Transwoman cyclist Austin Killips wins women's race and causes outrage!

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Boadicea

It could also be that there are way more red states than blue ones too. You would have to dig down to see where the searches come from. Let's say Texas has a lot, and it's a red state. But, what if most of those searches come from the Austin area which is predominantly blue?

Good point.

For example, one of the cities cited is Dallas, and Dallas is definitely a blue city and county.

The raw numbers do probably tell a story, just not the story the article is telling.

Which brings us to the narrative being pushed.

It's easier to form a narrative by offering nothing more than a snippet, a snapshot rather than entire picture.

a reply to: Moon68

How else are they supposed to get all of these people on board if they gave you the whole picture?

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: Moon68

How else are they supposed to get all of these people on board if they gave you the whole picture?

Which is why Loudon Co went to the lengths it did to cover up what happened. No one won in that scenario.

originally posted by: Boadicea
For example, one of the cities cited is Dallas, and Dallas is definitely a blue city and county.

Dallas *metro. Wichita Falls specifically. I've since looked it up. 69.7% republican in the last election.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: Moon68

How else are they supposed to get all of these people on board if they gave you the whole picture?

Which is why Loudon Co went to the lengths it did to cover up what happened. No one won in that scenario.

Painfully evident in the Rittenhouse trial. That moronic prosecutor kept trying to use stills to point out Kyle "attacking" the mostly peaceful "protesters". The defense just ran the various footages, showing the events unfolding in real time. Made for an easy not guilty verdict.

a reply to: Moon68

Which brings us to the narrative being pushed.

It's easier to form a narrative by offering nothing more than a snippet, a snapshot rather than entire picture.

Exactly. Give just enough information -- and only enough information -- for folks to jump to their own conclusions. Especially in a complex matter with many moving parts. Just leave those other pesky facts out.

People who don't know what other questions to ask to flesh out the big picture. But they will be all puffed up with pride at seeing it for themselves.

Standard scam tactics.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Moon68

Which brings us to the narrative being pushed.

It's easier to form a narrative by offering nothing more than a snippet, a snapshot rather than entire picture.

Exactly. Give just enough information -- and only enough information -- for folks to jump to their own conclusions. Especially in a complex matter with many moving parts. Just leave those other pesky facts out.

People who don't know what other questions to ask to flesh out the big picture. But they will be all puffed up with pride at seeing it for themselves.

Standard scam tactics.

All my stars for you dear.

See my post above this one.

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: Boadicea
For example, one of the cities cited is Dallas, and Dallas is definitely a blue city and county.

Dallas *metro. Wichita Falls specifically. I've since looked it up. 69.7% republican in the last election.

These are obviously irrelevant posts but the main issue remains unsolved in cycling.

Just as many other governing bodies of sports have done in the past, transwomen should be banned from taking part in cyclic competitions. World Athletics, UK Athletics, World Rugby, FINA, and others have already banned them.

As the matter of fact British Cycling already considers to ban transwomen athletes from female competitions.

www.cyclingweekly.com...

]British Cycling reportedly considering ban on transgender riders in elite female races
The governing body's new guidelines are due to be announced within the next month

a reply to: LordAhriman

Dallas *metro. Wichita Falls specifically. I've since looked it up. 69.7% republican in the last election.

I'm not sure that necessarily follows. My IP address regularly shows up as being in a neighboring city. I don't think Google searches are pinpoint accurate.

a reply to: Moon68

All my stars for you dear.

Awwww shucks! 😊

See my post above this one.

Excellent example!

They really want to believe we're all that gullible and... dare I say it?... stupid. Oh lookee! I did dare!

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: ketsuko

Girls are statistically safer with trans people than they are with straight males, and it's not even close.

There have been some sexual assaults in our middle school and high school. Three that I know of. All of them were straight males, and one of the assault victims was a trans person.

I honestly have no idea if they've seen a penis in their locker room, I doubt it. They are friends with a few trans people, of both types. As am I. I work with a few as well. They're people undeserving of hatred until they've done something to earn it.

You speak of them all as if they're the extremists. They're not. Most of them just want to exist and feel welcome in the world.

I can't stand extremists in any walk of life.

Your imagination that you speak of is the problem. The whole pizzagate, qanon, "everyone I dislike is a pedophile" horsesh1t has made you and most of this site into extremists. Hateful toward an imaginary enemy, that makes you hateful toward countless people undeserving of it.

The loudest voices on any issue are the ones who are most heard, but that does not mean those are the opinions held by most. I think it is folly to paint an entire group of people with the broad brush of generalization. It seems apparent that the vast majority of people do not agree with allowing these things like trans people competing in women's sport against biological women, even those who support the transgendrism.

