Sports

Lia Thomas Swims to Victory Under NCAA's Controversial Standards for Trans Competitors

Clocking in at a time of 4:33.24, Lia Thomas becomes the first trans swimmer to win gold at the NCAA Division I women’s swimming championship.

|

Collegiate women's swimming and diving kicked off its NCAA Division I championships on March 16, and the season has been rife with controversy over Lia Thomas, the first transgender NCAA Division I women's swimming champion. 

Thomas, a student-athlete at the University of Pennsylvania, competed on Penn's men's swimming and diving team for three years. While competing among men, Thomas posted decent times, but was far from qualifying for the men's NCAA Division I championships. 

After passing all of the NCAA's rules for trans competitors, Thomas shattered records this season for the Ivy League school's women's team. In fact, Thomas' times were only slightly behind one of the greatest female swimmers to ever dive into the pool: Katie Ledecky. 

Olympian Katie Ledecky swam the fastest time ever recorded in the women's 500-yard freestyle at 4:24.06, which stands as the current NCAA, American, and US Open record. Tonight, Thomas won the 500-yard freestyle event with a time of 4:33.24, a full two and a half seconds ahead of the second place finisher. Her performance lands her as the 16th fastest female swimmer of all time in this event.

An athlete's success largely hinges on whether or not she has talent—both raw and earned. Many athletes take "trust the process" as a mantra, but there's a sense in collegiate swimming that the process has broken down. 

A few weeks before the championships, USA Swimming announced new standards for transitioning swimmers; transgender athletes would have to show a concentration of testosterone below 5 nmol/L for a continuous period of 36 months and provide "evidence that the prior physical development of the athlete as a male…does not give the athlete a competitive advantage over the athlete's cisgender female competitors." The NCAA has acknowledged "a competitive difference in the male and female categories and the disadvantages this presents in elite head-to-head competition," but determined it would be "unfair" and "potentially detrimental on schools and student-athletes intending to compete in 2022 NCAA women's swimming championships" to follow the new standards (which Thomas would have failed to meet).

Broader legal and social acceptance for trans people has been a force for good, allowing them to live freely and authentically. And Thomas has been brave in the face of significant vitriol for competing in a sport where the ruling body has declared her eligible. But unlike areas such as respectful pronoun use, availability of gender-neutral bathrooms, and recognition of transition on legal documents, sports at the elite level are zero-sum. Thomas' success is causing a crisis of confidence in women's sports, which have long been a source of pride for elite female athletes despite the fact that they knew they couldn't compete on equal footing with men.

The editor in chief of Swimming World Magazine, John Lohn, wrote, "It is a pathetic and misguided state that any argument against Thomas' participation is immediately deemed to be an indication of transphobia." By protecting one athlete out of fear of backlash, many other athletes have been denied a real shot at the top spot on the podium. There are roughly 15,000 female collegiate swimmers in the U.S., but only 1.8 percent of them even qualify for the elite NCAA Division I championships, let alone compete in the finals (limited to 8 lanes) or stand on the winner's podium (top 3 performers). 

Washington Post columnist Megan McArdle frames it best: "We didn't create separate leagues to reinforce the special feminine identity of female athletes; if anything, women's athletics was supposed to break down such divisions. The separation is a nod to biology." The very existence of women's sports is tied to the fact that, by biological design, women cannot hold their own while competing with men. By separating female athletes from their male counterparts, women had the chance to display their own extraordinary talent on a more even playing field (or swimming pool). 

As a former NCAA Division I swimmer, I've tried to calculate how much total time I spent swimming or training, and it's in the ballpark of 21,900 hours—2 and a half years of my life. Lia Thomas spent a majority of those same hours training with the advantage of greater muscle density and bone mass, a larger heart, and deeper lung capacity. In the end, there can only be three people on the podium, and who ends up there is about biology and luck, as much as it is about skill and perseverance. 

But when Lia Thomas stepped up on the block for what ended up being a gold medal-winning performance, I couldn't help but notice how the competitors in the lanes beside her, who trained just as hard and just as long, looked defeated even before the starter said, "take your mark." And I'm afraid that fewer young women will choose to put on their matching swimsuits, goggles, and caps to dive into a cold pool each and every morning, because they lack confidence in what the rules will be when they get to the pinnacle of their careers and whether they will have even a fighting chance at being a champion.

NEXT: Canceling an Artist Because He's Russian Is Nothing Short of Bigotry

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The separation is a nod to biology.

    You can't spell biology without bigot. Except for the T.

    1. Easily work do it for everyone from home in part time and I have received 21K$ in last 4 weeks by easily online work from home. ggh I am a full time student and do in part time work from home. I work daily easily 4 hours a day in my spare time.
      .
      Details on this website:>>> http://WorkStar24.blogspot.com/

    2. Speaking of biology... And medicine... I don't get it! Lia Thomas has GOT to has some fat in his-hir-her-xer-schmer body, right? SOME fat in the body is essential! Dietary fats are essential to give your body energy and to support cell function. https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-smart/fats/dietary-fats#:~:text=Dietary%20fats%20are%20essential%20to,and%20produce%20important%20hormones%2C%20too.

      Now ALL of the fat in Lia Thomas's body is TRANS FAT!!! And trans fat is WAAAAAY bad for you! https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/high-blood-cholesterol/in-depth/trans-fat/art-20046114#:~:text=Trans%20fat%20is%20considered%20the,the%20leading%20killer%20of%20adults. Trans fat is double trouble for heart health

      So if Lia Thomas is going to be a sports super-hero (and stellar example) for us all, along with a low-testosterone reading for his-hir-her-xer-schmer body, we should ALSO be checking for ZERO "trans fat" in said body!!!

    3. Oh wait a minute now... Through "follow the science" of modern politically and athletically correct toleration/promotion/glorification of LGBTQXWMBSAF etc., there is some sort of magical "hocus pocus" through which the "trans fat" is TRANS-substantiated into harmless, even glorious, regular fat, am I right?!?!? Did I get it RIGHT for once?

      1. When you are confused about TRANS issues you are transfused.

        Also, TRANS-fathletes would be banned in California. That will never fly.

    4. Thomas is a fucking bully.

  2. 1. This is bullshit.
    2. How many women athletes walked away in protest?

    1. To be fair, the schools said to shut up and be quiet or lose your scholarships.

      1. I would lawyer up the moment they threatened me. I would also be recording all my conversations with any coaches, administrators, etc.. I’m guessing the eventual legal settlement would be far more than the remaining cost of her college education.

      2. Penn is an Ivy Leagie school. The swimmers who voiced their disapproval of their teammate couldn't lose their scholarships, since the Ivy League doesn't have athletic scholarships.

        1. They would loose their "academic" scholarship

    2. How many women athletes walked away in protest?

      Third place winner said she thought it was unfair, but put out a message a few days later that she's now been educated, etc., etc.

      1. The whole team should file a class action suit.

      2. Where "educated" is code for "brow beaten"?

      3. Heard an anonymous response from one of the team saying something like 1/4 supported her, 1/4 opposed, and half didn't express an opinion.

        1. I'm guessing that's 75% support.

  3. One thing that is seldom noted in these discussions is that biological women (also trans men, trans women, hermaphrodites, etc) have *always* been allowed to compete in so-called 'male' sports.

    Because there's not a rule against it.

    1. How many women have become “trans men” to compete in mens sports?

      1. They can't because of all the systemic oppression or something.

    2. There's also no rule that says the dog can't play basketball

      1. Snoopy played baseball and boxed - - - - - - - -

        1. Don't forget tennis.

    3. Because there's really no such thing as "Men's" sports. Men's sports is just "the very best people we've got". Those people are almost always all men, because men are so much physically larger, stronger, and faster than women on average that if you take the top X% of people to play a sport that demographic slice is almost always all male. "Women's" sports have always had that necessary qualifier: Women on them, because they aren't and have never been about "the very best people we've got"; they're about granting women a place to play sports in an environment where they won't be immediately stomped by men.

      You might be able to make the argument that we just shouldn't have women's sports at all, that competition with qualifiers is inherently demeaning and reductive. I'd say you're wrong, but you could make a coherent argument out of that. What will never pass for an argument (at least without shouting people down and threatening them with real professional and legal harms) is the idea that men can compete in women's sports if they handicap themselves with drugs.

      Someday (soon I hope), we'll make a new distinction in sporting programs. Instead of having "women's" sports, we'll have "natural born XX chromosome, uterus-having person's" sports. It doesn't quite roll off the tongue in the same way but it gets the job done and gives your wives and daughters a place where they can play sports without getting rofl-stomped by "natural born XY chromosome, prostate-having persons". If we, as a society, decided to get really crazy we might even come up with a short word for each of these two groups that's a little easier for people to say. Perhaps "women" and "men".

      1. I don't know how many men's teams allow women to compete. It's a perennial small-town newspaper story, a girl joining the boy's sports team.

        I will say this foreshadows the day when there's no point watching women's sports if it's dominated by trans women. If women want to develop professional sports leagues with substantial audiences, they'll need to be careful about this.

    4. "biological women (also trans men, trans women, hermaphrodites, etc) have *always* been allowed to compete in so-called 'male' sports"

      That isn't true, and it differs from sport to sport. Not only that, college conferences are sometimes at odds with the NCAA. And that's without including the national and international governing bodies of each sport, which also often have conflicts.

      It is possible for an athlete to be ineligible to compete at NCAAs, but eligible for their conference championships as well as Nationals (which is largely unconnected to the NCAA), and ineligible for international competition (which is completely unconnected to college).

