The Destruction of Female Through Sport

Back in 2010, I blogged about transgendered people and sport. I have no idea what has become of Lana Lawless. A cursory google search showed only outdated links.

The issue has come up again now that female male Fallon Fox has admitted to fighting in MMA in the women's division. I commented at AVFM and GLPIGGY.

My argument is that Hormone Replacement Treatment (HRT) amounts to doping. Although estrogen is not considered performance enhancing, it is in the same category as testosterone which is definitely performance enhancing. Paul Elam states in his response, "without the estrogen the individual would not have qualified to compete, it would make sense to me that this is a form of doping."  I agree.

Taken to its logical end, the argument that a man should be able to compete with women if he undergoes gender reassignment (GR) and HRT means that the reverse should also be true. This is why, in my comments at both places, I posed the question: when will women be allowed to dope with testosterone in order to "fairly" compete with men in men's only divisions?

I don't think that this idea quite sunk in with readers yet.  This is the inevitable conclusion of this gender defining nonsense. If gender is only a construct and we consider someone who undergoes HRT and GR to be identical in every way to a naturally born member of the chosen sex, then a woman should have the right to compete with men and use PED's (testosterone) to level the playing field. In the Liberal, post-modern mindset, giving women this advantage would only be fair since without it, women are excluded.

I'm taking this line of thought to its inevitable conclusion. It starts as allowing only male females (women who have been given GR to become men) into male sports division. But eventually, more and more women will want to compete and will start altering their bodies to become more male-like. If they can take that advantage in order to compete, some will. The flood gates will open and soon you'll have divisions filled with men competing against steroid-pumping females and nobody will be able to say one word or even construct an argument within their own mind because they won't understand how wrong it is.


Secondary Point:
The Science Whore is in full view in this issue. Fox uses the argument that "Doctors" have stated that using HRT negates all advantage of being born a man. I'm assuming that "Doctors" means her own pro-Gender-Reassignment doctors. This appeal to authority is pathetic. "Doctors" are not scientist. The opinion of two doctors is not substantive evidence any more than the opinion of 2 out of 3 dentists means that one toothpaste is better than another.

Liberal war on Childhood Aggression

I just have time for a quick post about a G&M article equating aggression with behavioural problems.  I don't know if liberal media  and research community make this mistake on purpose in order to further the anti-bullying agenda or whether they just don't understand that aggression is a natural behaviour, whereas, behaviour problems are the result of poor social conditioning.

Aggression is a useful trait for sports, business and social circles if channelled and trained properly.  If a child is taught proper self-discipline and empathy, aggressiveness will help him or her succeed in the world.

The NYU study, which seems problematic because it is based on parental reports and observation - how much and what type of observation is not stated - really points to socialization by parents.  Of course parents who have difficulty socializing with their children will have children with difficulty socializing in school.  Acting out, defiance and hostility are the result of poor social skills and self-control.  These are learned behaviours. 

There are countless ways that an aggressive nature can be expressed.  This is shown by the lack of correlation between infant temperament and difficulties in Kindergarten and Grade One.  With proper parenting, the children with aggressive temperaments quickly adapted to the school environment and showed no behavioural problems.  Poor parenting resulted in problems no matter what the temperament was.

Confirmation bias is astounding amongst Blank Slate believers is astounding.  The scientific method cannot filter it out of sociological studies.

Women are Mindless - You heard it From a Feminist

I was bouncing around YouTube and sure enough, I started clicking on links with the F-Word in it.  I clicked on a clip  on the history of panty hose and shaving legs.  Now listen carefully, at 4:30.  She asks, "So, why do women shave their underarms and shave their legs? Advertising.  Advertising plays such an important role in influencing our society."  Well, ther you have it.  Women spend countless hours and dollars getting those smooth legs and underarms because they do exactly what to people on the idiot box or some magazine article tells them.

Interesting.  Now, I just realized that I drag expensive razors across my stubbly face every day for no other reason than to do what I'm told.  When a Gillette ad comes on to tell me that I absolutely need their new 5 blade razor to get that smooth face that I need, I march mindlessly to my car and drive to the mall to get it.  Never mind the 3 packs of old razors sitting in my bathroom cupboard, I'm off.  Once the credit card transaction goes through, I wake up out of my haze.  Amazed, I ask the cashier what I'm doing there and she points down at my pack of new razors.  The glazed look goes over my face again as I staight in monotone. I. Must. Get. The. Smoothest. Shave. To. Be. A. Real. Man.

