First olympic transgender athlete to compete at Tokyo 2020 **MOD NOTE IN OP**

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We already discriminate between men's sport and women's sport on the basis of sex.

All we are advocating is upholding that very discrimination that has existed for millennia.

An argument from tradition? I think at this point it might be helpful to provide a definition of dogma -


Dogma in the broad sense is any belief held unquestioningly and with undefended certainty. It may be in the form of an official system of principles or doctrines of a religion, such as Roman Catholicism, Judaism, or Protestantism, or atheism, as well as the positions of a philosopher or of a philosophical school such as Stoicism. It may also be found in political belief systems, such as communism, progressivism, liberalism and conservatism.


There’s one hell of a giant beam in your eye there if you don’t mind me pointing out the obvious, seeing as you’re so keen to point out what appears to be so obvious to you that it shouldn’t even be questioned.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

An argument from tradition? I think at this point it might be helpful to provide a definition of dogma -


Dogma in the broad sense is any belief held unquestioningly and with undefended certainty. It may be in the form of an official system of principles or doctrines of a religion, such as Roman Catholicism, Judaism, or Protestantism, or atheism, as well as the positions of a philosopher or of a philosophical school such as Stoicism. It may also be found in political belief systems, such as communism, progressivism, liberalism and conservatism.


There’s one hell of a giant beam in your eye there if you don’t mind me pointing out the obvious, seeing as you’re so keen to point out what appears to be so obvious to you that it shouldn’t even be questioned.

You're perfectly welcome to argue that men and women should compete against one another in boxing, weightlifting, and so on. You have the right to hold that view.

I will stick with the traditional distinction between men's sports and women's sports. Call me old fashioned, if you will. :rolleyes:

J.O. Farmer

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It would be similar to arguments at the time that women’s participation in what were regarded as men’s sports were a threat to men’s sports. 100 years later, men’s sports are still going strong. Women’s sports will continue to be as strong as they are now.

Good argument there for a seperate category of sport - transgender. Transgender category wouldn't be a risk to womens sport in the same way womens categories aren't a risk to mens sport.

Mic 1972

Mic 1972 wrote: »

it's the same thing, we apply rules for admission

No- discrimination is treating someone unfairly/wrongly etc.

Differentiation is classifying according to some criteria.

Shes a biological male competing in a women's event

Mic 1972

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

No- discrimination is treating someone unfairly/wrongly etc.

Differentiation is classifying according to some criteria.

Shes a biological male competing in a women's event

exactly, biological males shouldn't be selected to compete against women

Podge_irl

Androgenised people and non-androgenised people can not compete in sports on a level playing field.

You can go on about burritos and irish dancing as much as you want, but the fundamental fact is that those who have undergone puberty flooded with androgens are at a consistent and insurmountable advantage to those who have not. This is incontrovertible.

Female sports are inherently a closed category and therefore the conditions of accessibility need to be defined.

AllForIt

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I was trying to be fair to you and give you the benefit of the doubt that you had missed it, that you wouldn’t misrepresent my opinion, but it appears you misrepresented my opinion on purpose! I’ll use the comparison of the marriage equality referendum because apart from the fact that you have a surprise coming if you think marriage is about getting nookie, it was about making a change to our laws for the benefit of everyone in society, not just people who are homosexual. The basis of Family Law in Ireland is founded upon the idea of the Family being the most fundamental institution in society, founded upon the institution of Marriage. It also came as a surprise to a few people who were of the “I don’t mind the gays getting married, but they shouldn’t be allowed to adopt!”, as though one follows from the other, that there was no barrier in Irish law regarding adoption discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation. There were also many homosexual couples who already had children, and their children did not (and still to some extent don’t) enjoy the same rights and protection in law as the children of married heterosexual couples. It wasn’t just a question of “because they want it”, it was a question of “why don’t they have it already?”

I think I'm stated this following opinion before - which is gay people were not excluded from marriage, they just weren't taken into consideration which is not the same as being wilfully excluded. Not from the outset anyway, it's not until they asked for it for the first time that you can say they were excluded.
I didn't expect you to take the nookie comment that seriously, that was just a lighthearted way of putting it, just for the sake of being brief rather than going into all the reasons ppl get married.

