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

[AmyStrange]

Wait, you think a clickbait farm cares?

There's probably no one there to answer the phone anyway.


-

 

[Emily's Cat]

She's no weirder than the rest of us. And as far as I'm concerned, weird is great. It gives life flavor.

I didn't say it was a bad thing

 

[Emily's Cat]

IMO, Interpretation is just another word for speculation.

Technical aside... interpretation and speculation are not the same things. Speculation is guesswork, often based on intuition, and has a very high degree of uncertainty. Speculation is usually unquantifiable, because it's not based on actual data or statistical modeling. Forecasts and projections rely on available historical data extrapolated to a future state, and often have a fairly high degree of statistical rigor, or of well-defined and accepted methodology.

Interpretation isn't particularly synonymous with any of those, although interpretation plays a materially larger role in forecasting than in speculation. Interpretation in this context is the act of evaluating data, identifying relationship and correlations, and applying those insights to a model.

 

[Emily's Cat]

There's no form of kink that is crazier than to dress up every Sunday to worship an invisible being that for four thousand years no one has been able to demonstrate.

Kink in this context implies sexual titillation. I don't think it applies to your scenario, although I'll happily accept "delusion" as an alternative.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You can give it any stupid name you want, but that doesn't change the FACT that's it's still pure speculation.


ETA: Maybe you should use another stupid word.

extrapolation: The action of estimating or concluding something by assuming that existing trends will continue or a current method will remain applicable

-

speculation: the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

 

[Brainster]

It's been instructive to see the rhetorical moebius strips that the TRAs twist up in order to justify their stance. It shows they've got no rational arguments. Hence they avoid "that thread" like the plague.

 

[AmyStrange]

Technical aside... interpretation and speculation are not the same things. Speculation is guesswork, often based on intuition, and has a very high degree of uncertainty. Speculation is usually unquantifiable, because it's not based on actual data or statistical modeling. Forecasts and projections rely on available historical data extrapolated to a future state, and often have a fairly high degree of statistical rigor, or of well-defined and accepted methodology.

Interpretation isn't particularly synonymous with any of those, although interpretation plays a materially larger role in forecasting than in speculation. Interpretation in this context is the act of evaluating data, identifying relationship and correlations, and applying those insights to a model.

I take it you believe that there is no chance in hell she can make it in the NBA, right?

You don't even want to speculate that she might even have the smallest chance possible and instead are saying that she has a ZERO chance?


-

 

[Emily's Cat]

I agree, and chances are (like Emily's Cat stated) she might end up just being mediocre, but that's a far cry from being "destroyed" or not making it at all.

I also speculate that her three-point skills might make her better than just plain mediocre.

Look, I think Clark's three-point skills are great within the context of the WNBA. They're great when Clark is making three-pointers against similarly sized people, who are on average slower and less athletic than Clark. I don't think that Clark's skills would translate as effectively as you believe when they are facing NBA-sized male players with male strength and speed, who are actively trying to block Clark's shots.

If NBA changes the rules so that Clark takes ALL of the foul shots all the time, and ONLY takes foul shots, I think Clark would become a hot commodity very quickly... but in active play, I don't think they would have as good a showing as you believe.

*This is all assuming I have the terms right, I only have passing knowledge of basketball.

 

[AmyStrange]

Look, I think Clark's three-point skills are great within the context of the WNBA. They're great when Clark is making three-pointers against similarly sized people, who are on average slower and less athletic than Clark. I don't think that Clark's skills would translate as effectively as you believe when they are facing NBA-sized male players with male strength and speed, who are actively trying to block Clark's shots.

If NBA changes the rules so that Clark takes ALL of the foul shots all the time, and ONLY takes foul shots, I think Clark would become a hot commodity very quickly... but in active play, I don't think they would have as good a showing as you believe.

*This is all assuming I have the terms right, I only have passing knowledge of basketball.

In other words, you think she has zero chance of even having a career in the NBA, even a mediocre one.


-

 

[Emily's Cat]

I take it you believe that there is no chance in hell she can make it in the NBA, right?

You don't even want to speculate that she might even have the smallest chance possible and instead are saying that she has a ZERO chance?


-

I think there's a vanishingly small chance that Clark could even make the cut to be selected for the NBA. Not because they're not amazing, but because an amazing female athlete is almost always overshadowed by mediocre male athletes. In addition, being female increases Clarks' risk of injury when playing against males, which would make their selection onto an NBA team a liability for that team.

I haven't said that it's impossible. I will stand by my opinion that it's so implausible as to be ignorable.

 

[AmyStrange]

I think there's a vanishingly small chance that Clark could even make the cut to be selected for the NBA. Not because they're not amazing, but because an amazing female athlete is almost always overshadowed by mediocre male athletes. In addition, being female increases Clarks' risk of injury when playing against males, which would make their selection onto an NBA team a liability for that team.

I haven't said that it's impossible. I will stand by my opinion that it's so implausible as to be ignorable.