      Just using the standard for caffeine, a high enough reading could get you banned by some, but not all, governing bodies. That's not even taking into account TUEs (theraputic use exceptions), which can be granted by some governong bodies and not by others for various medications.

      One of the reasons high-end athletes are so careful about what they put in their bodies is the uncertainty about what is or isn't a PED for each governong body and what level (and how far out from the competiton the positive test happens) would constitute a violation.

      I literally had to have my impacted wisdom teeth pulled without painkiller because almost all of them are WADA-banned substances and I didn't have time to get a TUE. I have never been in so much pain in my life and I have hurt myself a lot over the years.

      1. In which cases or sports has it been disallowed?

        Bring receipts.

  4. This article is LITERAL violence against trans women.

    1. Actually it's about a man beating a bunch of women.

      1. Weirdly, the patriarchy frowned on such things.

        1. Hey, remember when Fallon Fox cracked that MMA chick's skull?

          Good times, good times. Girl power!

          1. Of course, when Fox got stunned in a subsequent match and the gal got on top of her to administer a beating, the ref was in no hurry to end it. Loud was the whining from her trainer (who seemed to enjoy Fallon injuring his...sry, HER opponents) regarding this, complaining the ref should have stopped the fight.

            Whole lot of "shoulda"s around that story, eh?

    2. I heard that in Rob Lowe’s voice as upbeat Chris Traeger from Parks and Rec.

      1. Is Rob lowel going to be mentioned in an article about the transmovement pushing to normalize pedofilia?

        1. He’s not a prog, so probably not.

      2. Funny. I heard Cliff Clavin saying it in his "Here's a bit of trivia you might not know" voice.

    3. Or something......

  5. Men winning ncaa records, being the first women to do X, and winning woman of the year awards just shows the matriarch has won.

  6. Broader legal and social acceptance for trans people has been a force for good, allowing them to live freely and authentically.

    Is it acceptance when you force people to accept delusions? Should we start accepting anorexic girls by telling them that they are in fact fat next?

    1. And Thomas has been brave in the face of significant vitriol for competing in a sport where the ruling body has declared her eligible.

      Her teammates tell stories of him laughing about how he doesn't even have to try to win and wanting all the attention for himself. True bravery.

      1. If Lia's teammates are upset, maybe they should practice harder.

        1. Yeah, that's one of the things he said.

        2. Just like Tanya Harding did.

        3. Build your own NCAA Women's Swimming Divisions.

        4. Maybe they should start their own sport. Oh wait...

        5. Maybe they should get testosterone injections. Oh, wait, that's banned. Maybe they should get testicle transplants?

          Don't sew the incision--put in a zipper so they're easier to remove when it comes time to compete.

    2. Nice for them.

      Now what about the MILLIONS of mothers who won't take their little girls to the gym or the pool after they've seen a couple women-with-dicks changing next to them? We not caring about those people are we? Only the brave men/women, is that right?

      That's a fucked-up equation, so I guess we'll just have to "educate" them. And by "educate", I mean "threaten, intimidate and attack".

      1. This is why it is so important to normalize these encounters at the school age level. So it becomes acceptable behaviour no matter what the other person feels.

  7. Uhhhhhhhh, KMW? Isn't this a topic you'd normally assign to your official LGBTQIA+ correspondent Scott Shackford?

    He does his best work when he's explaining to ciswomen how hateful and bigoted they are if they fail to welcome their transgender sisters into all female-only spaces. Including, but not limited to, bathrooms, locker rooms, prisons, and sports.

    Please have SS write a piece tomorrow denouncing TRANSGENDER ATHLETIC PANIC.

    #TransWomenAreWomen

    1. Make sure to get the Shackford-signature 'of all ages' and 'exposure to generate tolerance' cherries on top. Women panicking about their own bodies isn't bigoted enough, we need to make sure to impugn the mothers who object to their daughters being exposed to trans athletes in the locker rooms too.

  8. I have a suspicion that Lia sat down and cooked up this scheme in advance as an experiment to see if he could get away with it. Including a book and lecture tour when this is all over.

  9. Does she have any Russian ancestors? Maybe she could be canceled for that?

  10. Darn. As a two-minute-high school 800 meter runner, I should have identified as a women. I would have gotten a D1 scholarship and with some high level training got down to 1:58 which would have put me in an olympic final. Of course our area had about 10 boys who ran sub 2 minute 800 meters times and would have been in the top 50 woman times for that year I bet.

    Come on, biology does matter wokes...this is a joke

    1. "Lia" was ranked in the 160s in his correct gender. Ranked 1st as a woman.

      1. Like aggasi said if the Williams sisters played in the men's division they would be ranked 200

        1. And it has been regarded in sports punditry to be sexist to deny that they could beat any top male player.

      2. his correct *sex*

        1. Pretty sure his correct sex is anal.

          1. But is he pitching or catching?

      3. Not to mention, the 200th fastest male swimmer in the country is still elite.

      4. William was ranked in the FOUR HUNDREDS in his correct SEX (languages have genders--people have sexes--and if they're lucky--sex).

  11. And I'm afraid that fewer young women will choose to put on their matching swimsuits, goggles, and caps to dive into a cold pool each and every morning, because they lack confidence in what the rules will be when they get to the pinnacle of their careers and whether they will have even a fighting chance at being a champion.

    Wow, two stories today that Reason has felt are finally safe enough to comment on.

    1. I actually clicked this article, expecting the usual Reason bullshit and was pleasantly surprised to see someone honestly presenting the issue from the female athlete's POV.

    2. "But when Lia Thomas stepped up on the block for what ended up being a gold medal-winning performance, I couldn't help but notice how the competitors in the lanes beside her, who trained just as hard and just as long, looked defeated..."

      Of course they did. Not only did they know that they didn't have a chance, but they were also probably going to be required to make statements about how great it was to be beaten by a man.

      1. top rated female athletes who were just crushed by a dude who was rates like 500th when xe was a man.

        1. The same thing happened when they swam against Katie Ladecky. But they got crushed by a lot more. But Katie is a stone-cold badass, so there's that.

  12. in the future they will look back on this trans delusion madness and laugh.

    Like most people do now.

    1. No, they won't, because everyone is a fucking psycho. All we have are theofascists and transcommunists and they are collectivist totalitarians, violent cowards, and evil idiots. People are trash and deserve to be stomped by an all-powerful government that distorts reality this way and that and back again capriciously, just to play with their feeble minds.

    2. And laugh because of how simple it seemed at the time? Just wait until the primary function of the Olympics is mailing a gold medal to everyone who "identifies" as a super human athlete with 0.0s times and 11.0/10.0 scores. If history has taught me anything it's that the past is rarely more ridiculous and weird than the future.

    1. What's encouraging is that I scrolled pretty far through the responses, which given that it's The Today Show's feed probably represents pretty average people, and it's uniformly outrage.

      1. There's some pretty significant photo editing going on there, too.

      2. Yeah, it's not committed nazi armband festooned douchbags like me watching The Today show. It's soccer moms and normies.

      3. You really need to do some pretty extreme mental gymnastics to see this as anything but an outrage. I'm amazed that there aren't tons of female athletes protesting loudly. And that the audience didn't show massive disapproval at the event.

        1. There are tons of athletes protesting against it. A bunch are her teammates.

        2. First, many athletes aren't protesting because they are afraid of being "cancelled", either indirectly by losing sponsors in the future or directly now, having their scholarships and participation on the teams stopped. Perhaps they could even be expelled from school for "hate speech". You cannot expect people to throw away their future livelihoods over an unfair swim competition.

          Secondly, many who are speaking out are not being reported on by the mainstream news.

      4. The Twitters and Facebooks etc. create a false image of the world. By censoring all sane, non wokenazi comments on subjects like that at hand, they make it appear that pretty much everyone accepts this vile nonsense and the abomination* that is "transwomen." That only an "alt right fringe" can actually still distinguish a boy from a girl without a blood test. And thus the "overton window" shifts yet again in the direction of pure insanity--pure evil. This incredible, insidious destruction of reality itself is probably the single most important reason that these tech-Satans must be brought to heel.

        *And I write this as an atheist.

    2. If "she" is now female and growing up as a male didn't affect her musculature or performance now you would think her voice wouldn't still have the pitch of a male.

      Or are we supposed to believe that the only legacy of her lifelong, until fairly recently, male testosterone levels is the length and musculature of the vocal folds? (Well, at least if we also ignore the twig and berries down south.) Hmm...

      1. The dude is, 6' 1" tall. The average height for a male Olympic swimmer is 6' 2" for men and 5' 9" for women. Even if a woman were *exactly* as fast as him, he would beat her by 4". You can't even do a good job concealing that he's a man based on his height. He's taller than the average WNBA player.

      2. That's the poijt. That's why she shouldn't be allowed to compete against cisgender women. The legacy advantages are too large.

        Elite-level women swimmers are taller and stronger than the average woman, but the bone density, muscle density, and lung capacity (among other things) that male puberty conveyed are not possible to eliminate after transitioning.

    3. That's a dude.

      That's a douche.

      -jcr

  13. Look Natalie, if no biological women are ever allowed near the winners podium in women's sports ever again it's a small price for you to pay to signal your goodness today. You chose to play along with these marxist twats as they gleefully erased women from sports and the dictionary so deal with it.

    1. Be on the Right Side of Historicity.

      Embrace distant 2nd place forever.

  14. That’s some stupid shit right there.

  15. All it takes is a man to decide to be a woman and become the number one woman athlete in the sport.

    Anything women can do, men can become women and do better.

