces. It isn't because women can't be brave or fight or shoot; it's because the physical requirements and standards are higher than pretty much every woman (and a lot of men) will be able to meet.

I have no problem acknowledging this as a woman.

I also find it highly hypocritical that no one ever whines about the amazing dearth of male teachers or editors and the lack of equality in those roles. We only whine about the places where women tend to show up less.

Why is that? Why aren't we worried about across the board equality for both genders if it's apparently such a travesty instead of only worrying about it going one way?

originally posted by: Brotherman

I feel the same way about combat units training to fight in wars but others here have called me a misogynist and a bigot for saying what I think and feel being a former infantryman and trainer/ warfighter in other capacities within the USMC and other organizations.

Why shouldn't it be the woman's choice?

If a woman wants to do it and can pass the training, why deny her?

I do not like men making rules for women.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Brotherman
a reply to: Annee

Yeah sorry its Effed up the link doesn't work, I own a copy of the book

Looks like an awesome book.

It is a bit old for this subject though.

I am not the one that cites it in all these studies either, besides if Trans-genderism is supposed to be so apparent in all of human history I am not sure the date in which science apparently discovered it should matter much. Being a dated book may be one thing, I am not the one citing it but lots of people online are and I have a hard time finding this information actually helping this apparent initiative because whatever they are citing from this book I am having a hard time extracting as in the book the gender dysphoria is described as case by case basis and is classified as a mental disorder and they do not make the mention of children. We are talking about children here. Also Gender reassignment is only really allowed to adults execept in extreme circumstances yet the very very very very very very low percentage is being explained in the media as though it is epidemic like oppression of a minority group of individuals is extremely well present. I am not sure what to say about it all

a reply to: Brotherman

My whole point is, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

If you are fighting for equality, then fight for equality.

If you're only fighting for equality for one group, then it isn't really equality.

I'm a mysogenistic bastard.

But I've seen women in the military. I've served with quite a few. So I could care less about men/women. But I wasn't a gyreen either, so there is that.

For sports, if you say you're for equality, then BE for equality.

Otherwise it makes a person look like a hypocrite.

a reply to: MysticPearl

My understanding is that we are talking about sports and competition, not questions of self-defense. Of course, if a crazy, knife-wielding woman comes after you, you defend yourself.

I've been talking about the field of competition where a man and woman should not be matched to fight.

originally posted by: mOjOm

That's totally sexist though. So you're saying some big broad can beat the hell out of some wimpy guy and that's ok because she's a woman???

But if that same woman is terrorizing that wimpy dude and taking his lunch money or kicking him off the bus seat or pulling down his pants in public that even then he's not allowed to smack her one if he get's the chance???

Since when did you people start caring about someone's right to defend themselves?

I thought we were supposed to call the police.

But I digress.

I dunno man. I don't know how to convince you it's not ok to hit women.