I expect the dam to break after the election and XY performers will infiltrate XX sports where money can be made at the elite level in sports where no effective screening protocols exist. I think basketball will be the most visible sport impacted until the Olympics.

If sufficient women are troubled by the development, then it would end today. With their votes , they are in control of ensuring a fair competitive environment for their daughters.

For the record, I have no issue with XY's playing with XX's assuming a reasonable protocol, based on science, can be established preventing a XY an innate advantage.

if I could never read another dipshite-ism again, it would be too soon ... just g'dammed, fk!!!

(09-07-2024 09:43 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  For the record, I have no issue with XY's playing with XX's assuming a reasonable protocol, based on science, can be established preventing a XY an innate advantage.

In what sport would that be true?

(09-07-2024 11:23 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(09-07-2024 09:43 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  For the record, I have no issue with XY's playing with XX's assuming a reasonable protocol, based on science, can be established preventing a XY an innate advantage.

In what sport would that be true?

Giving birth. That is, if child bearing was a sport.

I blame the women. If they boycotted every game where there's a male playing those queer administration would get the hint...maybe.

Maybe it's all lost already.

Oh well, no skin off my back. Do something about it and don't cry.

(09-07-2024 11:23 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(09-07-2024 09:43 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  For the record, I have no issue with XY's playing with XX's assuming a reasonable protocol, based on science, can be established preventing a XY an innate advantage.

In what sport would that be true?

It may not be true. In fact, I do not think it is true for most sports. I can recall only one Olympic coed sport - equestrian - although some sports like shooting seem on its face open to both XX and XY without compromising fairness.

Nevertheless, I believe it is a matter for rational debate seeking balance between protecting competitiveness for women in women's sports and participation of people feeling they were born with the wrong sex.

In some cases, some medical issues does have guys weaker than some women. Even guys do get abused by large women. Have you seen those women who drive those semi trucks?

(09-07-2024 01:10 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(09-07-2024 11:23 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(09-07-2024 09:43 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  For the record, I have no issue with XY's playing with XX's assuming a reasonable protocol, based on science, can be established preventing a XY an innate advantage.

In what sport would that be true?

It may not be true. In fact, I do not think it is true for most sports. I can recall only one Olympic coed sport - equestrian - although some sports like shooting seem on its face open to both XX and XY without compromising fairness.

Nevertheless, I believe it is a matter for rational debate seeking balance between protecting competitiveness for women in women's sports and participation of people feeling they were born with the wrong sex.

"I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your kid will not grow up to be an offensive lineman ... however, the 'offensive' is in your DNA --- we can fix that and make IT better!"

yep, that's what they'll target in the 'genetically altered prospectus' in the not-too-distant ... @some0'summin'

(09-07-2024 01:16 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  In some cases, some medical issues does have guys weaker than some women. Even guys do get abused by large women. Have you seen those women who drive those semi trucks?

excuse me ... what part of "fk the fk off" doesn't make sense...

fk'n whackjobbers and their blankies....

(09-07-2024 01:10 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(09-07-2024 11:23 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(09-07-2024 09:43 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  For the record, I have no issue with XY's playing with XX's assuming a reasonable protocol, based on science, can be established preventing a XY an innate advantage.

In what sport would that be true?

It may not be true. In fact, I do not think it is true for most sports. I can recall only one Olympic coed sport - equestrian - although some sports like shooting seem on its face open to both XX and XY without compromising fairness.

Nevertheless, I believe it is a matter for rational debate seeking balance between protecting competitiveness for women in women's sports and participation of people feeling they were born with the wrong sex.

Rifle teams are already co-ed. Ours is. It's not like they're shooting at each other. :)

(09-07-2024 02:29 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-07-2024 01:10 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(09-07-2024 11:23 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(09-07-2024 09:43 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  For the record, I have no issue with XY's playing with XX's assuming a reasonable protocol, based on science, can be established preventing a XY an innate advantage.

In what sport would that be true?

It may not be true. In fact, I do not think it is true for most sports. I can recall only one Olympic coed sport - equestrian - although some sports like shooting seem on its face open to both XX and XY without compromising fairness.

Nevertheless, I believe it is a matter for rational debate seeking balance between protecting competitiveness for women in women's sports and participation of people feeling they were born with the wrong sex.

Rifle teams are already co-ed. Ours is. It's not like they're shooting at each other. :)

Thanks, I was unaware. Shooting at the Olympics still have separate men and women competitions.

(09-07-2024 04:03 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(09-07-2024 02:29 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-07-2024 01:10 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(09-07-2024 11:23 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(09-07-2024 09:43 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  For the record, I have no issue with XY's playing with XX's assuming a reasonable protocol, based on science, can be established preventing a XY an innate advantage.

