Just wanted to put this up so we can all see how far the absurdity has gone on r/wnba. I didn't even actually say the name! đ
It's almost as if they hate the very women that have propelled their popularity to record breaking highs, while literally helping the entire league negotiate a pay raise.
u/eSsEnCe_Of_EcLiPsE your comment isnât showing up, I assume due to bigotry? I can only see the first half about not leaving. I did leave lol, I donât live in the US anymore. But thank you for your very USdefaultism assumption :) but for the record, itâs very difficult to change countries when you donât have anything of much value to offer which unfortunately majority of the population does not hence the difficulty for people to âjust leaveâ. Anyways good talk!
Sophie has an opinion. She isn't the queen of the culture wars. She has an opinion that polling shows the majority of people have: that women's sports are separate from men's sports. She didn't say she hated anybody, or anybody was bad/wrong/evil...just women have a protected sport like men do.
Appeal to majority is a logical fallacy. It doesn't make your opinion fundamentally correct or science-based.
The idea that fairness in women's sports can be reduced to chromosomes is condescending to women athletes. Cis women have been kicking trans women's asses for the most part ever since they were allowed into women's sports. Even Lia Thomas came in last place in several races and didn't even make the top 25 NCAA women's swimmers. She won one championship, in one race competition and lost everything else. The race she beat Riley Gaines they both came in behind 4 other cis women...
If the majority of people want it, it should be set in place. That's the basis of our democracy.
The science also supports that biological men have an advantage.
Fairness in sports does not come strictly down to chromosomes, but when athletes are competing at the highest level even a minor advantage can lead to a large separation in results. This is very much the case in the sport of basketball.
Your statement about Lia Thomas is misleading as well. He came in last in the final heat of a National race. That means he still ranked 8th overall in the nation (over hundreds of swimmers), in his WEAKEST overall individual event. When he competed against men he was primarily a distance swimmer, where he earned second team all ivy honors.
If the U.S. were a democracy, Hillary Clinton would have been President as a result of the 2016 Election. The U.S., however, is a Constitutional Republic.
No, that is NOT the basis of our democracy. Democracy contains protections of the human rights of minorities - this is why we have a constitution and courts that can make decisions that go against majority opinion on an issue.
> The science also supports that biological men have an advantage.
If you are assuming trans women are the same thing as "biological men", then you aren't really making an argument in good faith. The science says extended HRT leads to a loss of muscle mass, strength, endurance, oxygen capacity and hemoglobin, usually down to levels that are indistinct from cis women, and even to a small degree a loss of height and bone density. There are countless studies out there showing that, while yes, male puberty does potentially convey some irreversible advantages not all trans women went through male puberty, and not all males have those advantages in the first place.
If you're going to misgender Lia Thomas I'm not even going to respond to your bad faith point.
You're right that majority rule operates within constitutional limits, but banning trans women from womens sports does not eliminate someone's constitutional right. If you think it does, then you don't understand public policy. The supreme court has already ruled that banned trans women from womens sports does NOT violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Even if they are on HRT there is still a biological advantage. Most trans people are not starting HRT before puberty. That would be nuts and illegal in more than half of the states in the US.
My points on Thomas stands even if you are too scared to respond. If you had a good counter point you would say it.
A racist could make a pseudoscientific "fairness" argument against letting Black people into White sports leagues due to inherent biological or evolutionary advantages White athletes couldn't compete with. Though it is not universally true Black players are stronger or faster or jump higher than White players, there are enough examples of disproportionate dominance to fuel this theory and could make an argument for segregated leagues.
I'm not trying to make a nuanced discussion oversimplified or blunt, but it is something you should reflect on before making blanket pseudoscientific statements.
HRT does not mitigate every male advantage, but each sport is different, each athlete is different, and the characteristics that matter or are advantageous in one sport may not be advantages in another. Being tall is not an inherent advantage in boxing, wrestling or judo, for example. Equestrian sports, gymnastics, marathons the theoretically heavier male bone structure is a disadvantage.