Anyway if laws are made/changed for the benefit of all - is all benefiting? Some thing not.

The same IS said for transgender athletes! The point I was making was in response to the idea that in your opinion, people who have what you called real empathy, go out to Africa and do some work voluntarily. The point I was making is that I would question the criteria on which you’re basing your assessment as it’s a matter of individual perspective. There are people who go out to Africa and campaign against“corrective” or “normalising” surgery on people who are born with what are characterised as disorders of sex development.[/url] There are people who go out to Africa to provide corrective or normalising surgeries, and there are Africans who rescue children from people who want to kill them. Empathy, is not predicated upon geographic location. It’s based upon affinity with other people

.

Oh gawd that awful. I'm not sure if everyone who fights causes does so out of empathy and compassion though these days. I often think both lefty's and righty's jump on a cause bandwagon just to fight the baddies on the other side just for the sake of it. Not that I'm saying you are. I think you see that more on the Left these days though to be fair.

You say it’s easy to see why people would want to compete with women rather than men, ignoring my argument that it wasn’t a biological male who campaigned to have the IOC change the rules, not just because they wanted the rules changed for themselves, but because they wanted the rules changed for anyone who is like them excluded from competing because of the current rules as they were, before they were changed following it being successfully argued that they needed to be changed because… “why aren’t they that way already?”, and there is more to do to achieve fairness for everyone who wishes to participate in sports and compete in competitions which they deserve to because of their dedication and sacrifice and determination and passion for the sport. The idea that they just want to thumb their noses at people having “got everything their own way” as those people see it, requires an enormous degree of self-importance, as if campaigners have the capacity to have empathy for people who would rather they are excluded from being treated as equals!

Yea I saw you made that point, not to me directly but I saw it. I'm not sure what your point is to be honest. For all I know the campaigner is on a 'affirm my gender identity in every aspect of life' crusade rather than he's passionate about the sport thing particularly and is equally as passionate about the bathroom issue, and the pronoun think which brought about misgendering laws in Canada. But the thing is who cares about transgender men in mens sport because they are not going to have any success so the issue of fairness does't arise. If he wants to go and participate in sports he has little chance of winning just so he can say and feel he's participating in his preferred category then fine. He's the one disadvantaged this time. I think I've just found another mind f*cky thing to think about.

You have no idea how much I appreciate that anyone actually reads the evidence I provide to support my opinions. However I wasn’t suggesting that there is any one determining biological or environmental factor of sexual orientation, or gender identity for that matter. I try and provide online sources for what I read in mostly books. I don’t expect that in an online discussion forum anyone should be expecting or expected to provide citations in Harvard Citation Format, so blogs it is, or whatever, especially when the source being used to support discrimination against people who are transgender is the Daily fcuking Mail! I have provided sources from scientific papers and medical journals and there is no clear evidence of any advantage that people who are transgender have in sports. I was also making the point that prejudice against people who are transgender is unfair in the same way as prejudice against people who are homosexual is unfair, as is prejudice against people who are regarded as having characteristics which are regarded as disabilities in their society. I didn’t expect having read my post that you would come away with the opinion that I was suggesting anything was definitive, when I know for a fact and would have said so, that it isn’t. Honestly it’s at times like this when I wonder is it just me, or are there a whole boatload of people in society with undiagnosed dyslexia that they have difficulty understanding how I express myself in a Shakespeare’s monkeys sort of scenario :pac:

Ah, but a link you provided from an American medical source, this one, says the following.

I do also want to note two other things: First, I feel the evidence is pretty clear to me that, contrary to the slogan “gender is a social construct” (endorsed by Shrier in large part), neurobiological evidence has found that gender identity resides in the hypothalamus and, as such, is largely immutable. Put rather simply, it is literally true that trans individuals have the body of one sex, yet the brain of another. Such individuals deserve respect and compassion, should be free of harassment and bullying, deserve to have their preferred pronouns and name respected, and should be free to find love, marry, and have or adopt children as they see fit.

This chap states that transgender people literally have the brain of once sex and the body of another. Again this is not irrefutably proven. Ironically he was criticizing Shrier for getting something factually incorrect when he's the sciencey medical professional who you'd think would know the facts or not be disingenuous. So if these are the sources you get your opinions from beware I read them* because even in my layman capacity I have a feeling I'll be able to pick some large holes. Given Shrier criticizes the American medial profession for the way they deal with teens presenting as trans (in an okay then, here's you meds way) I'm a bit sceptical of the opinions voiced by a member of that very same medial profession from which you say shapes your opinions.

