This is the thread where the fringster comes back with teeth

[ltl/fb]

I believe I am approved to get my last tooth.
So I will have a full set, including fakes. Watch out.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Because their sexist fathers don't push them to compete in the same way?



TM

There are five gay guys in that picture, and yet somehow the whole is gayer than the sum of its parts.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

It's hard to imagine a woman in the NBA ever getting off the bench.

It's hard to imagine a woman in the NBA getting out of the locker room without being sexually assaulted.

[evenodds]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

It's hard to imagine a woman in the NBA getting out of the locker room without being sexually assaulted.

These are women basketball players we are talking about . . .

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

there are lesbian communes in suburban Minneapolis?

So the lesbian commune is the operative part of her continuing to play hockey, in your mind? Not just being in an environment where girls playing hockey is as "normal" as girls playing basketball or softball or cheerleading or whatever?

Huh.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

It's hard to imagine a woman in the NBA getting out of the locker room without being sexually assaulted.

the NBA is the mens' league, i think you meant to type WNBA.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by evenodds

These are women basketball players we are talking about . . .

So you think all six women with whom Sean Kemp has fathered kids were hot?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

There are five gay guys in that picture, and yet somehow the whole is gayer than the sum of its parts.

i got the grooming and clothes and even living space guys, but never understood why the food guy deserved deference, and what was the fifth guy? I felt bad for him- culture? i only remember he showed how to tear the plastic wrap over a CD case.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

So the lesbian commune is the operative part of her continuing to play hockey, in your mind? Not just being in an environment where girls playing hockey is as "normal" as girls playing basketball or softball or cheerleading or whatever?

Huh.

I'm saying even in Saskatoon I don't think the girls customarily get the same focused support and encouragement for playing hockey that boys get.

And we're a long way from seeing that change.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick

I don't know what you're trying to say here -- you appear to be conflating a number of ideas. Some sports lend themselves a little to women and men competing together (e.g., golf (but I can't think of another -- maybe archery? curling?)), and most don't (e.g., boxing, basketball, hockey, baseball, 90% of all sports). That's a different point from determining whether someone who looks like a hermaphrodite is actually a woman or a man. The conversation is not about whether people who are clearly women should be competing alongside people who are clearly men, it's about one ambiguous-looking person.

It started with the notion that gender-qualifying Semenya (giggle) was an Orwellian and creepy thing to do to a woman. My point, admittedly too obvious to even be noticeable, is that gender-qualifying women's sports is something athletic organizations do to prevent men from dominating women's sports. And then I went off on a tangent about how I think it's a good thing to have separate divisions for men and women and not to treat one division as the Varsity to which a select few women will graduate, because it will emphasize that men are the champions. It is quite clearly the opposite view from Thurgreed's, since he believes that a woman placing midfield in a field of men will be inspirational to young female athletes and their supporters and sponsors, and I think it will be demoralizing.

Perhaps the WNBA is a bad example, since it's universally agreed that it's a different game, though I question cause and effect. And obviously there are great examples of when it isn't (or needn't be) a different game -- things like chess, archery, and maybe the Tour de France. Golf is a wobbler because of the modern importance of long drives. The record holder for all tournament play is 515 yards. Meanwhile, this year's men's champion long driver hit it 400 yards, while the women's world champion hit it 254 yards (into a 40 mph headwind), and she used to be a man.

I basically meant that a sport is entitled to find that the inclusion of men and women in a single competition is either consistent with, or not consistent with, the nature of the demands of their sport, and that it not be considered sexist per se when they decline to "allow" women to participate in the men's division, because there are good reasons why that might be so.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally Posted by Flinty_McFlint

Ah fuck, now you've gone and done it. I can't believe that you've broken the Hank code that has been pretty much adhered to as long as we've been here. You think his last 70,000 posts have been painful--now that you've gone and encouraged him, you're unleashing a maelstrom of poorly constructed, one quarter coherent, slightly creepy Hank posts. I weep for the future, and may RT have mercy on your soul, Gwinkilicious. Fuck.

I'm sorry. I blame my lady-brain and my tits.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

There are five gay guys in that picture, and yet somehow the whole is gayer than the sum of its parts.

Gaynergy!!

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

At a guess -- she'd have gotten better at it. Maybe even better than 90% of the hockey-playing population.

But never good enough to play in the NHL, because she wouldn't have the combined strength, size, and speed.

Translation: Women are and will always be slower and weaker than men and therefore should just accept their subservient role to men in our society and in the world.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

It started with the notion that gender-qualifying Semenya (giggle) was an Orwellian and creepy thing to do to a woman. My point, admittedly too obvious to even be noticeable, is that gender-qualifying women's sports is something athletic organizations do to prevent men from dominating women's sports. And then I went off on a tangent about how I think it's a good thing to have separate divisions for men and women and not to treat one division as the Varsity to which a select few women will graduate, because it will emphasize that men are the champions. It is quite clearly the opposite view from Thurgreed's, since he believes that a woman placing midfield in a field of men will be inspirational to young female athletes and their supporters and sponsors, and I think it will be demoralizing.

Perhaps the WNBA is a bad example, since it's universally agreed that it's a different game, though I question cause and effect. And obviously there are great examples of when it isn't (or needn't be) a different game -- things like chess, archery, and maybe the Tour de France. Golf is a wobbler because of the modern importance of long drives. The record holder for all tournament play is 515 yards. Meanwhile, this year's men's champion long driver hit it 400 yards, while the women's world champion hit it 254 yards (into a 40 mph headwind), and she used to be a man.

I basically meant that a sport is entitled to find that the inclusion of men and women in a single competition is either consistent with, or not consistent with, the nature of the demands of their sport, and that it not be considered sexist per se when they decline to "allow" women to participate in the men's division, because there are good reasons why that might be so.

Translation: I like typing!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

It started with the notion that gender-qualifying Semenya (giggle) was an Orwellian and creepy thing to do to a woman. My point, admittedly too obvious to even be noticeable, is that gender-qualifying women's sports is something athletic organizations do to prevent men from dominating women's sports. And then I went off on a tangent about how I think it's a good thing to have separate divisions for men and women and not to treat one division as the Varsity to which a select few women will graduate, because it will emphasize that men are the champions. It is quite clearly the opposite view from Thurgreed's, since he believes that a woman placing midfield in a field of men will be inspirational to young female athletes and their supporters and sponsors, and I think it will be demoralizing.

Perhaps the WNBA is a bad example, since it's universally agreed that it's a different game, though I question cause and effect. And obviously there are great examples of when it isn't (or needn't be) a different game -- things like chess, archery, and maybe the Tour de France. Golf is a wobbler because of the modern importance of long drives. The record holder for all tournament play is 515 yards. Meanwhile, this year's men's champion long driver hit it 400 yards, while the women's world champion hit it 254 yards (into a 40 mph headwind), and she used to be a man.

I basically meant that a sport is entitled to find that the inclusion of men and women in a single competition is either consistent with, or not consistent with, the nature of the demands of their sport, and that it not be considered sexist per se when they decline to "allow" women to participate in the men's division, because there are good reasons why that might be so.

one big problem with ladies sports is that to be good you have to have tiny titties (except for tennis)