    Suck it, ladies.

    1. Suck it, ladies.

      If you don't, you're a bigot.

      1. That’s what I always tell them.

  16. I'm excited for when women figure this out and start transitioning so they can properly compete in men's sports.

  17. “The dislike of women who appear masculine or seem to compete in ways that are masculine extends to transgender women and intersex people competing as women,”

    This may be the dumbest take I've yet seen - the animus against Thomas is part of the tradition of marginalizing female athletes for seeming too masculine.

    You cannot make this shit up. Well, I guess, you and I can't.

    1. Well, she's a guy, so...

    2. Man up like Chyna! Rip.

    3. “The dislike of women who appear masculine or seem to compete in ways that are masculine extends to transgender women and intersex people competing as women,”

      Women who appear too masculine don't have good reproductive potential, hence men are less interested in them. Likewise, men who appear too feminine can't fulfill their biological role as a male very well, so women are less interested in them.

      The reason humans evaluate each other this way is biology and evolution. Maybe with test tube babies and other technologies, this won't matter much in the future, but right now, this is how our brains are programmed, and for good reason.

      1. Depends on the person. People choose partners for all sorts of reasons. Some like fat girls, or feet, or short girls, or skin color, or smart girls, or any one of a thousand other reasons. Just because you don't like it, I'm almost positive there's a porn site dedicated to it. Whatever "it" is.

    4. Yes, yes you can make it up. And force it down the throats of millions of people while you lean back in your lazy-boy and laugh and laugh and laugh.

  18. . . . the first male NCAA Division I women's swimming champion . . .

    Science.

    And on a lighter note:
    https://babylonbee.com/news/the-babylon-bees-man-of-the-year-is-rachel-levine

  19. So female and woman are interchangeable now? I thought sex and gender were different

    1. I know girls who aspire to be demi-boys. Because Feminism.

    2. They were different at one point, but now they're the same, unless you're nonbinary, and then they're different. It's a SPECTRUM.

    3. Well, the good news for the crooks is that since DNA "science" can no longer distinguish male from female, it cannot really be considered evidentiary.
      Right?

      1. "Your honor, this paternity hearing is a farce based on the false notion that my client is a man."

    4. They're totally different.

      Except when they're not at all different.

  20. Most of the comments from the cultural conservatives here are as awful as I expected. The whole "she's a man", "there are only two genders", "she isn't ...", "they shouldn't allow ...", "she doesn't count ..." chorus of butthurt traditionalists whiming because society is changing is exactly as self-important as I expected. People's opinions about someone else's identity are irrelevant and paranoid fantasies about bathrooms and "child abuse" would be point-and-laugh funny if they weren't so dangerous for the safety of the trans people being targeted.

    That being said, opposing trans women in women's sports is completely defensible. The competitive advantage that the biological structure of a post-pubescent male provides isn't lost after they transition. Muscle density, bone density, height, and lung capacity are just a few things that a trans woman retains even after hormone therapy and testosterone blockers. Trans woman should not be allowed to compete against cisgender females because they have an inherent advantage that cannot be eliminated entirely. It is almost the definition of an unfair advantage.

    So even a blind squirrel can find a nut every now and again. Granted it is probably based on their paranoid hatefulness towards nontraditional lifestyles, but cultural conservativea aren't wrong to condemn trans women competing against cisgender women. I still don't understand why they care how someone else lives their life if it isn't hurting anyone else, but most of the cultural conservative agenda seems to be about forcing other people to live by their quaint and outdated standards. In the case of athletics it is hurting someone else, so it should be opposed.

    1. I still don't understand why they care how someone else lives their life if it isn't hurting anyone else, but most of the cultural conservative agenda seems to be about forcing other people to live by their quaint and outdated standards.

      As an atheist and gay man, I frankly can't think of anything "cultural conservatives" have ever tried to force me to do. Care to give any examples?

      1. I said "quaint and outdated standards". So in recent years we have banning gay marriage and fighting to keep it banned. Add in refusing to follow the rule of law like Roy Moore and Kim Davis. If you want to go back on history, just on the marriage issue, we have banning, and fighting to keep banned, interracial marriage. We also have fighting divorce and fighting gay adoption as related topics.

        America has moved past many of the cultural issues that conservatives keep fighting for. It will take a years or decades for these issues to be overcome by people with libertarian beliefs about personal conduct and lifestyle choices (be it sexuality, gender, gambling, marijuana, prostitution, abortion, etc.) because the law is a lagging force in the culture wars. By the time the law and the judicial branch rule on issues like gay marriage, most people are firmly in the "why would anyone care" camp.

        The core problem cultural conservatives face is they are fighting to stop change. And American culture is constantly changing. It moves towards allowing people to make decisions for themselves about who to love, what to ingest, how to use their money, and a host of other issues.

        Basically, the cultural conservative position is "you shouldn't be allowed to do that because I don't like it". It boils down to their belief that they have some inherent superiority in moral reasoning that justifies using the state to intrude on the personal choices of others, despite most people disagreeing with them. Which is the only thing they can do, since the world is constantly moving past their beliefs and towards a better, more just, and more free society.

        1. Explains progressive rage at parents saying they have a right to know what their kids are taught in school.

          Because they love change so much and all...

          1. Parents absolutely have the right to know what their kids are taught in school. Why would you think they don't?

            It's not that hard to look up the primary texts and books that your kid will study. Most textbooks are pretty similar, unless you have the buying power of Texas. Then you can get books that call creationism science instead of mythology.

            1. Is it hard to look up which "CRT training courses" are contracted for OUTSIDE the curriculum? When children as told not to mention it to their parents? Coz that's how the scam has evolved.

              I propose that anything these "teachers" are having to sneak into the schools is something parents should know about.

              1. So it isn't that the kids are being taught CRT, it's that some training might be CRT-adjacent and teachers, being credulous sponges that don't examine anything they are presented, are now mindless CRT-addled propagandists?

                You can't possibly think people are stupid enough to buy that load of crap.

        2. The vast majority of Americans opposed same-sex marriage as recently as 1988. Support for same-sex marriage didn't get above 50% until a little over a decade ago. Google "PNAS Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change" for source. So blaming that on cultural conservatives is silly. Dems have successfully retconned their history of supporting DOMA and publicly opposing same-sex marriage. That same study above also shows the majority of Americans opposed "a close relative marrying a Black person" as recently as 1990. Unless you think majority of Americans are cultural conservative your examples make little sense. There has been recent movement in attitudes on variety of subjects and obviously some conservative are resisting it but your historical examples misrepresent where most Americans were in even the recent past. I think you also ignore rising pro-authoritarian attitudes seen in recent polling which reflects a decline in global support for democracy and individual liberty. Support for free speech, for example, while high when asked about as a general ideal is found to be somewhat hollow when you dive into the details like when people are asked about the rights of their political enemies or "bad people." Groups like the ACLU that have a history of supporting liberty are now a pale imitation of their past which is part of movement against liberty that is very much seen across the political spectrum which you ignore, outside of cultural conservatives, probably for personal partisan reasons.

          1. So the fact that same-sex marriage has been supported by a majority of Americans since 1988, but only became legal across America in 2015 (27 years later) is a bad example? The fact that Ronald Reagan, for all of the good he did, empowered the Moral Majority and inflicted "muscular Christianity" on American politics is one of the worst things he did.

            I think that cultural conservatives fight harder, more dishonestly, and more stridently as they see their beliefs be abandoned by more and more Americans.

            Your gay marriage example is what happens when a morally indefensible position is challenged by a morally superior position. Over time, honest people realize that they used to support a bad thing and abandon their "traditional" beliefs. So you see movement over time away from conservative cultural beliefs and towards more egalitarian beliefs.

            The counter-example is abortion. Anti-abortion beliefs have been in the minority for the entirety of polling on the issue. Massive influence campaigns since Roe was decided and pushing the issue by one-issue voters and cultural conservative politicians has resulted in fewer, not more, people opposing abortion. Support for the idea that life begins at conception and all abortions should be outlawed has been below 20% for over 20 years and is about to drop below 15%.

            That is my point. People are, in general, decent and thoughtful. They want to do the right thing. When exposed to things that challenge their assumptions, they think about it and, if their previous beliefs no longer look reasonable, they find a position that does. So when ideas like slavery, women's sufferage, and gay marriage were challenged, people of good will slowly realized they were on the wrong side and public sentiment shifted.

            And all along the way, cultural conservatives fought back. Sometimes violently (the Civil Rights era in the South is a prime example), often stridently, but almost always with the self-righteous arrogance that they are the infalliable arbiters of what is right and those who disagree should just suck it up. Because it's always been that way, and always should.

            1. So the fact that same-sex marriage has been supported by a majority of Americans since 1988,

              That's blatantly false. Come on now, even Bill Clinton in the 1990s only went as far as "don't ask, don't tell". Even Obama, a decade later, didn't come out as in favor of gay marriage when he first ran for President. If that's how it was on the left, imagine how it was for average Americans.

              1. I'm referencing Cannon's post. I'm not as familiar with stats on gay marriage as I am on abortion. I'm willing to accept that it has only been since '88 that gay marriage gained majority support in America.

                It's kinda irrelevant to the central point that virtuous moral positions gain support over time while wicked moral positions lose support over time.

                Cultural conservatives engage in coercion through legislation and the power of the state becausr the trend line on the majority of their issues points down.

                Religion, abortion bans, anti-gay issues, book bans, ignorance-only sex ed, and other cultural wedge issues have been losing support for a long time. The trend lines are down despite the massive investment in politicians and influence canpaigns.

