President Biden

[Rock The Boat 1,329]

4 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Now you know that is just another lie. You, Moy and Swindon just cannot help yourselves. But I guess you don't recognise equality as something vital.

It's no lie, KG. American feminists are extremely angry at the Executive Order signed by the fake-President Biden. And the irony that it is people on the right supporting the human rights of leftie feminists shouldn't be overlooked. We've got four years of this to look forward to and sanity is already driving off a cliff edge in the first week.

[horsefly 4,297]

7 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Now you know that is just another lie. You, Moy and Swindon just cannot help yourselves. But I guess you don't recognise equality as something vital.

Indeed! you have to be a convicted child rapist like Epstein to get RTB's sympathy

[Herman 9,754]

Nice shoes Rocky.

[A Load of Squit 5,161]

19 minutes ago, Herman said:

Nice shoes Rocky.

So far we've had the 'Peloton Bike' faux outrage.

Today it's about a Rolex Watch.

I expect RTB will be having the vapours, he may never recover. 😀

 

[Herman 9,754]

This was a joke, but it wasn't that far from the truth.

[A Load of Squit 5,161]

 

8 minutes ago, Herman said:

This was a joke, but it wasn't that far from the truth.

This was the truth.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/biden-sean-hannity-fox-news-b1791431.html

Sean Hannity denounces Biden’s first week as ‘disastrous’ before the president completed a full day of work.

 

[Herman 9,754]

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

10 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

It's no lie, KG. American feminists are extremely angry at the Executive Order signed by the fake-President Biden. And the irony that it is people on the right supporting the human rights of leftie feminists shouldn't be overlooked. We've got four years of this to look forward to and sanity is already driving off a cliff edge in the first week.

But we are all equal in the eyes of the law. And Biden has entrenched that into law. There will be evangelical groups who condemn his actions. But that doesn't make it wrong. It is right. And he is Catholic, so for him, it is a decision that could conflict with his church.

There are millions of US citizens who will never agree with him but he has to do the right thing.

[Mr Angry 1,554]

The Trump administration enacted over 180 anti-LGBTQ actions during its 4 years in office-and attempted many more.

[Surfer 1,547]

Stay focused everyone. 

The US desperately needs a financial relief package to help lower income families navigate through the Covid induced economic crisis. The States also need Federal help to ramp up Covid vaccine production and open vaccination sites for vaccine delivery. But the Republicans are still running around saying the recent election was fraudulent, and they are going to do everything in their power to pass new State laws "to prevent this ever happing again". This is what the current standoff in the Senate is all about, Republicans are refusing to vote for ANYTHING, i.e. refusing to agree to Administrative rules for the new session, unless Democrats cave to their demand to be able to block EVERYTHING. i.e. every legislative item passed must obtain 60 votes, so therefore they can block it. As the first item on Democratic agenda is voting rights reform, this is all about maintaining power their exclusive power to govern. 

[king canary 7,603]

22 hours ago, kick it off said:

Why is it trending? do you know?

I do, it's a bunch of transphobes complaining that he put trans rights in place. That's it. That's the whole issue.

So I would say that pissing off a lot of people who don't believe in human rights for trans people is actually "it" going very well indeed.

Appeasing the terminally dim and bigoted is not a criteria for succes in my book.

I mean, it isn't the whole issue is it?

You don't have to be a virulent transphobe to have some issues with that decision. 

[Bill 1,788]

2 minutes ago, Surfer said:

Stay focused everyone. 

The US desperately needs a financial relief package to help lower income families navigate through the Covid induced economic crisis. The States also need Federal help to ramp up Covid vaccine production and open vaccination sites for vaccine delivery. But the Republicans are still running around saying the recent election was fraudulent, and they are going to do everything in their power to pass new State laws "to prevent this ever happing again". This is what the current standoff in the Senate is all about, Republicans are refusing to vote for ANYTHING, i.e. refusing to agree to Administrative rules for the new session, unless Democrats cave to their demand to be able to block EVERYTHING. i.e. every legislative item passed must obtain 60 votes, so therefore they can block it. As the first item on Democratic agenda is voting rights reform, this is all about maintaining power their exclusive power to govern. 

and that's where the US electoral system is not fit for purpose

great for an emerging country, but not anymore

the UK's upper house can delay and make recommendation, both being necessary checks, but it cannot block the will of the elected chamber

I appreciate senators are elected but there is an almost 'rotten boroughs' feel about it, whereby states with a few hundred thousand population send the same number of senators as California with a 50 million population

that ;righties; are trying to block the lawful democratic process, should come as no surprise - as that was what the attack ton Capitol Hill was about, the closing of Parliament in the UK was about and that every widening of the vote in the UK has been opposed by 'righties'

[Bill 1,788]

11 minutes ago, king canary said:

I mean, it isn't the whole issue is it?

