The Democratic Presidential Debates
Comments
- 
            
 I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?HughFreakingDillon said:
 one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right".ecdanc said:
 He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here.HughFreakingDillon said:
 i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good.ecdanc said:
 Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?HughFreakingDillon said:
 this is funny watching the back peddling.ecdanc said:
 Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted.Ledbetterman10 said:
 Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt.Spiritual_Chaos said:the ”other women will be hurt” is a really weird argument to fall back on.0
- 
            
 Many people draw similar distinctions (I'm pro-X except in this case); many people also grossly overestimate how pro-X they are. There's a lot of overlap in that Venn Diagram.Ledbetterman10 said:
 It's typical in these type of arguments. I can't be for mostly for LGBTQ rights, but be against the specific instance of transwomen competing against women in sports. That'd be straying from the herd.mrussel1 said:
 See... you're scared of people and didn't even know it. Learn something new everydayLedbetterman10 said:
 Well then that does it. I guess I’m transphobic. God dammit.ecdanc said:
 If you ever find yourself saying "I believe a trans woman is a woman except in this case/instance/moment..." then you don't accept her as a woman.Ledbetterman10 said:
 If a transwoman and a woman who was born a woman were walking down the street, I’d say that’s two women walking down the street. I have no issue at all with social norm of a transwoman being a woman. At all. Caitlyn Jenner is a woman.ecdanc said:
 I'm sure I'm over the line according to the moderators, but what Ledbetterman said is far more offensive than me calling him a bigot.mrussel1 said:
 You're officially over the lineecdanc said:
 Not it isn't, you bigot.Ledbetterman10 said:
 Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt.Spiritual_Chaos said:the ”other women will be hurt” is a really weird argument to fall back on.But in a FIGHT, it’s different The physical make up of a man and a woman is different. And a man that transitions to being a woman still has that physical make up in bone density, etc.0
- 
            
 You're arguing semantics. I've made it quite clear I'm arguing that from a physical standpoint, a transwoman has the physical makeup of a man. And while that is not relevant in another aspect of her life, it is if she's competing in spors against women.ecdanc said:
 I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?HughFreakingDillon said:
 one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right".ecdanc said:
 He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here.HughFreakingDillon said:
 i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good.ecdanc said:
 Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?HughFreakingDillon said:
 this is funny watching the back peddling.ecdanc said:
 Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted.Ledbetterman10 said:
 Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt.Spiritual_Chaos said:the ”other women will be hurt” is a really weird argument to fall back on.
 But I know your type. So keeping arguinig with Hugh that I'm a bigot, or flag my post, or tag the moderator or whatever. Cancel away.
 2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1
 
 Pearl Jam bootlegs:
 http://wegotshit.blogspot.com0
- 
            
 You can call it "semantics" if you want; I'm simply reading what you said. Your efforts to justify that statement merely sink further into a morass of offensive statements. If a trans woman is a woman, then her body is a woman's body. She, by definition, has the "physical makeup" of a woman. Short women have women's bodies; tall women have women's bodies; trans women have women's bodies.Ledbetterman10 said:
 You're arguing semantics. I've made it quite clear I'm arguing that from a physical standpoint, a transwoman has the physical makeup of a man. And while that is not relevant in another aspect of her life, it is if she's competing in spors against women.ecdanc said:
 I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?HughFreakingDillon said:
 one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right".ecdanc said:
 He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here.HughFreakingDillon said:
 i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good.ecdanc said:
 Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?HughFreakingDillon said:
 this is funny watching the back peddling.ecdanc said:
 Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted.Ledbetterman10 said:
 Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt.Spiritual_Chaos said:the ”other women will be hurt” is a really weird argument to fall back on.
 But I know your type. So keeping arguinig with Hugh that I'm a bigot, or flag my post, or tag the moderator or whatever. Cancel away.0
- 
            mrussel1 said:
 Give it a fucking rest.ecdanc said:
 No, you didn't try. You're on the fucking internet. Look it up yourself before you say something offensive. You did not ask what term to use; you mocked the fact that there is a "woke" term. And in the process, you further diminished trans women by suggesting they are not "born female." Don't now try to play like you really care about the words you should use.Ledbetterman10 said:
 Typical. Even when I try to ask what term I can use instead of “regular” so that I can better myself and not be a bigot towards the LGBTQ community, I’m likened to a racist uncle. Oh well, I tried.ecdanc said:
 You remind me of my uncle: "well, when I was growing up we just called them [n-words]; how am I supposed to keep up with what they want to be called?"Ledbetterman10 said:
 I was waiting for that response. Like clockwork, I knew you’d have a problem with “regular” there. Sorry I don’t know the woke term for a female that’s born female and stays female. So I went with regular.ecdanc said:
 "Men who transition to women competing against regular women." We have a winner for the thread's most anti-trans statement!Ledbetterman10 said:
 You turned it this way. And video isn’t insulting to trans people. It’s a good satire of the insanity of men who transition to women competing against regular women in athletic competitions.ecdanc said:
 Must say I'm a little saddened by this turn in this thread.Ledbetterman10 said:A transwoman should complete in sports with the men. Her physical dynamics are that if a man’s, and she could hurt the “regular” women. (What’s the gender term you want there that won’t offend you?)
 In a few hours 135 unread? Like wth happened here. Did someone stumble into this topic with an extra MSG ticket?0
- 
            
