Should transgenered people be allowed to box?

[Beanz]

What is ironic/funny/tragic about the whole argument is how the very 'identity politics' that are seen as being so distasteful are being employed by those supposedly arguing against them.

So Ron can post this

'What should be considered and is ignored in this is that no woman would be forced to fight a transgender woman, or more correctly another woman. But when you say “you can’t because...” someone is being forced. Someone is having their rights taken away. The simple and fair solution is let people decide who they want to fight and don’t want to fight. That couldn’t possibly be more obvious and if you return to this debate in 20 years it will be as obvious as it should be now. '


And purely because Ron posted it, people can't bring themselves to be aligned to it, even if they agree.

Am I missing something? Only there seems to be a theme here that has seeped across the forum. Sure we can all agree to disagree still. Even take the piss out of opposite opinions but inventing enemies, by creating your opponents and their position for them is just daft.

You cannot argue some kind of libertarian position and then deny that freedom from those you are so valiantly claiming to defend. The only people forcing anything on anyone are those claiming that transgender women should not be able to fight 'born' women. Even when those 'born' women are happy to fight them.

It's no coincidence those female boxers are not quoted here. It's no coincidence the thread title is suggesting even trans boxers being able to box anyone (each other?) is supposedly up for debate. Allowed?

It's a sad indictment where merely liking a post morphs into a ringing endorsement of every word and can become the tinder(oooh er) to ignite a flame war. Hell, even using the word 'nuance' becomes a supposed indicator of God knows what.

Why is it such an anathema for posters to admit to being in agreement?

[TitoFan]

What is ironic/funny/tragic about the whole argument is how the very 'identity politics' that are seen as being so distasteful are being employed by those supposedly arguing against them.

So Ron can post this

'What should be considered and is ignored in this is that no woman would be forced to fight a transgender woman, or more correctly another woman. But when you say “you can’t because...” someone is being forced. Someone is having their rights taken away. The simple and fair solution is let people decide who they want to fight and don’t want to fight. That couldn’t possibly be more obvious and if you return to this debate in 20 years it will be as obvious as it should be now. '


And purely because Ron posted it, people can't bring themselves to be aligned to it, even if they agree.

Am I missing something? Only there seems to be a theme here that has seeped across the forum. Sure we can all agree to disagree still. Even take the piss out of opposite opinions but inventing enemies, by creating your opponents and their position for them is just daft.

You cannot argue some kind of libertarian position and then deny that freedom from those you are so valiantly claiming to defend. The only people forcing anything on anyone are those claiming that transgender women should not be able to fight 'born' women. Even when those 'born' women are happy to fight them.

It's no coincidence those female boxers are not quoted here. It's no coincidence the thread title is suggesting even trans boxers being able to box anyone (each other?) is supposedly up for debate. Allowed?

It's a sad indictment where merely liking a post morphs into a ringing endorsement of every word and can become the tinder(oooh er) to ignite a flame war. Hell, even using the word 'nuance' becomes a supposed indicator of God knows what.

Why is it such an anathema for posters to admit to being in agreement?

"Agreeing to disagree" is obviously something not programmed into your DNA, so I'd rather you not mention something you've never had any intention of doing.

The "inventing enemies" and "creating opponents and their positions" part is just as hilarious as it's always been. It has always been the proverbial straw you clutch at when all else is falling apart.



Now... if you were to practice what you preach regarding the "agreeing to disagree" part, you'd accept the fact that some of us do not agree with transgenders fighting born women boxers. In addition, if you had an objective, unbiased bone in your body, you'd admit the whole mess started when your buddy Ron called me "sexist" for having an opinion. Never mind he probably hasn't got the foggiest idea what "sexist" actually means, nor that he knows diddly squat about me as a person, which completely disqualifies him from having the right to make such a damning statement. But no. Being the flawed personality you are, and having that knee-jerk reaction to all things transgender, you rushed to thank him for the insult hurled at me. Does that describe the facts in a nutshell?

I've clearly stated my reasons for having the opinion that I do, but I'll gladly state them again at the risk of repetition but for the sake of clarity.


1. Allowing transgenders to fight women boxers would begin benignly enough, with those who refuse to fight them being allowed their position. In an ideal world, the story would end right there. But we don't live in an ideal world, do we. At some point there would be more and more transgenders in women's boxing, and at some point any woman choosing to pursue a professional boxing career would have to face the prospect of having to fight a transgender. The idea that gets scoffed at.... as the scenario of a women having a mandatory for her title.... shows how tight your blinders are. For as much as you beat your own chest about how open-minded you are, you certainly have a narrow view of the future.