You don't have to be a virulent transphobe to have some issues with that decision. 

what's being issued ?

[Van wink 2,994]

43 minutes ago, king canary said:

I mean, it isn't the whole issue is it?

You don't have to be a virulent transphobe to have some issues with that decision. 

There presumably are conflicts with women’s rights, I have an open mind on the issue, it would be good to see some decent debate on here rather than the usual stereotyping. 

[kick it off 1,948]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

I mean, it isn't the whole issue is it?

You don't have to be a virulent transphobe to have some issues with that decision. 

Never said there wasn't a debate to be had about it, I said it's a bunch of transphobes using the hashtag. Which if you look at the hashtag, it is. There's plenty of discourse around the topic which is reasoned and sensible. The people trying to claim Biden has "cancelled women" on that hashtag are almost exclusively the fringe elements and not the reasonable side of the discourse.

I didn't phrase it very well in the post when I said the whole issue, I meant the whole hashtag, rather than the wider issue of trans/women's rights.

Edited January 24, 2021 by kick it off

[king canary 7,603]

44 minutes ago, Van wink said:

There presumably are conflicts with women’s rights, I have an open mind on the issue, it would be good to see some decent debate on here rather than the usual stereotyping. 

For me it all stems from people being unwilling or unable to differentiate sex and gender. For me, gender is a social construct and as we progress it is great to see people breaking down the gender stereotypes and expectations that have held them back for so long. People can and should identify and be respected in whatever gender identity they choose.

However this does not change your biological sex and sometimes sex has to trump gender- sports being a fairly clear example in my opinion. The Biden EO basically means college and high school sports can't discriminate on the lines of gender ID so from a practical standpoint a male bodied person could identify as a woman and then be allowed to compete in women's sports which is extremely unfair in my view.

21 minutes ago, kick it off said:

Never said there wasn't a debate to be had about it, I said it's a bunch of transphobes using the hashtag. Which if you look at the hashtag, it is. There's plenty of discourse around the topic which is reasoned and sensible. The people trying to claim Biden has "cancelled women" on that hashtag are almost exclusively the fringe elements and not the reasonable side of the discourse.

Disagree about the hashtag- I saw some fairly sensible people on it. It is, however, a classic example of where people with no real interest in the issue will highjack it to score political points. I don't believe for a second that someone like RTB actually cares that much about women's rights, just as I don't believe lots of the right wing commentators who leapt on the issue of anti semitism in Labour actually cared that much about Jewish people.

Edited January 24, 2021 by king canary

[YellowYawner 6]

31 minutes ago, king canary said:

 

However this does not change your biological sex and sometimes sex has to trump gender- sports being a fairly clear example in my opinion. The Biden EO basically means college and high school sports can't discriminate on the lines of gender ID so from a practical standpoint a male bodied person could identify as a woman and then be allowed to compete in women's sports which is extremely unfair in my view.

 

I fear this is a question that will never get a satisfactory answer.

I don't think there can be any denial that in most sports theres going to be an advantage, but are some things bigger than sports?

from the guardian

“Running has been so important for my identity, my growth as a person, and my ability to survive in a world that discriminates against me,” Andraya Yearwood wrote to the court. “I am thankful that I live in Connecticut where I can be treated as a girl in all aspects of life and not face discrimination at school.”"

So for me when you consider the hardship people go through, the massively increased rate of suicide attempts, it's just hard to look at sport and say "Ok you're a girl, but not when it comes to this"

As I say I don't know what a good resolution would look like. I think i've landed on the belief that it's probably heading in the right direction. Most sport's aren't won purely on technique or ability, genetics and power have always played a key role. I don't know what regulations will have to be in place - not for a minute do I believe someone should be able to declare themselves female then rock up at the olympics a few months later. But if we are accepting there are people who were born in the wrong body then for me we have to accept that some of those would have been athletes, yet its complicated by the fact that an athletics career will open up to a greater proportion of them than otherwise would have.  It's not fair but then I guess life isn't - when I weigh up that up against the suffering the LGBT community goes through it's probably the better result.

Edited January 24, 2021 by YellowYawner

[king canary 7,603]

4 minutes ago, YellowYawner said:

I fear this is a question that will never get a satisfactory answer.

I don't think there can be any denial that in most sports theres going to be an advantage, but are some things bigger than sports?

from the guardian

“Running has been so important for my identity, my growth as a person, and my ability to survive in a world that discriminates against me,” Andraya Yearwood wrote to the court. “I am thankful that I live in Connecticut where I can be treated as a girl in all aspects of life and not face discrimination at school.”"

So for me when you consider the hardship people go through, the massively increased rate of suicide attempts, it's just hard to look at sport and say "Ok you're a girl, but not when it comes to this"

As I say I don't know what a good resolution would look like. I think i've landed on the belief that it's probably heading in the right direction. Most sport's aren't won purely on technique or ability, genetics and power have always played a key role. I don't know what regulations will have to be in place - not for a minute do I believe someone should be able to declare themselves female then rock up at the olympics a few months later. But if we are accepting there are people who were born in the wrong body then for me we have to accept that some of those would have been athletes, yet its complicated by the fact that an athletics career will open up to a greater proportion of them than otherwise would have.  It's not fair but then I guess life isn't - when I weigh up that up against the suffering the LGBT community goes through it's probably the better result.

The problem is the question asked isn't 'are some things bigger than sports?' It's 'are some things bigger than women's sports?'

Fundamentally my view is their will always be things people can't do. If you're a trans person then I think we need to make society as open and accepting as possible but you likely need to accept that there will still be things you cant do, and compete at elite levels in sports as a woman is one of them. Otherwise you could potentially destroy women's sports.

At a lower level I think you need to likely add an 'all gender' option for people to opt in to but it is hugely unfair to just expect women to allow people with a potentially dramatic advantages in size, strength and power to play with you for fear of being dubbed a bigot. Rugby is great example- I believe women who want to play Rugby but don't want to hugely increase their chance of injury by being tackled by someone who went through male puberty and has all the advantages that provides should be able to do so and those who are happy to take that risk can do so separately.

You're correct it is a hugely difficult issue though.  

[Yellow Fever 3,767]

2 minutes ago, YellowYawner said:

I fear this is a question that will never get a satisfactory answer.

I don't think there can be and denial that in most sports theres going to be an advantage, but are some things bigger than sports?

from the guardian

“Running has been so important for my identity, my growth as a person, and my ability to survive in a world that discriminates against me,” Andraya Yearwood wrote to the court. “I am thankful that I live in Connecticut where I can be treated as a girl in all aspects of life and not face discrimination at school.”"

So for me when you consider the hardship people go through, the massively increased rate of suicide attempts, it's just hard to look at sport and say "Ok you're a girl, but not when it comes to this"

As I say I don't know what a good resolution would look like. I think i've landed on the belief that it's probably heading in the right direction. Most sport's aren't won purely on technique or ability, genetics and power have always played a key role. I don't know what regulations will have to be in place - not for a minute do I believe someone should be able to declare themselves female then rock up at the olympics a few months later. But if we are accepting there are people who were born in the wrong body then for me we have to accept that some of those would have been athletes, yet its complicated by the fact that an athletics career will open up to a greater proportion of them than otherwise would have.  It's not fair but then I guess life isn't - when I weigh up that up against the suffering the LGBT community goes through it's probably the better result.

This seems a problem peculiar to sport

Why not do away with women and mens sport altogether? Same as in all other human endeavours. The best whatever win out. We are all born with certain genetic advantages and disadvantages let alone all the training and jiggery-pokery that now also goes on (cycling). The idea that even within any of the current disciplines all are equal is laughable.

And yes men may generally have more main strength but I beleive women have more stamina. Eventually they will outperform men in things such as marathons!