 I'm putting it on Stubhub just for you!Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
 Give it a fucking rest.ecdanc said:
 No, you didn't try. You're on the fucking internet. Look it up yourself before you say something offensive. You did not ask what term to use; you mocked the fact that there is a "woke" term. And in the process, you further diminished trans women by suggesting they are not "born female." Don't now try to play like you really care about the words you should use.Ledbetterman10 said:
 Typical. Even when I try to ask what term I can use instead of “regular” so that I can better myself and not be a bigot towards the LGBTQ community, I’m likened to a racist uncle. Oh well, I tried.ecdanc said:
 You remind me of my uncle: "well, when I was growing up we just called them [n-words]; how am I supposed to keep up with what they want to be called?"Ledbetterman10 said:
 I was waiting for that response. Like clockwork, I knew you’d have a problem with “regular” there. Sorry I don’t know the woke term for a female that’s born female and stays female. So I went with regular.ecdanc said:
 "Men who transition to women competing against regular women." We have a winner for the thread's most anti-trans statement!Ledbetterman10 said:
 You turned it this way. And video isn’t insulting to trans people. It’s a good satire of the insanity of men who transition to women competing against regular women in athletic competitions.ecdanc said:
 Must say I'm a little saddened by this turn in this thread.Ledbetterman10 said:A transwoman should complete in sports with the men. Her physical dynamics are that if a man’s, and she could hurt the “regular” women. (What’s the gender term you want there that won’t offend you?)
 In a few hours 135 unread? Like wth happened here. Did someone stumble into this topic with an extra MSG ticket?0
- 
            
 Well I disagree but I've already explained why so I won't go on and on. You just keep fighting the good fight against us bigots.ecdanc said:
 You can call it "semantics" if you want; I'm simply reading what you said. Your efforts to justify that statement merely sink further into a morass of offensive statements. If a trans woman is a woman, then her body is a woman's body. She, by definition, has the "physical makeup" of a woman. Short women have women's bodies; tall women have women's bodies; trans women have women's bodies.Ledbetterman10 said:
 You're arguing semantics. I've made it quite clear I'm arguing that from a physical standpoint, a transwoman has the physical makeup of a man. And while that is not relevant in another aspect of her life, it is if she's competing in spors against women.ecdanc said:
 I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?HughFreakingDillon said:
 one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right".ecdanc said:
 He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here.HughFreakingDillon said:
 i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good.ecdanc said:
 Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?HughFreakingDillon said:
 this is funny watching the back peddling.ecdanc said:
 Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted.Ledbetterman10 said:
 Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt.Spiritual_Chaos said:the ”other women will be hurt” is a really weird argument to fall back on.
 But I know your type. So keeping arguinig with Hugh that I'm a bigot, or flag my post, or tag the moderator or whatever. Cancel away.
 2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1
 
 Pearl Jam bootlegs:
 http://wegotshit.blogspot.com0
- 
            
 I think. Cis Woman should be able to compete in a sports environment against those who havent spent a lifetime being fueled by biological male levels of testosterone as that hormone is used differently by the respective biological human.....Spiritual_Chaos said:Everything in life can’t be completely ”fair” and a society that is made for and to include a huge amount of individuals can’t and doesn’t have to in every detail serve or fit specifically you.
 _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
 Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
 you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
 memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
 another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140
- 
            
