Maybe just do whatever contest the women have a fairer chance... Like horse Shooting.....you can train that.
France beat Gibraltar 14-0 a couple of weeks ago. My solution: France is not allowed to play soccer ever again.
Ok, so doing 30 seconds of research shows me: This wasn't the US Women's National Team (never mind that the video in the tweet uses the USWNT crest to try and make you think it's them while labeling the Wrexham crest with "(Retired)") The women's team was also a mix of active and retired players This was a 7x7 game, not 11x11. "The US team was actually made up of former players, while the Wrexham team comprised of a mix of former and still-active players." "It featured smaller-than-usual pitches, 20-minute halves, and alternative rules such as no throw-ins, no offside restrictions, and seven players to a side." I agree that a full-strength men's team would likely beat a full-strength women's team. But using this old, deliberately disingenuous tweet as "evidence" makes you seem really gullible and undermines your point.
I knew someone would quote that "fact check" page. I read it before I posted this. None of what you posted matters. The point is, anyone with half a clue knows that men have physical advantages, and that it is therefore unfair to allow biological men to compete in women's sports.
Dude, come on. I even said that I agree with you that a men's team would likely beat a women's team. Why put "fact check" in quotes when nothing in it was disproven? Is it the same reason your video put "Retired" in quotes to label Wrexham and the official USWNT crest when that wasn't the team playing (which also had retired players)? I maintain that posting something like this doesn't help an argument.
Because I almost always see bias in the "fact checks". As to all the things you posted, they don't matter at all. Whether it's 11 vs. 11 or 7 vs. 7 doesn't matter, as long as it's not 11 vs. 7. Whether there was offside or not doesn't matter, as long as it's not offside for one team and no offside for the other. Etc. I posted it mostly because it's funny, but the point it makes stands regardless of the irrelevant details in the "fact check".
This happened like 6 months ago. It's not news. Nor is it news that women's teams would likely lose to men's teams. The women chose to play in that tournament knowing full well it was all men's teams. Why should the tournament organizers turn them down? Yet another anti-trans post from the most anti-trans poster when this doesn't further they're argument whatsoever. Such an angry person to continue to push this day after day.
Actually, the most "anti-trans" people are those who throw trans people off high buildings, or who support people who do that. Saying that women - unless, like here, they chose to play against men, good point - should not be FORCED to compete with biological men is not "anti-trans". It's just common sense. Or it should be. Not your strongest suit, I know.
Common sense would be to realize they chose to play in the tournament ...6 months ago...and ignored yet another idiotic tweet. But you just can't not post tweets even if they're nonsense. Not your strongest suit, I know.
I mean, I am by no means a super outstanding tennis player, and I'm over 50, but I wipe the floor with my friend who is like in the top 100 in Germany in women's tennis.
Sorry you got triggered by a funny tweet. What makes it even funnier is that I knew exactly who would be the ones whining and acting all triggered.
Maybe it was funny back in June when it happened. I didn't get triggered to start a thread about it. Not crying...just think you need some serious help because your entire being seems to be dominated by fear of trans people and Muslims.
It's always funny when people who have a) no sense of humour, b) no substance in their arguments have nothing else to say but "you need help".
What is there left to say to you other than I hope you finally get the help you need someday soon. Good luck.
This is an opportunity to discuss bias. The fact check I posted didn't seem to have an editorial bent; it was stating what the context around this event, that I personally had never heard of, was. The tweet you shared lacked any of the relevant context. I do not know the tweeter you originally shared - I had to delete my Twitter and Threads accounts because I didn't like how my brain was processing information after being on them too much and wanted to regain the ability to focus - but I argue the tweet and video exhibit strong biases: The tweet describes the men as "retired" when this is a half-truth. Some of them were, some weren't. The tweet says "Guess what happened." Within the broader context of the mens vs. women's sports debate, the USWNT's political reputation, the ongoing debate of transgender athletes, etc. I can infer that the OP is being smug when, obviously, the women lost. The video adds "retired" under the Wrexham AFC badge. This leads a viewer to think all of the team was retired and demonstrates bias by wanting to make you think the team was nominally less fit than the women. The video uses the USWNT crest. This was not the USWNT (their jerseys had something entire different on them), so why present them as such? Because the creator's bias wants people who exist in an online stew to see that logo and say "Hurr durr I knew those women couldn't win anything!" due to their pre-existing beliefs about the team. The video does not add "retired" next to the USWNT logo because the creator is biased and wants a casual viewer to glance at it and think that might actually be the full-strength national team. The video does not mention the different rules that this exhibition was played under. Why is that biased? Because a smaller field, 7x7 squad, and no offsides rules would obviously create more scoring chances. Without that context, a casual viewer might believe that this was a full 11x11 game with all of the usual mechanics in place. Yes, the women could've scored, too and made the stat line less embarrassing; but, presenting this as a good-faith, 90-minute 12-0 loss is deliberately deceitful. As I mentioned before, I largely agree with you when it comes to transgender participation in competitive sports. But, I don't think that sharing content that is purposefully wrong like this helps your argument. Consuming it also does yourself a disservice. Do I want to be allied with someone who would go out of their way to purposefully misrepresent their point? Probably not. I definitely wouldn't want to rely on them to form my opinion. How can a fact check be accused of bias when the thing it's checking is biased? If an arbiter corrects somebody saying that the earth is flat, why is the former deserving of being called "biased" when they're simply correct an inaccuracy? It's Orwellian.
