Flames' Pride Night slotted for March 28 vs. LA

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

So many things that haven't happened and logical fallacies.
Maybe you should have listened to your gut and kept your mouth shut.

"Reverse discrimination" isn't and has never been a thing.

No one, and I mean no one, including the Trans folks in my life are going to transition to get an 'edge' in sports. That is, frankly, asinine. Not to mention that the fact that when folks are on hormones to support their gender affirming care your body changes DRASTICALLY.

Trans women are women. Bottom line. Nothing beyond social convention is preventing a man from walking into a women's washroom right now if they have bad intentions. To imply to that trans women aren't actually women or that trans men aren't men and should use the bathroom of the sex organs they were born with is asinine. Because you're suggesting that a trans man who has been taking testatorine for years use the women's bathroom. I highly suspect a women may feel more uncomfortable when the trans man with a beard is in the women's bathroom only becasue they may or may not have a vagina.


OH and if all of that makes you uneasy the solution is to have single all gender washrooms like on an airplane or in your ####ing house.

Is there any evidence to show that reverse discrimination has never happened, and never will happen? For example is it too absurd to assume that a commercial picks actors based on skin color/ethnicity in order to show that they include everyone and support multiculturalism. Again I'm not saying I as a white male have been discriminated against.

Trans women aren't simply women, that's why they can't have children. They don't have 2 X chromosomes. They, to my knowledge, have an advantage in their ability to build muscle mass. That's why I also brought the prison argument as well of males pretending to be females in order to serve easier time in prison. Obviously there was no argument against it.

I don't mind the single washroom solution, but something tells me that we'll have a lot more problems than benefits from that solution.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

Okay, would athletes take steroids, or other drugs to win even if they put their health at risk? How about body builders? I think you underestimate the competitiveness of some people. Would Joe Rogan be an authority on MMA fights? because he shares a similar opinion to mine when it comes to transgender athletes fighting women, and he's been in that business for quite a long time. I'm sure I can find a video where he discusses it.

You're argument is essentially that I'm an idiot, as I mentioned personal attacks are easy and make you sound ignorant.

Please provide me with a list of athletes that have changed sexes to win.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

The Flames should let me DJ Pride Night. It will all be selections from Hedwig and the Angry Inch as well as sound clips from James Whale movies.

EDIT: lots of Cher too

I'll drink to that!

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

For what it’s worth I don’t put much stock in Joe Rogan as an authority on trans folks.

I'm not saying he's an authority on trans folks, more of an authority on fighters, and their physical abilities.

Again, I'm saying that everyone should have the same rights. I'm also not advocating that all sports events would be mixed events because they would be primarily dominated by men. Not because I think women are bad at sports, but because of the physiology of the human body.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

I think that most of the people that are objecting pride parades and pride nights do it from a fear of reverse discrimination. For example, they don't want to lose out on a job just because they're straight.

Yep, I know if a hundred more people wear a rainbow I will be homeless.

[Passe La Puck]

TIL juicing up is basically the same as being trans.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

The issue is more one of compelled speech. Regardless of how you want to characterize it, wearing a pride flag, or anything pride related, is a political statement, especially in the United States. Obviously, the NHL, the NHLPA and the teams putting on these events aren't compelling anyone to do or say anything - which is why nothing particularly bad will happen to Provorov or Reimer for not wearing the jerseys, outside of some people swearing at them on twitter. If we get to a point where some team says "wear it or you're a healthy scratch tonight", then we get to the point where it's an issue. I very much doubt we will get to that point.

I don't even think these stories about players who opt out of pride night warrants being covered. It's really just clickbait. If you want to cover something, cover the pride night, don't give the spotlight to the Reimers and Provorovs of the world. I almost appreciate Provorov's "I decline to participate on religious ground and have no further comment" type of approach; I don't care in the slightest about Reimer's religious views and didn't need to read multiple paragraphs about his silly world view.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Yep, I know if a hundred more people wear a rainbow I will be homeless.

That wasn't my argument and you know it. Again, you're trying to ridicule an opinion that is different from yours. I'm not too worried about the reverse discrimination myself, but I can see where it's coming from.

Nobody wants to be discriminated against because of their ethnicity sexual orientation or personal beliefs, even white middle aged men. My point is that people(minus a few bad apples) that object to pride nights aren't trying to oppress someone as much as they're trying to protect their own rights, now and in the future.

[OptimalTates]

If we start treating them like us, they will start treating us like we treated them!

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The issue is more one of compelled speech. Regardless of how you want to characterize it, wearing a pride flag, or anything pride related, is a political statement, especially in the United States. Obviously, the NHL, the NHLPA and the teams putting on these events aren't compelling anyone to do or say anything - which is why nothing particularly bad will happen to Provorov or Reimer for not wearing the jerseys, outside of some people swearing at them on twitter. If we get to a point where some team says "wear it or you're a healthy scratch tonight", then we get to the point where it's an issue. I very much doubt we will get to that point.

I don't even think these stories about players who opt out of pride night warrants being covered. It's really just clickbait. If you want to cover something, cover the pride night, don't give the spotlight to the Reimers and Provorovs of the world. I almost appreciate Provorov's "I decline to participate on religious ground and have no further comment" type of approach; I don't care in the slightest about Reimer's religious views and didn't need to read multiple paragraphs about his silly world view.