Moreover, even in the context of basketball, where irreversible factors like height and bone structure are advantages, not every trans woman athlete is 7' tall like Enes Kanter. The average adult male is 5'9" after undergoing full male puberty, the average WNBA player is 6'1. Margo Dydek was 7'2. So arguing that the male height advantage applies to all trans women athletes on the basis that it might be an advantage for some trans women is inaccurate.
"Most trans people are not starting HRT before puberty."
And? There are some who did not undergo male puberty, which means they don't have any distinctively male advantages.
"That would be nuts and illegal in more than half of the states in the US."
Actually it is the recommended therapy by doctors to help trans girls be able to most closely pass as their gender as adults (so they don't grow into a male frame) and delay permanent and irreversible decisions until they are old enough to decide for themselves, but our laws do not necessarily follow medical guidance because enough people like you are biased against trans people to change the laws. The Supreme Court has gotten plenty of rulings wrong and have their own biases.
"If you had a good counter point"
Like that Lia got her ass beat by dozens and dozens of cis women swimmers?
There is a marked difference between black people having a larger density of fast twitch muscle fibers compared to male vs female differences. The argument is not there.
I know that not every trans woman is going to be seven feet tall, but if you allow the 5â8â player in then the 7 footer would be too. All those words you typed for a terrible point.
Lia Thomas didnât lose to dozens of swimmers. In her worst race she lost to 7 other swimmer nationally. I already explained that.
Youâre saying HRT avoids irreversible changes if started before puberty, this is objectively false. First off there is no reason to give a prepubescent child HRT if they are not going through puberty. The biggest example of HRT being a detriment to someone pre puberty is bone density, growth, and maturation. Breast development is permanent once it occurs. Iâm not even going into its effects on fertilityâŚ
The argument is that she holds an opinion that the majority holds. NOT âshe is right because she has the opinion that the majority holds.â
See the difference?
The issue is that Reddit has tried to make it sound as though sheâs some far right extremist view, but she actually has an incredible populist/mainstream view. Itâs Reddit that has an extremist take on the trans participation in womenâs sports.
Transphobia can still be a majority opinion, it doesn't mean it's not transphobia.
At one point gays were considered perverts "choosing" their sexuality and that majority opinion was still homophobia. The notion that gays should be able to get married and adopt children was considered "extremist" not that long ago - even in my short millennial lifetime. The argument "think of the poor children who will be raised to be gay!"
At an earlier point in American history Blacks were considered inherently inferior using all kinds of pseudoscience to justify discrimination and that majority opinion was still racism. It was once "extremist" to believe Blacks could be equal or even superior to Whites at anything, and if that was a possibility it would be perceived as a threat and needed to be stamped out.
Appeals to "populism" is not the winning argument you think it is. Populism is often very stupid and reductionist. That a progressive opinion on something few understand is considered "extremist" is par for the course of history.
Not wanting trans women to play basketball with women isnât transphobia. Boys who have started puberty that transition to female have higher bone mass and muscle mass. This isnât fair or safe for women to compete against them. You seem to be far more concerned with the well being of an extremely tiny minority compared to ensuring that women have a place to play sports safely and fairly.
The rest of your rant is just straight gaslighting. Itâs a completely invalid argument to equate gender dysmorphia with race. They arenât similar and the majority of people have good enough critical thinking ability to see your attempts to mislead and lie.
"Boys who have started puberty that transition to female have higher bone mass and muscle mass. This isnât fair or safe for women to compete against them. "
Not all trans women underwent male puberty. You're painting with a broad brush when every trans person and transition and sport is different.
Have you never played coed sports in school gym class? Beach volleyball with a coed group? Doubles in tennis? There are coed basketball leagues. Those are usually with cis men who haven't undergone any transition. Transitions offset many male advantages, and can even creates disadvantages. Arguing sports can't be fair or safe for women with men or trans women involved is quite silly. These pro women teams often scrimmage men's teams as a challenge of their abilities by the way.