                The one core consevative issue that has made gains is Second Amendment rulings and given the growth in minority gun ownership and the deafening silence from the right about Philando Castilo and other minority gun owners who have been killed for exercizing their Second Amendment rights, I don't think this is going according to plan.

                It's not that the ultra-liberals are gaining, either. It's that the moderates are gaining from the losses on the fringes.

                Abortion in the first trimester is supported by over 2/3 of Americans. Abortion before viability is suppoerted by roughly 60%. Abortion in the third trimester has just under 10% and banning abortion from conception is under 15%, rising to just under 18% with exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother and a little over 29% for the health of the mother. That is the reasonable, morally driven moderates telling the fringes that they need to chill out. As long as there is gerrymandering it will be harder to translate into representation, but this is a marathon not a sprint.

                More Americans don't identify as D or R than either of them. By a lot. Neither major party cracks 30%. Independents are almost 45%.

                Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I believe that the moderates will tell the fringes to go pound sand before I'm dead.

                1. Sorry, a little over 20% for health of the mother.

                2. Gay marriage was forced on America through a flawed SC ruling, not popular acceptance. Even CA, the most leftist state in the union, passed a ballot initiate banning gay marriage just 13 years ago. Which wasn’t repealed, but stuck down through a court decision.

                  The American people are more conservative than the way they’re governed. This is a function of a detached tyrannical political class and the left’s collusion with an extreme Marxist news media and entertainment industry,

            2. Dude, the first president to enter office publicly supporting same-sex marriage was TRUMP.

              Obama, the super-progressive, refused to support same-sex marriage in 2012. However, Trump, the ur-conservative just 8 years later, did.

              You are going past ignoring history and heading right towards gaslighting.

      2. You mean no one's made you bake a straight cake?

    2. Translation: I want to hold on to the rhetoric and not admit the people I hate are right while realizing everything the people I hate were right.

      1. I don't hate cultural conservatives. In a perfect world they would live their beliefs and I would live mine, as long as neither hurt anyone else.

        But I believe in the rule of law. I believe in equal treatment under the law. And I believe that cultural conservatives are against the very principles of "of the people, by the people, and for the people" that are atbthe foundations of our country.

        Because I don't have the unreasoning antipathy that cultural conservatives have, I can see a difference between choosing to be a transgendered person (not hurting anyone) and wanting to have an unfair advantage in competition (definitely hurting someone).

        Cultural conservatives seem to equate their discomfort and disapproval of the choices of others as harm. And they elevate their own moral positions above those of other people. Often a large majority of other people. While that is a constant throughout history, it is also something to be resisted.

        I'm often amused by the belief that people get more conservative as they get older. While they do get less excitable and more reasoned as they age, I think that their beliefs don't change that much. But society and culture do. So what were liberal beliefs in the 50s become moderate in the 80s, conservative in the teens, and will be arch-conservative in the 30s.

        Which is why cultural conservatives have to use coercion and government force. The forces of history are against them.

        1. As a heads up, "cultural conservatives" could give two shits what you do.

          Demanding WE lie to protect others' feelings is forcing us to do what you want and you can, politely, go fuck yourself.

          Demanding we use "preferred pronouns" is you forcing me to do what you want and, politely, you can go fuck yourself.

          1. Really? Then why all the marriage and adoption and abortion and numerous other laws that don't let people do what their conscience tells them is right? Why legislate culture and morality to restrict jndividual freedoms? It seems like they give a whole lot of shits. And are willing to use government force to make everyone conform.

            "Demanding WE lie to protect others' feelings"

            No one is making you do that. No law, no court case, no policy. Say what you want. You can be as awful as you want to be. You just can't make other people acceot your awfulness. Nor can you avoid the inevitable backlash when you move past a reasonable and moderate difference of opinion and start demonizing people and intentionally being a dick. No one likes a bully. If you don't like transgenderism, don't transition. Just don't be an asshoke and expect that people won't think less of you for it.

            "Demanding we use "preferred pronouns" is you forcing me to do what you want"

            No, it's telling you that this is how a person prefers to be addressed. Like some people like Ms. and some Mrs. Some women take their husband's name and some don't. If Betsy Johnson marries John Smith and chooses to continue to be Ms. Betsy Johnson, calling her Mrs. John Dmith or Mrs. Betsy Smith is just being a self-important asshole.

            I don't get transgenderism. Of course, I don't get homosexuality either. Because I am a perfectly happy cisgender heterosexual. And that's just a thing. It's not a good thing, it's not a bad thing. It"s just a thing.

            I don't understand all the various probouns and I definitely don't understand all of the various classifications that people use around gender. But I don't have to. If someone wants me to refer to them as they/them or he/him or she/her or whatever other possibilities are out there, it's just not that hard to do it. It literally changes nothing about me to address someone as they prefer. Because it isn't about me.

            And it isn't about you, either. Get over yourself.

            1. No one is making you do that.

              Oh really? Ever hear about the Monica incident on Stack Exchange? As far as I can tell, she was fired from being a moderator simply for wanting people to be able to use *no* pronoun as an alternative to using a preferred pronoun. Not even for actually doing that - just for *wanting* people to be able to do that on the site.

              1. I'd be intrigued as to how thatbwould work, grammatically. It would make for some really awkward sentences.

                1. Yet you're just fine with letting psychopathic bearded men prance into the ladies' loo with their cell phone cams and waltz into womens' locker rooms to waive their erections around in little girls' faces.

                  Tell us more about "awkward," eh?

                2. Look, my friend. It is very easy.

                  Nelson is an odd person who pretends to be intelligent. As a user, Nelson is very frustrating to dispute with. This one is not worth your time, as you have far better things to do.

                  Video games have been doing this for decades by referring to the player exclusively with gender-neutral euphemisms. The Myst series was well known for it

        2. "So what were liberal beliefs in the 50s become moderate in the 80s, conservative in the teens, and will be arch-conservative in the 30s."

          Like free speech. God damn those pesky conservatives acting like they have a right to express viewpoints that weren't decreed by the establishment.

          1. I 100% think that conservatives should speak up and advocate for their beliefs. I think the shouting down of speakers and the campuses that have "free speech zones" (to me, that's called America) are awful and I oppose it 100%

            But I also believe that free speech is a right, but actions ha consequences. And speech is an action. If you are willing to take the hit and fight for your beliefs, great. That was yhe Civil Rights era. They did what was illegal and got arrested. They got shot. They got slammed with fiee hoses and billy clubs. They got hung from trees and shot by bigots and they took the hit.

            And lo and behold, doing the right thing in the face of oppression and bigotry earned them honor and acclimation. Because their position was right and their opponents were wrong.

            They didn't whine like cultural conservatives do today or manufacture nonsense like "the war on Christmas". If your cause is just, people will see and join you. Because people are, by and large, good.

            But if your cause isn't just, like many of the dead-end fights of today's cultural conservatives, you will not gain acclaim. Because your position isn't just. It isn't right. And it isn't worthy of using the force of the state to impose it on people who are abandoning it because it isn't a morally compelling position.

          2. No one is making you do that. No law, no court case, no policy.

            Liar.

            1. Really? Show me the law. Show me the court case.

              You are mistaking your words having negative consequences with being forced to say something. If you want to say that trans women are men, knock yourself out. But if people think that what you said is awful and that your words don't fit in the corporate or business atmosphere a private business wants to have, that's your fault not theirs. Know your audience.

              Ultimately, extreme anything is bad for business. Moderate, stable, predictable, and sustainable are what successful businesses crave. Having someone who threatens to rock the boat because they want everyone to acknowledge that they are right and the "woke mob" is wrong is not something they care about. Your need to be right on a culture war issue is not important to your employer. Their success is.

              And in the world of business, everyone is expendable. As someone who constantly fought for my team when bad numbers came in for the whole company and the CEO was looking for someone to scapegoat, trust me that CYA is the only thing that has cache and most upper management won't stick their necks out for you.

              1. Thank you for confessing your lie.

                1. What lie? No one is making you do anything. There may be consequences from your speech, but there is nothing constraining you from speaking.

                  You don't get to be free from consequences. Life is tough, wear a cup.

                  1. Are you really that stupid? Threatening severe consequences for exercising freedom of conscience and expression is coercion. It is constraining you from speaking. Would you say that North Korea has free speech, because you can criticize the government if you want to, you just have to accept that you'll be thrown into a death camp if you do? Suppose an employer told a worker, "have sex with me or you're fired." That's not coercion, right? She has the option to get fired. Is that really what you're arguing?

                    1. You are free to say whatever you want. People are allowed to respond to what you say. Companies have images and policies they want to maintain. That isn't restricting your speech. But every action has consequences and if your speech makes people think you're acting like an asshole, don't be surprised when they start treating you differently.

                      And it isn't "freedom of conscience". Get over yourself. It"s your opinion, stop trying to dress it up in righteous clothing.

                    2. Answer my questions.

        3. The left cannot exist in a libertarian environment. It can only thrive through propaganda, domination and oppression of the individual. They admit this through their rhetoric. With their masters, like Hillary Clinton, bloviating about a need to focus on ‘collective rights’ as opposed to protecting individual rights.

          The bottom line is that the left is incompatible with our constitutional republic and libertarian values. The only outcomes are their destruction, or ours.

      2. Nelson doesn't understand basic biology. Cut it some slack.

        1. I actually made a pretty clear case for the biological reasons I oppose trans women competing with cisgender women. I just don't care about all the rest of the bullshit that cultural conservatives bitch and piss and moan about.