I think this argument has legs. I don't think that there is anything harmful will being compelled to promote the NHL and hockey as gender inclusive. Rather, it is the act of compelling that can be viewed as a dangerous precedent. For example, what if players chose to opt out of military appreciation warm ups?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I think this argument has legs. I don't think that there is anything harmful will being compelled to promote the NHL and hockey as gender inclusive. Rather, it is the act of compelling that can be viewed as a dangerous precedent.

It's not just a dangerous precedent, forcing people to express their support for anything - even things that we all agree are worth supporting - is inimical to life in a free society. That's a line that should be drawn, certainly, and what's happening here with Reimer and players like him comes nowhere close to that line.

For example, what if players chose to opt out of military appreciation warm ups?

They're perfectly entitled to make the choice to opt out of military appreciation night based on pacifism, or whatever other principles they think are important and motivating to them. People who think that doing so shows a lack of respect for the people who died for their country are, similarly, entitled to disagree with that choice. Seems simple enough to me.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

Is there any evidence to show that reverse discrimination has never happened, and never will happen?

Trans women aren't simply women, that's why they can't have children. They don't have 2 X chromosomes. They, to my knowledge, have an advantage in their ability to build muscle mass. That's why I also brought the prison argument as well of males pretending to be females in order to serve easier time in prison. Obviously there was no argument against it.

I don't think you can really discriminate against those with the most power within a society based on structural inequality that has historically benefited them.

Obviously, you're confusing biology with gender. Gender is the performance we do, as an expression of our identity in the world, not the reproductive organs someone is born with. Not to mention that a lot of cis women also can't have children for a host of reasons. Are they less women because like trans women they don't birth a child? Furthermore, you clearly missed in my initial post how taking hormones for gender affirming care has drastic changes on someone's body like muscle mass etc. Also, no cis man is pretending to be a trans woman to have an easier time in prison. That's a silly straw man argument.

I highly encourage you to look up Jessie Gender on YouTube as she has a extensive video episode discussing some of the Matt Walsh talking points you're using (not say you're a Matt Walsh fan necessarily they are just similar positions)

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I almost appreciate Provorov's "I decline to participate on religious ground and have no further comment" type of approach; I don't care in the slightest about Reimer's religious views and didn't need to read multiple paragraphs about his silly world view.

Yeah, I think the quasi self-righteousness and mental gymnastics of Reimer's post probably made things worse.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

For what it’s worth I don’t put much stock in Joe Rogan as an authority on trans folks.

Lol

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

Here are three quotes from this thread that attack attacking Christians. Ridicule isn't really showing tolerance or inclusivity.

I don't condone such attacks/vitriol. It's unfortunate that some posters make these kinds of comments.

I do, however, think criticism of religious beliefs, presented in a reasonable way, is fair game.

[Cappy]

Did Reimer just use the equivalent of "I'm not a racist, i have many POC friends?"

[Yeah_Baby]

For what it's worth there are plenty of Queer Affirming Christan congregations too.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

I don't think you can really discriminate against those with the most power within a society based on structural inequality that has historically benefited them.

Obviously, you're confusing biology with gender. Gender is the performance we do, as an expression of our identity in the world, not the reproductive organs someone is born with. Not to mention that a lot of cis women also can't have children for a host of reasons. Are they less women because like trans women they don't birth a child? Furthermore, you clearly missed in my initial post how taking hormones for gender affirming care has drastic changes on someone's body like muscle mass etc. Also, no cis man is pretending to be a trans woman to have an easier time in prison. That's a silly straw man argument.

I highly encourage you to look up Jessie Gender on YouTube as she has a extensive video episode discussing some of the Matt Walsh talking points you're using (not say you're a Matt Walsh fan necessarily they are just similar positions)



Yeah, I think the quasi self-righteousness and mental gymnastics of Reimer's post probably made things worse.

I didn't miss your point about hormones. That's why I brought biology into it. The point I was trying to make was that hormones augment the physiology but don't change it completely. As good as science is it can't change the biology completely. That's why I advocate for separate divisions in sports, or staying in the original division. As in, if you were born as a male and you want to be a professional athlete you have to compete against other males, regardless of if you consider yourself a woman or not.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

I didn't miss your point about hormones. That's why I brought biology into it. The point I was trying to make was that hormones augment the physiology but don't change it completely. As good as science is it can't change the biology completely. That's why I advocate for separate divisions in sports, or staying in the original division. As in, if you were born as a male and you want to be a professional athlete you have to compete against other males, regardless of if you consider yourself a woman or not.

My dude. It's not about what you 'consider' yourself.
To quote the prophet of our times Kesha, we are who are.

a trans person doesn't stop being trans because you misgender them.

Anway I just hope you're not giving Matt Walsh or Tim Pool or any of those cats any money.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

That wasn't my argument and you know it. Again, you're trying to ridicule an opinion that is different from yours. I'm not too worried about the reverse discrimination myself, but I can see where it's coming from.

Nobody wants to be discriminated against because of their ethnicity sexual orientation or personal beliefs, even white middle aged men. My point is that people(minus a few bad apples) that object to pride nights aren't trying to oppress someone as much as they're trying to protect their own rights, now and in the future.

Wait, so these people (the good apples, as you imply) are doing this to protect their own status or privilege now and into the future?

I mean that's pretty much oppression.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Wait, so these people (the good apples, as you imply) are doing this to protect their own status or privilege now and into the future?

I mean that's pretty much oppression.

It's the Freedum Convoy all over again.