US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2035

On June 15 2015 11:40 jellyjello wrote:
Transgender MMA Fighter Destroys Opponent

Let's see what liberal political correctness can come up with for this issue. Should be interesting.

cience seems to be on Fox’s side. “Male to female transsexuals have significantly less muscle strength and bone density, and higher fat mass, than males,” says Dr. Eric Vilain, director of the Institute For Society And Genetics at UCLA. Vilain examined Fox’s medical records and wrote a letter supporting her bid to fight as a woman. He also helped the Association of Boxing Commissions write its transgender policy. In order to fight against women, male-to-female athletes who had surgery after puberty must show that “surgical anatomical changes have been completed, including external genitalia and gonadectomy” and that “hormone therapy appropriate for the assigned sex (female) has been administered by a board certified endocrinologist or internist, pediatrician, or D.O. or any other specialist known to have significant knowledge with transsexuals and transgender individuals for a MINIMUM of TWO YEARS after gonadectroy. This is the current understanding of the minimum amount of time necessary to obviate male hormone gender related advantages in sports competition.”

Still, could Fox be stronger than the other women because she used to be a man? “She could be,” says Vilain. “But sports is made up of competitors who, by definition, have advantages for all kinds of genetics reasons. And no one complains about it.” A woman runner may be naturally faster, a woman basketball player taller, than her cohort. To exclude Fox because of her surgery, Vilain argues, would be discriminatory.

Plus, Fox’s low testosterone could offset any advantage. Since Fox has neither testicles nor ovaries, which both produce testosterone, her levels are likely lower than those of her female competitors. Fox says her training partner, who is a woman, is stronger than her, and has more endurance. “So I really have to work on my technique,” Fox says. She’s not winning on brute strength alone, she says. Fox is winning because she has serious fighting skills.

On June 15 2015 11:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

You're not talking about anything meaningful. You're just spewing racism and hate.


You're projecting. You started out trolling and bringing up the unrelated, tangential point of 'evil conservatives would be talking about this more if the guy was black'.

On June 15 2015 13:01 GreenHorizons wrote:


Not meaningful to you, but that doesn't surprise anyone.

It seems pretty obvious to everyone other than you Jonny. I don't go out of my way to sugarcoat stuff with some posters, but it's clear what you have been doing lately.

I think it's especially funny you act like this wouldn't have blown up for conservatives if it was some black guy who was in an identical situation.

Especially his "Nazi cops" comment... Good lord.

You are going the opposite way I thought you would as far as trying to regain credibility as a serious poster (independent of what kind of poster anyone thinks I am).

On June 15 2015 13:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Yup, posting articles from NPR. What a terror I be.

On June 15 2015 13:37 GreenHorizons wrote:


Because that's the post I'm talking about... Like com'on man you're not even trying anymore.

Seeing how quickly the media moved on when they found out it was a white guy has been pretty comical.

When brown and black people do things like this it will be "a sign of a much larger issue in the ____ community" and when white guys do it, it will be a 'bad apple' or 'isolated incident'.

There have been 3 major shootings in Texas recently, which one has been discussed as a deeper/cultural issue by outlets from the right?

This is a clear case of mental health issues, and considering the family said they tried to get him help but he was declared sane they were practically helpless. The police knew he was threatening to attack several targets including schools and churches, and that he had a history of domestic violence.

Gretchen's Take: Time to treat mental health seriously

Every so often there's a big news story that we focus on dealing with mental health. Whether it's the Sandy Hook school shootings, the murder of American sniper Chris Kyle or the intentional murder of 149 people on the Germanwings plane, we spend considerable time debating the mental health aspects of each perpetrator. We ask if anyone saw any signs or noticed anything unusual before the heinous acts occured. 9 times out of 10 there were signs. People knew something and either said something or didn't.

I'm just wondering today if it's, once and for all, time to take on mental health as a serious medical issue -- and stop stereotyping it as something we just want to brush under the rug and not really discuss. As a victim of a stalker who was mentally ill I can speak to this. I know for the most part the law is on the side of the mentally ill person -- not the victims. I think it's time to revisit mental health once and for all. Bring it out of the darkness. Call it what it is. Get people help. Get rid of the stigmas. Time to move forward.

On June 15 2015 15:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Your fist reaction to the tragedy was to spin a narrative about racism against blacks and evil conservatives.

Each point you made was absurdly nonsensical. I'll point them out, again, in turn.


The media moves on from most stories. Most stories about blacks and whites involved in shootings don't make the national stage. Moreover, you have not demonstrated that the media moved on because the shooter was white, or explained how moving on indicates prejudice. All you did here is make empty assertions and implications.


It depends on the context. An area with a large amount of crime (ex. Baltimore) does have larger issues. An area without much crime and a random act of violence (Sandy Hook Elementary), my simply be the victim of a random attack. The differentiating factor isn't skin color, it's data.

Additionally, the color of the shooter's skin seems to be the most important detail to you.

Yeah, I'm not going to do a news search and again, most shootings don't get a lot of attention. But here's a Fox News opinion piece from a month ago: Link

1) Mental health: I mean sure but as GreenHorizons said, only white violent assailants are evaluated in this frame. For people of color, it's often viewed as a product of their upbringing/cultural background.

On June 15 2015 12:27 Kyadytim wrote:

This article I found linked from an article on Fallon Fox's first loss (which was by knockout) provides some important facts probably relevant to any discussion. These paragraphs in particular probably contain most of the important information:

On June 15 2015 15:31 GreenHorizons wrote:


I point out the racial angle because it's plain and obvious, yet regularly ignored/denied as you show.

Your example for mental health discussion just further proves my and yourefired's point.



