First transgender athlete to compete at Olympics

[RobbieTheTruth]

chrispmartha said:

RobbieTheTruth said:

chrispmartha said:

RobbieTheTruth said:

but different sports have different experts.

Just on this, well of course they do, and different sports require different sets of requirements from the athletes in them.

Which is why it's complicated and a blanket answer might not be possible.

It's not complicated at all.

Men have a natural advantage in anything involving strength, speed, endurance, stamina, perception of distance etc.

Rugby have got it right.

Weightlifting have conformed to wokeism.

Is that just lucky for female rugby players and unlucky for female weightlifters.

It is complicated, there's quite a few factors to consider across all sports, if it wasn't complicate there wouldn't be a discussion, you don't think its complicate because you think everyone should just think like you do.


Wokeism? what do you mean by wkeism, its the latest buzzword that's getting thrown around as a pejorative, what is it that you mean?

Yeah - focus on me saying the word 'woke' because you can't say with a straight face that it's fair that Hubbard is competing in weightlifting against females.

[andyA700]

The hysterical people, try to claim that some are t5rying to keep transgender people out of sport. This is incorrect.
I and many others state that transgender athletes should compete in the category which matches their natal sex. Hubbard is 42 years old, used to compete in the male category when they were younger, before they transitioned.
How about a female category and an open category?
The male advantages in sport are patently obvious, so situations such as the Hubbard one and this link shows how ridiculous it all is.
Nobody is transphobic for using scientific logic in this debate.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-57338207

https://goodsportmagazine.com/Valentina-Petrillo

[chrispmartha]

RobbieTheTruth said:

Yeah - focus on me saying the word 'woke' because you can't say with a straight face that it's fair that Hubbard is competing in weightlifting against females.

Are you dodging the question?

Scared?

(I'm just using your own rhetoric against you here, I don't care if you don't answer)

[RobbieTheTruth]

chrispmartha said:

RobbieTheTruth said:

Yeah - focus on me saying the word 'woke' because you can't say with a straight face that it's fair that Hubbard is competing in weightlifting against females.

Are you dodging the question?

Scared?

(I'm just using your own rhetoric against you here, I don't care if you don't answer)

No. What's the question? I'll answer it directly with my opinion.

[chrispmartha]

RobbieTheTruth said:

chrispmartha said:

RobbieTheTruth said:

Yeah - focus on me saying the word 'woke' because you can't say with a straight face that it's fair that Hubbard is competing in weightlifting against females.

Are you dodging the question?

Scared?

(I'm just using your own rhetoric against you here, I don't care if you don't answer)

No. What's the question? I'll answer it directly with my opinion.

Read a few posts up, apart from the typo in it the question is clear.

[RobbieTheTruth]

chrispmartha said:

RobbieTheTruth said:

chrispmartha said:

RobbieTheTruth said:

Yeah - focus on me saying the word 'woke' because you can't say with a straight face that it's fair that Hubbard is competing in weightlifting against females.

Are you dodging the question?

Scared?

(I'm just using your own rhetoric against you here, I don't care if you don't answer)

No. What's the question? I'll answer it directly with my opinion.

Read a few posts up, apart from the typo in it the question is clear.

What's my definition of the word 'wokism'?

So predictably you're focused on that, instead of the fairness of a someone born a male competing as a female?


No idea of definition, I've probably used the word incorrectly and I'm not interested in it either way.

I've clearly used it to describe supporting an ex-male to compete with women, ignoring science and fairness - instead just being 'pro-trans' without any consequence to women born women going forward.

If the definition is wrong (which I'm sure it is), I don't mind.


If you want to debate your opinion to the fairness of ex-males competing against females in strength events, then great.


You can't, because it's not fair - so you'll focus on trying to find incorrect definitions, mis-gendering etc.

[chrispmartha]

RobbieTheTruth said:

What's my definition of the word 'wokism'?

So predictably you're focused on that, instead of the fairness of a someone born a male competing as a female?


No idea of definition, I've probably used the word incorrectly and I'm not interested in it either way.

