Play Nice First transgender player in the AFLW

[Aeglos]

Because? Do tell how that would be the worst post of the year, I'd argue that your nomination that your nomination would be the worst post. Absolutely no reason behind your post there

Because there is zero basis or reasoning in almost every sentence of that post.
It's not even though it's a difference of opinion/moral standpoint; it's just that nearly all of it is flat out wrong.

As would this person

This snippet is you replying to someone stating that "A high level 190cm male athlete dropped into the middle of a women's footy comp would cause absolute ******* havoc." - fact is Hannah was dropped into the middle of a women's footy comp and didn't wreak havoc (evidence: first hand recounts from opponents of hers).

remember this person has much more muscle mass and more bone density than any other female athlete at the same height and weight

How are you quantifying "much more"? 5%, 10%, 15%, 100%?
If your quantification is at the lower end then we just do not currently yet know what (if any) physical advantage is left over for a male to female transgender athlete (which is my argument for not allowing their participation yet although that is a debate for another time).
If your quantification is at the higher end then one would expect Hannah to have "wreaked havoc", which we know is not the case.

IMO how this person has been allowed to play against females in a high contact sport is highly dangerous in the least and am astounded there have been no major injuries caused to other competitors in the other competitions this person has played in so far

Neglecting the year 8 grammar in this particular statement, have you considered that your astonishment is unfounded and misplaced?
She's played close to a full season with no reports of her causing "major injuries" to opponents yet has suffered collision based injuries of her own.
Hardly evidence of a significant physical advantage wouldn't you agree?

 

[Kappa]

By females, do you mean all of them? Most of them? Some of them? or any of them?

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

Females who play contract sports in general.

I imagine if I was in there situation I would be strongly opposed to an ex-professional sportsmen playing in the female competition.

 

[sprockets]

True, and why it's a difficult question. Taken to the natural extreme, only let players of the same gender and weight play together, like junior Rugby. Caleb Daniels in one comp, Mumfords in another.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

But it's a gender based sport (at senior level). Other than that there are no restrictions, apart from the normal laws of the game that applies to all levels. Maybe that's why people are wary.

 

[jatz14]

Females who play contract sports in general.

I imagine if I was in there situation I would be strongly opposed to an ex-professional sportsmen playing in the female competition.

My point was, I do not think women who play contact sport in general have a unified voice on the issue.

No doubt you could get the full range, from hate the idea, refuse to play with her, to love the idea, insist she plays, and every variation in between.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[Kappa]

My point was, I do not think women who play contact sport in general have a unified voice on the issue.

No doubt you could get the full range, from hate the idea, refuse to play with her, to love the idea, insist she plays, and every variation in between.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

So you don't think the majority would vote no? Especially in the situation where the female is an ex-pro male athletic. I think using common sense most wouldn't be thrilled at the idea, many would even probably be scared.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

So you don't think the majority would vote no? Especially in the situation where the female is an ex-pro male athletic. I think using common sense most wouldn't be thrilled at the idea, many would even probably be scared.

The players in AFL Canberra seem to have no issue whatsoever.

 

[jatz14]

So you don't think the majority would vote no? Especially in the situation where the female is an ex-pro male athletic. I think using common sense most wouldn't be thrilled at the idea, many would even probably be scared.

I will bet you women's footy in Canberra grows next year, despite it being well publicised that a male ex pro athlete will be playing.

Have played in a number of contact mixed gender footy games myself, and though they were scratch matches of not high intensity, half the players were men, some of them big. Never saw a women pull out because she was scared.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[Carringbush2010]

Sorry, 16 year Olds playing against men all over the country, physically ready or not

Not true, correct me if I'm wrong but but that is the exception rather than the rule

 

[jatz14]

Not true, correct me if I'm wrong but but that is the exception rather than the rule

Its the exception, but not a rare one. That equates to a lot of players.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[Kappa]

I will bet you women's footy in Canberra grows next year, despite it being well publicised that a male ex pro athlete will be playing.

Have played in a number of contact mixed gender footy games myself, and though they were scratch matches of not high intensity, half the players were men, some of them big. Never saw a women pull out because she was scared.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

So the men were tackling the women like they normally would in a footy game?

Women's footy is growing every year, regardless of this incident, so that's irrelevant

 

[Kappa]

The players in AFL Canberra seem to have no issue whatsoever.

How do you know that?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

How do you know that?

So it's up to me to prove the fact that they have no issue with it (even though that's the valid assumption given Hannah was able to play in the competition), yet we have to take your assumption that "most would say no" at your word?

Also, there's this:
http://www.hpnfooty.com/?p=23986

 

[Carringbush2010]

Neglecting the year 8 grammar in this particular statement, have you considered that your astonishment is unfounded and misplaced?

Neglecting your poor attempt to insult, have you considered it is not? Whichever way you look at Mouncey still has physical male attributes that most in womens footballers won't have. HQ made a decision based on practicality not on discrimination, now you could argue that all day long but that is what HQ has done - like it or lump it

Because there is zero basis or reasoning in almost every sentence of that post.
It's not even though it's a difference of opinion/moral standpoint; it's just that nearly all of it is flat out wrong.

