dimreepr

Ironically, it's just another observation, that you seem determined to protect the weak and feeble sex/gender from themselves, because you're stronger as a man... I can't help but think that you're afraid of the competition, because the one woman (that we (by which I mean you) can agree on) cited in this thread, by you if memory serves, said, "bring it"...

Only the ones that don't work, for you...

You're just suffering from, "there must be more to life than this" syndrome. There are drugs/treatments avaliable, and they're a whole lot more reliable than necromancy. 😉

No doubt, you seem singularly opposed to a gender you don't understand; BTW thanks for the neg, it brought a genuine smile to my face... OK, so let me get this straight, you're a man that intuitively knows what women are thinking and your conclusion is, they're afraid of men... Come on Reg "what did the Roman's, ever, do for us?"???

I'm starting to think that you've put me on your ignore list, that would be ironic...

The 1-2% who actually understand the topic; but thanks for trying...

I can't believe I have to say this but, "if they have had their dick/tits cut off, then you can be fairly certain that they mean it"... 🙄 And??? Worm's have evolved to swim in shit; if only there was a category for that...

NO IT'S NOT!!! 😣 This argument is commonly known as reductio ad absurdum See above... My turn, I'll ask you the same basic question that I ask @J.C.MacSwell. Why draw this line in this sand? Besides I'm insinuating nothing, I'm outright saying that you're succumbing to 'our' insidious bias; for instance, world cup football: in the male version the English team is called England, but the Ladies are called the lionesses, in Australia it's even more pronounced misogyny, they're called the matildas.

No it's not, you're arguing for the status quo to be kept sacred; the one where society determines your gender, or sex if you prefer, with a quick glance between the leg's of a newborn baby, even the doc's that need glasses are believed, almost, without exception. And common sense prevails (🙏), I understand that it's hard to 'imagine'... the possibility that some sense is uncommon, some people are just not suitable for the Olympics, I guess... 😉

Everyone forgets about the society that lives within, no one's free of 'them'... mwa ha ha... 🤓

We should start calling you Reg, for comic affect... Because most people fit neatly and trans people fit nearly... Your going to have to explain this, you seem to be contradicting yourself; earlier you said you could empathise with them??? Be fair, most playing field's are meant to be level, it's not their fault they're boring... No it's not!!! they're not asking you to believe them, they just ask that you accept them; and I'm struggling to understand why the defence, singularly refuse's to do so, it makes no sense, it's not rational... 😣 Page 68, "Is the parrot dead yet?"...

Well then, I'm surprised you oppose a playing field for everyone to exploit.

OK, so that's your fundamental reason/excuse (bolded mine); No is my answer, they aren't needed in this argument, until we have actual data from live gameplay... The thing is, for empathy to work one needs to have resonant experiences; for instance, if you've never felt the urge to wear women's underwear, you'll have no idea why a transvestite wants to dress up. Is it? When did we decide that? How would the inclusion of a handful of trans athlete's, alter the revenue in, any sort of, a meaningful way? It's more likely to increase revenue, at least until the novelty wears off... 😉

All you tried to do is justify, what you believe... That's a why of sorts, but not an answer.

LOL +1

I suppose, in the end, it depends on how bored you are...

When?

I have no idea, you haven't answered me yet.

That's still not why, are you being deliberately obtuse? In fact, this thread kind of mirror's the trouble 'real' women had back in the day...😉

But that's still not why, so please try harder.

So, why haven't you answered any of my question's, directly? I challenge you to provide a single example, in this entire thread... If semantics is your only weapon, "then I can't even talk to you"... 🥱

OK (sigh) for fine read "Also note that, from the very beginning of this thread, I have never been against trying to accommodate transgenders in recreational level sports." You could try to actually answer my question's, with a reason, rather than resorting to an excuse to dodge.

So? Nothing to see here folk's, it's entirely irrelevant to the question posed, again... 😣

Way to miss the point. 🙄 You argue that recreation level sport is fine, and my question is, why does the word elite change the argument?

It's difficult to understand what difference the word 'elite' has on the argument; can you clarify please? And the only way to do that, is to let them play and 'then' analyse the results; banning them first is just putting the cart before the horse...