NOTE:  I do not know the woman in the video or when it was produced.  I only assume that she's a feminist because of her condescending attitude, anti-corporate tone and denial of reality. 
It feels mean to pick on feminists, but they are really insidious.

Round-up: Children and Nonsense

From Marginal Revolution:  It turns out that toddlers can spot nonsense and decide not to learn from you if you're full of it.

"These results add to a growing body of literature that suggests that infants are adept at generalising their knowledge about the reliability of other people across varying contexts," the researchers said. "The unique contribution of the present study shows that, similar to older children, infants are able to keep track of an individual's history of being accurate or inaccurate and use this information to guide their subsequent learning."

Cathy Young (reason.com) owns the DSK issue.  Why is it when I read an incredibly well reasoned article, critical of the current legal system and it's unfair treatment of men, it usually turns out to be a woman writer.  (Sorry, I'd provide more links for examples but it's bedtime.)


Speaking of nonsense:

The point of gender-diverse parenting, and the goal we can keep in mind when evaluating each choice before us, is not our children’s coercion into uniform unisex-ness, but freedom to figure out gender for themselves: what gender they are, what being that gender means to their society, and how, and to what extent, to perform it.

Sorry (no I'm not), it is the job of the parent to teach a child what is expected of members of its society and how to live in the world into which they are born.  Don't let children "figure out gender for themselves". Children want to learn from us how to live and relate our society and gender is a big part of that. From there they'll figure out their identities.  Take the positive aspects of gender identities and teach them to your children.  There are as many opinions of what makes a man and a woman as there are men and women.  If they don't seem to conform, then so be it; accept it and help them adapt their own identity.  But don't set your child up as a pariah (with their own ideas) and then blame society for not accepting them.  Thankfully, it's now proven that most children know nonsense when they see it.


From the same author, with a dubious website name and an even dubiouser neologism - kyriarchy.  Well written, but sooooo not in touch with basic human realities.

Here is my own neolgism in response:
 
Luniarchy - a system whereby hierarchy is established based on the lunacy of an idea or holder of ideas. In a Luniarchy, the most ridiculous ideas are given the highest ranking and the lunatics who can best write or orate said ideas with a straight face is given highest position within the luniarchy. Members of the luniarchy are then subjected to the lunacies of the lunatics who are higher on the scale and use their talent for delusion and refusal to accept reality to oppress the lower classes. The only hope for a member of the luniarchy is to delve further into the delusions (drink the Kool-Aid) so that they can oppress others with their ridiculous beliefs or take the red pill**  and wake up from the matrix of delusions.
 
**NOTE:  I'm not endorsing all statements, but Hawaiian Libertarian introduced me to the concept and helped me see some of the commonly accepted truths I'd always suspected were myths.

Canucks Fan Sexually Harrasses Sharks Player

Suppose the roles were reversed in this scene.

Of course, nothing would happen because men can go topless at sporting events and do so all the time.  Fembot-Liberal-nutcases commenting on the page seem to think that there is no difference between a man's chest and a woman's breasts.
Proactive Indifference writes:

Human Rights Violation?
If a man had bared his chest, nothing would have happened. It is common at sporting events for bare chested men, often with painted letters, to be shown off on camera. So why not a woman? This game was in Vancouver, and since 2008, women have had a right to legally bear their breasts. The arena authorities had no right to remove the woman. Since they would not even have asked a man to leave, this constitutes as a sexual harassment/human rights violation based on gender.

Right, because men have had the constitutional right to bare their breasts since confederation?  What breasts?  Also, the last time I checked, the arena (and all private venues) reserved the right to remove anyone.  I wonder how many men are removed compared to women?  If more men are removed, is that discrimination based on gender?

Bubbles4PM writes

Gotta love North American culture...

It's OK to knock the head off a player, bare knuckle scrap (all crimes in society) yet a woman hurts no one with a part of her body that is legal to be in public with (in most provinces) and she is treated like a criminal? Give me a break, is sexuality worse than violence?

Because I forgot that consensual physical contests should be curbed but involuntary exposure to sexual body parts, as long as it's a woman exposing herself to a man is ok in all but the most repressed societies.

Although most people would not put baring breasts on the same level as a man exposing his genitals, it is still in the same category since they are both sexual body parts. So what would happen if a man exposed his genitals?  He'd be put in jail and called a pervert.  But this wanton, intoxicated woman is somehow revered?  I don't think that she should be in jail, but I'd describe her behaviour to be worse (more offensive) than a green-man handstand which is also banned in the Rogers Arena.  Yes, men in tights are disgusting when viewed at the wrong angle.