*I haven't seen your 'transgender people don't have a biological advantage' link. But I don't have to as as I'm currently watching the Tennis and have been paying particular attention to the difference between the energy and force on display between the women and mens game, so all I have to use is my eyes and look.

Yeah I got where you were coming from, and my point was that it’s just not as simple as what you’re suggesting. Stands to reason that of course it would fcuk with your head if you’re to increase your strength and your mind is telling you all sorts and your body is doing something else entirely, and then you’re doing something which is undoubtedly going to make you the butt of every joke and ridicule and suspicion that you’re up to no good as if overwhelming suspicion amounts to evidence? That’s called a Witch-hunt, not to be confused with imagining you’re treating people fairly.

Look, I get you about the witch hunty thing, I really do. But this happens in the tabloids and the tabloids go after everyone. One of the problems in the UK is where are these issues discussed publicly and one of the reason GBNews was set up was to 'discuss issues that aren't discussed in the msm'. Which is exactly what they are trying to do https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZGfpAJK47o
Regardless of you opinion of Hayton this doesn't strike me as a witch hunty interview.

On the BBC this is they type of stuff you get:

Star Trek welcomes it's first transgender character
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-54012463

Transgender people extremely vulnerable during lockdown
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52457681

One link I can't find had the headline similar to "Gay people have their rights, why don't we have ours", from some live discussion program. I bet it was a nuanced debate, not.

Mellor

eskimohunt wrote: »

If you were any of the competitors other than Hubbard, would you compete in the games?

I honestly don't think I could do it.

Why would they not?
Many them are elite lifters an better than Hubbard. Why would they give up a medal?
Many of them are not particularly elite, and there to make up the numbers. Hubbard being there is of consequence to them, why would they not competing on the biggest stage?

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Never said it was!
2019 Pacific Games

Somebodt else said it was at the Commonwealth GAmes in the meantime.
I'm not sure of the relevant.

I'm not sure what Stowers isn't there. But doesn't look like Hubbard bumped her.

eskimohunt wrote: »

I would go further and say that, even if there were no physical advantage, transgender women should - as a matter of principle alone - not compete with women born to biological women's bodies.

The physical advantage thing is a bit of a distraction, if you ask me. We have completely forgotten about the principle itself.

What's the principle in itself?
The entire principle for me is based on physical advantage.

You never hear the reverse being an issue.

BattleCorp

Mellor wrote: »

Many of them are not particularly elite, and there to make up the numbers. Hubbard being there is of consequence to them, why would they not competing on the biggest stage?

If a weightlifter qualifies for the Olympics, they are elite, even if they are at the lower end of the scale. They haven't wandered out of the pub and decided to enter for the lark. There are Olympic qualifying standards that aren't exactly easy to meet.

Of course any athlete would want to compete on the biggest stage, but it must be disheartening to have to compete on a very uneven basis, i.e. against those who are not biological females.

I personally think the rules that allow Hubbard to enter the Olympics in the women's category are a joke.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You're perfectly welcome to argue that men and women should compete against one another in boxing, weightlifting, and so on. You have the right to hold that view.

I will stick with the traditional distinction between men's sports and women's sports. Call me old fashioned, if you will. :rolleyes:

That’s not my view though. It’s a blatant misrepresentation of my view. I didn’t call you anything, and I’m more than happy for you to stick with the traditional distinction between men’s and women’s sports. I do not take your declaration as meaning in any way that you can compel anyone who doesn’t share your view to do so, because you simply don’t have that authority.

You have the right too to organise your own sports competitions and events open only to those competitors who meet your criteria, and as long as you’re operating within national and international law, more power to you. I’ll even give you some helpful advice and suggest that the criteria should only accommodate athletes with a functioning female reproductive system, as determined by your good self.

I know too where you can get a load of condoms going cheap, seeing as they’re about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike to the athletes they were intended for -


Tokyo Olympics athletes warned not to use 160,000 free condoms

Mellor

BattleCorp wrote: »

If a weightlifter qualifies for the Olympics, they are elite, even if they are at the lower end of the scale. They haven't wandered out of the pub and decided to enter for the lark. There are Olympic qualifying standards that aren't exactly easy to meet.

