Is anyone on this forum a violent extremist ? Have you ever met a violent extremist personally? You are aloud to take the 5th.

[Ban Basketball]

1 minute ago, Paul158 said:

I would take that bet any day. She is a  very talented female. She is very good at Judo. But 18 a year old wrestler would be stronger and have the skills to defend her judo throws. Plus wrestlers naturally know submission holds.

I'm talking boxing.  I know more about that. 

[WrestlingRasta]

3 minutes ago, Ban Basketball said:

She fights professionally.  I don't think I could have beaten her and I boxed for several years. 

If you've never done it you can't understand how good pro trained fighters are. 

I have 

And Rousey does not have one sinlge boxing match of record.

Edited August 17, 2023 by WrestlingRasta

[Paul158]

5 minutes ago, Ban Basketball said:

I'm talking boxing.  I know more about that. 

I'm talking MMA. Which includes boxing,judo,grappling and submission holds.

[Offthemat]

For crying out loud, the main reason there are laws and mores that protect women; the reason men teach their sons not to hit women, is because they are vulnerable to them, it isn’t fair.  It’s not right.  Unless you’re a smallish ex-amateur marxist boxer.  Then it might be fair. 

Edited August 17, 2023 by Offthemat

[Paul158]

4 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

For crying out loud, the main reason there are laws and mores that protect women; the reason men teach their sons not to hit women, is because they are vulnerable to them, it isn’t fair.  It’s not right.  Unless you’re a smallish ex-amateur marxist boxer.  Then it might be fair. 

I'm not sure Ban can understand that. 

[Ban Basketball]

35 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

I'm talking MMA. Which includes boxing,judo,grappling and submission holds.

And I was talking boxing, which prompted you to reply.

[Ban Basketball]

35 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

For crying out loud, the main reason there are laws and mores that protect women; the reason men teach their sons not to hit women, is because they are vulnerable to them, it isn’t fair.  It’s not right.  Unless you’re a smallish ex-amateur marxist boxer.  Then it might be fair. 

Yep, but it's not absolute,  as has been my ONLY pernt.

[Ban Basketball]

30 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

I'm not sure Ban can understand that. 

Sure I do,  but it's not absolute. 

[Paul158]

34 minutes ago, Ban Basketball said:

Sure I do,  but it's not absolute. 

You are an interesting person and that is ABSOLUTE !!

[Bigbrog]

LOL...once again, Ban using how shitty of an athlete he is to say it's okay for biological men to compete against women.

By the way the argument of "there's only 100 of them" is asinine!!  It takes ONE to beat hundreds and thousands of females...THAT is the problem!!  It's not hard if you get out of your own way and take off the "if you don't support it you must hate LGBTQ+ glasses" the extreme shoves down your throat.  A

And spare us the feeble lecture attempt of "there is a difference between sex and gender".   You are born a biological male or a biological female...period...this isn't a scientific hypothesis, it is a scientific FACT!  And spare us the genetic abnormalities of people born with both sex organs or no sex organs argument.

[Paul158]

1 hour ago, Bigbrog said:

LOL...once again, Ban using how shitty of an athlete he is to say it's okay for biological men to compete against women.

By the way the argument of "there's only 100 of them" is asinine!!  It takes ONE to beat hundreds and thousands of females...THAT is the problem!!  It's not hard if you get out of your own way and take off the "if you don't support it you must hate LGBTQ+ glasses" the extreme shoves down your throat.  A

And spare us the feeble lecture attempt of "there is a difference between sex and gender".   You are born a biological male or a biological female...period...this isn't a scientific hypothesis, it is a scientific FACT!  And spare us the genetic abnormalities of people born with both sex organs or no sex organs argument.

But Bigrog you know its not absolute.

[Husker_Du]

so Ban is not Absolut. gonna start calling him Smirnoff. or Grey Goose. 

[Paul158]

10 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

so Ban is not Absolut. gonna start calling him Smirnoff. or Grey Goose. 

