Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn’t ask whether they could or the couldn’t, I already know they can. I asked Kiki does she think it’s UNFAIR?

I’m not surprised the US Women’s football team were beaten by a couple of teenagers, just like I wasn’t surprised when the US Women’s football team trounced Thailand Women’s football team 13-0 in the Women’s World Cup when they got the chance to show the world what they could do. They demonstrated they have no sense of fairness or sportsmanship -


U.S. women’s soccer is relentless — and unapologetic — in World Cup-record rout of Thailand


They genuinely couldn’t see how they could possibly have done anything wrong :pac:

They didn't do anything wrong. Why do you think they did? It's a World Cup. Did Germany do anything wrong when they beat Saudi Arabia 9-0 back in 2002, or Germany beating Brazil 7-1 at Brazils home World Cup.

Lad, with respect, I don't think you've a clue about sports.

One eyed Jack

KiKi III wrote: »

A better comparison would be “is it fair if one woman takes testosterone to improve her performance and another doesn’t?”

I’ll stick with the comparison I made all the same.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ll stick with the comparison I made all the same.

Are the short arse and the long arse the same sex?

Stark

LLMMLL wrote: »

It's the only way to understand how people use language. To actually observe how people use it.

That's crazy talk. Biologists created the world's languages.

CtevenSrowder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's a long, long way from there to here, isn't it?

Not sure why you'd expect to have much credibility on facts when you choose a username like that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Crowder#Coronavirus_misinformation

Oh this Tactic again, going after people based on their username. Did you ever stop to think that the username is not supportive of Steven Crowder? Say Cteven Srowder in the voice of Simple Jack, it might help you understand what I'm getting at.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

They didn't do anything wrong. Why do you think they did? It's a World Cup. Did Germany do anything wrong when they beat Saudi Arabia 9-0 back in 2002, or Germany beating Brazil 7-1 at Brazils home World Cup.

Lad, with respect, I don't think you've a clue about sports.

They went to town on the Thai team when it was absolutely unnecessary. Some people commented same as you did that the USA team did nothing wrong, others such as myself saw it as nothing more than a display of sheer US atomic powered arrogance and they did it because they could. If you’re ok with that, then I don’t understand why you would have an issue with men competing in women’s sports and roundly trouncing them, because they can?

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Oh this Tactic again, going after people based on their username. Did you ever stop to think that the username is not supportive of Steven Crowder? Say Cteven Srowder in the voice of Simple Jack, it might help you understand what I'm getting at.

Duuuuude :pac:

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

It's the only way to understand how people use language. To actually observe how people use it.

Yes, and the majority use it with the meaning given by the definitions provided, unfortunately for yourself.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Oh this Tactic again, going after people based on their username. Did you ever stop to think that the username is not supportive of Steven Crowder? Say Cteven Srowder in the voice of Simple Jack, it might help you understand what I'm getting at.

I don't think you're going to fool anybody with that

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Yes, and the majority use it with the meaning given by the definitions provided, unfortunately for yourself.

That majority are not aware of those definitions.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Duuuuude :pac:

Tropic Thunder is one of the funniest films of the last 50 years. Don't hate me

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Duuuuude :pac:

Tropic Thunder is one of the funniest films of the last 50 years. Don't hate me

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Are the short arse and the long arse the same sex?

Yep, both competing in athletics we’ll say for the sake of it?

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They went to town on the Thai team when it was absolutely unnecessary. Some people commented same as you did that the USA team did nothing wrong, others such as myself saw it as nothing more than a display of sheer US atomic powered arrogance and they did it because they could. If you’re ok with that, then I don’t understand why you would have an issue with men competing in women’s sports and roundly trouncing them, because they can?

Well I'd argue they were just being typical yanks then

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

That majority are not aware of those definitions.

Yes they are. Do you really think women who have periods don't realise they are releasing eggs? I think they do.

Quantum Erasure

LLMMLL wrote: »

That majority are not aware of those definitions.

they mightn't repeat them word-for-word, but everyone knows what a biological woman is, even you

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Yes they are. Do you really think women who have periods don't realise they are releasing eggs? I think they do.

Yes I believe they do but I've never heard any woman define herself being a woman as "releasing eggs".

Maybe the song should be:
You make me feel
You make me feel
You make me feel like a natural egg releaser

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yep, both competing in athletics we’ll say for the sake of it?

Yes that is far. The reason men v women is unfair is due to the biological advantages men have on average over women.

Though I agree, there are some sports were mixing is not dangerous and/or unfair. But some would argue some of these aren't sports but games (I'm talking the likes of darts). These sports are the minority though.

Quantum Erasure

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yes I believe they do but I've never heard any woman define herself being a woman as "releasing eggs".

Maybe the song should be:
You make me feel
You make me feel
You make me feel like a natural egg releaser

what's the point of this whole diversion anyway? it wouldn't be some kind of, diversion, would it?

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yes I believe they do but I've never heard any woman define herself being a woman as "releasing eggs".

Maybe the song should be:
You make me feel
You make me feel
You make me feel like a natural egg releaser

How have you heard women define themselves?

BloodBath

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I really don’t care about sports enough to be bothered who does or doesn’t compete to be honest. The governing bodies are free to set whatever rules they wish as long as they are compliant with the law in their respective jurisdictions.

That’s not saying screw anyone’s rights, it’s saying that everyone has equal rights and equal opportunities. You appear to want an advantageous outcome for women, but then how do you determine who among women is entitled to compete against other women? Because there are always winners and losers, and there are far more losers than winners. Do the losers get to decide who should compete against them? No they do not, and they never did.