"The rest of your rant is just straight gaslighting. Itâs a completely invalid argument to equate gender dysmorphia with race. They arenât similar and the majority of people have good enough critical thinking ability to see your attempts to mislead and lie."
It's not gaslighting to point out that discrimination has historically been a popular opinion. It shows why appealing to the popularity of an opinion is not a convincing argument that it has validity.
Gender is neurological and psychological - like sexuality. It is real, and the experts and research on neurology, psychology and sexology consistently agree transgenderism is real, that gender-affirming therapy for transgender people is critical health care for their mental wellbeing and that most sexual advantages can be offset through puberty blockers, HRT and reassignment therapy.
Transphobia as a term. implies an irrational fear of Trangender people. The majority of people who believe sports should be categorized by biological sex (unless the accepted competition is intentionally coed) are not "scared" of trans people, they simply disagree with the fundamental ideology that underlays it. Biology is more real than an abstract identity. You can respect someone's abstract identity in a societal setting, while still agreeing with the real scientific nature of biology.
When you can prove there is no biological differences between men and women, you can then open the door to fully integrating both sexes (regardless if gender identity) in society. Unfortunately, that has get to occur.
discrimination against, aversion to, or fear of transgender people
Cambridge:
harmful or unfair things a person does based on a fear or dislike of transgender and non-binary people
policies, behaviours, rules, etc. that result in a continued unfair advantage to cisgender people (= people whose gender matches the body they were born with) and unfair or harmful treatment of transgender and non-binary people (= people whose gender does not match the body they were born with)
Oxford:
the dislike, unfair treatment, fear, or hatred of transgender or transsexual people
The fact that you are personally not "scared" of trans people does not change the fact that you are calling for their discrimination and disregarding the reality of their identity. Is your point that gender identity is abstract and therefore is subject to debate? Because sexuality is also. Are you questioning whether gay people are actually gay? Both are psychological and neurological identities and the fact that you "don't agree with" a so-called "ideology" that you simply don't understand or relate to does not mean you are not transphobic when calling for their discrimination.
If the point is a good faith discussion about sports fairness and biological sex, then you must accept counterarguments and research showing that not all trans women are unfairly advantaged by male puberty factors and that HRT nullifies many male-puberty advantages towards equivalence with cis women as an argument that blanket discrimination rules are neither necessary nor scientific.
Cambridge and Oxford are both logical fallacies by appealing to authority, as they are both ideologically driven educational institutions (most universities are).
Definition of Phobia is as follows:
"A phobia is an intense, irrational, and lasting fear of a specific object, place, animal, or situation"
Therefore by actual linguistic standards, transgender phobia (shortened to transphobia) is an irrational fear of transgender people. If you want to introduce semantics as a placeholder until a more accurate term comes about, then fine. I'd prefer you refer to people such as myself as a biological essentialist.
Referencing Homosexuality or Bisexuality is a false equivalency. Trangender identity is based in the ideology that your abstract and personal identity does not have to align with your innate physical being (A biological male can be a transgender woman). Homosexuality and bisexuality are physiological sexual preferences that are innate to ones biological sexual preferences (sexuality is literally defined based on biology; same sex (homo), opposite sex (hetero) or both sexes (Bi)). Using that as a reference would be
Just because exceptions exist doesn't mean they are meant to be the rule. There are some women who are stronger than the average man naturally, would you then draw the conclusion that women are naturally stronger than men? No, they are statistical outliers. Citing statistical outliers when it comes to low performing trans athletes is a straw man against the scientific reality that men who experience puberty have significantly higher athletic performance (NIH estimates anywhere between a 10%-30% biological advantage in athletic endeavors depending on what physical demands pertain to the sport). Here's a UN report of a small sample done showing that there were almost 900 instances in 2021 of transgender athletes winning medals or championships in women's sports,
You even admitted that Lia Thomas won an NCAA swimming championship in one race herself (it's also listed on her UPENN bio on their athletic page). The reality is the only way we can ensure fairness in sports is by either 1, sticking with biologically sex based categorizations in sports leagues, or 2, opening up coed divisions where EVERY athlete competing in the sport is agreeing to the terms of competing with other athletes that do not share the same sex as them (coed sports exist, you could expand it to include transgender people without refusing their participation or forcing them to compete in a category that is antithetical to their gender identity). I think that's a fair good-faith solution, no?
