Tracking the anti-LBGTQ+ movement

[Fuzz]

It's worse, because they believe they should be able to dictate how OTHERS live their lives, and removing those rights from those parents and children, even though it has zero affect on them. And they've succeeded at that in Alberta now, because our politicians are feckless cowards and think they know best, and unfortunately people gave them the power to do that. Until the court challenges inevitably reverse it.

[Yamer]

The whole of this post is so bonkers and out of touch that I really don't know how to address it succintly, so let's break it down.

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I believe the use of pronouns should be optional for those struggling with their identity, and not mandatory. When I think of the subject, it reminds me of Justin's virtue signaling and doing everything possible to get votes.

So instead of treating another human with the respect you expect for yourself, you just want it to be dealer's choice. And expecting you to treat another human with the decency you expect for yourself reminds you of Justin Trudeau?

Do you snack on paint chips?

As far as my acceptance of LGBTQ people, there seems to be a genetic predisposition, as there is a high number of them in my family, and they are accepted by everyone. That's how we were all raised.

Your acceptance of LGBTQ+ people is dependent on genetic predisopition, and it's prevalent in your family and accepted because that's how everyone was raised.

What the hell are you talking about?

As far as many of today's social issues are concerned, I consider many of them to be in a state of transition, and through time and respectful and healthy non-political debate, will eventually get resolved to everyone's benefit.

Everything is in progression and will work itself out. What a profound and utterly useless statement.

Bonkers.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Elite female athletes have expressed support for restrictions on transgender women participation in their sports, such as the World Aquatics decision.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...ns-competition

And public support for transgender women participating in women's sport is considerably lower than support for transgender rights in other areas. 21 per cent of Canadians support transgender athletes competing in the gender they identify with rather than the sex they were assigned at birth. Meanwhile, 74 per cent say transgendered Canadians should be protected from discrimination in employment, housing, and access to businesses. For more context, 70 per cent of Canadians say same-sex couples should have the same rights to adopt children as heterosexual couples do.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/canadian...port-declining

In other words, more than two-thirds of Canadians who support the right of same-sex couples to adopt children do not approve of transgender athletes competing in the gender they identify with rather than their gender at birth. It's a big stretch to dismiss them all as ignorant bigots. Just as it's a big stretch to chalk up the decisions made by bodies like the World Athletics, Cycling, and Aquatics associations to ignorance and bigotry, considering the extensive research and consultation that went into those decisions.

https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sp...es-2023-03-23/

Cliff went to a lot of effort to post what is essentially one giant ad populum fallacy.

EDIT: My bad, there's also a really weak appeal to authority in there.

And 'it only affects a tiny number of people' argument cuts both ways. A ban on transgender women participating as women in athletics affects only a tiny number of people (including a tiny fraction of trans women), so why waste energy worrying about it? That's not a sound basis for contesting conflicting rights.

This issue is a lot more difficult and nuanced that some folks around here want to believe.

If the concept we're talking about is discrimination and bigotry, no, it doesn't cut both ways and now you've engaged in a false equivalence.

Terrible post all around, Cliff. 1-star.

[troutman]

Southern Baptists Endorse Effort to Overturn Same-Sex Marriage
The nation’s largest Protestant denomination was motivated by conservative Christians’ success in reversing Roe v. Wade.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/10/u...e=articleShare

[Fuzz]

I sure wish hell was real, so every one of those godless mother####ers would burn in it for eternity.


Remember, never give them an inch. They will beat you to #### with it.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Cliff went to a lot of effort to post what is essentially one giant ad populum fallacy.

EDIT: My bad, there's also a really weak appeal to authority in there.



If the concept we're talking about is discrimination and bigotry, no, it doesn't cut both ways and now you've engaged in a false equivalence.

Terrible post all around, Cliff. 1-star.

This is an issue of conflicting rights. The right of natal girls and women to not face unfair competition in athletics, vs the right of transgendered women to compete in their preferred category. As much as you want to believe there’s a simple answer to that question that all informed people of goodwill can agree on, there isn’t. People like Pepsi have made up their mind (natal girls and women have to stop being such babies and suck it up). Others disagree - including regulatory bodies that have engaged in extensive research and consultation. That’s only a ‘weak appeal to authority’ if you think science and consultation with athletes should play no part in establishing fairness in sports.

Do you believe the 50 per cent of the Canadian population who support the right of same-sex couples to adopt children, but who believe athletes should compete in the sex they were assigned at birth, are ignorant bigots? How small, exactly, is your circle of moral virtue?

Actually, I know the answer - it’s very small. And it will always be very small. No matter how our society progresses and changes over the coming decades, you will always recalibrate your expectations so you can sneer at the 80 per cent of normies. Because victimhood and resentment at wider society is your whole identity.