[Van wink 2,994]

3 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

This seems a problem peculiar to sport

Why not do away with women and mens sport altogether? Same as in all other human endeavours. The best whatever win out. We are all born with certain genetic advantages and disadvantages let alone all the training and jiggery-pokery that now also goes on (cycling). The idea that even within any of the current disciplines all are equal is laughable.

And yes men may generally have more main strength but I beleive women have more stamina. Eventually they will outperform men in things such as marathons!

I’m not sure women athletes would buy that YF. 

[king canary 7,603]

2 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

This seems a problem peculiar to sport

Why not do away with women and mens sport altogether? Same as in all other human endeavours. The best whatever win out. We are all born with certain genetic advantages and disadvantages let alone all the training and jiggery-pokery that now also goes on (cycling). The idea that even within any of the current disciplines all are equal is laughable.

And yes men may generally have more main strength but I beleive women have more stamina. Eventually they will outperform men in things such as marathons!

Because if you do away with the split based on sex women won't win anything.

For example the womens 100m world record is 10.49 seconds. 

For comparison every single man in the final or semi final of the 2016 100m would have comfortably set a new womens world record.

[Bill 1,788]

Not so much 'unfair' but that’s the way it is

Unfairness suggests that a remedy is available and so should be applied to redress the imbalance

Put bluntly it is much a case of having to get in with it - however that does not mean any of us should be made to feel to be a lesser person, or that there is a 'norm' that some folk have failed to adhere to

However this will not come about under its own volition. But will certainly develop as society changes and the balance tilts more and more towards acceptance, not intolerance

[king canary 7,603]

1 minute ago, Bill said:

Not so much 'unfair' but that’s the way it is

Unfairness suggests that a remedy is available and so should be applied to redress the imbalance

Put bluntly it is much a case of having to get in with it - however that does not mean any of us should be made to feel to be a lesser person, or that there is a 'norm' that some folk have failed to adhere to

However this will not come about under its own volition. But will certainly develop as society changes and the balance tilts more and more towards acceptance, not intolerance

Do you mean women having to accept transgender athletes competing in womens sports is what they have to 'get with?'

[Yellow Fever 3,767]

14 minutes ago, Van wink said:

I’m not sure women athletes would buy that YF. 

 

13 minutes ago, king canary said:

Because if you do away with the split based on sex women won't win anything.

For example the womens 100m world record is 10.49 seconds. 

For comparison every single man in the final or semi final of the 2016 100m would have comfortably set a new womens world record.

I agree its radical but it's just a truth. I beleive the best fighter pilots on a modern jet should be small women (better at Hi G). 

What's the difference between the genetics of a Tibetan sherper for high altitude or Kenyan long distance runners. Should they have to compete seperarely as they are too good for the rest of us.

No. Its just an outdated world-view peculiar to overly competitive sport. 

I forgot to add female jockeys. I could go On!

Edited January 24, 2021 by Yellow Fever

[king canary 7,603]

Just now, Yellow Fever said:

 

I agree its radical but it's just a truth. I beleive the best fighter pilots on a modern jet should be small women (better at Hi G). 

What's the difference between the genetics of a Tibetan sherper for high altitude or Kenyan long distance runners. Should they have to compete seperarely as they are too good for the rest of us.

No. Its just an outdated world-view peculiar to overly competitive sport. 

Yeah but...it isnt just the truth is it?

Men have so many obvious and huge biological advantages over women. Check out the twitter account of Ross Tucker @scienceofsport for more information. 

[Yellow Fever 3,767]

6 minutes ago, king canary said:

Yeah but...it isnt just the truth is it?

Men have so many obvious and huge biological advantages over women. Check out the twitter account of Ross Tucker @scienceofsport for more information. 

Yes but its just the myopic view of males and female that's gettig in the way and frankly vested interest.

I could be the world greatest webbed 6 fingered (because I'm Norfolk) one armed weight lifter. Nobody else need apply! Doesn't diminish the sport.  

What I'm trying to get at is some women or men like the divisions the way it is because it suits them. They can be the best of their little group.

Edited January 24, 2021 by Yellow Fever

[king canary 7,603]

2 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Yes but its just the myopic view of males and female that's gettig in the way and frankly vested interest.

I could be the world greatest webbed 6 fingered (because I'm Norfolk) one armed weight lifter. Nobody else need apply! Doesn't diminish the sport.  