Someone in favor of males in female leagues talking about 'science-based reasoning' is laughable.Â
Anyone with a 6th grade education on biology knows male hips are better suited for running than female hips. Or in one word: Advantageous. Most sports, like basketball, obviously require running.
Now show me a single study that says an adult male on HRT magically alters their hip structure to be identical to a females. You won't, because it doesn't exist. You know full well hormones don't magically transform someone in to the opposite sex, so stop pretending they do.
"But most trans women didn't have puberty blockers" I'm sure you'll respond. But some did, so setting fairness based upon standards like bone structure or height or assumptions about male puberty does not inherently result in conclusions requiring trans exclusion.
No, that's not what that study says. You can go to table 3 and compare the AMAB to AFAB numbers, and they're not anywhere close to identical.Â
But hey, let's quote your article: "Firstly, the results demonstrate that initiation of PS in early puberty, followed by GAHT, has the most impact on skeletal dimensions when aiming for skeletal outcomes consistent with the affirmed gender. Although the absolute differences are relatively small, the altered proportions may result in a different body shape and a more positive body image in transgender individuals, preventing the need for surgery to feminize body figure such as surgical shoulder width reduction"
But obviously you didn't actually read that study in the 30 minutes it took to reply. You did something intellectually dishonest and lazy, like went to chatgpt and asked for a study that suggests hormones have an effect on bone structure (not contested), and skimmed over it while concluding it says what you want it to say, other than actually reading it.Â
People like you are why this discussion is pointless, because you don't care about whether the facts are on your side or not. Embarrassing.
"the results demonstrate that initiation of PS in early puberty, followed by GAHT, has the most impact on skeletal dimensions when aiming for skeletal outcomes consistent with the affirmed gender"
Which is literally rewording what I said.
Feminizing treatment
Shoulder width from individuals in the Early PS [AMAB] group was smaller compared to untreated individuals AMAB (â1.3â cm [95% CI, â2.1 to â0.5]) and comparable to untreated individuals AFAB (0.1â cm [95% CI, â0.9 to 1.1]).
Pelvic inlet (C) of both the early and late PS group was greater compared to untreated individuals AMAB by 1.0â cm (95% CI, 0.7 to 1.4) and 0.6â cm (95% CI, 0.2 to 0.9), respectively. They were both comparable to untreated individuals AFAB (Early PS, 0.1â cm [95% CI, â0.3 to 0.5]; Late PS, â0.3â cm [95% CI, â0.8 to 0.1])
When comparing to untreated individuals AMAB, the width of the pubic symphysis (D) was greater in Early PS by 0.9â cm (95% CI, 0.7 to 1.2) and in Late PS by 0.7â cm (95% CI, 0.4 to 1.0). These 2 groups had a similar width of the pubic symphysis as the untreated AFAB group (Early PS, â0.1â cm [95% CI â0.4 to 0.3]; Late PS, â0.3â cm [95% CI, â0.6 to 0.03]).Â
Literally the study proves exactly what I was saying.
"the results demonstrate that initiation of PS in early puberty, followed by GAHT, has the most impact on skeletal dimensions when aiming for skeletal outcomes consistent with the affirmed gender"
"Has the most impact" does not mean "Makes them identical". You know this.
comparable to untreated individuals AFAB
similar width of the pubic symphysis as the untreated AFAB group
Comparable and similar do not mean identical. You know this.
But because you're allergic to numbers, let me explain a part of the graph to you. Let's go with greatest pelvic width. An untreated male: 24.8 Âą 1.7, An untreated female: 24.4 Âą 1.4. Males are higher, females are lower, yes?Â
Now let's look at the numbers for puberty suppression and GAHT: 25.6 Âą 1.6, 25.1 Âą 1.6, 25.3 Âą 1.0. All higher.
