How Long Will Women, Parents And Feminists Tolerate This? [Photo Added]

I don’t understand the persistence of such a blatantly unethical situation at all. It is the apotheosis of “It isn’t what it is.” Any group, movement, elected official or individual who approves of such an obvious injustice should be branded as untrustworthy, whether it be due to intellectual deficiencies, dishonesty, delusion or cowardice.

Ricci Tres, a 29-year-old transgender woman, defeated 13-year-old Shiloh Catori, to win the $500 top prize in a women’s division of New York City street skateboarding competition. The real girl got $250. Four of the six finalists were under the age of 17, with the youngest being 10-year-old Juri Iikura, who came in fifth. Tres was the oldest contestant. Tres had previously failed to qualify for the Women’s Street USA Skateboarding National Championships in a bid to qualify for  the Olympics, but was rejected because of an excess of testosterone, according to The Daily Mail. Obviously, Tres is the victim of transphobia.

So she decided to beat some little girls and pick up an easy 500 bucks. It should cover shaving costs.

Tres served four years in the Navy and had three kids with her now ex-wife before identifying as a female. “I’ve decided that I like being pretty and cute,” she told an interviewer.

And winning sports contests unfairly.

Be proud, trans activists. This is what you stand for now.

Oh…and Major Clipton would like a word…

14 thoughts on “How Long Will Women, Parents And Feminists Tolerate This? [Photo Added]

    • From my son’s swim club experience, an open competition means that it is not age specific. Generally, though, sections are broken down into age categories: fore example, boys/girls 10 and under; 11 – 13; 14 to 17, and 18 and over. It is simply unfair for a 38 year old Olympian to swim against a 6 year old, testosterone notwithstanding..

      jvb

  1. I think I was raised just prior to the participation-trophy generation, or maybe I was seeing the first waves of it as I went through public school. That was 1987 through 1999, for those who were curious, and can say, “No, it was happening even sooner than that!” But I never would have wanted a prize that had me winning in such a lop-sided contest. I wanted to win, sure, and I was usually heart-broken if I didn’t, at least in the categories of chess and math competitions (cross-country running was fun, but I was never a contender), but I also competed against my peers. Where is the joy in winning if your opponent is so obviously inferior? Yet I know some people enjoy winning, no matter the level of their opponent, and even at times will only take on opponents against which they can win easily.

    I suppose this extends out to broader categories. People who cheat on tests are more interested in the good grade than actually comprehending the material. Professors who take all the credit for their graduate students’ work are more interested in acclaim and grant money than fairness. (Okay, I’m having troubles coming up with more examples…) I know this mentality has always been around, but watching the way the U.S. has been going for the past several decades, it certainly seems this mentality has become forefront. The competing, the achieving, especially against a superior adversary, is no longer the quest. It is merely winning, and winning by any means necessary.

  2. So…. I’m not saying that this is good…. I’m not saying that trans women should be in competition. But…. The reason that a 29 year old was skating in the same event as a 10 year old is because there were only 17 people in the event. The top 6 went into the finals. It was the specialest of Olympics. Usually there would be pre-teen, teen, 20’s, 30’s ect. divisions…. But this was basically Fun Skate.

    https://theboardr.com/results/8820/The-Boardr-Open-at-New-York-City-Womens-Qualifiers-Presented-by-DC

    Things like this bother me.

    On one hand… Sport ideally should be for everyone. I think we have to grapple with the reality of trans people in sport and find a place for them, whether that’s their own division, or a unisex competition… I don’t know. But getting bent out of shape with an event like this feels… icky… because it’s an event with basically no standards to begin with. Despite the prize money, any event where a 10 year old can compete against a 29 year old gave up the fig leaf of seriousness long before allowing a trans competitor.

    On the other hand… You give the inch, they take a mile. Normalizing trans women in women’s sport, regardless of the level of competition, drags the Overton window one step closer to a broader inclusion. I’m sure activists would hear that and nod their heads vigorously… But this is another example of them caring about inclusivity more than the space. They have no skin in the game. They’ve never competed. They. Don’t. Care. Their preferences to how the space is managed are irrelevant. The voices from within these orgs are either critical of trans inclusivity or read like a hostage script. I can’t get behind even things like this while that effort continues.

    • “On one hand… Sport ideally should be for everyone. I think we have to grapple with the reality of trans people in sport and find a place for them, whether that’s their own division, or a unisex competition”

      There already is a place for them.
      Out of respect for everyone else; (respectworksbothways) they can compete in their respective biological division. Same goes for bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, prisons.
      Problem solved.
      This is not rocket science although there may be considerable mental illness involved.