Do you following weightlifting? Serious question, as it’s clear that many on the thread do not. It’s not a case of wandering out if the pub or being elite. Not everyone who trains is elite.

The A group are elite. These represent the top athletes in the world.
The B group represents a mixed group of lower rank athletes, from countries who have no A group qualifiers and various other limits. Many superior athletes do not get to go.

300kg is an elite total for this division. The gold medalist will break 300kg. High 200s is elite.
The bottom lifter will be sub 200kg, that is very strong. The average man cannot do that. But it’s not an elite lift.

Of course any athlete would want to compete on the biggest stage, but it must be disheartening to have to compete on a very uneven basis, i.e. against those who are not biological females.

I think the medal chasers won’t care. Unless Hubbard is back on the juice and tops 300kg. The mid table are most affected

I personally think the rules that allow Hubbard to enter the Olympics in the women's category are a joke.

Agree, it’s cheating

One eyed Jack

Mellor wrote: »

I think the medal chasers won’t care. Unless Hubbard is back on the juice and tops 300kg. The mid table are most affected

Agree, it’s cheating

It’s true that medal chasers won’t care, and they’d be right to care if any athlete were cheating, but simply accusing any athlete of cheating, Hubbard in this particular instance, does not make it so.

This, is cheating, which deserves to be punished, and it does appear that CAS have been unduly lenient in this particular case -


Decision to halve Russia's Wada doping ban met with disbelief and anger

Athletes need to understand why Russia is so important to the IOC

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s true that medal chasers won’t care, and they’d be right to care if any athlete were cheating, but simply accusing any athlete of cheating, Hubbard in this particular instance, does not make it so.

This, is cheating, which deserves to be punished, and it does appear that CAS have been unduly lenient in this particular case -


Decision to halve Russia's Wada doping ban met with disbelief and anger

Athletes need to understand why Russia is so important to the IOC

If Hubbard wins in Tokyo, it won't be a legitimate win.

It will be theft.

Podge_irl

Two things can be ostensibly true

1. Hubbard is competing legitimately as the rules stand

2. The rules are utterly stupid and unfair and desperately need changing

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If Hubbard wins in Tokyo, it won't be a legitimate win.

It will be theft.

Obviously it would be a legitimate win. It would also be nothing short of a miracle tbh.

But theft? As in “we wuz robbed!”, or theft according to law? Depends what definition you’re working off - your own, which you’re entitled to, or the one that is considered a legitimate offence punishable in some form according to the rules of the governing body. The other is someone claiming they or someone else were deprived of something that was never rightfully theirs to begin with. I’ll go with the one that requires compelling evidence of any wrongdoing before anyone is actually convicted of anything and punished accordingly.

Yeah_Right

Mellor wrote: »

You can't do that in olympic qualification. (the irish granny).
If you declare foe a country at senior level, you are stuck with it for life n most cases. You can't switch right before qualification. Thankfully.

That's not entirely accurate. Right before qualification maybe but you can switch countries between Olympics. Probably the most famous being Merlene Ottey switching from Jamaica to Slovenia between 2000 and 2004. Im sure others have done it.
There would be nothing to prevent an Australian with an Irish passport to declare for Ireland if they realised they were never going to meet the qualifying standards for Australia.

Will I Am Not

How long before we see people identifying as other nationalities getting in?

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.nme.com/news/music/british-influencer-identifies-korean-undergoes-surgery-bts-jimin-2980904%3famp

Will I Am Not

Will I Am Not wrote: »

How long before we see people identifying as other nationalities getting in?

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.nme.com/news/music/british-influencer-identifies-korean-undergoes-surgery-bts-jimin-2980904%3famp

Well I think he's stunning and brave.

One eyed Jack

Will I Am Not wrote: »

How long before we see people identifying as other nationalities getting in?

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.nme.com/news/music/british-influencer-identifies-korean-undergoes-surgery-bts-jimin-2980904%3famp

When they’re prohibited from getting in? It’s not as though they’re prohibited from getting in already, provided they meet the eligibility criteria, which are quite complex, but this article gives some idea of the complex issues involved in terms of national identity and eligibility.