The problem comes from the perception that those who want to compete in women's sports are failed male athletes who couldn't compete and so find it easier to win at women's competitions. So in essence the whole thing seems disingenuous to most people. South Park even made fun of it by having an obvious man enter a women's track meet and win ridiculously.

I just wonder why so many are giving credence to and spending time dissecting and debating about these few loud voices when the vast majority (even allies of transgender) do not support biological men competing against women. It is just another distraction technique to keep people focusing on perceived differences rather than coming together over commonalities we all share. A nation divided cannot stand and all that.

a reply to: Antimony

I just wonder why so many are giving credence to and spending time dissecting and debating about these few loud voices when the vast majority (even allies of transgender) do not support biological men competing against women.

Because it's not just a debate... it's happening. And it's wrong. It's unfair. It's often literally dangerous to the smaller and less muscular females.

It's a very real problem. It's not just a distraction.

I take issue with the term "trans-woman". Shouldn't it be "trans-man" since that is their biological predisposition? The trans part implies they are attempting to live as the opposite sex, that's a given. It's beginning a statement as a falsehood and asking us all to go along with it.

a reply to: Boadicea

I feel like people won't step in until someone dies.

We have seen very real, very serious injuries out of line with the norm - who gets major head trauma at volleyball? - and *that* wasn't enough.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Antimony

I just wonder why so many are giving credence to and spending time dissecting and debating about these few loud voices when the vast majority (even allies of transgender) do not support biological men competing against women.

Because it's not just a debate... it's happening. And it's wrong. It's unfair. It's often literally dangerous to the smaller and less muscular females.

It's a very real problem. It's not just a distraction.

Lawmakers in 27 states have proposed legislation that would ban transgender athletes from competing in school sports that match their gender identity, sparking outcry from both parents and advocacy groups who call the restrictions unconstitutional.

www.cbsnews.com...

World Athletics (WA) announced new rules on Thursday impacting transgender women athletes, banning some from competing in female track and field events.

The announced regulations, which come into force on March 31, prohibit athletes who have gone through what WA called “male puberty” from participating in female world rankings competitions. WA said the exclusion would apply to “male-to-female transgender athletes who have been through male puberty.”

www.cnn.com...

I'm sure there are other sport organizations who have enacted restrictions on transgender athletes so it seems like the actual popular position among most people, aside from a relatively small number of activists at the ACLU and LAMBDA is that biological men should not be competing against biological women in sport. Just seems like a lot of focus on a tiny minority of what even CBS and CNN describe as "activists" who are the ones actually protesting the bans.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Antimony

I just wonder why so many are giving credence to and spending time dissecting and debating about these few loud voices when the vast majority (even allies of transgender) do not support biological men competing against women.

Because it's not just a debate... it's happening. And it's wrong. It's unfair. It's often literally dangerous to the smaller and less muscular females.

It's a very real problem. It's not just a distraction.

I was going to essentially say the same. It KEEPS HAPPENING is why the debate continues to rage on. A swimmer yesterday, a cyclist today, powerlifting last week, an MMA fighter last year.

I have to ask...What's the play? Where's the finish? Canceling real women? Total androgyny? A completely sexless society? An anything goes sexually ambiguous population where no fetishization is out of bounds? What is the endgame?

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Dude in a dress and bearded ladies?

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
I take issue with the term "trans-woman". Shouldn't it be "trans-man" since that is their biological predisposition? The trans part implies they are attempting to live as the opposite sex, that's a given. It's beginning a statement as a falsehood and asking us all to go along with it.

You're right... trans man would clearly depict a man who transitioned. But still a man. And that's the problem. These folks want to totally and completely disassociate themselves from their sex and only be associated with their preferred gender.

Gaslighting at its finest.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Boadicea

I feel like people won't step in until someone dies.

Yup. Because that's when the lawsuits start.

We have seen very real, very serious injuries out of line with the norm - who gets major head trauma at volleyball? - and *that* wasn't enough.

It's horrifying. I saw an interview with her recently and she's still suffering from long-term (probably permanent) damage.

I honestly don't know how the people live with themselves. What kind of depraved heart is okay with this?

a reply to: Antimony

You must not have seen this:

Supreme Court sides with 12-year-old transgender girl fighting West Virginia's sports ban

To be clear this is not an ultimate final ruling--

The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a 12-year-old transgender girl who is challenging a West Virginia ban on transgender athletes joining girls sports teams, temporarily blocking the state from enforcing the prohibition.

This is temporary... for now... as the case continues to make its way through the justice system.

However, nothing is guaranteed either way and it's not looking good at this point.