That is your opinion

fact is Hannah was dropped into the middle of a women's footy comp and didn't wreak havoc

And that is very very surprising in my and many others views

 

[Carringbush2010]

Its the exception, but not a rare one

Exception and rarity are one and the same

 

[Kappa]

So it's up to me to prove the fact that they have no issue with it (even though that's the valid assumption given Hannah was able to play in the competition), yet we have to take your assumption that "most would say no" at your word?

Also, there's this:
http://www.hpnfooty.com/?p=23986

I think there's some common sense you need to apply. Would female contact sport players like Men to play in their league? If not, why not ?

 

[Aeglos]

Neglecting your poor attempt to insult, have you considered it is not?

Of course your astonishment is misplaced; otherwise you would have nothing to be astonished about!
You believed, based on whatever pre-conceived ideas you had, that Hannah playing with women would be akin to a Leigh Brown-type athlete being dropped into a women’s comp, “wreaking havoc” and causing “major injuries”. Unfortunately like a creationist presented with evidence of evolution you’re having a hard time letting go of this belief despite the evidence overwhelmingly suggesting you were completely wrong.

That is your opinion

Opinion insinuates there’s no factual evidence behind what I am saying when clearly there is.
1. You claimed Hannah would wreak havoc - wrong, she’s not even considered the most physically gifted player in ACT, let alone the country
2. You claim Hannah has much more muscle and bone mass than other females at the same height and weight - you have no way of varifying this
3. You claimed, based on the previous two claims, that Hannah playing football would be dangerous competitors - as the first two claims are baseless it already renders this mute, but just to cap it off Hannah suffered more collision injuries personally than all of her opponents combined!

HQ made a decision based on practicality not on discrimination, now you could argue that all day long but that is what HQ has done - like it or lump it

Possibly, though the AFL’s decision has little to do with the inaccuracies in your postings.

And that is very very surprising in my and many others views

And I’m sure European explorers were surprised when they stumbled upon the Americas instead of falling off the edge of the earth; hardly a convincing argument in any scenario

 

[Aeglos]

I think there's some common sense you need to apply. Would female contact sport players like Men to play in their league? If not, why not ?

You’re trying to compare an Apple to an orange when the reality is far more akin to a natural apple and one grown in an artificial environment.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I think there's some common sense you need to apply. Would female contact sport players like Men to play in their league? If not, why not ?

No, they wouldn't.

Good thing that Hannah is no longer a man then.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Of course your astonishment is misplaced; otherwise you would have nothing to be astonished about!
You believed, based on whatever pre-conceived ideas you had, that Hannah playing with women would be akin to a Leigh Brown-type athlete being dropped into a women’s comp, “wreaking havoc” and causing “major injuries”. Unfortunately like a creationist presented with evidence of evolution you’re having a hard time letting go of this belief despite the evidence overwhelmingly suggesting you were completely wrong.

Again this is your opinion you can't prove otherwise as there is no overwhelming proof from the point of view of HQ if there was the decision would be different. As for me saying that Hannah would cause havoc I clearly alluded that it could have happened - most likely but I never said would

 

[Kappa]

No, they wouldn't.

Good thing that Hannah is no longer a man then.

Lol, what a stupid simplistic argument.

Just because the "law" doesn't classify her as a male now does not mean she still doesn't have plenty of physical male advantages which is the ENTIRE reason females have their own leagues instead of just having one big open league.

 

[sprockets]

You’re trying to compare an Apple to an orange when the reality is far more akin to a natural apple and one grown in an artificial environment.

Or maybe a 'normal' apple with a genetically modified one.

 

[Aeglos]

most likely but I never said would

As would this person,

I’m also not sure why you’ve dragged the AFL’s decision into this (and now continued to harp on about it). Whether they said yes or no is irrelevant to whether Hannah truly has an advantage over her competitors.

 

[Aeglos]

Or maybe a 'normal' apple with a genetically modified one.

But at the end of the day they’re still undebatably an apple.
Whether the genetically modified apple has an advantage over the natural one (that would be considered significant enough to warrant barring transgender athletes) is what is being discussed, and is a question that no one in the world knows the answer to; no matter what certain posters in here would like to think.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I’m also not sure why you’ve dragged the AFL’s decision into this (and now continued to harp on about it). Whether they said yes or no is irrelevant to whether Hannah truly has an advantage over her competitors.

Irrelevant? How so? Totally relevant; their decision is what hinges on whether or not she can nominate for the draft. Your point of view is a salty one and would suggest you see the decision as discriminatory in nature where as I don't and in my view would argue that HQ made the decision with practicality in mind - it's highly unlikely that they would snub someone given the delicate political views in the public eye. In their view they obviously believe she would have an advantage over non transgender women hence the decision

 

[Aeglos]

Irrelevant? How so? Totally relevant; their decision is what hinges on whether or not she can nominate for the draft. Your point of view is a salty one and would suggest you see the decision as discriminatory in nature where as I don't and in my view would argue that HQ made the decision with practicality in mind - it's highly unlikely that they would snub someone given the delicate political views in the public eye. In their view they obviously believe she would have an advantage over non transgender women hence the decision

Surely you’re not putting the AFL on a pedestal as some sort of infallible organisation incapable of making mistakes?
Your (or my) view on their decision is not what is being argued here, rather your outlandish (and unsubstantiated) claims that Mouncey is some kind of monster that has been terrorising the ACT women’s football league and that a males to female transgender athlete has such an advantage over her competitors that it can be compared to a male athlete of the same skill level playing.