2. The very definition of transitioning to the other gender is weak and flimsy. That much was shown in Smashup's video of the transgender football player. If you bothered to see the entire video, you'll see the hilariously frightening flimsiness of the definition in some instances. You basically have to "identify" as a woman, and have a low testosterone level. That's all. We're playing with fire here. We don't even know what the hell a transgender female is, yet we're letting them loose on women's boxing. When some of us raise a caution flag, you start waving your "equal rights flag" and lecturing us with your predictable bullshit.

3. You continue harping on those women who have said they'd have no problem fighting transgenders, as if that automatically makes it ok. You dared to tell me it's not "mob rule", yet that is EXACTLY what you're arguing for. Never mind those who don't want any part of that. The fact that some said they'd have no problem with it, automatically cancels out those who would have a problem. It is ME who should tell YOU it's not a mob rule. In this case, where the health and livelihood of women athletes is at stake, even ONE objection should be enough to take a long hard look at what we're about to permit. We're not taking a damn vote here, Beanz.



You and I have been on opposite sides of most a lot of arguments. And like you hypocritically stated above, we should always be able to agree to disagree. But this particular argument sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb. This is where you have disclosed your true self FOR ALL TO SEE. There is no hiding anymore for you.

Again, to hammer the point home.


1. I stated my opinion. I'm not in favor of transgenders in women's boxing. (That is my opinion, the one we're supposed to agree to disagree on). All I'm thinking about is women's safety. I've never been in favor of men beating up on women.

2. For my trouble, I get called a sexist by Ron Swanson, the paragon of knowledge and Mr. Personality on this forum.

3. In comes Beanz, thanking Ron for calling me a sexist because God forbid TitoFan should post an opinion about transgenders and women on the forum.

4. I respond as anyone here would, defending myself.

5. And here we are, more than a hundred posts later, immersed in the same tired old bullshit we always manage to devolve into.



Frankly, I think nothing more need be said.

[walrus]

What is ironic/funny/tragic about the whole argument is how the very 'identity politics' that are seen as being so distasteful are being employed by those supposedly arguing against them.

So Ron can post this

'What should be considered and is ignored in this is that no woman would be forced to fight a transgender woman, or more correctly another woman. But when you say “you can’t because...” someone is being forced. Someone is having their rights taken away. The simple and fair solution is let people decide who they want to fight and don’t want to fight. That couldn’t possibly be more obvious and if you return to this debate in 20 years it will be as obvious as it should be now. '


And purely because Ron posted it, people can't bring themselves to be aligned to it, even if they agree.

Am I missing something? Only there seems to be a theme here that has seeped across the forum. Sure we can all agree to disagree still. Even take the piss out of opposite opinions but inventing enemies, by creating your opponents and their position for them is just daft.

You cannot argue some kind of libertarian position and then deny that freedom from those you are so valiantly claiming to defend. The only people forcing anything on anyone are those claiming that transgender women should not be able to fight 'born' women. Even when those 'born' women are happy to fight them.

It's no coincidence those female boxers are not quoted here. It's no coincidence the thread title is suggesting even trans boxers being able to box anyone (each other?) is supposedly up for debate. Allowed?

It's a sad indictment where merely liking a post morphs into a ringing endorsement of every word and can become the tinder(oooh er) to ignite a flame war. Hell, even using the word 'nuance' becomes a supposed indicator of God knows what.

Why is it such an anathema for posters to admit to being in agreement?

Ha I find it funny cause I’ve liked a few posts that set you off but here u are deflecting it on others.

[Gandalf]

I will fight any of you at a CW of 125 pounds which is the weight I will need to go to minus my penis.

[p4pking]

I will fight any of you at a CW of 125 pounds which is the weight I will need to go to minus my penis.

You can keep it and weigh over at 125.03 to be fair. I’ll stick to cutting my right leg off and go with a bone marrow extraction. No shark costumes though, that way I wouldn’t know if you’ve had hormone replacement to try and grow a pair of balls or not.

[Gandalf]

I will fight any of you at a CW of 125 pounds which is the weight I will need to go to minus my penis.

You can keep it and weigh over at 125.03 to be fair. I’ll stick to cutting my right leg off and go with a bone marrow extraction. No shark costumes though, that way I wouldn’t know if you’ve had hormone replacement to try and grow a pair of balls or not.

When the council puts up a sign saying 'No ball games' are they trying to tell us something? I think all this gender lark is going way too far.

[p4pking]

I don’t know much about councils, aside from that clearly wasn’t the reason you fled yours for Korea .

[X]

​So, would Buffalo Bill beat Serena Williams over ten rounds then?