[PepsiFree]

Cliff is the real victim here, righteously and bravely standing up to the sneering masses that dare question his steadfast commitment to logic, fairness, and morality, as always, in the fight against the greatest danger of all: trans people.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This is an issue of conflicting rights. The right of natal girls and women to not face unfair competition in athletics, vs the right of transgendered women to compete in their preferred category. As much as you want to believe there’s a simple answer to that question that all informed people of goodwill can agree on, there isn’t. People like Pepsi have made up their mind (natal girls and women have to stop being such babies and suck it up). Others disagree - including regulatory bodies that have engaged in extensive research and consultation. That’s only a ‘weak appeal to authority’ if you think science and consultation with athletes should play no part in establishing fairness in sports.

Do you believe the 50 per cent of the Canadian population who support the right of same-sex couples to adopt children, but who believe athletes should compete in the sex they were assigned at birth, are ignorant bigots? How small, exactly, is your circle of moral virtue?

Actually, I know the answer - it’s very small. And it will always be very small. No matter how our society progresses and changes over the coming decades, you will always recalibrate your expectations so you can sneer at the 80 per cent of normies. Because victimhood and resentment at wider society is your whole identity.

Except advocates, allies, and trans persons aren't the ones acting like victims here. They're the ones asking for some nuance in the decision making.

Noted whingers like Riley Gaines are the part of the population pissing and moaning about fairness while trying to make this a black and white issue and pushing flat bans and restrictions because they tied for 5th place with a trans woman.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Cliff is the real victim here, righteously and bravely standing up to the sneering masses that dare question his steadfast commitment to logic, fairness, and morality, as always, in the fight against the greatest danger of all: trans people.

Where have I said I’m a victim? Or that trans people are a danger? Or even that I think transgendered women should be banned from competing in sports as girls/women?

I guess resorting to straw-manning as a rebuttal never gets old, does it? You do it literally every day on this forum.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This is an issue of conflicting rights. The right of natal girls and women to not face unfair competition in athletics, vs the right of transgendered women to compete in their preferred category.

I don’t believe either of those things have ever really been rights.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I don’t believe either of those things have ever really been rights.

Fair enough. So competing wants.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This is an issue of conflicting rights. The right of natal girls and women to not face unfair competition in athletics, vs the right of transgendered women to compete in their preferred category. As much as you want to believe there’s a simple answer to that question that all informed people of goodwill can agree on, there isn’t. People like Pepsi have made up their mind (natal girls and women have to stop being such babies and suck it up). Others disagree - including regulatory bodies that have engaged in extensive research and consultation. That’s only a ‘weak appeal to authority’ if you think science and consultation with athletes should play no part in establishing fairness in sports.

Do you believe the 50 per cent of the Canadian population who support the right of same-sex couples to adopt children, but who believe athletes should compete in the sex they were assigned at birth, are ignorant bigots? How small, exactly, is your circle of moral virtue?

Actually, I know the answer - it’s very small. And it will always be very small. No matter how our society progresses and changes over the coming decades, you will always recalibrate your expectations so you can sneer at the 80 per cent of normies. Because victimhood and resentment at wider society is your whole identity.

Well that's exactly it, isn't it? So why are politicians the ones to make the decisions based on what they hear from one side of the discussion? If it's not a simple answer, should they not defer to experts? And perhaps there will be many answers, depending on the sport. Which is why governing bodies should be engaging experts to make the decisions. But that's for professional sport. Anything below that DOES NOT MATTER. Stop pretending it does. You are actually removing opportunities and growth experiences from everyone by banning one segment of humanity.

And frankly the public has been so thoroughly misled on the subject that differing them for any decision is no different than asking your toddler if you should go with a fixed or floating mortgage. So any public opinion pablum that gets trotted out is just a reflection of that misinformation.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I guess resorting to straw-manning as a rebuttal never gets old, does it? You do it literally every day on this forum.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

People like Pepsi have made up their mind (natal girls and women have to stop being such babies and suck it up).

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Actually, I know the answer - it’s very small. And it will always be very small. No matter how our society progresses and changes over the coming decades, you will always recalibrate your expectations so you can sneer at the 80 per cent of normies. Because victimhood and resentment at wider society is your whole identity.

Bahahaha.

Might be the most hilarious example of such a lack of self-awareness in such a short amount of time, ever seen on this board.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Yamer

Except advocates, allies, and trans persons aren't the ones acting like victims here. They're the ones asking for some nuance in the decision making.

Noted whingers like Riley Gaines are the part of the population pissing and moaning about fairness while trying to make this a black and white issue and pushing flat bans and restrictions because they tied for 5th place with a trans woman.