          And the dishonesty of putting completely unfounded motives on an entire group of people with no evidence (most if not all are trying to see women naked? Why would any reasonable and intelligent person take that seriously?) only highlights and underlines the lack of seriousness of cultural conservative moral panics like this.

          1. Why would any reasonable and intelligent person try to pass as the opposite sex and expect everyone else to accept them as that? It goes without saying that "trans" people suffer from a serious mental dysfunction.

            1. Why should anyone care. It doesn't hurt them.

              1. Catering to the delusions of a mentally ill person and telling them you believe them is hurting THEM. Compelling others to participate in this perverse dishonesty harms them also.

                1. Ah, yes. You know better than them, so you are just looking out for them. What a load of paternalistic garbage.

                  1. Yes, I am more in touch with reality than people who suffer from delusionogenic mental illnesses. Almost all of us are. Not sure about you. Yes, we need to look out for people whose mental health problems make it difficult for them to know what's good for them. Pretending to participate in their delusions is cruel.

                    1. Why are you suddenly the one who is tasked with looking out for other people who aren't interested in your "help"?

                      It's almost like you want to force someone else to act like you want them to because you feel like your opinion is superior to theirs.

                      Someone is awfully impressed with himself.

                  2. Really? Now apply that mush headed bullshit to schizophrenia.

                    1. Same rationale. If you aren't their guardian or their therapist, your opinion is neither needed nor relevant.

            2. And it goes without saying *by you*. The inability to empathize with others is a sign of psycopathy. You may want to get that checked.

              1. "The inability to empathize with others is a sign of psycopathy," he says, oblivious to his lack of self-awareness.

                1. What makes you think I don't empathize? Not accepting something isn't a lack of empathy, or everyone would be walking moral reset buttons.

                  I don't understamd trangenderism. It makes no sense to me. But my lack of understanding isn't relevant to them. And I don't spew hate and vitriol towards people and things just because I don't understand them.

                  That's the essence of empathy. Feeling for someone who is going through painful or difficult things, even if it makes no sense to you.

                  That's why I shy away from using the word "evil". Because there are very few people on the planet who are actually evil.

                  1. What "hate and vitriol" has been "spewed" here, other than from you?

                    1. What hate and vitriol have I spewed. You, on the other hand, have infantilized an entire group of people, placed nefarious motives on their choices, and are intentionally acting like a douchebag because you don't approve of their lifestyle. You aren't the arbiter of what someone else should do with their life.

                2. Yeah the sociopath brain is funny that way.

              2. We all empathize with the mentally ill. Which is a far cry from enabling them.

    3. I don't care if anyone wants to live their life that way, or whatever way that doesn't harm anyone else. The problem is the insistence that everyone accept and preferably celebrate it. And allowing and even encouraging young people to disrupt their development and modify their bodies seems like a pretty serious problem that many people want to ignore.
      What ever happened to tolerance as a value? Everyone can do their own thing. Just don't expect everyone else to enthusiastically celebrate it.

      1. "The problem is the insistence that everyone accept and preferably celebrate it."

        Yes, you have to accept that someone has made a decision for themselves that you wouldn't make for yourself. You don't have to like or agree with it (and no one is forcing you to celebrate it).

        "And allowing and even encouraging young people to disrupt their development and modify their bodies seems like a pretty serious problem that many people want to ignore."

        Just because you don't like the decision parents, in consultation with medical and psychological professionals, have made for their children, it doesn't hurt you. And the people who have direct, personal knowledge of the situation are much better-equipped to analyze the situation than you are. This is your bias talking, nothing more.

        "What ever happened to tolerance as a value?"

        It's a excellent value. Cultural conservatives don't believe so, but the average American does.

        "Just don't expect everyone else to enthusiastically celebrate it."

        No one expects that. Just let others make their own choices. Stop using the law and the power of the state to stop something that isn't your decision to make.

        1. "Yes, you have to accept that someone has made a decision for themselves that you wouldn't make for yourself. You don't have to like or agree with it (and no one is forcing you to celebrate it)."

          If you do not call a biological male a female, which is patently untrue, then you will be punished. We are being forced to celebrate this by being obligated to lie.

          1. That is one of the most self-centered and baseless arguments that I have heard from you yet. And it's stiff competition.

            It's not about you. You aren't the arbiter of what people should or shouldn't believe. No one is forcing you to do anything, you are free to continue be a self-impressed, rude, and cruel asshole.

            1. Now you're just lying. There's no way you're unaware of the coercion taking place to publicly agree with genderism.

              1. No one is coercing you. There is no law, no power.of the state compelling you to call anyone anything.

                But there is a cultural shift away from your position. The fact that there are societal consequences to acting like an asshole isn't coercion. It's run-of-the-mill social interaction.

                You are free to say anything you want. You are not free from the way people will react to your words.

                1. Liar.

            2. It really isn’t. FFS, JK Rowling got death threats because she dared to say publicly that trannies shouldn’t be able to use the ladies room. Is Rowling one of those horrid ‘social conservatives’?

              You are seriously full of shit.

              1. I have no clue what Rowlings' views are. And I am as opposed to people threatening her for speaking her mind as I am to people threatening election officials because they certified a free and fair election.

                Being angry and not liking what someone says or does isn't ever an excuse for threats of violence, let alone actually doing violence, to another person.

                1. You, madame, are a lying sack of dog sh t.

                  Tell us again about all those medals you won in the '72 Olympics, eh?

        2. Yes, there are a lot of people who insist that you must celebrate and embrace all the gender weirdness.
          At the very least, this is something that needs to be vigorously and openly discussed, allowing all perspectives. That is happening in some places, but it is suppressed in most of the mainstream media. And that does a great disservice to the parents and children. There is little evidence that transitioning improves anyone's life in the vast majority of cases. Giving people what they want is often not the right thing to do. Parents should have a lot of leeway in how they raise their children. But there are limits.

          1. Not "a lot". I'll give you a few, or even some. But it is not the mainstream, the middle, the moderate position. Arguing against the most extreme position of an issue as if it is the norm is called "building a strawman".

            I don't disagree that it is weirdness. I would even say borderline-incomprehensible weirdness. I don't understand most of it. And it should be discussed, in an honest and substantive way.

            My position boils down to "don't be a dick". It's no skin off my nose if I call someone who strikes me as female "they" if that's what they want. On the other hand, intentionally mislabeling someone just seems like a dick move.

            Like I said elsewhere, intentionally calling someone what you want instead of what they want is like calling a married woman who prefers Ms. and keeps her name "Mrs. [husband's first and last name] or Mrs. [wife's first name][husband's last name].

            It's just not that big a deal.

            1. So, what if I insist on being called "massa"? What if I insist that I'm really a 2-year-old and insist on others treating me accordingly? Which delusions must we pretend to participate in, and why those and not others? Are there limits to how we may demand that others address us? If so, what, and why?

              1. You can insist on people calling you whatever you want. The problem you are struggling to identify is that when you don't have the basic courtesy to address someone as they ask, people assume you are an asshole.

                There's a while "win the battle, lose the war" aspect to this that you seem to be missing.

                1. Unresponsive.

                  1. No, you just don't like the response.

                    1. I asked specific questions that you ignored.

                    2. You dodged his question. Now answer it.

                    3. Do you typically find this sort of ham handed attempted gaslighting to actually be effective, or is it just reflexive?

                    4. I said you can insist on people calling you whatever you want. Can you not read?

    4. “Most of the comments from the cultural conservatives here are as awful as I expected.”

      I can’t wait until you freaks start demanding that pedophiles be “tolerated” and that we have a “discussion” on how pedophilia is not sick and perverted but healthy and good for children.

      1. No one is going to say that here. Your false equivelence between something that is almost universally considered morally wrong and the long list of things that cultural conservatives, in their minority (but "morally superior") view, say are wrong is irrational and disgusting.

        Pedophilia is unconnected to any of the things cultural moderates (or even cultural liberals) support.

        1. "No one is going to say that here. Your false equivelence between something that is almost universally considered morally wrong"

          People used to universally think teaching sex and gender to 7 yr olds was bad...but the Left has decided it's a borderline sacrament for them. So there ya go.

          1. That's weird. A seven year old definitely should understand that not everyone is cisgender and heterosexual. If for no other reason than to make sure the rest of their class, who does understand, doesn't mercilessly mock their ignorance.

            I'm not sure why knowing that would be bad.

            1. A seven-year-old should not be thinking about this stuff at all. If you think they should, you are a demented pervert.

              1. Every normal seven-year-old thinks about that stuff. It's not like they are ignorant of the world around them. Kids that age are mental sponges, absorbing all of the things they see every day.

                Sticking your head in the sand and pretending that they don't see these things every day isn't doing them any favors. It's just making them less informed, less knowledgeable, and less educated about the real world.

                1. Good lord: so on top of everything else you're a pedophile.

                  Nice.

                  1. There's a subtext of that to this whole controversy. Why are the genderists so focused on children's genitalia and on how they think about sex?

                    1. Who is talking about children's genetalia except you?

                2. And there it is……

                  No, seven year olds aren’t thinking about that. Goddamn, you people always go after the kids. It’s all about conditioning them for grooming when they get a little older. So you want to get to them before they’ve developed critical thinking skills.

                  Take some friendly advice. Going after people’s kids is a good way to get yourself killed, deservedly.

                  1. He's a gaslighting faggot just like all the fifty cent bundles of wood. Better diction, though.

                  2. "So you want to get to them before they’ve developed critical thinking skills."

                    No, more like "So you want to get to them before they’ve developed secondary sexual characteristics and yucky pubic hair."