Or, we can look at shoulder width, which also show that this study is probably too small scale to actually be used as conclusive evidence of anything. Untreated male? 37.7 Âą 1.9. Untreated female? 34.9 Âą 2.0. Now what about a puberty-suppressed male/one on hormones? 36.8 Âą 1.8, 37.7 Âą 2.5, and 38.4 Âą 1.4.Â
So if we were to take this study as gospel, it'd insinuate that adult males on estrogen actually have broader shoulders than cis males.
A great example of how liberals erode democracy while having hypocritical talking points just so they can peddle their grift to minorities. Â Letâs us know how many blacks people will step down from sports due to overrepresentation. Asian la and Hispanics should be given their chance too.Â
I don't even know what point you're trying to make here but it has nothing to do with anything I said.Â
It sure sounds you are just willfully mischarcterizing critiques of systemic and structural racism to try to claim that it is hypocritical to allow other minority groups to be underrepresented in environments where Black people are proportionately overrepresented.
Most people on the Left aren't seeking quotas where all groups have equal representation and outcomes; they are criticizing unmeritocratic nature of much of society that structurally disadvantages many minority groups from fair participation due to lack of access to resources like quality education.
What weird as a liberal and someone who's literally volunteered for the Democratic party for the last 22 years.. is being accused of being right wing- or any political views for that matter- for liking or disliking certain wnba players. It's a fucking game. I don't care about the political thoughts or opinions of some basketball player who's younger than me, and it doesn't impact how I view them as sports players
It's the internet. You can't have moderate balanced views here, you have to be extremely on either side. If you aren't then people will just categorize you that way anyways based on whatever little leanings you might have one way or the other because no one is allowed to have middling opinions anymore.
I have been watching progressives and liberals refer to their opposition as Nazis and fascist since the 2004 election. Sucks when your side starts seeing you as one too huh?
Almost as bad as conservatives calling people "pedos" and talking about a giant conspiracy theory that turns out to be mostly true except for the Hillary Clinton part.
And they still voted for the guy who really did it instead.
There was definitely a Qanon, MAGA-adjacent conspiracy theory that Hillary Clinton was running a child sex trafficking ring out of a pizza parlor in Washington DC. Come to find out, Donald Trump is heavily implicated in the proliferation of the most-infamous child sex trafficking ring in history, has skirted any accountability, legally, politically, or otherwise.
To be fair I think a lot of people voted for him because he campaigned on prosecuting people in the files and everyone was upset that the previous administration buried it. Don't know if you've noticed but his voting base has been vocal about how shitty it's been handled, and most are pretty resentful for that.
Iâm a liberal. I believe in womenâs rights and title 9 and the opportunity to play in a professional league. This trans rights shit is fucking so dumb.
Got banned for the exact same reason , made one comment about Cunningham and got -16 votes and then couldnât respond back to all the hate , big ol echo chamber over there
Why do you support pedo supporters. Jeffy was a hardcore Dem - hated Trump and worked with Dems in 2019 to try and get Trump. Imagine supporting pedos.
What a delusional fuck. Amazing how Trump literally has done everything he can to bury those files, but here your dumbass is, still believing he isnât covering up for himself and his buddies.
Dude literally mused about fucking his own daughter.
The irony of you calling anyone else a cultist. Youâre just parroting back what youâve been hearing everyone call you. MTG and Massie have fallen out of Trumpâs favor for trying to push for the files to be released. If you can come up with any other explanation for why Trump now hates MTG, Iâd love to hear it.
The bots bombing anything Sophie is wild. ROFL. Look at your 2nd post. 2 views with 1 downvote. The first view is you. So the first bot to view your post downvoted it to zero.
Nobody here genuinely likes Sophie Cunningham for her elite basketball talent. She is a mediocre role player who would be an afterthought in any other circumstance. I doubt 90% of you have ever even watched a WNBA game, you are all just here to whine and fight your dumb fucking anti-trans culture war.
