Originally Posted by thevillages2013 (Post 2084349)

Well first it was Nike. Threw away or gave to charity all all my Nike stuff including a golf bag and would never buy anything with a swoosh on it again. Now Adidas is running a commercial pushing transgender women in sports.
Pretty soon I will be barefoot

Originally Posted by OhioBuckeye (Post 2084693)

Didn’t know that about Adidas, thanks for that information! Thanks to our legal system & society. I never wore a Nike shoe only because Colin Kaepernick is there non American kneeling flag & military hater. Can’t believe we allow Nike into our country. As a matter of fact anything China made & yea I know 90% of everything we buy is made in China. Maybe that’s why China is way ahead of the U.S.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2084696)

9 pages on this subject already? A lot of these high emotion threads seem (to me) to be saying......things WERE not this way in my day ..... things have changed .......and I resent these changes.

Originally Posted by Garywt (Post 2084431)

I have seen the commercial, it is not just transgender but covers all women. I just don’t agree that former men should be able to compete against women no matter what they wear.

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC (Post 2084442)

No reason my dollars should support a company that treat women so unfairly.

Men should not be able to compete against women in a womens sport.

Originally Posted by LAFwUs (Post 2084456)

..and yet is being celebrated as being the "first black woman" on the supreme court.
oh, the irony.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2084718)

I agree with the 2nd sentence. But, I also realize that we are NOT talking about a SIMPLE black and white issue here. Times have changed and GENDER is now much more fluid than in ....say 1950. There are more medical treatments that can alter the original testosterone production of a young male .......to the point of being compliant with the rules of say......the Olympics Committee. I imagine that it must be very complex and put a large and newer burden on Sports Officials to make the determination of GENDER. And the end result/determination will NEVER PLEASE everyone!
......... Since gender fluidity has changed in our lifetimes, imagine (if you will) the future......like in 2100........Gender could mean something very different. Humans may have the capability to change GENDER every 2 years if they desire. Or maybe they could wake up in the morning and say, "today I think I feel like a boy". So, they go into a shower-like area and turn a dial to.......boy. Sounds like a good plot for a science fiction book?

Originally Posted by Petersweeney (Post 2084477)

Nike likes to get good social credit scores for sole purpose of stock value on Wall Street…race, gender….”equity” It’s all projection….they do something and accuse you of doing it…….you think they give a crap about humans….they moved their factories from China to other slave labor countries for profit….90% of all “American “ companies “just “ do it…… and we all love shopping at Walmart …. This is the middle of the slippery slope of global corporate domination…. Equity is also a distraction that is hiding the real quest of taking away personal freedoms….speech , privacy and the nuclear family unit…..China did this - Russia is almost there and we are next….

Originally Posted by Chiefhyde (Post 2084716)

TOTALLY AGREE - it certainly is not fair at all to women sports

If you were born as a male and now decide you are really a women - fine - but it is beginning to look like some people are using this to gain an advantage . Same thing if a man transitions to a women and goes to jail - he should be in a male prison

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2084718)

I agree with the 2nd sentence. But, I also realize that we are NOT talking about a SIMPLE black and white issue here. Times have changed and GENDER is now much more fluid than in ....say 1950. There are more medical treatments that can alter the original testosterone production of a young male .......to the point of being compliant with the rules of say......the Olympics Committee. I imagine that it must be very complex and put a large and newer burden on Sports Officials to make the determination of GENDER. And the end result/determination will NEVER PLEASE everyone!
......... Since gender fluidity has changed in our lifetimes, imagine (if you will) the future......like in 2100........Gender could mean something very different. Humans may have the capability to change GENDER every 2 years if they desire. Or maybe they could wake up in the morning and say, "today I think I feel like a boy". So, they go into a shower-like area and turn a dial to.......boy. Sounds like a good plot for a science fiction book?

Originally Posted by John Mayes (Post 2084483)

The pay equity in professional sports is simply economic. When women’s sports generate the revenue that men’s sports do, women will get paid the same as men.