 Do you try to get what @Ledbetterman10 is arguing? Outside of the language used.ecdanc said:
 You can call it "semantics" if you want; I'm simply reading what you said. Your efforts to justify that statement merely sink further into a morass of offensive statements. If a trans woman is a woman, then her body is a woman's body. She, by definition, has the "physical makeup" of a woman. Short women have women's bodies; tall women have women's bodies; trans women have women's bodies.Ledbetterman10 said:
 You're arguing semantics. I've made it quite clear I'm arguing that from a physical standpoint, a transwoman has the physical makeup of a man. And while that is not relevant in another aspect of her life, it is if she's competing in spors against women.ecdanc said:
 I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?HughFreakingDillon said:
 one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right".ecdanc said:
 He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here.HughFreakingDillon said:
 i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good.ecdanc said:
 Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?HughFreakingDillon said:
 this is funny watching the back peddling.ecdanc said:
 Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted.Ledbetterman10 said:
 Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt.Spiritual_Chaos said:the ”other women will be hurt” is a really weird argument to fall back on.
 But I know your type. So keeping arguinig with Hugh that I'm a bigot, or flag my post, or tag the moderator or whatever. Cancel away.
 "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0
- 
            
 Yes, I absolutely get what he is trying to argue. I think his premises are so flawed that I'm ignoring his conclusion. Put differently, he's building what I consider to be an offensive position by relying on other things that I consider to be offensive.Spiritual_Chaos said:
 Do you try to get what @Ledbetterman10 is arguing? Outside of the language used.ecdanc said:
 You can call it "semantics" if you want; I'm simply reading what you said. Your efforts to justify that statement merely sink further into a morass of offensive statements. If a trans woman is a woman, then her body is a woman's body. She, by definition, has the "physical makeup" of a woman. Short women have women's bodies; tall women have women's bodies; trans women have women's bodies.Ledbetterman10 said:
 You're arguing semantics. I've made it quite clear I'm arguing that from a physical standpoint, a transwoman has the physical makeup of a man. And while that is not relevant in another aspect of her life, it is if she's competing in spors against women.ecdanc said:
 I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?HughFreakingDillon said:
 one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right".ecdanc said:
 He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here.HughFreakingDillon said:
 i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good.ecdanc said:
 Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?HughFreakingDillon said:
 this is funny watching the back peddling.ecdanc said:
 Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted.Ledbetterman10 said:
 Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt.Spiritual_Chaos said:the ”other women will be hurt” is a really weird argument to fall back on.
 But I know your type. So keeping arguinig with Hugh that I'm a bigot, or flag my post, or tag the moderator or whatever. Cancel away.0
- 
            
 I contend that such a position is irreconcilable with a full recognition of transgender equality.mickeyrat said:
 I think. Cis Woman should be able to compete in a sports environment against those who havent spent a lifetime being fueled by biological male levels of testosterone as that hormone is used differently by the respective biological human.....Spiritual_Chaos said:Everything in life can’t be completely ”fair” and a society that is made for and to include a huge amount of individuals can’t and doesn’t have to in every detail serve or fit specifically you.
 EDIT: I'd add that the position you're espousing is aligned closely with TERFs, with whom I strongly disagree.Post edited by ecdanc on0
- 
            