I've clearly used it to describe supporting an ex-male to compete with women, ignoring science and fairness - instead just being 'pro-trans' without any consequence to women born women going forward.

If the definition is wrong (which I'm sure it is), I don't mind.


If you want to debate your opinion to the fairness of ex-males competing against females in strength events, then great.


You can't, because it's not fair - so you'll focus on trying to find incorrect definitions, mis-gendering etc.

I've 'debated' the issue with you, you simply don't like my opinion so let's just stop going round and round in circles shall we?

I asked you for your definition of Woke because you used it to describe The Weightlifting Governing body, I was just interested that's all, it seems it's the latest buzzword so I just wondered what you thought it meant, just seems like the latest 'Snowflake' or PC Gone Mad' substance lacking pejorative to me.

[RobbieTheTruth]

chrispmartha said:

RobbieTheTruth said:

What's my definition of the word 'wokism'?

So predictably you're focused on that, instead of the fairness of a someone born a male competing as a female?


No idea of definition, I've probably used the word incorrectly and I'm not interested in it either way.

I've clearly used it to describe supporting an ex-male to compete with women, ignoring science and fairness - instead just being 'pro-trans' without any consequence to women born women going forward.

If the definition is wrong (which I'm sure it is), I don't mind.


If you want to debate your opinion to the fairness of ex-males competing against females in strength events, then great.


You can't, because it's not fair - so you'll focus on trying to find incorrect definitions, mis-gendering etc.

I've 'debated' the issue with you, you simply don't like my opinion so let's just stop going round and round in circles shall we?

I asked you for your definition of Woke because you used it to describe The Weightlifting Governing body, I was just interested that's all, it seems it's the latest buzzword so I just wondered what you thought it meant, just seems like the latest 'Snowflake' or PC Gone Mad' substance lacking pejorative to me.

Yeah, I probably used it in that context, without knowing it's true definition.

Your opinion is you want to find a way for ex-males to compete against women, but can't come up with any fair way.

You ignore visible and obvious proof it's unfair.

You hide behind saying what you really want, and pretend you don't mind and you're happy to let experts decide.

You don't give any reasonable opinion that why full inclusion is allowed in weightlifting, but not Rugby (where they admit it's unsafe).

You pretend to be indifferent on the subject, despite arguing pro-trans inclusion over the last 4 days.


I'm indifferent on red wine.

I don't know what is good and what is considered bad.

I'm not doing to go and debate over 4 days over Spanish vs South African, then ultimately say 'whichever the experts prefer is what I think is better'.

[chrispmartha]

RobbieTheTruth said:

chrispmartha said:

RobbieTheTruth said:

What's my definition of the word 'wokism'?

So predictably you're focused on that, instead of the fairness of a someone born a male competing as a female?


No idea of definition, I've probably used the word incorrectly and I'm not interested in it either way.

I've clearly used it to describe supporting an ex-male to compete with women, ignoring science and fairness - instead just being 'pro-trans' without any consequence to women born women going forward.

If the definition is wrong (which I'm sure it is), I don't mind.


If you want to debate your opinion to the fairness of ex-males competing against females in strength events, then great.


You can't, because it's not fair - so you'll focus on trying to find incorrect definitions, mis-gendering etc.

I've 'debated' the issue with you, you simply don't like my opinion so let's just stop going round and round in circles shall we?

I asked you for your definition of Woke because you used it to describe The Weightlifting Governing body, I was just interested that's all, it seems it's the latest buzzword so I just wondered what you thought it meant, just seems like the latest 'Snowflake' or PC Gone Mad' substance lacking pejorative to me.

Yeah, I probably used it in that context, without knowing it's true definition.

Your opinion is you want to find a way for ex-males to compete against women, but can't come up with any fair way.

You ignore visible and obvious proof it's unfair.

You hide behind saying what you really want, and pretend you don't mind and you're happy to let experts decide.

You don't give any reasonable opinion that why full inclusion is allowed in weightlifting, but not Rugby (where they admit it's unsafe).

You pretend to be indifferent on the subject, despite arguing pro-trans inclusion over the last 4 days.