      • Hard disagree.

        I think you have to decide on whether your issue is with the affirmation, or the outcome… Because let’s be real, there are precious few places where your gender actually matters. Your doctor, probably, and while it’s smart and the right thing to do to be upfront, I’m sure they’ll figure out very quickly what they’re looking at. Intimate relationships, and ditto. Past that? Very little. Sport is really the only one I can think of, and that’s because the entire reason women’s divisions exist is (and I’m sorry ladies) to give women a B division that allows them to compete, because if you compare the world records, women would never see the podium. It was supposed to be an exclusive division, the “men’s” division doesn’t need exclusivity, it’s the A division, it’s for the people who can run fastest and jump highest, and in my opinion, if there’s a woman out there that can compete: Play ball.

        I think opinions like “stay in your biological divisions” in the trans discussion come from people more concerned about the culture war aspect of the issue than people actually concerned about the health and future of sport. The problem isn’t the gender affirmation (unless you think it is… Then that’s a different discussion), the problem is the biological imbalance. And exactly like how it isn’t fair for trans women to compete against women, it’s not fair for trans men to compete against women. Dumping people on a steroid cocktail into female sports is just as problematic a proposal as any prescription from progressives.

        We’ve seen this exact scenario play out in Mack Briggs. Mack Briggs was born female, transitioned, and wanted to be on the boys wrestling team. His school enforced the exact policy that you’re suggesting: They made Mack wrestle the girls. And so for two years, this guy…. And I’m sorry, he passed as a guy, was all over conservative media ragdolling the girls in his division. And the outrage du jour from conservative media was a misunderstanding: There were a whole lot of people that thought that Mack was born male, transitioning female, and the school let him beat up the girls.

        Sorry, but that’s dumb.

        • “Dumping people on a steroid cocktail into female sports is just as problematic a proposal as any prescription from progressives.”

          Yeah okay. You thought this through more than me.
          Do you agree with the rest: bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, prisons?

          • It depends on what we’re talking about, and it goes back to the base question of: “Does it matter?”

            See, back when Alabama was doing the whole bathroom bill thing, I thought that the issue was public communal showers. I can understand people not wanting to be naked around people of the opposite sex. Hell: *I* avoid public showers after a particularly embarrassing high school experience, and my expectation is that most trans people avoid being naked around strangers as much as possible, so I thought it was also probably the nichest of issues. I was tentatively behind it. Then I learned that there were people who were actually bent out of shape because a trans person might pee in the “wrong” cubicle…. The issue lost me. These people have so much more to worry about… adding “Where do I pee?” to the list just seems needlessly cruel.

  3. “The Misplaced Outrage at The New York Times’ Gender-Affirming Care Article
    Why we need to talk about false positives.”
    By Lisa Selin Davis (06/30/2022) First three paragraphs. Informative article.

    Last week, The New York Times committed a radical act by printing an article that hinted at the remote possibility that perhaps there was a tiny inkling of something slightly amiss with the exponential increase in kids—mostly teens, and mostly girl teens at that—being diagnosed with gender dysphoria, or identifying as trans, and pursuing gender-affirming treatments like cross-sex hormones and double mastectomies. The piece explores a battle between opposing approaches to care amid the backdrop of potential bans and impending new standards of care released by the World Professional Association of Transgender Health, or WPATH. (WPATH, by the way, was originally named for Dr. Harry Benjamin, who stumbled upon hormone treatments and went in search of a problem they could cure, after trying and failing to sell them as rejuvenation treatments for years.)

    Unsurprisingly, the reaction was swift and intense. The outrage machine sprung into gear to claim that the author, Emily Bazelon, was committing genocide by questioning anything about “gender-affirmation” therapy, the recent and current model of treating gender dysphoria that trusts the patient to self-diagnose and in which informed consent replaces rigorous evaluation. Affirmation has supplanted the original Dutch method called watchful waiting, which carefully screened children over many years—though even that work has been called into question, which wasn’t mentioned.

    There were other, milder criticisms—with which I agree—including that the author painted the controversy as a political battle of Left versus Right, when in reality there are thousands of parents, and a strong feminist movement, trying to disrupt this dominant paradigm from within the Left. (They spoke up in the comments.) This tiptoeing piece didn’t stomp hard in the place that I, as someone who’s been writing about gender for the last five years, have seen the Left-wing press mostly skip over.

    https://www.realityslaststand.com/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.