 You da best!ecdanc said:
 I'm putting it on Stubhub just for you!Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
 Give it a fucking rest.ecdanc said:
 No, you didn't try. You're on the fucking internet. Look it up yourself before you say something offensive. You did not ask what term to use; you mocked the fact that there is a "woke" term. And in the process, you further diminished trans women by suggesting they are not "born female." Don't now try to play like you really care about the words you should use.Ledbetterman10 said:
 Typical. Even when I try to ask what term I can use instead of “regular” so that I can better myself and not be a bigot towards the LGBTQ community, I’m likened to a racist uncle. Oh well, I tried.ecdanc said:
 You remind me of my uncle: "well, when I was growing up we just called them [n-words]; how am I supposed to keep up with what they want to be called?"Ledbetterman10 said:
 I was waiting for that response. Like clockwork, I knew you’d have a problem with “regular” there. Sorry I don’t know the woke term for a female that’s born female and stays female. So I went with regular.ecdanc said:
 "Men who transition to women competing against regular women." We have a winner for the thread's most anti-trans statement!Ledbetterman10 said:
 You turned it this way. And video isn’t insulting to trans people. It’s a good satire of the insanity of men who transition to women competing against regular women in athletic competitions.ecdanc said:
 Must say I'm a little saddened by this turn in this thread.Ledbetterman10 said:A transwoman should complete in sports with the men. Her physical dynamics are that if a man’s, and she could hurt the “regular” women. (What’s the gender term you want there that won’t offend you?)
 In a few hours 135 unread? Like wth happened here. Did someone stumble into this topic with an extra MSG ticket?0
- 
            Spiritual_Chaos said:
 Do you try to get what @Ledbetterman10 is arguing? Outside of the language used.ecdanc said:
 You can call it "semantics" if you want; I'm simply reading what you said. Your efforts to justify that statement merely sink further into a morass of offensive statements. If a trans woman is a woman, then her body is a woman's body. She, by definition, has the "physical makeup" of a woman. Short women have women's bodies; tall women have women's bodies; trans women have women's bodies.Ledbetterman10 said:
 You're arguing semantics. I've made it quite clear I'm arguing that from a physical standpoint, a transwoman has the physical makeup of a man. And while that is not relevant in another aspect of her life, it is if she's competing in spors against women.ecdanc said:
 I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?HughFreakingDillon said:
 one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right".ecdanc said:
 He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here.HughFreakingDillon said:
 i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good.ecdanc said:
 Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?HughFreakingDillon said:
 this is funny watching the back peddling.ecdanc said:
 Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted.Ledbetterman10 said:
 Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt.Spiritual_Chaos said:the ”other women will be hurt” is a really weird argument to fall back on.
 But I know your type. So keeping arguinig with Hugh that I'm a bigot, or flag my post, or tag the moderator or whatever. Cancel away.
 You were kind of giving me the same pushback too, though....Spiritual_Chaos said:
 Maybe your number one concern in that sport then should be that everyone should wear helmets?Ledbetterman10 said:
 Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt.Spiritual_Chaos said:the ”other women will be hurt” is a really weird argument to fall back on.
 because cis men can get very hurt by cis men too.
 But I take it you're feeling now that my premise is fine, but you don't like wording?
 2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1
 
 Pearl Jam bootlegs:
 http://wegotshit.blogspot.com0
- 
            
 On the pushback -- I think you could have used "transwoman" instead of "man" in the context. Out of some kind of respect. And this came after a discussion you were just involved with about the topic. If I am not mistaken. But I also understand what you are arguing. And I also understand that you can't be 100% correct all the time and always be living up to the standard of "absolutely perfect and absolutely up to date".Ledbetterman10 said:Spiritual_Chaos said:
 Do you try to get what @Ledbetterman10 is arguing? Outside of the language used.ecdanc said:
 You can call it "semantics" if you want; I'm simply reading what you said. Your efforts to justify that statement merely sink further into a morass of offensive statements. If a trans woman is a woman, then her body is a woman's body. She, by definition, has the "physical makeup" of a woman. Short women have women's bodies; tall women have women's bodies; trans women have women's bodies.Ledbetterman10 said:
 You're arguing semantics. I've made it quite clear I'm arguing that from a physical standpoint, a transwoman has the physical makeup of a man. And while that is not relevant in another aspect of her life, it is if she's competing in spors against women.ecdanc said:
 I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?HughFreakingDillon said:
 one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right".ecdanc said:
 He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here.HughFreakingDillon said:
 i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good.ecdanc said:
 Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?HughFreakingDillon said:
 this is funny watching the back peddling.ecdanc said:
 Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted.Ledbetterman10 said:
 Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt.Spiritual_Chaos said:the ”other women will be hurt” is a really weird argument to fall back on.
 But I know your type. So keeping arguinig with Hugh that I'm a bigot, or flag my post, or tag the moderator or whatever. Cancel away.
 You were kind of giving me the same pushback too, though....Spiritual_Chaos said:
 Maybe your number one concern in that sport then should be that everyone should wear helmets?Ledbetterman10 said:
 Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt.Spiritual_Chaos said:the ”other women will be hurt” is a really weird argument to fall back on.
 because cis men can get very hurt by cis men too.
 But I take it you're feeling now that my premise is fine, but you don't like wording?
 The second thing. I just find the argument of "safety risks" being odd -- when it is about competition. And then shouldn't the argument start and stop with - the playing field is too different for it to be fair.Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0
- 
            