                    Also, show some respect. It's "Minor Attracted Person", not "Vile Pedo Freak".

                  3. Why are conservatives so obsessed with pedophilia? It's deeply disturbing how any time people talk about children, conservatives talk about pedophiles.

        2. What color is the sky on your planet?

    5. Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back, you absolute cockwomble.

      1. Don't say gay, right? Don't discuss something that every semi-aware seven-year-old knows exists, right? Hell, some of their classmates probably have two dads or two moms, but if we don't talk about it we can pretend it isn't real, right?

        "La, la, la, la, la, I'm not listening" is an ineffective way to deal with reality.

        And it's not just the Left. It's a pretty widely held belief that the existence of sexual orientations other than heterosexual isn't a controversial thing to believe and teach.

        1. You’re a fucking liar. There is no ‘don’t say gay’. It doesn’t exist. It’s all about your unholy need to go after little kids.

        2. Then those two mommies or two daddies get to talk to their kids about it, not some purple-haired blob with an Ed "degree".

  21. Broader legal and social acceptance for trans people has been a force for good, allowing them to live freely and authentically.

    Libertarians for progressive orthodoxy.

    Next you're telling gay men like me how awful we are if we don't want to sleep with "trans-men".

    1. No one is trying to choose your sexual partners for you. Chill, pickle.

      1. Except 5hose trans activists who are. This is part the trans activist's aner with "TERFs", and the "Super Straight".

        1. Basically. If you will not play along with a deliberate lie, you are a "bad person".

          1. Which "deliberate lie"? Or is that your bias talking?

            1. That a biological male is a female. They are simply not. You can pretend all you wish...do not demand I lie as well.

              No matter how much you may FEEL like a woman (and bravo to you if you can get any of them to define what that is), you are not one. Period.

              1. No one is forcing you to believe anything. Just try "don't be a dick" when talking to or about someone.

                1. No, we're just being forced to speak and act as if we believed in genderism. Apparently you place no value on freedom of conscience, the truth, or the welfare of mentally ill and delusional people.

                  1. No you aren't, whiny. Do whatever you want. Just don't be surprised when people think less of you.

                    1. Everyone here certainly thinks less of you.

                  2. "freedom of conscience, the truth, or the welfare of mentally ill and delusional people"

                    None of those things are relevant to the subject at hand. No one is constraining your freedom of conscience or making you believe or say anything untrue.

                    The part you don't like is that people don't rush to agree with you and, dependomg on how much if an ass you are about it, actually think less of you.

                2. There are plenty of your fellow travelers trying to force people to think what they want them to.

      2. No, but if that's your story its fine with me.

    2. Broader legal and social acceptance for white people has been a force for good, allowing them to live freely and authentically. - I was gonna label this "Shit you'd never hear Reason say." but, I suspect, principled as they are, they'd say it at the point of a gun.

      1. "Broader legal and social acceptance for white people"

        Broader legal and social acceptance for white people is generally referred to as "American history".

        1. Ancient history perhaps. You know as well as I do that the only genuine form of racism in America today is anti-white racism--the rest exists only in the fevered imaginations of the brain-dead left.

          1. Damn, that is now officially the dumbest thing I've read in the Reason comments. And that includes all of the stupidity Re. Kirkland posts. And that's some high-octane stupidity.

            1. You are a very sick man. Proud wokenazi, misogynist, and virulent racist.

              Your parents must be so proud.

        2. So you're saying broader legal and social acceptance isn't always an unbridled good for everyone?

          1. I think it's great. It's just not a problem white people have ever struggled with in America.

            1. OK Forrest.

  22. Back to normal? Slow down there, spinach chin:

    With a flurry of high-profile coronavirus cases, Washington is again on edge

    WASHINGTON — A flurry of high-profile coronavirus cases in the nation’s capital — including in people who have been around President Joe Biden — has raised new questions about the trajectory of the 2-year-old pandemic, even as the White House has signaled confidence in the country’s ability to resume normal activities.

    [...]

    In the past week, Doug Emhoff, husband of Vice President Kamala Harris, tested positive for the virus, as did former President Barack Obama. At least nine House Democrats tested positive this week after a party retreat in Philadelphia and late-night voting at the Capitol.

    Important, fully vaccinated people have gotten the coof! IMPORTANT PEOPLE! IF THEY GET THE COOF, THEN YOU CAN'T RETURN TO NORMALS EITHER!

  23. There's actually a really easy fix for this that would stand up in court. Just add a trans division to all sports. Guy wants to be a girl and swim? Fine. Joins the trans swim team.

    1. You know that solution is unacceptable?

      The whole trans activist position is that a trans person must be accepted wholly as their gender identity in all situations, lest they become emotionally traumatized and therefore suicidal? Several of the schools tried to solve the restroom usage problem similarly and the courts shot them down, when this was about "bathroom panic". Your solution is a non-starter.

    2. The best suggestion I've heard is to have a women's division (which could include anyone born female who transitioned post-puberty and anyone born male who transitioned pre-puberty) and an open division. That way those who don't have the advantages of male puberty-impacted advantages high levels of testosterone and other hormones during puberty have a level playing field, but can still compete.

      At the end of the day it is the structural differences that happen during puberty that create the unfair playing field.

      1. Which means physically stunting the natural healthy development of male children (who cannot give informed consent). This is because of the weird approach to transgenderism that the body is the problem to be solved and not what is going on in the mind.

        1. How dare you claim that it's a mental problem!!!11!!!1!!

        2. "Which means physically stunting the natural healthy development of male children"

          I'm going to assume, since you know what is happening in every case, that you are both psychic and a psychiatrist? Because otherwise you are just making broad, uninformed generalizations based on your own bias, as opposed to the informed knowledge of the parents and professionals involved.

          "and not what is going on in the mind"

          This is the argument that conversion therapy uses to justify physical, mental, and emotional abuse to "cure" being gay. You're walking a dangerous line for someone with no professional knowledge of the subject.

          1. There is no "informed knowledge" at work here. There is no mystery or scientific controversy about who is male and who is female. The "trans" concept is a socio-political position. It is not based on any objective facts about which we must defer to experts.

            1. People who know more about this subject than you or I believe differently. And there's no reason to assume that they are being dishonest or pushing an agenda or are bad actors. Just like there's no reason to assume that parents are radicals or don't have their children's best interests at heart when they start the whole process. Assuming that you are right and they are wrong, that you are good and they are evil, that you are pure and they have nefarious motives, or that you understand their situation and they don't is, to be charitable to you, disingenuous.

              Like a lot of people who believe they are morally superior, you have to ignore most of the issues and knowledge around a subject to maintain your belief. The more simplistic and one-dimensional your argument has to be to support your position, the less credible it is.

              Saying that the belief that there are men and there are women and nothing else is valid is about as one-dimensional as it gets.

              And the crazy part is that I agree with the foundational principle that XX and XY chromosomes are the two main sex/gender/whatever we're supposed to call them.

              There are hermaphrodites and people with a third chromosome (which I believe are two different things, one chromosomal and one physical, but I'm really not sure) that adds a few more sex/gender/whatever categories, but I'm pretty sure that's it.

              If there are XXX, XXY, and XYY, we're talking about five total sexes/genders/whatevers, correct? If hermaphrodism is different altogether, that's another factor.

              So even if you want to reduce it to its most simplistic case, there are five, not two, sexes/genders/whatevers. And since the additional chromosomes happen in one of every 650-1000 births, it's pretty common.

              Perhaps that is a biological trigger for transgenderism? I don't know. And I'm confident that you aren't an expert in this, so you don't either.

              See what happens when you put thought into things?

          2. "Gender dysphoria" is defined by the person feeling they are not the correct sex. Using puberty blockers, hormones and cosmetic surgery as treatment is assuming that the body is wrong and unhealthy and therefore needs correcting. The possibility that the mind needs to be accepting of what the body is, is rejected. Comparing that to "conversion therapy" for homosexuality is wrong. There is nothing about homosexuality that requires destroying the healthy development of the body or functioning organs.

            1. And yet the vast majority of people who transition are adults. Frequently older than 30. So the position that it is just a phase, or it can't be a real thing, or it is a mental problem, or that it isn't biologically based seems to be undermined by the fact that it is something that doesn't necessarily pass as trans people acculturate.

              I have no idea what the right answer is. But I'm certain that it isn't as simple as what cultural conservatives are trying to reduce it to.

          3. Did you ever meet a pre-pubescent boy you did not want to have sex with?

            Serious question.

      2. The men's division in sports has always been open to anyone who wished to compete. But most female athletes would rather be a star in the women's division than a supporting player on a men's team.

        1. ...most would not be a supporting player.

          The US Women's Soccer team would not even be competitive with the men's. The best female tennis player would not be competitive with the 300th ranked man. The WNBA champions would not be competitive with a decent boy's high school basketball team.

        2. That isn't true, nor is it consistent across sports. And once you get into national and international competition. Finally, very few organizations have consistent rules for trans participants. For example, the rules the Ivy League uses can differ from the rule the NCAA uses. It is possible to be able to compete at NCAAs and not at your college conference championship or vice versa.

          1. "That isn't true, nor is it consistent across sports."

            Men's teams do not have any sexual rules to play and, no, no female athlete is competitive with a male. They never have been nor is that ever going to change. Biological benefits are too strong to overcome.

            "Finally, very few organizations have consistent rules for trans participants. For example, the rules the Ivy League uses can differ from the rule the NCAA uses. It is possible to be able to compete at NCAAs and not at your college conference championship or vice versa."