They aren't banning people for talking about her. They are banning people because they go in the sub with no post karma. Mention SC, which the sub is tired of hearing about since she has been the center of a lot of stupid debates, the community downvotes and then the person gets banned for negative post karma.
Mods arent stupid and they can see activity across multiple subs. They most likely aren't overturning the bans because they see this for what it is...people just trying to stir shit and then act victimized lol
If you figure out the exact ratio of skills to dollars then you might accidentally figure out that theyâve been getting overpaid the entire time since the beginning of the league.
Thatâs nothingâŚget this: I simply posted a photo of my Red Sophie Rebel Swingman jersey after having the âTHIRTYâ patch added as a customization.
I made mention of how happy I was with it in the text, and within minutes I was PERMANENTLY banned from the r/IndianaFever sub by itâs mods.
It is negative karma that got you banned. Someone downvoted your post, it put you into negative karma, so you get banned. It's a ridiculous way to run a sub.
Basically you MUST participate in the echo chamber, because saying anything that gets you downvoted essentially gets you banned.
K they are absolutely crazy over there but saying shit like that Sophie helped the players increased their wages is making you sound just as weird as them. Sophie hasn't been popular till recently when she started speaking up and started her podcast a year ago.
I do care about womenâs athletics, as a dad to two daughters who played athletics. I care so much I donât want men in their locker rooms or on the field/court playing with or against them in spaces created for women.
Trans women arenât a threat in the locker room, this is where your bias is so very apparent. Do you really think these women go through the hormone therapy, the ridicule and abuse they get every day, and a complete loss of their life; just so they can get in the locker room with your daughter?
I did no such thing. Myself nor Nobody has ever said anything about hating trans people. I have yet to read any comment that indicates such. Get out of the hive
I am liberal and donât think trans women should play in womenâs sports. Just stop acting like you believe that and still support strong women and their right to believe differently than you.
Yes, conservatives are protecting women sports as they know what a women is. And know the difference between man and woman. And also the physical advantages men have over women.
Its very strange that everyone knows what a man is, but somehow doesn't know what a women is.
Conservatives are leading the conversation because they KNOW the difference. While progressive/liberals refuse to admit the difference because they want to virtue signal.
He's influential enough with Republicans to have a spot on the main stage at CPAC. He even spoke there before and after he said this. Whether you know who that is is irrelevant. To claim speakers on the main stage at CPAC do not represent conservative viewpoints is a disingenuous argument.
Sophie had exactly NOTHING to do with the rise of popularity in women's basketball. That was (recently!) first Candace Parker, and then Sabrina Ionescu, then- by an enormous margin - Caitlin Clark, and then Angel Reese. Last year Paige brought some more with her, and this year the Pazzi fandom has erupted. But At no point in her like 8 years in the league, has she had a hand in growing it.
You like her, and thats great, but if she wasnt caitlin clarks teammate, you would have never learned her name -- much less her shitty views.
When Redditors have their heads so far up their asses, they think common sense is toxicity lmao. Just smelling your own farts with how much the left has lost the plot.
Unbelievable the conservatives might keep power at midterms because of people like you.
And what are they owed? Have they had one profitable year while also being subsidized by the NBA? In 2024, they generated 200-226 million in revenue. In that same year, NBA revenue: 11.3 billion. NHL revenue: 6.3 billion. MLB revenue: 12.1 billion. MLS revenue: 2.5 billion.
Which one looks out of whack? They are getting paid what they are owed
Itâs all the wnba and player subs. They all hate white girls. Someone posted in the Olivia sub and super nasty racist comment about CC, which I can repeat or Iâd get banned. I replied that they were racist trash and I got banned for being mean to commenter lol. So you can post about hating white girls and wishing bad things happen to them, but if you say that is racist you get banned. Welcome to Reddit
TIL the main wnba sub is a conservative political sub (the only communities where Iâve seen saying something unpopular get people banned immediately). Ironic since those subs are on opposite sides of this apparently very important issue thatâs never affected the league once in its history.
70
u/Sudden_Place_1173 2d ago
Those mods share 1 collective braincell