 I'm happy to let this drop, but I do encourage you to keep thinking about these issues. You operate with a very binary sense of what (physically) is a man and a woman. As we continue to progress, you may find that stance alienates more and more people. Have a good day.Ledbetterman10 said:
 Well I disagree but I've already explained why so I won't go on and on. You just keep fighting the good fight against us bigots.ecdanc said:
 You can call it "semantics" if you want; I'm simply reading what you said. Your efforts to justify that statement merely sink further into a morass of offensive statements. If a trans woman is a woman, then her body is a woman's body. She, by definition, has the "physical makeup" of a woman. Short women have women's bodies; tall women have women's bodies; trans women have women's bodies.Ledbetterman10 said:
 You're arguing semantics. I've made it quite clear I'm arguing that from a physical standpoint, a transwoman has the physical makeup of a man. And while that is not relevant in another aspect of her life, it is if she's competing in spors against women.ecdanc said:
 I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?HughFreakingDillon said:
 one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right".ecdanc said:
 He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here.HughFreakingDillon said:
 i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good.ecdanc said:
 Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?HughFreakingDillon said:
 this is funny watching the back peddling.ecdanc said:
 Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted.Ledbetterman10 said:
 Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt.Spiritual_Chaos said:the ”other women will be hurt” is a really weird argument to fall back on.
 But I know your type. So keeping arguinig with Hugh that I'm a bigot, or flag my post, or tag the moderator or whatever. Cancel away.
 0
- 
            
 Well again, I said my peace on transwomen competing in combat sport competitions against ciswomen (see, I looked it up) so it'd be pointless to repeat myself.Spiritual_Chaos said:
 On the pushback -- I think you could have used "transwoman" instead of "man" in the context. Out of some kind of respect. But I also understand what you are saying. And I also understand that you can't be 100% correct all the time and living up to the standard of "absolutely perfect and absolutely up to date".Ledbetterman10 said:Spiritual_Chaos said:
 Do you try to get what @Ledbetterman10 is arguing? Outside of the language used.ecdanc said:
 You can call it "semantics" if you want; I'm simply reading what you said. Your efforts to justify that statement merely sink further into a morass of offensive statements. If a trans woman is a woman, then her body is a woman's body. She, by definition, has the "physical makeup" of a woman. Short women have women's bodies; tall women have women's bodies; trans women have women's bodies.Ledbetterman10 said:
 You're arguing semantics. I've made it quite clear I'm arguing that from a physical standpoint, a transwoman has the physical makeup of a man. And while that is not relevant in another aspect of her life, it is if she's competing in spors against women.ecdanc said:
 I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?HughFreakingDillon said:
 one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right".ecdanc said:
 He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here.HughFreakingDillon said:
 i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good.ecdanc said:
 Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?HughFreakingDillon said:
 this is funny watching the back peddling.ecdanc said:
 Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted.Ledbetterman10 said:
 Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt.Spiritual_Chaos said:the ”other women will be hurt” is a really weird argument to fall back on.
 But I know your type. So keeping arguinig with Hugh that I'm a bigot, or flag my post, or tag the moderator or whatever. Cancel away.
 You were kind of giving me the same pushback too, though....Spiritual_Chaos said:
 Maybe your number one concern in that sport then should be that everyone should wear helmets?Ledbetterman10 said:
 Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt.Spiritual_Chaos said:the ”other women will be hurt” is a really weird argument to fall back on.
 because cis men can get very hurt by cis men too.
 But I take it you're feeling now that my premise is fine, but you don't like wording?
 The second thing. I just find the argument of "safety risks" being odd -- when it is about competition. And then shouldn't the argument start and stop with - the playing field is to different for it to be fair.
 2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1
 