I don’t think it would make any difference to the level of support anyone has if they allowed themselves to be discriminated against and accepted being treated as less than, when they are entitled to be treated equally.

You imagine people should be able to maintain positions in society where they are in a position to keep other people from being treated equally? Respectfully, I disagree. I don’t think anyone deserves to be protected by law when they aren’t willing to comply with the law themselves.

Sounds very much like do as I say, not as I do, or rather like JK pulling the ladder up after herself.

No I think biological women should be able to compete against other biological women on a somewhat level playing field. That is the reason womens sports exist in the first place and why they don't compete against men.

By your logic we should remove these segregations completely which would take women out of professional sports completely. Either that or remove all drug restrictions and turn sports into a steroid fueled incredible hulk fest where anything goes.

We saw a little of this in the 80's in female sports and plenty of men have unfairly boosted their performance with drugs as well. This is not permitted even if it's not policed as well as it should be.

If using performance enhancing drugs is illegal in sports then why is performance enhancing male puberty permitted for trans women. They have the same effect and outcome.

Simple testosterone tests do not take into account the permanent physical advantages that male puberty gives.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Well I'd argue they were just being typical yanks then

Exactly! That’s it like, both teams are women, but one has considerable advantages over the other in terms of the development and funding of the sport in their respective countries. If biology were the only factor, then we would expect a much more even match like we see in the men’s football, except in the men’s football it’s often the US team has never had the same success as the women because other countries invest far more in the sport.

If we were to base fairness purely on biology, then the 5’7” Finnish skier Eero Mäntyranta should never have been permitted to compete in the sport. He found his niche where he maintained a considerable winning streak over his competitors. Instead of banning him from the sport, he was celebrated. Even then, that wasn’t enough for him -


Mäntyranta had primary familial and congenital polycythemia (PFCP) causing an increase in red blood cell mass and hemoglobin due to a mutation in the erythropoietin receptor (EPOR) gene, which was identified following a DNA study done on over 200 members of his family, as reported in 1993. This condition results in an increase of up to 50% in the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood, a large advantage when participating in endurance events.

In 1972 Mäntyranta was the first Finnish sportsman who tested positive for doping. He later admitted taking hormones, which was not prohibited in those years.

OMM 0000

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Hmm what if its a pregnant man though

So if it's F->M trans, I would hope when she's pregnant she would put her health and comfort ahead of any ideology.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Exactly! That’s it like, both teams are women, but one has considerable advantages over the other in terms of the development and funding of the sport in their respective countries. If biology were the only factor, then we would expect a much more even match like we see in the men’s football, except in the men’s football it’s often the US team has never had the same success as the women because other countries invest far more in the sport.

If we were to base fairness purely on biology, then the 5’7” Finnish skier Eero Mäntyranta should never have been permitted to compete in the sport. He found his niche where he maintained a considerable winning streak over his competitors. Instead of banning him from the sport, he was celebrated. Even then, that wasn’t enough for him -


Mäntyranta had primary familial and congenital polycythemia (PFCP) causing an increase in red blood cell mass and hemoglobin due to a mutation in the erythropoietin receptor (EPOR) gene, which was identified following a DNA study done on over 200 members of his family, as reported in 1993.[3] This condition results in an increase of up to 50% in the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood, a large advantage when participating in endurance events.

In 1972 Mäntyranta was the first Finnish sportsman who tested positive for doping. He later admitted taking hormones, which was not prohibited in those years.

The difference is the advantages men have on average over women. Even if womens football had the same funding as the men's, there is no chance of any of them making it as a professional. Even the semi pro and amateur lgs would be completely dominated by men.

The difference is biological.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

How have you heard women define themselves?

Just Google "real women", most links have nothing to do with trans issues. Why are these women talking about being real women if the answer is as simple as "egg bearer"?

KiKi III

LLMMLL wrote: »

Just Google "real women", most links have nothing to do with trans issues. Why are these women talking about being real women if the answer is as simple as "egg bearer"?

How do you define woman?

Gruffalux

Well my gast is simply flabbered that there are people on here with usernames from American cop shows! :eek:

FVP3

LLMMLL wrote: »

Ok so for female you are not using the "gamete" definition?

And yes, most people forget their junior cert biology. That's not a poor opinion of education standards. It's a normal opinion about the amount of people who retain can facts from their junior cert courses.

Its not quite clear if you believe there are no sexual differences between any animals or just humans. To the anti-scientific mind anything goes of course.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Just Google "real women", most links have nothing to do with trans issues. Why are these women talking about being real women if the answer is as simple as "egg bearer"?

Googled 'real women'. Third result was Urban dictionary:

'Real Women
Women who are usually overweight (fat, fluffy, etc), loud, bitchy and obnoxious. Women in this category have adopted this term in lieu of being called BBW or plus sized and since over 70 percent of women fall in that group, they are not too far from the truth.
Bertha: Real Women have curves, honey!!

Dave: No, FAT women have curves, now shaddup so I can finish milking you!!'

Maybe in our new sexless utopia this can be the new definition of women. Is this what you think, is this why you never gave us your definition? Because it's that one above?

The others were something to do with a rabbi, crohns disease and then their was Real women of Canada, a socially Conservative advocacy group. I don't see how this helps your argument at all.

FVP3

LLMMLL wrote: »

A poster much earlier in the thread posted a graphic with all the cases of men entering women's spaces. It was in the US or Canada I believe. None of these cases had anything to do with self id or trans.

There is a movement to unisex changing rooms in response to trans ideologies, hence the rise in cases.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6819195/Primark-sparks-changing-room-row.html