I like how Cliff has just assumed my stance is a flat-out, blanket acceptance of transwomen in sport. All I've said is that the trans panic about this stuff is ridiculous, and likely comes primarily from right-wing media and a deliberate campaign by dishonest actors such as the Manhattan Institute pushing it as a wedge issue.

If someone was interested in an honest discussion they might actually, you know, ask how what my stance is instead of flying off half-cocked because I pointed out that their argument was incredibly weak.

[ResAlien]

I'm sure this has been brought up but just for fun

https://www.sf.gov/trans-women-in-sp...acts-over-fear

Ten. That's right, there are ten openly trans athletes competing out of the more than half a million NCAA athletes. That someone takes the time to try and concoct some argument as to why the participation of these ten athletes is trampling on the rights if the other 499,990 competitors says a lot more about the person complaining than anyone else.

Perhaps stop being led around by the nose because you want to argue with people you think are too liberal. Trans competitors aren't even a rounding error in the scheme of things, that someone could get angry about their participation? Good lord buddy get a grip.

PS: if you’re interested there's data in that link from a 2024 IOC funded study pointing out trans athletes may actually be at a disadvantage. If one cared to educated oneself I mean.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Where have I said I’m a victim? Or that trans people are a danger? Or even that I think transgendered women should be banned from competing in sports as girls/women?

I guess resorting to straw-manning as a rebuttal never gets old, does it? You do it literally every day on this forum.

You don’t have to claim yourself a victim when you constantly act victimized by progressives, modern society, or basically anyone you don’t like (I’m sorry, whining about “purity tests” because someone challenged your post makes you look like a child). Just like you don’t have to say trans people are a danger when you spend far more energy discounting or demonizing them or their wants/needs as a group than anyone here.

And I’m sorry, I just find it incredibly funny for you to post this:

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This is an issue of conflicting rights. The right of natal girls and women to not face unfair competition in athletics, vs the right of transgendered women to compete in their preferred category … People like Pepsi have made up their mind (natal girls and women have to stop being such babies and suck it up).

When you’re the same guy who posted this:

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Nobody has a right not be hated. We have a right not be assaulted or subject to hate speech. But you can’t control how other people feel about you. Neither can Jews or Catholics or Mormons. Some people suck.

…as a response to valid concerns about trans and drag performers being targeted by hateful protests.

But I know self reflection is not in your toolkit. Which is fine, I just wish you had better things to spend your energy on than picking on trans kids.

[photon]

"Unfair competition" seems like a loaded phrase in this context, a definition of unfair that doesn't involve competitors being trans would be necessary otherwise it's circular reasoning isn't it? The proper definition of fair/unfair would need to be more general.

All competition is unfair depending on how you look at it. Genetic advantages (height, weight, body structure, VO2 max) mean that some people are just going to be precluded from winning no matter how hard they work. Or being born with the mental capability to focus and persevere beyond what typical people can? Is winning a genetic lottery then leveraging that to be the best "fair"? Or is being born into a situation where that's possible (being able to earn a living doing a sport full time or be supported by donors / family or being able to afford the best coaches / facilities / equipment that enables higher performance) "fair"?

We've decided that yes those competitive advantages are fair.

But if you state that trans women are women, then doesn't that just mean that some trans women just are part of the category of having a genetic advantage, something we've already decided is "fair"? Deciding it's unfair in that specific case fells like a "equal but separate" situation. Which now to me doesn't feel fair.

But if they are excluded is that different than others that are excluded for reasons beyond their control (genetics, money, etc)? It feels different.

I don't know what's "right", or what the rules of society should be.. it just feels like there are no good options and no matter one it's going to be unfair to someone. So then do you go with the option that harms the fewest people? Or go with the option that is more inclusive (i.e. better for the kind of society we want to be)?

[Fuzz]

You nailed it, and that banning trans kids from fun time does harm to absolutely everyone. Which is probably why the Russian influence factory loves it so much, and they love the bigoted and religious fundamentalists the most, because they are the easiest to bait into us doing ourselves harm.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I just wish you had better things to spend your energy on than picking on trans kids.

And you could probably find a better way to spend your time than pursuing underage sex partners.

I kid, I kid! But it is kinda fun to just make up stuff about other posters, isn’t it? It’s certainly easier than addressing what people actually say.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I like how Cliff has just assumed my stance is a flat-out, blanket acceptance of transwomen in sport. All I've said is that the trans panic about this stuff is ridiculous, and likely comes primarily from right-wing media and a deliberate campaign by dishonest actors such as the Manhattan Institute pushing it as a wedge issue.

If someone was interested in an honest discussion they might actually, you know, ask how what my stance is instead of flying off half-cocked because I pointed out that their argument was incredibly weak.

And my stance is it’s a complex issue and reasonable people of goodwill can disagree on the best policy. Which apparently = hating trans kids.