I'm indifferent on red wine.

I don't care about it at all.

I'm not doing to go and debate over 4 days over Spanish vs South African, then ultimately say 'whichever the experts prefer is what I think is better'.

Ok, look I understand, you simply cannot see how someone can have a different view on it (I've never said I was indifferent by the way), Ive explained numerous times my opinion, the reason my post count is high is partly to do with constantly having to explain that to you and you just asking the same questions over and over because my answer doesn't satisfy whatever criteria you want it to.

Let's for the sake of both our sanity (and anyone else reading this tedious exchange), just leave it there.

[RobbieTheTruth]

chrispmartha said:

RobbieTheTruth said:

chrispmartha said:

RobbieTheTruth said:

What's my definition of the word 'wokism'?

So predictably you're focused on that, instead of the fairness of a someone born a male competing as a female?


No idea of definition, I've probably used the word incorrectly and I'm not interested in it either way.

I've clearly used it to describe supporting an ex-male to compete with women, ignoring science and fairness - instead just being 'pro-trans' without any consequence to women born women going forward.

If the definition is wrong (which I'm sure it is), I don't mind.


If you want to debate your opinion to the fairness of ex-males competing against females in strength events, then great.


You can't, because it's not fair - so you'll focus on trying to find incorrect definitions, mis-gendering etc.

I've 'debated' the issue with you, you simply don't like my opinion so let's just stop going round and round in circles shall we?

I asked you for your definition of Woke because you used it to describe The Weightlifting Governing body, I was just interested that's all, it seems it's the latest buzzword so I just wondered what you thought it meant, just seems like the latest 'Snowflake' or PC Gone Mad' substance lacking pejorative to me.

Yeah, I probably used it in that context, without knowing it's true definition.

Your opinion is you want to find a way for ex-males to compete against women, but can't come up with any fair way.

You ignore visible and obvious proof it's unfair.

You hide behind saying what you really want, and pretend you don't mind and you're happy to let experts decide.

You don't give any reasonable opinion that why full inclusion is allowed in weightlifting, but not Rugby (where they admit it's unsafe).

You pretend to be indifferent on the subject, despite arguing pro-trans inclusion over the last 4 days.


I'm indifferent on red wine.

I don't care about it at all.

I'm not doing to go and debate over 4 days over Spanish vs South African, then ultimately say 'whichever the experts prefer is what I think is better'.

Ok, look I understand, you simply cannot see how someone can have a different view on it (I've never said I was indifferent by the way), Ive explained numerous times my opinion, the reason my post count is high is partly to do with constantly having to explain that to you and you just asking the same questions over and over because my answer doesn't satisfy whatever criteria you want it to.

Let's for the sake of both our sanity (and anyone else reading this tedious exchange), just leave it there.

It is tedious.

Your opinion is 'you don't know'.

Great.

Most in the thread do know what their opinion is.

You don't know. You'll accept whatever the 'expert' says, and if that 'expert' changes their mind tomorrow, you'll accept that too.

[chrispmartha]

RobbieTheTruth said:

It is tedious.

Your opinion is 'you don't know'.

Great.

Most in the thread do know what their opinion is.

You don't know. You'll accept whatever the 'expert' says, and if that 'expert' changes their mind tomorrow, you'll accept that too.

Yes im not 100% sure just where i stand on it.

That’s a perfectly valid opinion, as i say lets leave it there now.

[rover 623gsi]

chrispmartha said:

It is complicated, there's quite a few factors to consider across all sports, if it wasn't complicate there wouldn't be a discussion, you don't think its complicate because you think everyone should just think like you do.

Wokeism? what do you mean by wkeism, its the latest buzzword that's getting thrown around as a pejorative, what is it that you mean?

It’s not complicated. It really isn’t. There is no confusion about the differences between male and female biology.

Females aren’t simply smaller versions of males. They are not males ‘but with less testosterone’. The only people trying to make it complicated are those who are either to scared to make a decision or those who have a vested interest in pretending it’s complicated.

