The News Thread

he would be competing against men if not for the law. how is the law perfectly fine? and it's literally not scientific sound, a woman taking testosterone, if she wants to or is transitioning, will undoubtebdly be stronger than a woman without. there's literally no logic behind it

Yes but still much weaker than a man. Derpdyderp.
 
Joe Rogan ...

"She calls herself a woman but... I tend to disagree. And, uh, she, um... she used to be a man but now she has had, she's a transgender which is (the) official term that means you've gone through it, right? And she wants to be able to fight women in MMA? I say no f***ing way.

I say if you had a dick at one point in time, you also have all the bone structure that comes with having a dick. You have bigger hands, you have bigger shoulder joints. You're a f***ing man. That's a man, OK? You can't have... that's... I don't care if you don't have a dick any more..."
 
Joe Rogan ...

"She calls herself a woman but... I tend to disagree. And, uh, she, um... she used to be a man but now she has had, she's a transgender which is (the) official term that means you've gone through it, right? And she wants to be able to fight women in MMA? I say no f***ing way.

I say if you had a dick at one point in time, you also have all the bone structure that comes with having a dick. You have bigger hands, you have bigger shoulder joints. You're a f***ing man. That's a man, OK? You can't have... that's... I don't care if you don't have a dick any more..."

+

Fight guys, yes. She has to fight guys. First of all, she's not really a she. She's a transgender, post-op person. The operation doesn't shave down your bone density. It doesn't change. You look at a man's hands and you look at a women's hands and they're built different. They're just thicker, they're stronger, your wrists are thicker, your elbows are thicker, your joints are thicker. Just the mechanical function of punching, a man can do it much harder than a woman can, period.
 
Okay so you're one of those people that doesn't think a nation has it's identity? We definitely fundamentally disagree on this topic.

Well, as I've said multiple times on this forum, I'm critical of identity politics because it relies on a metaphysics of identity. I don't see why national identity doesn't do the same thing.
 
What part of any of those quotes is not true in your measly opinion?

do you even need to ask me? why even bother with this discussion? you're of the opinion that trans people are some abomination upon mankind and therefore cannot be reasoned with when it comes to things like this
 
Matt Mitirone ...

"Because she's not a he. He's a he," he said. "He's chromosomally a man. He had a gender change, not a sex change. He's still a man. He was a man for 31 years. Thirty-one years. That's a couple years younger than I am. He's a man. Six years of taking performance de-hancing drugs, you think is going to change all that? That's ridiculous.

"That is a lying, sick, sociopathic, disgusting freak," he continued. "And I mean that. Because you lied on your license to beat up women. That's disgusting. You should be embarrassed of yourself. And the fact that Florida licensed him because California licensed him or whoever the hell did it, it's an embarrassment to us as fighters, as a sport, and we all should protest that. The woman that's fighting him, props to you. I hope you beat his ass, and I hope he gets blackballed and never fights again, because that's disgusting and I'm appalled by that."

edit: +

Dana White .... "bone structure is different, hands are bigger, jaw is bigger, everything is bigger" and said "I don’t think someone who used to be a man and became a woman should be able to fight a woman.”

Ronda Rousey stated she would be willing to fight Fox, saying "I can knock out anyone in the world", although she believes Fox has male bone density and structure, leading to an unfair advantage.

@Mort Divine
 
that sentence is fine grammatically, I know you're scared of me now but no reason to resort to grammar nazi-isms

your google search should be "the effect of estrogen/testosterone on bone density in transitioning men/women" btw but you so smart etc etc
 
its his choice you authoritarian? gotta get rid of that SJW blood in ye

i really hate these conversations where the goal posts move every reply

I suppose it's SJW to not think it's okay for men to kick the shit out of women because they're on HRT and have pretty hair. :lol:

Also, biology is a thing you science denier.

joe rogan is the last person anyone should be listening to on any subject

fucking conspiracy theory nutjob

Ironic since you believe in conspiracy theories such as white supremacy, the patriarchy, rape culture etc. You're literally just as bad as any conspiracy theorist.

Also, I respect Joe's opinion on martial arts, physical health, etc, if anything.

Well, as I've said multiple times on this forum, I'm critical of identity politics because it relies on a metaphysics of identity. I don't see why national identity doesn't do the same thing.

It's not the same. For example, it's part of western identity (synonymous with culture) not to murder people for blasphemy. We're importing millions of people into the west that don't quite agree with this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dak
I know a day doesn't go by without me having to leave a conversation because everyone starts talking about how wonderful rape is. Almost like a Muslim country or something.
 
It's not the same. For example, it's part of western identity (synonymous with culture) not to murder people for blasphemy. We're importing millions of people into the west that don't quite agree with this.

Why isn't cultural identity the same thing as personal identity? Or, to be more specific, why doesn't identity work the same way in both cases?

When you say "it's part of Western identity," you're appealing to the same mechanics that inform a statement like "it's part of black identity" or "it's part of queer identity." The claims you're making might not be the same, but the identitarian foundation is.

Just to be clear, I do think that identity plays a measurable historical role--otherwise we wouldn't have movements like Civil Rights or Suffrage. And I also think there is such a thing as "Western identity" to the extent that Anglo-Americans and Western Europeans orbit a general sense of secularized (and in many cases non-secularized) Christian values, and that we tend to enjoy being able to promote nonviolence (although . I get skeptical, however, when we appeal to our sense of identity (and it is a sense, not an objective and stable essence) to justify exclusion.

Identity politics is grounded on the notion that identity is stable and consistent, that it is selective rather than obligatory, and that it corresponds to an interior source of selfhood. When we argue that national identity, or cultural identity, is unchanging and consistent, we're making the same claim. I've always been critical of the metaphysical assumptions that undergird such claims, so I don't see why I should admit purist appeals to "Western identity" when I don't think we can do the same for black or queer identities.
 
When you say "it's part of Western identity," you're appealing to the same mechanics that inform a statement like "it's part of black identity" or "it's part of queer identity." The claims you're making might not be the same, but the identitarian foundation is.

I don't agree. I see no connection beyond the same words being used. Care to explain how it's the same beyond the words?

Identity politics is grounded on the notion that identity is stable and consistent

I disagree with this, true identity is often much more fluid and evolving, which is why identity politics (as in, grouping people based on superficial differences) in regards to skin, sex, etc is so flawed, because you can't evolve out of being black or white. There is no culture that comes with having a brain in a coloured or white body.

There is however a culture or fluid identity that comes with a country that has a history etc.
 
Last edited: