The men playing women sports thing is intertwined in both. You just don’t like it nor like who asked the question.
Well they said she's in a cult. Obviously that's a little ridiculous, yeah I dont like that. I was surprised Dawn Staley gave that guy the time of day to be honest. It was the day before the National Championship. Can you imagine if some political guy who didn't cover football all season asked Bear Bryant about ladies playing football the day before the Crimson Tide played for the national title? He woulda ripped the guy a new asshole haha Staley shoulda done that instead
Coaches have been asked polarizing political questions since 2017. Where have you been? This isn’t a one-off, you just don’t like the topic or outlet.
Usually they are being asked though by people who covered them all season, and not the day before a championship game, unprovoked. Unless you have a similar example. I've been here on this planet since 2017! Its kinda moot anyway because Staley actually did take the time to share her opinion with the question and even gave him the opportunity to follow up. I know I wouldn't have and I don't think Bear Bryant, my example, would've either
My sister told me a transgender boxer competed at the Paris Olympic games. I missed it. She told me one of the female opponents complained about how hard she was hit or something like that? It doesn't seem fair to me but beyond fairness in the fighting competitions it's inevitable that one of the female combatants will be seriously injured if not killed in the future. I'm not against transgender athletes competing but they should be competing against other transgender athletes. There should be a third category at these competitions men, women, transgender.
Not a trans fighter, she was born female. This is from an article about her that explains it briefly. "It stems from the Russian-dominated International Boxing Association's decision to disqualify Khelif and fellow two-time Olympian Li Yu-ting of Taiwan from last year's world championships, claiming both failed an eligibility test for women's competition that IBA officials have declined to answer basic questions about." Seems the Russians were looking to eliminate some competition. Of course some could say this is all a cover up to promote some agenda.
Blame the IOC for that, not the skeptics. I read the news reports. There was something really funky the IOC’s narrative. They said the IBA “gender eligibility test” that disqualified the two boxers from the Worlds was “illegitimate,” but they never said why. All they did say is that it didn’t measure testosterone. So, near as I can tell, it was a one question test: Drop your drawers and describe what you see. That said, my thoughts on trans athletes is kinda evolving. I’m not there yet, but I’m thinking that of the goal is excellence in sports, women have been fucking it up long enough and maybe men SHOULD start taking over. Same thing with kindergarten artwork. As in: What the hell kind of fire engine is that?! When’s the last time you saw a fire green fire engine?! Gimme that crayon!
I honestly did not read too much on it but the dropping of the drawers test doesn't really fly anymore. Doctors can slice and dice and make a new whatever, so you may not know if it's real or doctors creation. Which really opens us up to more questions, like why have we not seen a double entrance vag, or a hydra like penis yet? I think porn in the near future is going to be really interesting. As far as artwork, I feel ya. My grand baby is going on 3 years old and still can keep the damn crayon inside the lines. You'd think an extra few hours locked in the dark closet would have taught her a lesson but I guess not.
As I understand it with that female boxer, it’s a natural medical condition. Just cause it gives her an advantage, how can you ban her? Do we ban 7 foot men from playing basketball now too? That’s unfair that my 5’9 ass has to try to guard them
So SCOTUS heard arguments today whether or not biological males who were born male should be allowed to participate in women's sports. Hopefully, this settles this once and for all: Justice Alito Challenges Attorney To Define A Woman: "We Do Not Have A Definition For The Court" Posted By Ian Schwartz On Date January 13, 2026 Kathleen Hartnett, the attorney for a transgender student athlete, was unable to define what a woman is when questioned by Justice Samuel Alito during Supreme Court oral arguments on Tuesday over state laws banning transgender in women's sports. Block argued that such a definition should not be used when enforcing Title IX. SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO: Well, to pick up on the issue of discrimination on the basis of transgender status, let me just go back to—let me go to some basics. Do you agree that a school may have separate teams for a category of students classified as boys and a category of students classified as girls? KATHLEEN HARTNETT, ATTORNEY FOR TRANSGENDER WOMAN LINDSAY HECOX: Yes, Your Honor. ALITO: If it does that, then is it not necessary for there to be, for equal protection purposes, if that is challenged under the Equal Protection Clause, an understanding of what it means to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman? HARTNETT: Yes, Your Honor. ALITO: And what is that definition? For equal protection purposes, what does it mean to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman? HARTNETT: Sorry, I misunderstood your question. I think that the underlying enactment, whatever it was, the policy, the law, the—we'd have to have an understanding of how the state or the government was understanding that term to figure out whether or not someone was excluded. We do not have a definition for the Court. And we don't take issue with the—we're not disputing the definition here. What we're saying is that the way it applies in practice is to exclude birth sex males categorically from women's teams and that there's a subset of those birth sex males where it doesn't make sense to do so according to the state's own interest. ALITO: Well, how can you—how can a court determine whether there's discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means for equal protection purposes? HARTNETT: I think here we just know—we basically know that the—that they've identified pursuant to their own statute, Lindsay qualifies as a birth sex male, and she's being excluded categorically from the women's teams as the statute. So we're taking the statute's definitions as we find them and we don't dispute them. We're just trying to figure out do they create an equal protection problem. ----------------‐----------------------- This is me now. I've always considered myself a feminist (with some common sense exclusions). I'm 61, and I've experienced a lot, some of it not very good when it comes to misogyny. So my question on this issue is, WHERE ARE ALL THE FEMINISTS?! Girrrrrl Power!, I say.
I did see that there was a comparison of the gender distinction to that of racial distinction where there is no clear definition in the statutes. I also saw that there was argument regarding what has been called an unfair advantage of a physically mature male person competing against females cannot be used as a reason to discriminate against the subject in this case because the plaintiff never went through the maturation process as a male, having undergone hormone therapy prior to puberty, thereby having no physical advantage associated with sex at birth. I don't know what source I had first seen but this mostly covers it: Supreme Court leans toward backing state restrictions on transgender student-athletes
As with almost anything, if it makes common sense, it's the best answer. I think where proponents get lost in the woods is over what I've said at least twice in this monster of a thread: this is not about transphobia. This whole thing is not only cheap, it is complete bullshit. It is not about intolerance. It is not about people being left alone to live their lives in peace. It is not about sexual discrimination (I can tell you what this is, alright). It is not about people being at peace with themselves. It is not about how people gender identify themselves. What it is about is biological sex and common sense. If the attorney leading the argument can't even define what being a woman is, then what are we even doing here? I can tell her what being a biologocal female is and so could she if she really wanted to. The people screaming like banshees outside the proceedings are ridiculous and misrepresenting the issue at heart here.
I had a high school chemistry teacher who was known to repeat, while shaking his head, "the empty barrels make the most noise."