In what sport would that be true?

It may not be true. In fact, I do not think it is true for most sports. I can recall only one Olympic coed sport - equestrian - although some sports like shooting seem on its face open to both XX and XY without compromising fairness.

Nevertheless, I believe it is a matter for rational debate seeking balance between protecting competitiveness for women in women's sports and participation of people feeling they were born with the wrong sex.

Rifle teams are already co-ed. Ours is. It's not like they're shooting at each other. :)

Thanks, I was unaware. Shooting at the Olympics still have separate men and women competitions.

Yeah, I figured that. :)

Well for decades now the girls-can-do-anything-that-boys-can-do feminazis have been forcing boys teams to include girls.

There's always a girl on a team in the LL world series.

You always see the media pushing the stories of the girl "football player" ... that's always a kicker.

While I think a guy who says he's a girl is completely insane, part of me thinks it's funny to watch liberals having to suck on the results of their own idiocy.

(09-07-2024 04:03 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(09-07-2024 02:29 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-07-2024 01:10 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(09-07-2024 11:23 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(09-07-2024 09:43 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  For the record, I have no issue with XY's playing with XX's assuming a reasonable protocol, based on science, can be established preventing a XY an innate advantage.

In what sport would that be true?

It may not be true. In fact, I do not think it is true for most sports. I can recall only one Olympic coed sport - equestrian - although some sports like shooting seem on its face open to both XX and XY without compromising fairness.

Nevertheless, I believe it is a matter for rational debate seeking balance between protecting competitiveness for women in women's sports and participation of people feeling they were born with the wrong sex.

Rifle teams are already co-ed. Ours is. It's not like they're shooting at each other. :)

Thanks, I was unaware. Shooting at the Olympics still have separate men and women competitions.

They do but also a team competition involving both

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

(09-07-2024 05:03 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(09-07-2024 04:03 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(09-07-2024 02:29 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-07-2024 01:10 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(09-07-2024 11:23 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  In what sport would that be true?

It may not be true. In fact, I do not think it is true for most sports. I can recall only one Olympic coed sport - equestrian - although some sports like shooting seem on its face open to both XX and XY without compromising fairness.

Nevertheless, I believe it is a matter for rational debate seeking balance between protecting competitiveness for women in women's sports and participation of people feeling they were born with the wrong sex.

Rifle teams are already co-ed. Ours is. It's not like they're shooting at each other. :)

Thanks, I was unaware. Shooting at the Olympics still have separate men and women competitions.

They do but also a team competition involving both

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

Swimming and track have mixed relays (2 XX and 2 XY) I enjoyed watching, but not the same as a XX vs XY in a division reserved for women.

(09-07-2024 09:43 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  I expect the dam to break after the election and XY performers will infiltrate XX sports where money can be made at the elite level in sports where no effective screening protocols exist. I think basketball will be the most visible sport impacted until the Olympics.

If sufficient women are troubled by the development, then it would end today. With their votes , they are in control of ensuring a fair competitive environment for their daughters.

For the record, I have no issue with XY's playing with XX's assuming a reasonable protocol, based on science, can be established preventing a XY an innate advantage.

Which is what sport?

I got it bowling!!!!

(09-07-2024 09:02 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  I got it bowling!!!!

ball speed and ability to create spin isn't close in the 'fairyness' category...

however, maybe now that short skirts are back in fashion, a li'l buttocks flappin' might 'throw' the XY off his 'game' ...

(09-07-2024 08:39 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(09-07-2024 09:43 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  I expect the dam to break after the election and XY performers will infiltrate XX sports where money can be made at the elite level in sports where no effective screening protocols exist. I think basketball will be the most visible sport impacted until the Olympics.

If sufficient women are troubled by the development, then it would end today. With their votes , they are in control of ensuring a fair competitive environment for their daughters.

For the record, I have no issue with XY's playing with XX's assuming a reasonable protocol, based on science, can be established preventing a XY an innate advantage.

Which is what sport?

Any sport that does not rely on speed or physical strength....so not sports. Even golf you'll have some women that can drive better than men, but the vast majority of men can outdrive women just based off of brute strength.

(09-07-2024 01:16 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  In some cases, some medical issues does have guys weaker than some women. Even guys do get abused by large women. Have you seen those women who drive those semi trucks?

Even with your documented low quality posting standard, this post is just ridiculous. Do better, reason better, and communicate better. Ues, there are large and physical women, but the average had not the muscle mass nor size to complete with men.