With all due respect you do not sound like you have a clue what your are talking about.

It isn't a 'myopic view of males and females' it is clear biological fact. Strength, power, bone density, lung capacity all affected by going through male puberty and all give men a sizable advantage over women in athletic events. This isn't myopia or sexism it is fact and is the reason women's sport is separate group. If you had your way, no woman would be competing at an elite level. 

[YellowYawner 6]

5 minutes ago, king canary said:

The problem is the question asked isn't 'are some things bigger than sports?' It's 'are some things bigger than women's sports?'

Fundamentally my view is their will always be things people can't do. If you're a trans person then I think we need to make society as open and accepting as possible but you likely need to accept that there will still be things you cant do, and compete at elite levels in sports as a woman is one of them. Otherwise you could potentially destroy women's sports.

At a lower level I think you need to likely add an 'all gender' option for people to opt in to but it is hugely unfair to just expect women to allow people with a potentially dramatic advantages in size, strength and power to play with you for fear of being dubbed a bigot. Rugby is great example- I believe women who want to play Rugby but don't want to hugely increase their chance of injury by being tackled by someone who went through male puberty and has all the advantages that provides should be able to do so and those who are happy to take that risk can do so separately.

You're correct it is a hugely difficult issue though.  

My answer to the question was leaning to "yes' so it's going to be the same answer to male or female sports specifically.

I guess I think where we are going is the fact that people are not going to be referred to as a "trans person" but rather their chosen gender. So it won't be seen as a trans woman setting the new 100m record - It will be seen as a woman. Many won't like that for many reasons, but thats where I see this going. The points you put out in your rugby example are the valid criticisms and part of why this is so complicated. Ultimately I think women's sport in the future won't be destroyed but will have many participants who were born male, or as they would genuinely feel and have lived with until transition "in the wrong body" To be clear though I don't actually know what the 'right' answer is. I just think this is where it's heading, changing attitudes in society will eclipse anything else now. You've only got to look at how JK Rowling was shut down. It will happen in sport I feel.

On a separate note I do think that the forced lowering of testosterone is going to be looked on poorly by future attitudes. Not to mention the fact that it was even put to someone who is actually female.

3 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

 

I agree its radical but it's just a truth. I beleive the best fighter pilots on a modern jet should be small women (better at Hi G). 

 

Ok this is completely unrelated but I think to take one factor isn't the best idea. Are reaction times or spacial awareness not relevant in a fighter jet? (men do better.) Theres probably hundreds of other factors you might want to consider too. The end result is that you won't be picking your pilots based on their gender. Although I do imagine fighter jet pilots will soon be a thing of the past anyways.

Also what if we were to say the average reaction time of 10 men was 0.5 seconds and of 10 woman was 0.7 would you take a team of exclusively men? It would ignore the fact that there could be huge individual differences and that it might well be someone from the woman's group who posted the fastest time. No reason to deny her because Karen on the back took all of 8 seconds.

 

 

[Yellow Fever 3,767]

1 minute ago, king canary said:

With all due respect you do not sound like you have a clue what your are talking about.

It isn't a 'myopic view of males and females' it is clear biological fact. Strength, power, bone density, lung capacity all affected by going through male puberty and all give men a sizable advantage over women in athletic events. This isn't myopia or sexism it is fact and is the reason women's sport is separate group. If you had your way, no woman would be competing at an elite level. 

You are missing what I'm getting at. You've set the rules and like them the way they are but in truth there have always been overlaps in gender even at physical levels. Who was that SA girl?

That said women do have more stamina - thats to do with the demands of pregnancy and childbirth. They should eventually make better long distance runners. The 100m is explosive strength not stamina.

 

[YellowYawner 6]

2 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

 

That said women do have more stamina - thats to do with the demands of pregnancy and childbirth. They should eventually make better long distance runners. The 100m is explosive strength not stamina.

 

I think you are confusing the fact that the gap between the genders closes as the distance increases. It doesn't disappear. Where are you getting this information?

I think there was a time in the 70s when they believed woman would outcompete men in ultra endurance events due to the rate of improvement they were seeing in the times. But what was actually happening was the level of training was improving as well as accessibility getting more women with higher potential involved. Eventually diminishing returns set in and the gap didn't close