Since she was mentioned, I did look up Merlene Ottey (I do remember her, and I remember George Hamilton having a really strange way of pronouncing her name, but I couldn’t find a clip of RTE commentary on YouTube to show what I mean ), but I didn’t know this about her at the time -


In Jamaica, at the National Senior Trials before selection for the Olympics, Ottey placed a disappointing fourth. According to the rules of the Jamaica Amateur Athletics Association (JAAA), only athletes who had finished in the top three at the trials were eligible to run at the Olympics; she was only qualified to run on the 4 x 100 m relay team. Ottey asked that she be substituted for another team member, a courtesy that had been extended to others in the past. The JAAA's decision to replace Peta-Gaye Dowdie with Ottey caused widespread controversy. Dowdie's team members and many Jamaicans believed that Ottey had bullied her way onto the team. She was construed as an aging icon trying to retain power by usurping the place of a younger and equally worthy athlete. Jamaican 400 m Olympian and championship medallist Gregory Haughton led the notorious "Games Village" protests to oust Ottey, which made international headlines. The protest ended when The International Olympic Committee (IOC) threatened to throw the Jamaicans out of the Games if the team managers were not able to control their charges.


It’s portrayed very differently from the actual article -

However, there was one other major hurdle Ottey had to cross in her bid for a fifth Olympic trip. She had to compete at the National Senior Trials prior to selection for the Olympics. She placed a disappointing fourth at the trials - prematurely ending her dream of competing in the finals of the hundred metres at her fifth Olympic Games. According to the rules of the Jamaica Amateur Athletics Association (JAAA) only athletes who had finished in the top three at the trials were eligible to run. Ottey could only run on the relay team. Ottey, however, was convinced in her decision that she be extended the courtesy the JAAA had done to others in the past. The situation had all the signs of impending trouble.

In the weeks prior to the Sydney, Ottey registered two sub-eleven seconds times in warm-up meets prior to the Games. She was the fastest of all the Jamaican female sprinters over the distance leading into the Olympics. The JAAA had the unenviable task of deciding which athlete would run at the Olympics, - one of the three women who had finished ahead of Ottey - Peta-Gaye Dowdie, Tanya Lawrence and Beverly MacDonald or Ottey. In the end, Ottey was given the green light over national champion, Dowdie, who it was later confirmed, was injured.

Many of Ottey's teammates objected to the JAAAs' decision. In their estimation, the veteran sprinter should have had the grace to step aside and allow younger talents to come forward. Quarter-miler Gregory Haughton, himself an Olympian and medallist at major championships, was reputed to have taken it upon himself to lead the notorious Games Village protests to oust Ottey, which made headlines worldwide. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) threatened to throw the Jamaicans out of the Games if the team managers were not able to control their charges. The protest ended immediately. It was agreed, Ottey would face the starters in the short sprint. Her teammates, reportedly, had made peace with the decision.

Mellor

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s true that medal chasers won’t care, and they’d be right to care if any athlete were cheating, but simply accusing any athlete of cheating, Hubbard in this particular instance, does not make it so.

I've accused Hubbard of cheating on the tread a few times. You disagreed, but ignored my replies. So I'll repeat.

Has Hubbard taken in the past, or is she currently taking, exogenous hormones or hormone analogues?
The answer is a clear YES.

Is that permitted under the rules of weightlifitng and/or the Olympics?
(This is a yes or no question).

Yeah_Right wrote: »

That's not entirely accurate. Right before qualification maybe but you can switch countries between Olympics.
Probably the most famous being Merlene Ottey switching from Jamaica to Slovenia between 2000 and 2004. Im sure others have done it.
There would be nothing to prevent an Australian with an Irish passport to declare for Ireland if they realised they were never going to meet the qualifying standards for Australia.

If you have to change the scenario to something completely different, then what I said is entirely accurate. There are many athletes representing countries they weren't born in. But that's not what I was responding to.

You can change, but it requires a 3 year gap. so somebody who had been trying to qualify for australia, would be excluded from switching the upcoming olympics.

One eyed Jack

Mellor wrote: »

I've accused Hubbard of cheating on the tread a few times. You disagreed, but ignored my replies. So I'll repeat.

