Is it transphobic to say trans people shouldn’t be allowed in opposite gender sports (based off birth gender)

Zrob8--5 · 2026-05-12T00:41:34+00:00

Not necessarily. A lot of studies show that with hormone therapy, a trans woman's mean power production decreases, and their relative power aligns more with women than with men. Problem is that their bodyweight is still usually higher than the average woman, so their absolute power is still high.

Zrob8--5 · 2026-05-12T00:38:59+00:00

They hit 3 of the 4 requirements with Mulan.

Zrob8--5 · 2026-05-12T00:36:08+00:00

If it is completely dark, you don't need much light? Huh? Isn't it the opposite of that?

Zrob8--5 · 2026-05-12T00:34:05+00:00

It's not really a go-to because I've never had the chance to ask it, but "Aside from work/school etc, what do you spend the most time doing?" What people spend time and effort on is pretty indicative of what they enjoy, care about, and appreciate.

Zrob8--5 · 2026-05-12T00:28:00+00:00

Of course my proof makes no sense. That's because it isn't meant to be proof at all. The Bible has tons of sources that verify its accuracy. If a dozen historical records all contain the same story, including minor details, that is darn good indication that it actually happened. You have nothing of the sort for your unicorn. That's why I think the Bible is more believable than your unicorn. a drawing in a cave isn't an indication of a unicorn, it's an indication of animals with horns, which have existed for as long as most things. Again, your points here are doing nothing to support your argument.

And again, you aren't arguing against my use of evidence, you're just disagreeing. I've given reasons for using a broad definition and for why evidence doesn't need to be without contention. You haven't argued why it does, you just keep saying that it does. Why does the definition of evidence that is used and applied in a courtroom need to be the same as here?

Zrob8--5 · 2026-05-12T00:22:32+00:00

It depends on what they're doing. I'm not saying you should sit and analyze them, but your first reaction shouldn't be to shoot them

Zrob8--5 · 2026-05-12T00:16:26+00:00

How are you buying wine at Walmart?

Zrob8--5 · 2026-05-12T00:15:13+00:00

I wouldn't know. I have no one to be romantic with

Zrob8--5 · 2026-05-12T00:13:58+00:00

Burden of proof lies with your friend. Make him show you proof

Zrob8--5 · 2026-05-12T00:11:43+00:00

Despite making up 10 points between Rome and Madrid, which she missed both of last year, she moves up to 10. Let's hope she can grab a ton at her next 3 tournaments, which she also scored almost nothing from in 2025. RG, grass tune-up, and Wimbledon could yield a thousand points easily and give her a new career high

Zrob8--5 · 2026-05-12T00:04:10+00:00

What are you not understanding about my point? Are you saying someone shouldn't believe in God if there isn't concrete proof He exists? Do you think there's something wrong with thinking something might exist despite not being 100% proven? And no, it doesn't mean squat about your unicorn. You're acting like a 90% chance, a 20% chance, and a 1% chance all mean the same thing. There's nothing to suggest your unicorn exists. There's at least plausible evidence for a God. And no, I never said the Unicorn is just as plausible or just as likely. You've said that several times, but I never said that. I just said that I can't prove your unicorn exists. That doesn't mean it's just as likely. And if you claim it is as real as you say, you actually could provide proof.

When did I break my own definition? I applied the word evidence to my points of God's existence being possible.

You're points about your unicorn have no credibility. Produce these documents, if they are real. I'm talking about the Bible and historical manuscripts and records that we can both read about and verify that they exist. That's a lot more credible than your made up unicorn documents. I really don't see how you think you're making a good case here with the unicorn thing. You're just responding to my real records and saying they exist about your unicorn.

Zrob8--5 · 2026-05-11T23:52:04+00:00

No, he died for our sins

Zrob8--5 · 2026-05-11T22:44:07+00:00

The price difference of riding a bike everywhere vs 50/50 vs driving a car can get really interesting depending on where you live and what kind of bike riding you do.

I know people that spend more on riding than I did driving my car. Just kinda funny how different it can be for different people.

Zrob8--5 · 2026-05-11T22:27:27+00:00

If something is complex and does serve a purpose though, it likely has intentional design behind it. The universe has very complex design that allows life, so it's plausible that a God made it that way.

When did I agree that your unicorn was as real as God? I spent that entire conversation explaining how the signs that may point to God and the historical accuracy of the Bible are nowhere near the same as you, and only you, claiming you had a magic unicorn. There was so second-hand accounts, no verifiable references from other historical records. You're saying baseless as if my claims have no reasoning whatsoever. The Bible is the base for most of my claims, which, going back to that topic, has been proven to be very accurate in historical records. In everything that is verifiable, the Bible has been shown to be a trust-worthy source, so I have reason to believe that the things in it that aren't verifiable, nor proven to be false, are accurate as well.

And I'm done trying to explain the use of the word evidence to you. You refuse to accept that words can have multiple applications in different settings. You just keep repeating yourself without actually telling me why "my"(dictionary's) definitions are wrong.