 Pearl Jam bootlegs:
 http://wegotshit.blogspot.com0
- 
            
 You missed the edited post where I was told "go fuck yourself" and Ledbetter was called a bigot. So yeah, shit went pretty side wise on a topic that could have been interesting.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
 Give it a fucking rest.ecdanc said:
 No, you didn't try. You're on the fucking internet. Look it up yourself before you say something offensive. You did not ask what term to use; you mocked the fact that there is a "woke" term. And in the process, you further diminished trans women by suggesting they are not "born female." Don't now try to play like you really care about the words you should use.Ledbetterman10 said:
 Typical. Even when I try to ask what term I can use instead of “regular” so that I can better myself and not be a bigot towards the LGBTQ community, I’m likened to a racist uncle. Oh well, I tried.ecdanc said:
 You remind me of my uncle: "well, when I was growing up we just called them [n-words]; how am I supposed to keep up with what they want to be called?"Ledbetterman10 said:
 I was waiting for that response. Like clockwork, I knew you’d have a problem with “regular” there. Sorry I don’t know the woke term for a female that’s born female and stays female. So I went with regular.ecdanc said:
 "Men who transition to women competing against regular women." We have a winner for the thread's most anti-trans statement!Ledbetterman10 said:
 You turned it this way. And video isn’t insulting to trans people. It’s a good satire of the insanity of men who transition to women competing against regular women in athletic competitions.ecdanc said:
 Must say I'm a little saddened by this turn in this thread.Ledbetterman10 said:A transwoman should complete in sports with the men. Her physical dynamics are that if a man’s, and she could hurt the “regular” women. (What’s the gender term you want there that won’t offend you?)
 In a few hours 135 unread? Like wth happened here. Did someone stumble into this topic with an extra MSG ticket?0
- 
            
 Yes, it could and should be. But that wasn't working so the point I was making, and others I believe, is that there are certain sports where the physical nature is such that it actually could present a safety risk to a cis woman. Certainly boxing, MMA, and even hockey. Imagine if PK Suppan or Zdeno Chara decided they were going to play women's hockey and started replacement therapy. It would be a serious health risk at world class competition, far higher than the inherent risk to the game.Spiritual_Chaos said:
 On the pushback -- I think you could have used "transwoman" instead of "man" in the context. Out of some kind of respect. And this came after a discussion you were just involved with about the topic. If I am not mistaken. But I also understand what you are arguing. And I also understand that you can't be 100% correct all the time and always be living up to the standard of "absolutely perfect and absolutely up to date".Spiritual_Chaos said:
 Maybe your number one concern in that sport then should be that everyone should wear helmets?Ledbetterman10 said:
 Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt.Spiritual_Chaos said:the ”other women will be hurt” is a really weird argument to fall back on.
 because cis men can get very hurt by cis men too.
 But I take it you're feeling now that my premise is fine, but you don't like wording?
 The second thing. I just find the argument of "safety risks" being odd -- when it is about competition. And then shouldn't the argument start and stop with - the playing field is too different for it to be fair.0
- 
             
 "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0
- 
            
 I removed those and apologized.mrussel1 said:
 You missed the edited post where I was told "go fuck yourself" and Ledbetter was called a bigot. So yeah, shit went pretty side wise on a topic that could have been interesting.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
 Give it a fucking rest.ecdanc said:
 No, you didn't try. You're on the fucking internet. Look it up yourself before you say something offensive. You did not ask what term to use; you mocked the fact that there is a "woke" term. And in the process, you further diminished trans women by suggesting they are not "born female." Don't now try to play like you really care about the words you should use.Ledbetterman10 said:
 Typical. Even when I try to ask what term I can use instead of “regular” so that I can better myself and not be a bigot towards the LGBTQ community, I’m likened to a racist uncle. Oh well, I tried.ecdanc said:
 You remind me of my uncle: "well, when I was growing up we just called them [n-words]; how am I supposed to keep up with what they want to be called?"Ledbetterman10 said:
 I was waiting for that response. Like clockwork, I knew you’d have a problem with “regular” there. Sorry I don’t know the woke term for a female that’s born female and stays female. So I went with regular.ecdanc said:
 "Men who transition to women competing against regular women." We have a winner for the thread's most anti-trans statement!Ledbetterman10 said:
 You turned it this way. And video isn’t insulting to trans people. It’s a good satire of the insanity of men who transition to women competing against regular women in athletic competitions.ecdanc said:
 Must say I'm a little saddened by this turn in this thread.Ledbetterman10 said:A transwoman should complete in sports with the men. Her physical dynamics are that if a man’s, and she could hurt the “regular” women. (What’s the gender term you want there that won’t offend you?)
 In a few hours 135 unread? Like wth happened here. Did someone stumble into this topic with an extra MSG ticket?0
This discussion has been closed.
            Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 278 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help


 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URz-RYEOaig
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URz-RYEOaig