He is trust me, He boxed with Rhonda.

[Ban Basketball]

7 hours ago, Bigbrog said:

LOL...once again, Ban using how shitty of an athlete he is to say it's okay for biological men to compete against women.

By the way the argument of "there's only 100 of them" is asinine!!  It takes ONE to beat hundreds and thousands of females...THAT is the problem!!  It's not hard if you get out of your own way and take off the "if you don't support it you must hate LGBTQ+ glasses" the extreme shoves down your throat.  A

And spare us the feeble lecture attempt of "there is a difference between sex and gender".   You are born a biological male or a biological female...period...this isn't a scientific hypothesis, it is a scientific FACT!  And spare us the genetic abnormalities of people born with both sex organs or no sex organs argument.

Thanks for providing the best material that I could EVER use in just three paragraphs.  LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[GreatWhiteNorth]

18 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

1) you mean to tell me that you truly think there are men's and women's sports simply because of locker rooms? (please tell me you were kidding. and if you weren't i'm going to need you to go sit and the corner and think about this for a while.)

2) locker rooms by gender are going by the wayside.

I'll try one more time.

Your original question was "so why, pray tell, are there genders in sports to begin with?"

I simply answered your question (yes, it was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but still.)

To begin with, if there were no "genders in sports", they'd all be using the same locker room. (Without genders, there's no way to know which locker room to go to.)

It may take a little while for it to sink in. Take your time... you'll get it.

 

 

 

[GreatWhiteNorth]

14 hours ago, Offthemat said:

For crying out loud, the main reason there are laws and mores that protect women; the reason men teach their sons not to hit women, is because they are vulnerable to them, it isn’t fair.  It’s not right.  Unless you’re a smallish ex-amateur marxist boxer.  Then it might be fair. 

Yet... this post is not even remotely true. 100% wrong.

The reason men shouldn't hit women isn't because they are stronger or more likely win in a fight. Or because women are "vulnerable." That is a terrible take.

Do some more research, I'd like to think chivalry is not dead.

 

 

 

[GreatWhiteNorth]

10 hours ago, Bigbrog said:

...And spare us ... people born with both sex organs or no sex organs argument.

I don't get it.

If you were born with both or neither (which isn't as rare as many think - despite Faxe news dopey commentators), do you think it would be anywhere near fair to be excluded from the conversation?

Particularly since the conversation is very much about this exact group?

I'm not going to call you shallow minded - because I know better than that. But maybe you just weren't thinking when you made your post.

[GreatWhiteNorth]

8 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

so Ban is not Absolut. gonna start calling him Smirnoff. or Grey Goose. 

Maybe Tito, or even better - Chopin.

[Bigbrog]

5 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

I don't get it.

If you were born with both or neither (which isn't as rare as many think - despite Faxe news dopey commentators), do you think it would be anywhere near fair to be excluded from the conversation?

Particularly since the conversation is very much about this exact group?

I'm not going to call you shallow minded - because I know better than that. But maybe you just weren't thinking when you made your post.

I like this version of GWN.

Anyway, I never said exclude anyone.  I merrily stated a scientific fact in response to Ban's posts and comments he made trying to lecture people.  People that personally know me I am a very inclusive person and I'll call you whatever you want to be called and it is no skin off my back.  Do I agree someone is a cat if they believe they are a cat...no, but I'll call them a cat if they would like me to.  Same if a biological man wants to be called a woman, then I'll call him a woman.  Does that mean he can change in front of biological females or play sports against them, no I DO NOT agree with that.  Not because I don't want them to be included, but rather it is just wrong.  Unfortunately right now we don't have sports that are transgender only...does that suck, yes, but life isn't fair.  Does that make me un-inclusive, or transphobic, absolutely not.  And if someone claims I am, well that is on them, and they are closed minded idiots who think the rest of the world needs to think exactly like they do.