            Because the activists will destroy anybody who disagrees with them. Screw the lot of 'em.

            1. "Men's teams do not have any sexual rules to play"

              Yes, they do. Some are restrictive, some are not. Some are completely open. Some have different rules based on which level (DI, DII, DIII, NAIA, etc.) or which conference the college is in.

              At the 1992 Olympics you had to get gender tested. XX could only compete in the women's events and XY could only compete in the men's events.

              It isn't the universal, single-standard world that you want to believe it is. In athletics, especially high-end athletics, there are more exceptions than rules.

              "Biological benefits are too strong to overcome."

              I agree. That's why I am against trans women competing against cisgender women.

              "Because the activists will destroy anybody who disagrees with them."

              The last time I competed in athletics was in 1994 and the lack of universal rules across governing bodies, sports, divisions, and conferences had existed for decades before that. It isn't a new phenomena. It is the norm, not the exception, in athletics.

              1. The one near-universal thing in school-level athletics, though, is Title IX. I always got the impression that if a female wanted to join a team and there wasn't a girls'/women's team, they had to let her join the boys'/men's team (although they might not necessarily get to compete, depending.) I know that our school had an occasional girl on the boys' wrestling team, and they did in fact participate in competitions.

                1. That's entirely possible. There's even more variation in high school athletics.

          2. Well I certainly agree that we need consistent rules for transexual i.e. cosplaying sociopath athletes--they can play on the team corresponding to their actual sex, or they can stay home.

            1. So all transgender people are sociopaths? Why whould anyone take you seriously?

              1. Do you know any who are not?

                I don't.

    3. Incorrect. As was pointed out above, virtually no male sports division has a "Must have two testicles." requirement. They're already open division. The closest you get are mixed/coed competitions. The trans division would be synonymous with the losers' division.

      Moreover, you would have to further your self-inflicted retardation in order to exclude the "Men's Division" winners from the trans division in order to preserve the sanctity of transgender competition placate bad faith transgender activists.

      This is what happens when every snowflake gets a trophy.

      1. Ugh. "preserve the sanctity of transgender competition placate bad faith transgender activists"

      2. That isn't true, nor is it consistent across sports. And once you get into national and international competition. Finally, very few organizations have consistent rules for trans participants. For example, the rules the Ivy League uses can differ from the rule the NCAA uses. It is possible to be able to compete at NCAAs and not at your college conference championship or vice versa.

        1. It isn't true because I said so.

          1. Right? Oversimplify until your beliefs make sense.

            1. Oversimplified is still right, which is still better than just plain wrong.

              There's nothing preventing a cis or trans male from competing on a male team.

              To illustrate your oversimplification:
              Jackie Mitchell - MLB - 1931 (as a minor, struck out both Babe Ruth and Lou Gherig)
              Danica Patrick - Indycar - 2005
              Mo Isom - NCAA Football - 2013
              Katie Hnida - NCAA Football - 2003
              Lauren Silberman - NFL - 2013
              Ann Drysdale - NBA - 1980
              Ashley Martin - NCAA Football - 2001
              Liz Heaston - NAIA Football - 1997

              No rules were changed to allow any of them to play and, to the best of public knowledge, none of them were checked for having testicles past or present.

              1. Like I keep saying, and you keep ignoring, the rules are different for different sports, college conferences, national and international governong bodies, and divisions within the NCAA.

                You are under the mistalen impression that there is one unifying, absolute, consistent set of rules for all sports at all levels from high school, college (DI to DIII and NAIA), national, international, and (since you have a bunch of professional leages) major sports leagues.

                What the rules are for NCAA DIII gymnastics are different than USA Gymnastics, let alone USA Volleyball. There just isn't a set of absolute rules that govern them all.

                I know you want there to be, but there aren't. Navigating the various rules and regulations of high school, college conference, NCAA, NGBs (National Governing Bodies like USA Swimming) and IGBs (International Governing Bodies like FINA) is a nightmare, especially of you are an elite athlete while still in high school, since you need to consider college rules or possibly lose your eligibility.

                Would it be easier and better for everyone concerned if there was one set of rules? Absolutely. Will that ever happen? Absolutely not.

                1. What the rules are for NCAA DIII gymnastics are different than USA Gymnastics, let alone USA Volleyball. There just isn't a set of absolute rules that govern them all.

                  Physics is pretty absolute and rules them all. Any sport, any division, you can't violate the laws of physics. None of them have it explicitly written. All of them observe it. Just because they don't have it written down doesn't mean they aren't unified in observing them. Same thing with the men's divisions, there's no rule anywhere barring women from playing on the men's team. If you think I'm wrong prove it by citing the rule, any one, the more the better. Otherwise, you're full of shit and everyone knows it.

      3. Oh, I dunno, I kinda thought the way the strike through didn't end was a nice meta message about how these shrieking harpies are unsatisfiable.

    4. I think they should have a drug division too. I want to see what performance is possible to get out of an athlete with all of the tools available.

      1. Major league baseball tried that for a while.

        1. And the fans really liked it (until they figured out why there were so many home runs).

      2. I agree with that. The Drug Olympics would be amazing.

      3. They do. It"s called Division I football.

        1. Of course you would just conflate legally forcing players to be on the down low and in the closet as the status quo to serve your own ends.

          1. I think you posted this in the wrong place.

            1. Nope. Despite your abject stupidity about the rules, DI football bans the use of steroids. Athletes use, but they can and do get tested and are forced to hide their use, frequently under penalty of law.

      4. Shit yes. And a cyborg division so we can get runners like that South African dude that killed his woman. Though clearly C'punk 2020's warnings about cyberpsychosis were prescient.

    5. They already HAVE that.

      It's the "men's" division where there are literally zero rules on sex/gender involved.

      1. As I posted above, that is not the case.

        1. Feel free to provide the "men's" sport that is specifically barring women from competing.

          1. The two that I know off the top of my head are tennis and gymnastics. I believe I remember diving as well, but I'm not certain about it these days.

            As I mentioned elsewhere, in the 1992 Olympics XX athletes were limited to women's events and XY athletes were limited to men's events (yes, they gender tested and each athlete had a gender card issued to them). I can't imagine that rule exists these days, if for no other reason than that no one would be comfortable giving China or Russia access to their genetic material.

            1. As I mentioned elsewhere, in the 1992 Olympics XX athletes were limited to women's events and XY athletes were limited to men's events (yes, they gender tested and each athlete had a gender card issued to them).

              Just plain wrong again. Gender testing started in '68 when Eastern Block countries started fielding women with the physical attributes of men. They only tested the women and continued to test only the women until 1998. You don't even know enough to know that you don't know enough to say anything. You're just lying in order to oppress women.

              1. Since I was there and was gender tested, I know for a fact that you are wrong. I was also informed about the limitations on competition categories and had to sign a crapton of documents about my competition category. But tell me again about how you know what you're talking about.

                1. Since I was there and was gender tested, I know for a fact that you are wrong.

                  You weren't at the Olympics. It's plainly obvious to everyone that you consistently lie and that the opposite of what you testify as being fact should be considered the truth. The sad part is, you can't help it. Even when you just want to lie about the specific topic under discussion, you can't help but lie about the meaningless ancillary details1. It's like Hillary testifying that she got off the plane under sniper fire. Nobody needs the video to know that she's lying and it's an insult to the military service men and women and the Secret Service for her to say that she did. But she either can't or doesn't care, like some sort of obligate ram ventilators, she just has to keep plowing forward with the lies. It's been pointed out several times how you could verify that you aren't lying and you refuse to do it because it would force you to admit that you are lying.

                  1 The idea that they quit testing because people didn't want to give their DNA to China or Russia stands not only against the IOC's statements but against history and common sense. No one, but no one, complained about giving their DNA to China or Russia. The reason they didn't is two-fold and common sense. First, you didn't/don't just mail your DNA to the Chinese or Russian Consulate. If you had competed in the Olympics, you would know this. Hell, if you were even dimly aware of *any* doping scandal, you'd know that the IATA and the WADA perform the tests, not China or Russia. Second, even if you didn't submit an explicit DNA sample, you spend a week in Chinese or Russian housing where they're pretty free to collect DNA themselves from hair brushes, toothbrushes, and sweaty towels to no-shit blood and tissue samples subjected to other testing. And, again, if you'd actually been to the Olympics or were even just dimly, and I mean really, really dimly aware of how it all worked, you would know all of this; but you haven't, so you don't and just lie.

                  1. Tell me again what's happened in my life. Since you know everything about everyone, right?

                    Idiot.

                2. I'll take things that never happened for $800 Alex.

        2. No. You didn't. You just were wrong. Telling a lie and then repeating the falsehood as truth moves it from just being mistaken to lying.

          1. We're this deep into the weeds and you want to use my support for a defined competition categpry for cisgendered women and another for everyone else (with specific language about what category trans men and trans women, both those who transitioned pre-puberty and those who transitioned post-puberty, fit into) as some sort of litmus test for my credibility? Are you insane?

            1. Are you insane?

              You were lying before wading into the weeds. There's no reason to assume that now we're in the weeds, you'd stop now. The question isn't if I'm insane, the question is how stupid do you assume everyone else to be relative to yourself? What do you hate about yourself so much that you have to assume that everyone else is abjectly retarded to make yourself feel better in such a manner?

              1. Perhaps he competed in, and was sex tested, at the 1992 Special Olympics?

              2. I hate almost nothing about myself. I have a few too many pounds and I don't exercise like I should and I haven't mastered tempura, but other than that I'm pretty awesome.

