Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Entai, Jun 27, 2019.
I'll just leave this here
How are they even in the same weight class
"Her" upper body muscles are just so far beyond what a real women can achieve.
Maybe it's just the highest weight class? Ridiculous though. Joe Rogan has been saying this for years.
Southpark had a dig at this recently lol
Haven't watched South Park in a while. IIRC when I really kept up last was the mid 00s, but I've come back for specific episodes I'd heard about, like the Gangnam-style Halloween and the PC Principal thing once. But meh.
Not really. There are some women way outside the norm. At her peak, Becca Swanson was way bigger than the person in that picture and giving birth twice is pretty compelling evidence that she's a woman. Most women could be far more heavily muscled than they are, same as most men. That degree of upper body musculature is far beyond what almost all women have, but not impossible for any woman to have have with enough time and effective training. Impossible for some, yes. Impossible for most, perhaps. But not impossible for all.
She did look arguably androgynous at her heaviest, when she'd packed on as much muscle as possible and accepted a fair bit of fat with it, but at her normal weight of ~95Kg (no typo - she is really heavily muscled) she has a feminine appearance. And there's the giving birth thing. Kinda hard to do without being biologically female.
Nay, nay, you are wrong, sir...
We've already had it on 'very good authority' that testosterone is what gives the advantage in strength and muscle mass, even among intersex individuals whose bodies are unable to make use of it. Thus no normal woman with normal levels of testosterone (10% that of males) could ever possibly have such a high rate of muscle mass increase (85% that of men)..... even though many of them do, and without taking testosterone..... and to argue otherwise would be totally disingenuous!!
So while I would love to agree with you, I'd hate to get spanked by the unsubstantiated fact that has already been proven in the other thread...
Becca Swanson is quite obviously on steroids though?
Can I take it that you're perfectly happy for a man to step into the ring and beat the crap out of a woman, then?
Oh sorry, "trans woman".
Woman or transwoman - Yes I am, actually... long as she or 'she' signed up for it and knew exactly what she was getting into, then I see no reason why not.
What about the women (at birth) who don't want to fight "trans women"?
Ya know.... I am fairly certain that boxers are allowed to turn down fights... Unless they have signed a contract that makes it clear they are obliged to step in against whoever their bosses decide upon, it remains their choice, no?
So again, if someone signs up to a fight, knowing what they'll be going up against, I have no problem. Similarly, if a woman says, "No way am I getting in the ring and beating up some fairy in a skirt", I believe she should be free to make that choice... albeit perhaps with a slightly more sensitive, tolerant, 'woke' choice of phrasing, if she would rather avoid the inevitable Trial By Social Media and Twatterstorms!!
Why, what are you getting at?
They can decline the match. Of course, this could lead to a women’s boxing title being held by a trans freak.
They aren't getting into single fight bouts for a bit of fun, this is their career, they've chosen to compete as natural female combat athletes, and to progress in their chosen fields they now face the choice of having to fight people who have huge physical advantages, or simply not progress at all. So yes, they may choose to fight, in the same way that you may still choose to interview for a job against the company owners son, but it doesn't mean there's any point or that it's remotely fair.
Thought it was obvious.
Trans women aren't women.
They're either mutilated, or delusional, men.
If they all declined to fight them they wouldnt be in the sport for long.
Yep. But you can't complain, because that's not politically correct, now, is it?
Alternatively, it could lead to the freaks being dropped from the programme, because no-one is interested in fighting them...
I'm surprised, though. I thought people here didn't generally care about women's sports beyond beach volleyball?
That's down to society and what they want to see, though, isn't it?
If they want equal treatment for all the ladyboy types, to the point where they force real women out of all sports, that is society's choice. Same for if enough of society want to see their women with faces smashed to a bloody pulp in barefist boxing matches... which certainly seems to have enjoyed a measure of success lately.
Then why not just say that in the first place? I'm not Prince Andrew or anything, so why the 'interview' questions?
Seems like you’re confused and are trying to be disengenuous again...
You spent several posts trying to construct some straw man argument re: partial androgen insensitivity syndrome by prestending that complete androgen insensitivity syndrome was being discussed - either out of confusion or because you were being dishonest.
But no one actually made the claim you’re pretending they did in the above quote.
I am often accused of taking things out of context to construct shaky arguments against them, invariably by someone doing that very same thing, but I'm sure that's purely coincidental...
Not at all.
I spoke of androgen insensitivity as a whole alongside several other conditions, specifically avoiding the need to try and split hairs over the degree of insensitivity, because that degree was inconsequential, which you'll know from having read what I wrote.....
You'll also recall that you assumed I meant CAIS simply because I did not specifically mention the word Partial when addressing your points.
I can only presume that, in your rush to grind whatever axe you have, you forgot to actually read up and instead just leapt at the argument.
Oh, and as for straw man arguments - Look to your own failings on that count, first.
If you really want to start crying logical fallacies, you'll find yourself shot in your own foot before you even get going.
You care to substantiate that this time, or are you once again just going to be vague and outright dodge any actual assertion, while pretending your assertion doesn't require proof because it's suddenly just your opinion and your say so... ?
Where has this argument come from then:
"even among intersex individuals whose bodies are unable to make use of it."
Where did that claim get made? There isn't an assumption here - that doesn't refer to partial AIS now does it...
Though if you recall you had a bit of a tantrum and deleted a bunch of your posts in here, mine are still there though.
This is false - you specifically mention CAIS in reply to me talking about PAIS... it's the same straw man argument you've continually repeated even after it is pointed out multiple times see below - I'll highlight in bold you specifically using "CAIS" and me clarifying again...
You've conveniently deleted your posts since but the quote is still there and my post is un edited.
You repeatedly try to present some straw man argument re: intersex people with CAIS or "anyone not XX" when that hasn't been my argument at all and I've already told you that. Then you come in again weeks later with the same straw man argument: "even among intersex individuals whose bodies are unable to make use of it."
Either you're not following what has been said or you're being dishonest - otherwise you could quote the actual post where that argument was supposedly made.
Separate names with a comma.