Offense is not the right word to describe my reaction to this behaviour.  One would be hard-pressed to find a warm-blooded hetero-sexual, non-theist man who would be offended by the display of breasts.  I'm sure I would feel differently if my sons were watching at the time, but since West-Coast games are broadcast at 9pm so the little kiddies are away in bed, but I'm sure there are a few mothers and fathers who have feelings stronger than mine about this incident.

However, I am a concerned by the trend and the comical attitudes everyone takes.  Everyone knows that nobody is allowed to criticize a woman today [full stop].  A woman is free to do whatever she wants [full stop].  At least that is the prevailing opinion. 

If left up to young men, they'd be happy to have women bare breasts as much as possible.  I was when I was younger - heck, I'm more than happy to see an unexpected free show and probably will until the day I die.  But, to say that a woman's bare breasts are no different than a man's is ridiculous and it is time to let this idea die.  It was used in Ontario to successfully challenge the law outlawing bare breasts in public.  To the "surprise" of everyone and disappointment of some, breasts are not routinely bared in public here.  Apart from outdoor concert events, (having not been to one in over a decade, I can't say whether phone cameras have reduced the behaviour, if anything it seems to increase it) social standards, decorum and personal sense of decency have kept breasts covered in public for the most part. 

To feminists who hilariously try to argue that breasts are not sexual, I would ask one question:  What kind of assault is it if a man grabs a woman's breast?  If you say sexual assault, then it means that breasts are inherently sexual.  When a woman bares her breasts, her body sends signals to any male pair of eyes (connected through neurons and chemical reactions to a pair external sex organs) in view.  I see no reason that, if such signals are unwanted or done in a way meant to tease or distract that it could not be considered sexual harassment.  The man in my flip-side comparison would be jailed and put on a sex offenders list.  Why is there such a disparity of reaction to the woman's "crime" which varies only in severity.



To be clear, I agree with the Ontario law in that it should not be automatically be crime for a female to display her breasts in any circumstances.  But, it is one thing to lay on a beach (which is the only place breasts are commonly bared in public in Europe) and another still for a woman to go walking through a children's park or live television.  Perhaps we're generally too uptight in North America, but it does not mean that anything goes. 

Where, as a supposedly tolerant society can we draw the line on personal behaviour.  Currently, men have as many social boundaries as people can think of...  but women ...

Christian Righteous Anger Bait - Pink Toenails

I came across this at Thinking Housewife.

I read a few of the 5,000 or so comments and it occurrs to me how unequipped Christianity is to deal with Liberal baiting tactics.  A quick perusal shows a roughly 5-7 to 1 ratio of supporters of Jennas to people upset by it.  Most of the supporters comments take the form of taunts toward anyone who takes offence to Jenna's actions - basically summed up as "So what ... Big deal ... Shut-up you ignorant fools".  When I read some of the earlier comments, a lot of people were posting religion soaked diatribes that just elicit howls of laughter and more ridicule.
This is what a Christian looks like to Jenna Lyons and the rest of the "gay-is-right" lobby.

It's the same for the woman who let her son dress up as Daphne from Scooby Doo and then blogged about it.  What possessed her to post it to the world?  Simply to rile up the conservative masses so she and those like her can point out how "Homophobic" they are.  However, in Jenna Lyon's case there is a commercial interest.

I sent this article to a friend and he asked me what I thought, as a father of two boys.  I told him and he told me to check my homophobia.  It has nothing to do with that.  I'm not religious and I'm not homophobic.  That doesn't mean that I don't have a strong opinion about gender identity.  I find it sad to see someone trying to feminize her son while admonishing anyone who says it could be wrong. 

Kids are only forming their identities at that age - sexual or otherwise.  I seriously doubt these women had no part in their sons' propensities to form feminine identities.  The Daphne boy's mother stated that it was completely his own idea.  But, Jenna Lyon stats "Lucky for me, I ended up with a son who likes pink."  Really, she just ended up with the 1 in 1000 boys who likes to dress as girls.  So, now you can exploit him and show those precious, dainty toe nails to the world to sell more preppy shirts?

So, I have to admit that negative comments seem to have increased in skill, while the supporters seem to be more bewildering.  I couldn't resist posting a few comments despite not having enough time to finish this post (I'm going to be tired tomorrow).  Dr.Keith Albow provides a fairly decent admonishment, bringing up the point that it is also wrong to dress girls in slutty (my word) outfits.  Again, comments are mostly ridicule of his "ignorance".