                I don't think others are retarded. I actually assume they genuinely believe what they say. I just find issue with the cultural conservatives who complain about being forced to do things they don't like (when it's often just that people will judge them poorly for doing or saying the things they believe) but are gung ho about forcing others to follow their beliefs (and that's a good thing).

    6. But that wouldn't get transwomens little wee wees hard. The erections come from forcing themselves on unconsenting women and girls. That's why they have no interest whatever in third spaces.

    7. The only fix is to stamp out the left, and eliminate their insane policies. The left are like terminators.

      “That terminator is out there, it cant be bargained with, it cant be reasoned with, it doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear, and it absolutely will not stop... EVER, untill you are dead!”

      This is what we are dealing with in the. Odeon democrat party. We have to destroy them before they finish destroying us. Their efforts have been underway for a very long time

  24. We just have to accept that biological males are more likely to make a superior woman athlete.

  25. Walk like a man, swim like a man.

    1. He looka like a man!

  26. Aren't the people calling Thomas 'trans' implicitly acknowledging that 'she' is not female?

    1. "She" isn't female.

  27. Anyone know what the federal courts say about gender in regards to trans?

    Could one of the stake holders (i.e. people with natural born lady bits on the swim team) put in a Title IX complaint with the university claiming that there is a dude in the locker room and then force the issue into federal court when the university dismisses the claim?

    Seems that if you could find a case to stand on, you would have the advantage that the federal court system trends conservative and that the science of XX & XY pretty clear.

    1. That wouldn't be a bad way to get some sort of continuity. And a Title IX case would be a great vehicle.

      I think. I'm not a lawyer, so I could be way off base.

  28. It's America, you should be free to live your life as you choose. And if you compete according to the rules the sport (the NCAA in this case) has set up, your trophy shouldn't need an asterisk.

    But the results should cause the NCAA to review why they set up separate women's sports in the first place, so they wouldn't have to compete against physically advantaged competitors.

    Which I suspect they will be pressured to do, once enough soccer moms start to see their daughters lose college scholarships to athletes who were born male.

    1. Which I suspect they will be pressured to do, once enough soccer moms start to see their daughters lose college scholarships to athletes who were born male.

      Enough soccer moms or 1-2 Lori Loughlins.

    2. "It's America, you should be free to live your life as you choose. And if you compete according to the rules the sport (the NCAA in this case) has set up, your trophy shouldn't need an asterisk."

      It is America, and you should be free to put asterisks on whatever you wish.

      We do it all the time in sports... cheating, gambling, 'roids, disqualifications, illnesses, later-in-life criminal behaviors, etc. have all caused fans to asterisk games. If it is a common enough perception, the press tends to play along, trophies can be taken away, HOF removals can happen, etc. In the end, it doesn't really matter if the horse ahead of yours is really guilty or not or fans want to put an asterisk on your win: The fact is... you get the purse.

      In this particular case...
      Last year the winner of the trophy was a women according to the scientific definitions of the term.
      This year the winner of the trophy was a women according to the ivory tower's and social crusader's definitions of the term.

      It is understandable that many might feel an asterisk is warranted.

    3. They've recently come out with limits on several factors, including testosterone levels, but they didn't apply it to this year's competitions.

      Also, I'm not sure they are covering most of what gives biological males an advantage.

      1. This is very true.

      2. Also, I'm not sure they are covering most of what gives biological males an advantage.

        Again, for Thomas, this is superficially the case. The dude is tall by WNBA standards.

        1. I think bone and muscle density as well as lung capacity are more significant and make a bigger difference than height. Elite women swimmers are usually close to (and often over) 6'. Especially the sprinters.

        2. Men also have a higher amount of fast twitch muscle fiber. Which contributes greatly to athleticism. This is part of why the FC Dallas Under 15 boys soccer team crushed the US Women’s soccer team in a scrimmage. This whole thing about trannies in women’s sports is utter bullshit, and another example of why the left should never be allowed to lead or run anything. They are incapable of acting like serious adults.

  29. allowing them to live freely and authentically.

    There is nothing authentic about pretending to be the opposite sex.

    1. Nothing says "authentic" like tons of drugs to suppress natural hormones and lots of surgery to change one's appearance.

  30. According to some of his teammates, William also gets a kick out of walking around the ladies' locker room flashing them with his penis which is sometimes hard because of course, they are obliged to get nude in the same room with him. This, of course is the primary motivation for most if not all of these cretins--imposing themselves to unconsenting women is the goal--medals are just the icing on the cake. What William is doing is akin to rape--indeed when he dons the ladies' garb and goes out and steals an actual woman's spot on the podium after forcing them to strip in front of him and be subjected to his little thingie, he rapes not just A woman--but ALL women.

    1. "This, of course is the primary motivation for most if not all of these cretins--imposing themselves to unconsenting women is the goal"

      Yes, people make major, life-altering ddcisions so they can go into the women's room. I'm not sure if this is a better example of rabid bigotry or unimaginable stupidity.

      Probably both.

      1. Yes absolutely. These vile monsters, who build their entire lives around an extremely dubious sexual fetish premised on the most fundamental lie imaginable--and then attempt to force the rest of the world to help them publicly masturbate which is essentially what they are doing, will quite obviously stop at nothing. Narcissistic sociopaths are funny that way. I'm glad we agree on this.

        1. Yes absolutely.

          There almost certainly isn't a straight (and maybe even some gay) man alive who hasn't considered what life alterations he would make to become invisible and sneak into the girls' locker room. Nelson is just willfully retarded. Engaging him locks you into his retard trap.

          1. What are you, twelve? Who thinks, "I'll disrupt my entire existence to get into the girl's room"? And then does it.

            1. Like the kid who prog bullied his way into having access to the girl’s bathroom in middle school and raped a real female student? Which the Nelsons in charge of that school and the school board hushed up and shuffled the rapist to another school. Where he did it again.

              1. That wasn't a trans person. It was a rapist who put on a dress. Pretending that has anything to do with transsexuals is just dishonest.

      2. We did have the rapist in VA that the school board tried to cover up because, well, trans. Ya know. Not supposed to notice when a girl is raped if the person is "brave" and all.

        1. Except, of course, the rapist wasn't trans. He was a male who put on a dress to rape a woman.

          If you want to make an argument that trans people are a threat, use an example that includes a trans person.

          1. He absolutely WAS trans. Acceptance without exception. That is your motto--just as Jessica Yaniv is your mascot--whether you like it or not.

          2. If the kid says he’s trans, then he’s trans. By your philosophy, who the fuck are you to dispute his claim? Of course, you progs like to have it both ways. As you are living contradictions.

            1. Except he didn't say he was trans. That would be the problem with your example. It exposes your moral panic and lack of sense. It doesn't say anything about transsexuals.

    2. "What William is doing is akin to rape"

      Cmon now. No it isn't.

      1. You don't think forcing women to strip in front of you, and to gratify you by watching you waive your erection around in their faces--all on pain of cancellation--of ostracism--is akin to rape?

        Well OK then.

        1. No, rape is rape. What you're describing is sexual assault.

          1. In my state, what most would consider rape is first, second, or even third degree sexual assault. "Rape" isn't a separate crime.

            1. Are we talking about rape? Or ‘rape-rape’?

              1. Look I'm not taking any more questions from Whoopie until her application for he own zip code comes through.....

  31. Good. This is what it's going to take to destroy this woke insanity in female sports.

  32. Live your life the way you want. I won't interfere.

    But you're not a woman.

  33. Men are the best women at everything.

    1. When is last time you heard of a female interior designer?

  34. The ultimate end-goal is the legalization of adult/child sex and of rape. After pushing, pushing, pushing for decades with little progress, all of the sudden over the last five years they have suddenly gone from their own five yard line to the opponent's (decent sane human beings) 10. Thank you wokenazis and fellow travelers!

    Time to bring in the goal-line defense.

    1. You are too stupid and awful for words. Congrats, you make it 4 people I have muted. And you are officially worse than Rev. Kirkland.

      1. And you are a pedophile and rape apologist.

        How nice for you.

      2. No one is worse than Kirk.

        1. You're probably right. I haven't aeen the word "clinger" since I muted him and my life is better for it.

          1. No, but you’re a big fan of Klinger.

            1. Ha! Nicely done.

        2. shrike is worse than everyone.

          1. I’m sure he’s cheering Nelson on. Anything to get himself a step closer to legal prepubescent boy flesh.

            1. What is it with conservatives always thinking about pedophilia?

              1. What is it with leftists wanting to get first graders thinking about butt sex? Can't you see how that raises obvious questions about their motivation?

      3. TRANSlation: you lost the argument so you’re going to pretend you can’t hear him. Typical cowardly leftist.

        Go back to WaPo. They love Marxists like you there.

        1. La la la la he can't hear you lol.

  35. My pronouns are the, she and it. I am the shee-it. Everyone with half of a brain cell knows that this is totally utter bullshit. Strip "her" of all of her medals and rescind that "woman of the year" award from the morbidly obese one also. It's past ridiculous now.

  36. I just want to note for the record that for "Nelson," the erections of "transwomen" invading the spaces of women AND little girls are what really matters here.

    Why do gays HATE women with such a burning passion? Presumably they've never been literally destroyed by their machinations like so many straight men have--yet you would be hard-pressed to meet a straight male who thinks like Boy-Lover Nelson does.

    Serious question.

    1. Why do gays HATE women with such a burning passion?

      I'm sure that's not generally true. There is a subset of feminine young Gay men who suffer intense jealousy of women because it's so easy for them to get masculine men into bed.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.