• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

NY Times Poll: Large Majority of DEMOCRATS Oppose Transgenders in Women's Sports

Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
665
I strongly suspected this was the case, based on my conversations with Democrats whom I know. A recent New York Times poll has found that a large majority of Democrats oppose allowing transgender athletes to compete in female sports. In the poll, a whopping 67% of Democrats said they oppose allowing males who identify as females to compete in female sports.

Among the Republicans who participated in the poll, 94% said they oppose transgender athletes in female sports.

Overall, 79% of the 2,000-plus respondents in the poll said they oppose transgender athletes in female sports. 1,025 Democrats took part in the poll. 1,022 Republicans took part in the poll. 81 Independents took part in the poll, 64% of whom said they oppose transgender participation in female sports.

NYT poll finds majority of Democrats oppose transgender athletes in women's sports

As I've said many times, woke liberals have overreached and badly miscalculated on this issue. The propaganda games they used to normalize homosexuality and same-sex marriage just are not working when it comes to transgenders in female sports, letting biological males use female restrooms, pushing to let minors get transgender drugs and surgery (with or without parental consent), etc. Most people instinctively know that minors simply are in no position to be choosing to get their genitals irreversibly mutilated, even if their parents are sick enough to let them do it.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for reminding us this is just a first step to rolling back marriage equality.

What's your opinion on Loving v Virginia?
 
Could this seriously not go under one of the other trans threads, or even the "Democrats are out of touch", etc. threads out there? Also, why the ◊◊◊◊ is democrats capitalized? Furthermore, why do Democrat opinions matter more, which is what I'm getting from this thread? For all the bitching, moaning, and griping from those on the right (like the OP), why even bother addressing what Dems think? Since when did NYT become respectable to the right-wing?
 
So attitudes on transgender men in women's sports alone is a yardstick for all things transgender. Ok, then.

How about transgender women in mens' sports? Or in trans sports? Or in individual sports? What about mountain climbing, or chess, or darts? Where gender is irrelevant.

What about transgenders in politics? Or business? Or the arts? Or any other pursuit where gender is irrelevant.

Mike, why don't you just openly admit you know nothing about transgenderism, and you are perfectly happy to denigrate it on that basis. Nobody will think any different about you.
 
Maybe if the DNC had been more attentive to what their voters thought about this, they wouldn't have lost so many votes. Maybe the NYT is calling this out, in a too little too late kind of way.
 
Maybe if the DNC had been more attentive to what their voters thought about this, they wouldn't have lost so many votes. Maybe the NYT is calling this out, in a too little too late kind of way.
I read the survey. It's so biased it's laughable. In the form of "Would you rather strangle grandma or vote for Trump. Agree? Disagree?"
 
Maybe if the DNC had been more attentive to what their voters thought about this, they wouldn't have lost so many votes. Maybe the NYT is calling this out, in a too little too late kind of way.
True. Too many Democrats took the bait and went around yelling "I DON'T WANT BOYS IN GIRL SPORTS!" instead of calling it out for the distraction it is and actually pushing through things like expanding Medicare and Medicaid, higher taxes on the wealthy, and more labor protections irrespective of donor approval.
 
So attitudes on transgender men in women's sports alone is a yardstick for all things transgender. Ok, then.
I thought they wanted Trans Men in women's sports like how they have to use the women's bathrooms in states that passed anti trans bathroom laws.
 
I'm on the fence about this because it implies that ANY man can beat ANY woman in ANY sport.


-
 
Maybe if the DNC had been more attentive to what their voters thought about this, they wouldn't have lost so many votes. Maybe the NYT is calling this out, in a too little too late kind of way.
Admittedly I did not give as much attention to this past election, but I cannot remember the Harris campaign putting any significant effort into pushing "pro-trans" policies during the election. (They may have had it buried deep in some policy document, but the ones that seemed to be making the most noise about it were the republicans.

Much like the "war on christmas", the republicans managed to take a non-issue that was based on bogus arguments that didn't really have an impact on anyone's lives, and turned it into a campaign issue.

Democrats: "Lets talk about the economy and other critical issues"
Republicans: "But what about the penis?"
1 month later...
Republicans: "See the democrats are pushing the trans issue down our throats!"
 
I'm on the fence about this because it implies that ANY man can beat ANY woman in ANY sport.


-
We have over a century of competitive sports data that supports this conclusion. There are other lines of evidence as well.

Besides, most male leagues are open leagues. Any woman who believes she can succeed in the NBA is welcome to try out. There's no need to send men to the WNBA just because they'd rather compete against women.
 