Personally, I have nothing against gay people or gay lifestyles.  I believe that gayness is part of nature.  I simply find the extreme anti-gay crowd and the extreme pro-gay crowd are in this one-up-manship battle to see who can offend the worst.  Most of the people in the middle have the PC-indoctrination which means an inability to apply critical thinking to any issue and always siding with the pro-gay crowd lest you be seen as un-PC vis. Homophobic vis. hateful.  Yes people, you can criticize someone (even someone from an protected identity group) without impinging on their rights or being a hate-mongerer.

How Dare a Judge Describe a Sex Crime in Detail

Although he's campaigning for the Liberals, I like this guy.  I know that during an election, everything is under the microscope and people will try to dig up dirt on anybody but basically, he sounds like a reasonable judge.

First, although minimum sentences for "sexual assault/rape" fit in well with the Conservative tough on crime agenda, this judge has spelled out why they would be harmful under the current definition of rape/sexual assault and that in fact there far too many degrees of severity of this crime category to even think about jail as a mandatory punishment.  I think everyone just gets queasy when they hear an old man describe a young woman's genitals being fondled, but he's a judge so he deals with such details as a matter of his job.

Second, I'm glad someone has the guts to speak up about corruption on Native Reserves.

Third, I haven't read anything about the supposed white rights activist Liberal candidate André Forbes, but it seems that the Liberals chose a good candidate to fight against the white (French) rights party of Quebec.

Slut March

So, a Toronto Police Officer told a "personal protection" class not to dress like sluts.  Now the backlash.  We're inundated with idiotic repetition of the mantra that 'Women can dress however they want' in newspapers, TV and radio.  Is it totally lost on the marchers that women's bodies are basically biological instruments that constantly send messages to others?  Is it not the case that dressing 'like a slut' only sends those signals more strongly and the signals specifically suggest sexual readiness?

In this day and age where it is almost impossible to criticize women, it is ALWAYS seen as victim blaming to suggest that a woman's behaviour has anything to do with her risk of rape.  It is ridiculous when it seems that the only thing a woman has to prove in some places is that she had one drink to many to provide consent.  I imagine (or I like to), that most victims of rape did not provoke it in any way in much the same way that most dog bites are unprovoked.  However, a little education (which the cop mishandled mightily) can go a long way in preventing both.

I've lived with big dogs since i was a small boy.  I've learned not to tease dogs through their fences or cages and not to look a nervous dog in the eye.  Maintain a height difference if possible and carefully hold your hand out lower than a dogs mouth to let him sniff you.  Usually, this will avert any aggressive behaviour but it does not always prevent it.

By feminist logic, I have no responsibility for any bites that occur if I wander near a dog park after soaking my clothes in the drippings of prime rib roast.  If I were to do so, it would not excuse the owner if I were to have my legs chewed off by his pit bull.  But, I nobody would ever tell me that it was a smart thing to do. 

In case you're confused about the analogy, the woman is the person soaked in beef juice, the dogs are men's libidos and the dog owners are the men themselves. Yes, each man is responsible for his behaviour and it doesn't matter what the circumstances are.  It is true that a woman could walk down the street with no clothes on whatsoever and that does not give any excuse for rape.  However, it should be acknowledged that said woman is sending a message by dressing (or not) in that manner.  The message clearly is inviting sexual advances. 

It's all well and good to go around saying that women have the right to dress how they please with out facing any consequences.  However, society has become unable to criticize women for any overt sexual behaviour at any age no matter how outrageous lest we provoke the kind of reaction found at the Slut March. (I think we've generally lost the ability to even think critically at all).  The bottom line is that I wouldn't want my daughter (if I had one) dressing like a slut, at least until she's mature enough to understand and deal with the consequences of sending those types of signals.  One point most people miss is that as a father of two boys, I am also concerned that my sons will be receiving such signals from young women before they are able to deal with them.  Nobody wants to acknowledge that aggressive female sexuality can have damaging impact on boys - well, at least nobody would care about that if it were acknowledged.
I find that the current dilution of the definition of rape, becoming synonymous with the broader term sexual assault, along with the campaigns such as the one above are hurting the real victims of rape by trying to include many normal (albeit negative) aspects of sexuality.  I mean, calling it rape when a girl has a few too many drinks and has sex because she is too inebriated to consent to sex is an insult to Kimberly Proctor and other victims of sexual psycopaths.