Originally Posted by thevillages2013 (Post 2084491)

When Adidas runs a commercial repeatedly about transgender women in sports it goes toward normalizing it which is wrong. You as a woman should be against a man competing in women’s sports.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2084444)

I don't think men playing mens' sports should be allowed to earn more than women in womens' sports. I don't think a man OR a woman should earn more in a professional sport than a teacher, or a nurse, or a truck driver. It won't stop me from buying whatever the heck I want to buy.

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC (Post 2084521)

One day when you have some time read a book about economics or even learn something about how capitalism works.

And what is stopping you from buying whatever you desire.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2084740)

The "which is wrong" part is judgmental. It is a judgment based on ideas from the 1950s. The world has moved on to more GENDER FLUIDITY. Our own medical expert has explained all of this in a prior post.

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe (Post 2084541)

The complexity is in the nature of what can go wrong, the possibilities of maladjustments , biological, phycological are of course endless. The reason for the genetic differences, male/female has been shown to offer great advantages as has been shown by many millions of years of evolution, and clearly those differences have a profound, pervasive effect that can not be wished away. It is not hate or intolerance to state a fact

Originally Posted by spd2918 (Post 2084516)

Companies should stay out of politics. Pandering to a small group of radicals (whatever the issue) will cost them profits.

Get woke, go broke.

Originally Posted by JMintzer (Post 2084730)

Altering testosterone levels in an adult has ZERO effect on the physiological changes that have already occurred if the transition occurs after puberty...

And that is what is happening...

Originally Posted by JMintzer (Post 2084601)

Yes... But high tops don't really do anything as far as ankle protection goes...

Originally Posted by JMintzer (Post 2084620)

Oh, I used to have my pic in my profile...

It's just that my dog is much cuter than I am...

And who says you're not a bigot?


P.S. YOU'RE opinion doesn't count...

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2084740)

The "which is wrong" part is judgmental. It is a judgment based on ideas from the 1950s. The world has moved on to more GENDER FLUIDITY. Our own medical expert has explained all of this in a prior post.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2084736)

It's much more than that. Billy Gene King in tennis proved that. As a society moves forward it CONFERS THE BLESSING of freedom onto its 2nd class citizens.........because of race or because of being women. At this point in history, the US should move FORWARD toward equal pay for women in sports and everywhere. Or we could go "Handmaiden's Tale" back to burkas and women not being allowed to drive cars. That is unlikely but, it is done now in Afghanistan and the US has some responsibility for that pathetic development. GENDER issues are important issues worldwide!
.........It would be nice if mothers and female power put a stop to autocracy in Russia soon!

Originally Posted by billethkid (Post 2084621)

Given the extremely small percentage of the total population I do not view the participating companies as "marketing" anything.
They are promoting a specific attribute of the special interest group to the masses.

Therein lies the core problem.....pandering to the special interest groups ignoring/trampling the rights of the majority.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2084761)

Good choice the dog IS cute. And he does NOT even look opinionated.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2084742)

Capitalism has plenty of flaws. It just beats out all the other systems.

Originally Posted by JMintzer (Post 2084622)

The "whataboutism" is strong in this one...

Originally Posted by DrBrutyle109 (Post 2084741)

Men make more because sponsors are willing to pay more. A lot of woman’s sports don’t draw the TV revenue. That’s not anyones fault. As far as a teacher needs to make more……where would the money come from. Maybe they can wear clothes with sponsors on them. Your comparison is just off base

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2084744)

Well, I have enjoyed your posts on this topic (as well as others). But, I will take a slight exception here, the "1950's". Today's changes and opinions about sexuality, privilege, etc. are engrained based on thousands (if not millions of years) of male dominance. Originally for some reason, humans split responsibilities between males and females.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2084750)

Very true today, time marches on and technology improves. No telling what tomorrow will bring. If there is money to be made, someone will make it. Morals, ethics, and religious beliefs all take a back seat to profits in our society.

Not saying that is a good thing, actually, I believe it is a bad thing, it just is what it is.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2084753)

This thread seems to be about a couple of things - only loosely related.

As far as the problem of sports, I have for a long time thought the "solution" to this whole drug/sex/enhanced thing was pretty simple. Just follow the drag racing model - pure stock, modified, and super modified.