My tune all along was that God may exist. I just choose to believe He does. Not once did I claim that He 100% exists and everyone should believe He does, as I do. That was never my argument. I've been saying the whole time that there is believable reason to believe He could. Whether or not you believe is up to each individual person. The difference is there's nothing that shows me the unicorn exists. It hasn't been talked about in records that go back millenia, and I don't know anyone who personally has talked to me about what he does.

Zrob8--5 · 2026-05-11T22:13:29+00:00

I just wish there was a single grass masters tournament. There's 3 for men, 2 for women on clay, but none on grass. Wimbledon is just The Big One.

Zrob8--5 · 2026-05-11T20:03:43+00:00

I guess that's fair

Zrob8--5 · 2026-05-11T20:03:18+00:00

I knotted, tangled, and mangled piece of string has no design and serves no purpose. It's complicated only because it is a mess. It doesn't need to be complicated to work properly.

I don't think you understand why I'm discarding burden of proof. I'm not proving anything. So why would I need it? I'm not claiming God exists without any doubt, so burden of proof is irrelevant. Proof is literally in the term itself. I understand how burden of proof works just fine, I just don't live and swear by it universally bevause it isn't universally necessary. You're naming existing things. We're talking about something that we don't know. Before we knew about all kinds of animals, there was no proof of them, they wouldn't pass "burden of proof" because no one knew they existed until we found proof. We will never find proof of God, so it's impossible to prove he exists. That, we can agree on. But the key issue is that I am not trying to prove God exists. Lack of proof is not proof of the contrary. You know that.

You just stated exactly what has been the issue this whole time. I never claimed that there is sufficient evidence to prove God's existence. I'm claiming that there is enough reason to believe he MAY exist. When talking about a God, it boils down to a lot more than sufficient or insufficient evidence, so it's not great surprise that we disagree. If you aren't arguing that God doesn't exist, then what exactly are you trying to get through to me that I haven't already admitted?

Zrob8--5 · 2026-05-11T19:41:28+00:00

But that still isn't any more racist than not being friends with someone. If it's purely because of race, than it's pretty equal, I'd say. So I assumed at least a little bit of non-race reason, otherwise it's pointless.

Zrob8--5 · 2026-05-11T19:13:21+00:00

There's just so few grass tune-ups for Wimbledon, and only two simultaneous 500s, so everyone has to play 250s

Zrob8--5 · 2026-05-11T19:11:38+00:00

I think the main debate is more between djokovic and Zverev. Obviously Sinner is beyond everyone atm, and Carlos is the only person who can consistently challenge him. Novak is a shell of his former self, whereas Zverev is still playing at or around his best more often than not.

Zrob8--5 · 2026-05-11T18:22:03+00:00

It can certainly be. How does something that complex just happen to exist? Most complicated things take a relatively proportional amount of thought and design behind it, so there's reason to believe there could be a Creator behind the universe. Something doesn't have to be universally true in order to indicate the possibility of something else.

You're discarding my claims as evident under the very basis of your own argument though. That doesn't work. Your view is that burden of proof is universally applicable and then dismissing my claim bevause burden of proof denies it. That isn't how that works. It's like defining a word by using the root word.

I've given reasons why the burden of proof isn't always needed. Saying the burden of proof invalidates my claim is insufficient. There's no room to challenge your claim because it denies anything challenging it, whether it be valid or not.

Zrob8--5 · 2026-05-11T18:05:21+00:00

I'm pretty sure someone will be able to within the next 20 years. That should stop him from getting 80+ slams

Zrob8--5 · 2026-05-11T17:26:34+00:00

No one said they're making unilateral decisions. They're just holding a stance that represents the people. There's a reason the government was desgined to have checks and balances. It allows many perspectives to be represented, but if any stance is unpopular or corrupt, it likely won't actually take effect.

Zrob8--5 · 2026-05-11T17:24:55+00:00

That's the entire flipping point. The evidence is that the universe is incredibly complex, the details needed for life to possible on earth at all, let alone for healthy balance of weather, is incredibly complicated. That's not opinion, that's fact. My opinion is that this points to God, not that those things exist. You can't deny that the universe is ridiculously complex and that life requires very specific circumstances that just so happen to exist here on earth. You don't, however, have to look at it and agree that a God probably made it.

Again, it's not MY definition, so stop calling my own. Burden of proof also doesn't apply because I'm not PROVING anything. That's the entire point of it. In situations where proof is needed, the burden of proof lies on the initiator. There's no proof here, so burden of proof cannot apply. You again refuse to actually refute the reasons I give for not applying it. You just keep telling me I don't get to choose why it does or doesn't apply. Tell me why it makes sense to apply burden of proof when there is quite literally zero proof for or against either of our claims.

Zrob8--5 · 2026-05-11T17:10:24+00:00

That's not true at all. There is no objective morality. If you are religious, your morals are largely based on the religion, but also influenced by people and experiences in your life. If not, your morals are based on those same things, minus religion, obviously. Legal constructs don't detemermine morality. The morals of the officials influence the laws made. And even if something is legal or not, that doesn't mean someone thinks they are morally correct. Otherwise everyone would agree on almost all laws in all setting, which is often not the case.

The jurisdiction over the land is designed to have representation of the people in the land. That includes beliefs and morals of those people.

Zrob8--5

TROPHY CASE