Thank you.

Like I told theprestige, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree and end this discussion because this is clearly off-topic.

Agreed?


-

 

[AmyStrange]

It's been instructive to see the rhetorical moebius strips that the TRAs twist up in order to justify their stance. It shows they've got no rational arguments. Hence they avoid "that thread" like the plague.

Yup, It has been VERY instructive.


-

 

[acbytesla]

Kink in this context implies sexual titillation. I don't think it applies to your scenario, although I'll happily accept "delusion" as an alternative.

I don't know. My life is boring.

Still, I think worshipping an invisible being that you must fear, love and obey is some serious next level sado-masachistic kink. Your basic Baptist minister is like the Sunday dungeon master. Ever go to a Catholic mass? Some freaky androgynous dude tells you that you are drinking the blood and eating the flesh of a corpse dead for 2000 years. Tell me that isn't kinky.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't know. My life is boring.

Still, I think worshipping an invisible being that you must fear, love and obey is some serious next level sado-masachistic kink. Your basic Baptist minister is like the Sunday dungeon master. Ever go to a Catholic mass? Some freaky androgynous dude tells you that you are drinking the blood and eating the flesh of a corpse dead for 2000 years. Tell me that isn't kinky.

I find it a bit disturbing that you view drinking blood and eating flesh as sexually titillating...

I get what you're saying, and I'm mostly just yanking your chain here. At the end of the day though... "kink" really isn't the term you're looking for here.

 

[acbytesla]

I find it a bit disturbing that you view drinking blood and eating flesh as sexually titillating...

I get what you're saying, and I'm mostly just yanking your chain here. At the end of the day though... "kink" really isn't the term you're looking for here.

That's OK. I'm a fan of chain yanking.

I don't know the term. I find "shaming" anyone for whatever floats their boat more distasteful than activities I would never engage in. And as much as I am not interested in wearing a ball gag and being spanked, I'm even less interested in pretend cannibalism.

 

[theprestige]

Thank you.

Like I told theprestige, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree and end this discussion because this is clearly off-topic.

Agreed?


-

Not agreed. I'm happy to drop it, but you're wrong. You're wrong in ways that are fundamentally toxic and anti-science. You're wrong in a knee jerk, reactionary way that forces you to insult people who are better informed and more thoughtful about the topic.

This isn't an amicable difference of opinion. This is you being wrong about an important social issue with far reaching harmful consequences - especially for women - if your wrong ideas continue to gain traction.

Agree to disagree? Boop to that. Agree that you're wrong? That I can do.

 

[AmyStrange]

Not agreed. I'm happy to drop it, but you're wrong. You're wrong in ways that are fundamentally toxic and anti-science. You're wrong in a knee jerk, reactionary way that forces you to insult people who are better informed and more thoughtful about the topic.

This isn't an amicable difference of opinion. This is you being wrong about an important social issue with far reaching harmful consequences - especially for women - if your wrong ideas continue to gain traction.

Agree to disagree? Boop to that. Agree that you're wrong? That I can do.

Nope, because I'm not wrong, but if you want to argue with yourself about it, go for it.

I'll just sit back and watch the squirming.


ETA: TBH, the second season of the Trump's Damn Stupid sit-com is actually much, much more entertaining.


-

 

[Orphia Nay]

It's been instructive to see the rhetorical moebius strips that the TRAs twist up in order to justify their stance. It shows they've got no rational arguments. Hence they avoid "that thread" like the plague.

What TRAs in this thread?

Are you calling AmyStrange (who likes everyone's arguments) a TRA?

 

[Brainster]

What TRAs in this thread?

Are you calling AmyStrange (who likes everyone's arguments) a TRA?

Saying he will oppose transwomen in women's sports when we can prove that no woman anywhere has ever beaten a man in a sport might as well be the TRA's position.

 

[AmyStrange]

Saying he will oppose transwomen in women's sports when we can prove that no woman anywhere has ever beaten a man in a sport might as well be the TRA's position.

Orphia Nay is right, and you're wrong, wrong, wrong as usual.

I'm against making it a law that forces women to compete against trans. I think it should be up to the sports leagues and teams and not lawmakers.

I have data that proves men (trans or otherwise) don't always beat women, but that doesn't mean women should be forced to compete against them.

If a sports league or team wants to or doesn't care if they compete alongside trans, who are you or I to say they can't.

As a matter of fact, here are my actual stances:

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

Jan 27, 2025

For your convenience and mine, here are the transcripts from both comments:

TODAY (1-26) @1:34 pm

I'm against passing laws forcing women to play with or against men.

I think the sports leagues or teams should be the ones deciding, not lawmakers.


----------
YESTERDAY (1-25) @8:37 pm

Good points.

If folks want to ban trans from women's sports, fine, but if the teams themselves (professional or educational) don't care, then who am I to tell them they shouldn't do it?

And if the teams don't want trans on their team, then who am I to force them to do it.

I also don't like men trying to...

• AmyStrange

-