I seem to recall that prosthetics are no longer allowed - like running leg replacements because real legs can no longer compete. Hmmm, seems like a modified class would solve that.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2084626)

So how would you feel if a woman with a significant physical advantage over other women, due to being born (a physically amazing gene pool) as a woman, wanted to compete with other women?

Or hm - a woman with prodigial hand-eye coordination, that most golfers lack, competing in womens' golf against other women who don't have that prodigial hand-eye coordination?

Should Tiger Woods have been rejected from pro-golf because he has a significant biological advantage over other golfers (golf is both a physical and mental sport, and he mastered it from both ends, something others COULD NOT DO)?

How about [insert name] the pro-football running back who can do whatever the heck he does better than any other football player due to his physicality? Should he be disqualified so that lesser men can have a chance at winning?

A woman with naturally broad-shouldered frame and narrow hips will have a much higher shot at being a championship swimmer than a woman with narrow shoulders and wider hips. Should that broad-shouldered woman not be permitted to compete?

People are both however they're born, and their physicality doesn't prevent them from competing. In fact, often it's their physicality that allows them to win. Do we tell those with superior physicality that they're no longer allowed to compete because it's not fair to those with less superior physicality? No, no we don't. In fact, we applaud it, and pay them the winning prize for it.

UNTIL you start talking about something that you don't understand or fear. Then it's a bad thing. Physical traits becomes taboo, no longer permitted. THIS physical trait will ruin the game, it gives everyone else an unfair advantage.

Maybe they should just check testosterone levels. If your levels are on par with the levels of the rest of the people on your team, then you can play. If they're not, you can't. No matter what your DNA says you are. A man with super-low testosterone levels as a result of genetic mutation, should be able to compete on the womens' team. In fact, change the names. No more womens' teams and no more mens' teams. Make it Hi-T and Low-T.

You want it to be fair, then go down that road instead. The presence or absence of a ***** or vagina doesn't mean diddly, except in the case of reproduction and whether or not it's easy to pee standing up.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2084757)

High tops make a fashion statement. They are practical, comfortable, and WAY cool!

Originally Posted by wamley (Post 2084639)

To a great extent Professional sport salaries are a refections of the amount of money that it brings into the owners and the organization that runs them. Women sports are just not not viewed or produce near the same revenue that men sports do. Example, there are no professional football teams and their basketball teams suffer from revemue short falls. I guess you could put this inder natural selection, not because of prejudice.

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC (Post 2084649)

Silly me thought we were talking about differences between males and females. So now you want to complicate it by talking about some males are stronger than other males and vice versa?

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2084744)

Well, I have enjoyed your posts on this topic (as well as others). But, I will take a slight exception here, the "1950's". Today's changes and opinions about sexuality, privilege, etc. are engrained based on thousands (if not millions of years) of male dominance. Originally for some reason, humans split responsibilities between males and females.

The 2 sex model is primarily a religious doctrine and not so much a scientific one, and with between 65% and 90% (depending on which poll you believe) of Americans believing there is a God, it is not surprising that sexual fluidity is on an uphill path, that there is significant resistance to that change.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2084778)

It is more like a social phenomenon (male-dominated sports) that has lasted past its real usefulness. Society changes slowly. Remember that Billy Gene king changed the sport of tennis - and now women mostly get equal pay and equal time for their matches on TV.
..........I call that an improvement (like Chapter 9 in college sports) as society PROGRESSES forward.

Originally Posted by I'm Popeye! (Post 2084449)

I agree 100% Stu....., but we found out 2 weeks ago that some people can not determine or identify a "Woman" when asked to define a woman...

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2084785)

Athropogically speaking humans did divide into 2 groups. Males USUALLY did the hunting and the females did the gathering of fruit and grain. That division of labor would cause the men to develop larger frames and muscles over anthropological time. And women developed greater skills in organization, sociability, and language skills. (men hunting just had to point....that's a joke). But, some females probably hunted and some males (maybe older ones) probably did gathering and cooking. Males were probably more replaceable (less valuable) than women because reproduction was essential to continue the species.
.........Now we are in a period of modern humans and our brains are evolving rapidly to take in rapid scientific and social changes. Modern life in an office may be more like the GATHERING and communication skills possessed by women than the HUNTING skills possessed by men.