We have over a century of competitive sports data that supports this conclusion. There are other lines of evidence as well.

Besides, most male leagues are open leagues. Any woman who believes she can succeed in the NBA is welcome to try out. There's no need to send men to the WNBA just because they'd rather compete against women.


I'm sure Bobby Riggs thought that too.


-
 
Last edited:
In the poll, a whopping 67% of Democrats said they oppose allowing males who identify as females to compete in female sports.


As I've said many times, woke liberals have overreached and badly miscalculated on this issue.

Just to clarify, you think 67% of Democrats are right on this issue, but "woke liberals" are wrong?
 
I'm sure Bobby Riggs thought that too.


-
Against Margerat, Billie, and Tracey who have a combined 40 grand slam singles titles, he was one for three.

And having eventually achieved a 4.0 USTA rating, I am not undefeated against the women.

We have over a century of competitive sports data that supports this conclusion. There are other lines of evidence as well.

Besides, most male leagues are open leagues. Any woman who believes she can succeed in the NBA is welcome to try out. There's no need to send men to the WNBA just because they'd rather compete against women.
Not in support of any man being able to beat any woman in any sport.
 
I see the OP has moved on from trying to prove that FDR was behind the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor.
 
But certainly in support of competitive athletes at any level post-puberty have a distinct and pretty insurmountable divide.

I think Amy's surmise is moot. Even if some women can beat some men at some sports, that doesn't justify mandating that men be allowed to compete against women simply because that's what they'd prefer. The data overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that such would be a bad idea.

The hypothesis that some notional woman could swim faster than Lia Thomas when he's going all out doesn't justify mandating that Lia Thomas be allowed to compete as a woman in the NCAA.
 
Last edited:
But certainly in support of competitive athletes at any level post-puberty have a distinct and pretty insurmountable divide.

I think Amy's surmise is moot. Even if some women can beat some men at some sports, that doesn't justify mandating that men be allowed to compete against women simply because that's what they'd prefer. The data overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that such would be a bad idea. The hypothesis that some notional woman could swim faster than Lia Thomas when he's going all out doesn't justify mandating that Lia Thomas be allowed to compete as a woman in the NCAA.


I'd like to see the data on how many trans actually beat how many women in ANY sport, otherwise your point is also moot.


-
 
Last edited:
I'd like to see data on how many trans athletes there are across all sports so we can understand the severity of this Very Important Issue. I'm sure it's a staggering number.
 
I'd like to see the data on how many trans actually beat how many women in ANY sport, otherwise your point is also moot.


-
How many males beat how many females, you mean? There's no reason to discount Serena Williams' loss to a middling male pro tennis player, just because he didn't identify as a woman for the match.

Here's another one:


Lia Thomas has been brought up more than once.

There are many more. How much data do you need?
 
It's really not just that men are biologically stronger and faster than woman (though, apparently, really long-distance running women come out on top), it's that these ringer male athletes get themselves into women's changing rooms and other private spaces. Quite understandable why women wouldn't want them there.
 
How many males beat how many females, you mean? There's no reason to discount Serena Williams' loss to a middling male pro tennis player, just because he didn't identify as a woman for the match.

Here's another one:


Lia Thomas has been brought up more than once.

There are many more. How much data do you need?


Make decisions based on two data points is insufficient at best.

After all, we've got over a century of competitive sports data that supports the conclusion that ANY male can beat ANY female in ANY sport.

I think it would only be fair to have the same amount of data for a real conclusion, or at least half that anyway.


-
 
Here's a broad table of gender versus sport participation. So far, some people are getting hot under the collar for just one of 20 very general combinations. There's PLENTY of others that raise questions.

SPORT PARTICIPATIONMaleFemale
Trans male​
Trans female​
Other​
Male sports​
?​
?​
?​
?​
?​
Female sports​
?​
?​
?
?​
?​
Gender-irrelevant sports​
?​
?​
?​
?​
?​
No sport​
?​
?​
?​
?​
?​
 
Thanks for reminding us this is just a first step to rolling back marriage equality.
Is that why the woke left wants to ruin women's sports and force females to compete against biological males, because you think that protecting women's sports will somehow lead to rolling back "marriage equality"? I must admit: that's a new one for me. I've watched and read a lot of woke defenses of this insanity, but you're the first person I've seen who says that protecting women's sports may lead to ending gay marriage.