The instance here isn't "a shooting"... a guy took an armored van to a police HQ and unloaded dozens of shots. Then fled 10+ miles where he engaged in another shootout. He also rigged several explosives with at least a moderate level of sophistication.

Your posts just reek of disingenuous bs. No one in their right mind would think that this coverage is comparable to what it would of been if the guy was in the exact same situation but black or Muslim even if everything else was identical.

On June 16 2015 00:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Aaron Alexis (black man) was the shooter at the Navy Yard shooting. He had mental health issues and the media pointed it out. I don't recall anyone pointing to 'black culture' as a cause. From scanning the TL thread on it, some politicians did blame violent video games for what that's worth.

On June 16 2015 01:13 GreenHorizons wrote:


Besides having to skip past a lot of counter examples on the way back to 2013, mentioning that he had documented mental health issues is only a small piece of the larger point. But I'll confirm that it's not 'only white shooters' that get mental health problems mentioned, though I thought that was kind of obvious. I should also mention the issue isn't just "the media" in the generic but specifically conservative outlets.

Mental health: I mean sure but as GreenHorizons said, only white violent assailants are evaluated in this frame

On June 16 2015 02:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

It wasn't obvious to you and YoureFired: .

Your rant against the media was triggered by my posting an NPR article. But if you want to insist that you meant only conservative media from the start, fine, but start backing up your assertions with more than just more assertions.

On June 15 2015 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:


Of course "they get discussed", it's when, where, and at what depth that I'm talking about. Have you seen any pieces from right wing outlets talking about those deeper issues in relation to this and the larger social implications?

#JonnyMatters Feel better?

On June 15 2015 21:26 heliusx wrote:

For every person claiming the science is on fox's side there's a dozen doctors calling bullshit. Not going to bother linking because google. Fighters should stay in their sex at birth category Imo.

On June 16 2015 06:20 Acrofales wrote:


I googled (search terms: Fallon Fox medical) and found an overwhelming majority of articles that actually did the research (aka interview MDs specializing in transgender surgery and similar) found that she should be treated as a woman.

It may be she is particularly brutal, as suggested by the fact that she managed to smash her opponents skull, but the MDs seem to think that does not have much to do with her history as a man (although they are quick to point out that there is not really enough data to truly say that for certain)

EDIT: here's some of the other results (cherrypicked, but only because the first page has a lot of repetition and quite a few articles that do not discuss medical viewpoints)

No advantage:
http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2013/3/8/4075434/leading-sex-reassignment-physicians-weigh-in-on-fallon-fox
http://www.vice.com/read/fallon-fox-is-a-woman-get-over-it-925
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/feb/16/fallon-fox-trans-mma-athlete-interview

Maybe advantage:
http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2013/3/20/4128658/dr-ramona-krutzik-endocrinologist-discusses-possible-advantages-fallon-fox-has

On June 16 2015 06:20 Acrofales wrote:


I googled (search terms: Fallon Fox medical) and found an overwhelming majority of articles that actually did the research (aka interview MDs specializing in transgender surgery and similar) found that she should be treated as a woman.

It may be she is particularly brutal, as suggested by the fact that she managed to smash her opponents skull, but the MDs seem to think that does not have much to do with her history as a man (although they are quick to point out that there is not really enough data to truly say that for certain)

EDIT: here's some of the other results (cherrypicked, but only because the first page has a lot of repetition and quite a few articles that do not discuss medical viewpoints)

No advantage:
http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2013/3/8/4075434/leading-sex-reassignment-physicians-weigh-in-on-fallon-fox
http://www.vice.com/read/fallon-fox-is-a-woman-get-over-it-925
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/feb/16/fallon-fox-trans-mma-athlete-interview

Maybe advantage:
http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2013/3/20/4128658/dr-ramona-krutzik-endocrinologist-discusses-possible-advantages-fallon-fox-has

When asked if Fox could, nonetheless, be stronger than her competitors, Vilain replied that it was possible, but noted that "sports is made up of competitors who, by definition, have advantages for all kinds of genetics reasons", and said that it would be discriminatory to treat Fox differently than other athletes with potential genetic advantages.

On June 16 2015 05:36 GreenHorizons wrote:


lol yeah I know what it said. I thought I should change it so you didn't try to make this point but I thought "No, why bother? It's not like he's going to think you meant 'only' literally"

Nope, never overestimate ones ability to see the obvious.

Just before I said:



Showing that "it happened" before proves only one of YourFired's literal points (which I doubt is how he meant it) wrong but going back to 2013 to find a veteran (iirc) with documented mental health problems and on medication and that it was mentioned doesn't touch the core points.

You've been abundantly clear that you don't want to engage honestly on this (or much of anything) so I'm done. Make your remark and we can move on.

Of course "they get discussed", it's when, where, and at what depth that I'm talking about. Have you seen any pieces from right wing outlets talking about those deeper issues in relation to this and the larger social implications?

There have been 3 major shootings in Texas recently, which one has been discussed as a deeper/cultural issue by outlets from the right?

This is a clear case of mental health issues, and considering the family said they tried to get him help but he was declared sane they were practically helpless. The police knew he was threatening to attack several targets including schools and churches, and that he had a history of domestic violence.

Yet he was still able to buy the armored van from what reports say was surplus police equipment (a funny irony) and obtain the weapons he needed.

The story is full of larger issues that need to be discussed but wont be.

On June 16 2015 07:31 Slaughter wrote:
Not really, he made the observation that most people who compete at the highest level of sports tend to be on the more extreme end of human variation spectrum for certain physical attributes anyway. It sounds like Fox is pretty much within the range of variation for females so I don't see the big deal as long as she wasn't lying about her hormone therapy and assignment surgery. What I find funny is people like Rousey claiming she won't fight her because of her advantages but yet she is always calling out "real men" and says she will fight them lol.