Edited by rover 623gsi on Thursday 24th June 16:51

[chrispmartha]

rover 623gsi said:

chrispmartha said:

It is complicated, there's quite a few factors to consider across all sports, if it wasn't complicate there wouldn't be a discussion, you don't think its complicate because you think everyone should just think like you do.

Wokeism? what do you mean by wkeism, its the latest buzzword that's getting thrown around as a pejorative, what is it that you mean?

It’s not complicated. It really isn’t. There is no confusion about the differences between male and female biology.

Females aren’t simply smaller versions of males. They are not males ‘but with less testosterone’. The only people trying to mayor complicated are those who are either to scared to make a decision or those who have a vested interest in pretending it’s complicated.

What is it you think im ‘scared’ of, if I was 100% for or against it id say so

[MC Bodge]

rover 623gsi said:

It’s not complicated. It really isn’t. There is no confusion about the differences between male and female biology.

Females aren’t simply smaller versions of males. They are not males ‘but with less testosterone’. The only people trying to make it complicated are those who are either to scared to make a decision or those who have a vested interest in pretending it’s complicated.

Edited by rover 623gsi on Thursday 24th June 16:51

I agree, and it has nothing to do with dislike or hatred of Trans-gender people, although that is often implied.

[trails]

chrispmartha said:

What is it you think im ‘scared’ of, if I was 100% for or against it id say so

Consistent non-answers, whilst simultaneous telling others they are wrong and 'lets just leave it there comments'...then you come back again and repeat the same behaviours; are you trolling, or just bored

[Dagnir]

blackrabbit said:

28 pages on whether a bloke can compete in Women's Olympics because he cut an appendage off! Amazing anyone can take this seriously, if it happens its just undermines the Olympics which seems to be the goal of the lunatic left.

From what I can see they're trying to undermine EVERYTHING.

[chrispmartha]

trails said:

Consistent non-answers, whilst simultaneous telling others they are wrong and 'lets just leave it there comments'...then you come back again and repeat the same behaviours; are you trolling, or just bored

Yes obviously having a different opinion is trolling. The only people i have said are wrong are the ones using transphobic language, if you can point to where i have done otherwise then do it.

Im certainly bored of repeating myself, yes.

[Gecko1978]

Dagnir said:

blackrabbit said:

28 pages on whether a bloke can compete in Women's Olympics because he cut an appendage off! Amazing anyone can take this seriously, if it happens its just undermines the Olympics which seems to be the goal of the lunatic left.

From what I can see they're trying to undermine EVERYTHING.

Not sure trans people are trying to undermine anything even the Olympics. Laurel Hubbard clearly has no shame or sportsmanship and her competitors feel same judging by the podium photos they are not yeah I got silver faces.

The LGBTQ debate seems to center around the right to be who you want to be. An for me at least its hard not to agree with that. What is harder to agree with is Trans women or men are real women or men. They are real human beings, they have rights and gender identity (as per the NHS which others have quoted), can be self defined. But an identity is not the same as scientific fact. So Laurel Hubbard is not competing on a level playing field and unless she is mentally ill she is fully aware of that which makes her the worst type.of sportsperson.

[Liokault]

Gecko1978 said:

The LGBTQ debate seems to center around the right to be who you want to be. An for me at least its hard not to agree with that. What is harder to agree with is Trans women or men are real women or men. They are real human beings, they have rights and gender identity (as per the NHS which others have quoted), can be self defined. But an identity is not the same as scientific fact. So Laurel Hubbard is not competing on a level playing field and unless she is mentally ill she is fully aware of that which makes her the worst type.of sportsperson.

Indeed, this is literally about thought crime. The insistence that you think I am what I say I am.

[trails]

chrispmartha said:

Yes obviously having a different opinion is trolling. The only people i have said are wrong are the ones using transphobic language, if you can point to where i have done otherwise then do it.

Im certainly bored of repeating myself, yes.

I'm bored, but not bored enough to review every single post in this thread and look for some nuanced reply that I think proves your statement wrong.

If you are bored rather than a trolling, stand by your assertation and stop posting?