Has Hubbard taken in the past, or is she currently taking, exogenous hormones or hormone analogues?
The answer is a clear YES.

Is that permitted under the rules of weightlifitng and/or the Olympics?
(This is a yes or no question).

You can repeat your allegation of cheating as many times as you want. The answer to the question of whether or not Hubbard is cheating is you don’t know, I don’t know, nobody knows with any absolute certainty. Until you can provide credible evidence that Hubbard is cheating, I’m going to continue to presume innocence. It would be unfair to suggest otherwise.

It’s not just because it’s Hubbard in this particular instance either, you can’t expect that anyone will take your claims if it were any athlete seriously until you have credible evidence for your claim that they are cheating. You’re undoubtedly aware of the penalties for cheating, and that’s why you need more than just an accusation before anyone is punished for cheating.

suicide_circus

Will I Am Not wrote: »

How long before we see people identifying as other nationalities getting in?

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.nme.com/news/music/british-influencer-identifies-korean-undergoes-surgery-bts-jimin-2980904%3famp

Is that person Korean? And if not, why not?

Mellor

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You can repeat your allegation of cheating as many times as you want. The answer to the question of whether or not Hubbard is cheating is you don’t know, I don’t know, nobody knows with any absolute certainty. Until you can provide credible evidence that Hubbard is cheating, I’m going to continue to presume innocence. It would be unfair to suggest otherwise.

It’s not just because it’s Hubbard in this particular instance either, you can’t expect that anyone will take your claims if it were any athlete seriously until you have credible evidence for your claim that they are cheating. You’re undoubtedly aware of the penalties for cheating, and that’s why you need more than just an accusation before anyone is punished for cheating.

There's mountains of evidence. I didn't list it, as I didn't think, for a second, that it would disputed tbh.
You dodged the questions btw. Can you answer please.

Both questions are simple yes/no question and in your opinion.

• Has Hubbard taken in the past, or is she currently taking, exogenous hormones or hormone analogues?
  
• Is that permitted under the rules of weightlifitng and/or the Olympics?

kildare lad

Will we see a transgender rose of Tralee soon ?


https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1409922798890491906?s=20

keano_afc

Swing and a Miss, Nevada.

keano_afc

On the subject of males in womens sports, this is what happens when misogynistic men hear a woman say something they dont like.

https://twitter.com/JMBorchardt/status/1408166879114498051?s=20

The Democrat making noises like he's demon possessed is Rep. Michael Skindell.

One eyed Jack

Mellor wrote: »

There's mountains of evidence. I didn't list it, as I didn't think, for a second, that it would disputed tbh.
You dodged the questions btw. Can you answer please.

Both questions are simple yes/no question and in your opinion.

And that’s the problem. You can’t simply make a claim of any wrongdoing against someone and expect that it should be taken seriously without compelling evidence when you’re aware of the penalties involved.

I don’t have to answer shìt, you made the claim against Hubbard that they are cheating in the context of this years competition, the onus is on you to provide compelling evidence for your claim. I couldn’t give a tinkers what drugs athletes are or aren’t taking and whether or not they’re on the banned substances list, I care about the claim that they are cheating. Because that’s what they would be punished for if found to have been in breach of the rules.

kildare lad

keano_afc wrote: »

On the subject of males in womens sports, this is what happens when misogynistic men hear a woman say something they dont like.

https://twitter.com/JMBorchardt/status/1408166879114498051?s=20

The Democrat making noises like he's demon possessed is Rep. Michael Skindell.

Someone forgot to take their medication that day. Is that not sexist for a man trying to silence a woman from talking ?? I've no problem with people people changing their sex , your body your choice but the reality is your still biologically a man underneath the makeup and shouldn't be let compete against women .

kildare lad

kildare lad wrote: »

Is that not sexist for a man trying to silence a woman from talking ?

Nah. Just rude and juvenile. We're not delicate flowers.

That dude has major issues, though.

keano_afc

keano_afc wrote: »

On the subject of males in womens sports, this is what happens when misogynistic men hear a woman say something they dont like.

https://twitter.com/JMBorchardt/status/1408166879114498051?s=20

The Democrat making noises like he's demon possessed is Rep. Michael Skindell.

Cheesus, these people are insane. That person banging and roaring is someone who is not well.