And, just to be factual, "marriage quality" is an erroneous euphemism for changing the definition of marriage to include unions that civilization had long regarded as unhealthy and unnatural.
 
Is that why the woke left wants to ruin women's sports and force females to compete against biological males, because you think that protecting women's sports will somehow lead to rolling back "marriage equality"? I must admit: that's a new one for me. I've watched and read a lot of woke defenses of this insanity, but you're the first person I've seen who says that protecting women's sports may lead to ending gay marriage.

And, just to be factual, "marriage quality" is an erroneous euphemism for changing the definition of marriage to include unions that civilization had long regarded as unhealthy and unnatural.
Just for the record, what is YOUR definition of "woke"? And don't give examples like "a lefty did something I didn't like", give a genuine definition.
 
Is that why the woke left wants to ruin women's sports and force females to compete against biological males, because you think that protecting women's sports will somehow lead to rolling back "marriage equality"?

There is no universe in which I am stupid enough to believe you people give a piker's ◊◊◊◊ about women's sports.
I must admit: that's a new one for me. I've watched and read a lot of woke defenses of this insanity, but you're the first person I've seen who says that protecting women's sports may lead to ending gay marriage.
You literally brought up going too far with gay marriage.

The propaganda games they used to normalize homosexuality and same-sex marriage
That's you. You said that in your opening post.
And, just to be factual, "marriage quality" is an erroneous euphemism for changing the definition of marriage to include unions that civilization had long regarded as unhealthy and unnatural.
And there you go hammering my point home.
 
None of this is particularly surprising. Of the people I know, there is only one person who thinks that trans women should compete in women's sports. Even my LGBT friends who vocally support trans rights and put pronouns on their social media profiles draw the line at sports. (And locker rooms.)

The problem is that these debates are defined by the extremes. Politicians and political parties tend to be reactionary. They will appease the loudest voices in fear of alienating their base even though those voices don't actually represent the majority.

One of the unfortunate effects of having as system that really only supports two parties is that every issue gets divided in a binary. Because of the binary choice, both parties are really not monoliths, but coalitions. But over the past twenty years or so I've seen pushes for "purity" within the parties, which tends to mute the diversity of opinion and intra-party debate and compromise.
 
Thank God !
If we don't stop the millions of transgender athletes in women' sports it's doubtful that the sun will come back the next morning.
I'm shocked. I thought it was billions. Just like the hairy men with dangling penises in women's locker rooms. I think they counted more than eight billion at last count.

All I can do in the meantime is shake my head in how much time and effort people put into this largelly artificial debate and divide, all mostly just to spread fear and hate, and to give people a tiny and vulnerable minority to kick down on.
 
I'm on the fence about this because it implies that ANY man can beat ANY woman in ANY sport.
We have over a century of competitive sports data that supports this conclusion. There are other lines of evidence as well.
Note that the original poster talked about "any" man beating "any" woman.

That men have an advantage in sports that require strength, size, etc. is not in dispute. But that doesn't mean "the man would automatically win".

Of course a person who is genetically taller has an advantage over someone who is a dwarf in basketball. A person who was born with full sight has an advantage over someone who was born blind when it comes to all sports. Should we force all athletes to conform to some maximum standard just to make things 'fair'?
Besides, most male leagues are open leagues. Any woman who believes she can succeed in the NBA is welcome to try out. There's no need to send men to the WNBA just because they'd rather compete against women.
This is perhaps the crux of the problem... the insinuation that "a random man can just walk in and dominate a woman's sport".

I suspect any competitive organization (be it the WNBA, or olympics, or college association) is not going to just let some random guy walk in and start competing against women. They will likely require at least some evidence that the person in question truly identifies as a woman. (e.g. had doctors consultations going back a significant length of time, possibly undergoing hormone treatment or had surgery, etc.) In other words, something that would require a major commitment in terms of time and resources in order to be allowed to compete.
 
Last edited:
I suspect any competitive organization (be it the WNBA, or olympics, or college association) is not going to just let some random guy walk in and start competing against women. They will likely require at least some evidence that the person in question truly identifies as a woman. (e.g. had doctors consultations going back a significant length of time, possibly undergoing hormone treatment or had surgery, etc.) In other words, something that would require a major commitment in terms of time and resources in order to be allowed to compete.


Personally, IMO, I believe if Sue Bird (Seattle Storm, WNBA) went up against Larry Bird (Boston Celtics, NBA), she'd be able to hold her own, but that's just my opinion. Your mileage may vary of course.


-
 

Back
Top Bottom