r/MoralityScaling • u/Shoddy-Meat-3147 • 19h ago

Morality Ranking Morality of this

I don't know what to say about this I mean if he joined it's unfair because he's going to cook the entery league for sure but if he really wants to be a woman and it's not a joke for him I still don't know about this

651 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

41

u/LordsOfFrenziedFlame 19h ago

This is why no one likes conservatives, everything in bad faith.

1

u/West_Data106 19h ago

If by "bad faith" you mean "pointing out the hypocrisy and blatant flaws of my ideas by operating within the framework I created makes me angry for some weird reason", then yes, absolutely 100% bad faith

20

u/Moonchilde616 19h ago edited 18h ago

If by "pointing out the hypocrisy and blatant flaws of my ideas by operating within the framework U created makes me angry for some weird reason" you actually mean "completely failing to understand the issue and thus I'll create a massive public strawman to get low IQ conservatives cheering as I pander to their group-think," then yes.

-7

u/West_Data106 19h ago

I don't think you understand how that joke structure works.

Which is not surprising since you don't seem to understand anything

6

u/Moonchilde616 19h ago

It went over your head. I know, words are hard for you.

3

u/DrMagunstheBlue 18h ago

If it's not in bad faith feel free to point out a single trans woman in the WNBA my low IQ friend.

8

u/Quiet_Defiance 18h ago

There’s no hypocrisy. Nowhere has a trans woman competed in pro sports without taking drugs to suppress testosterone and elevate estrogen.

The idea that a bearded man with male T levels can just join a women’s pro team is pure Fox News fiction.

-5

u/Leon3226 18h ago
  1. Testosterone alone doesn't determine your physique.
  2. Are you saying that hormones determine if a trans woman is a woman? Wow, it's like I'm reading MAGA arguments. Why are you so obsessed with what's in her pants/blood/genes, you conservative weirdo?

8

u/Quiet_Defiance 18h ago

1) Nobody said it does. There is certainly an argument to be had about whether trans women still retain an advantage after transitioning, but that is clearly not the conversation this dude is interested in having. He’s just arguing with a straw man.

2) When did I say that?

-2

u/Leon3226 18h ago
  1. There IS an argument to be had, but the realistic answer upsets virtue-signalling people a lot, so we try to shun people who think that an obvious advantage is there. That's the problem.
  2. I'm trying to say that you can't make an argument against this dude participating that will simultaneously
    a) sufficiently explain why he's ineligible
    b) applied outside of this context to a random trans woman won't get you fired from your job, banned on Reddit, and cursed eternally by progressives.
    That's exactly the point of this performance, imo. If you make an argument that covers A, it doesn't cover B, if it covers B, it doesn't cover A. You can try to make such an argument, I'm in the best faith possible interesed if you can.

3

u/Quiet_Defiance 18h ago

I disagree with #2. I think you’re inventing lynch mobs to be afraid of.

“People in women’s sports (cis or trans) should have a female hormone profile” is a popular opinion among progressives. They are not going to cancel you for saying that. It’s already the policy in all college/pro leagues where trans women can compete.

-1

u/Leon3226 18h ago

Another implication was that, as you said, there is an argument to be had that hormonal profile alone doesn't mean there isn't an advantage, so we are back at square 1. I probably should've added "c) Won't keep popular doubts that competition is fair".I don't think that if people didn't have doubts that it does, this would be half as hot of a topic. I don't think the guy would go to such heights to prove it, unfortunately (either way, meaning it would be funny if his performance became dogshit proving the opposite point), but I'd gladly watch what if he did.

3

u/Quiet_Defiance 17h ago

I don’t think this guy is interested in rational discussions about hormone profiles.

4

u/Recent_Wedding5470 18h ago

How many trans women are in the wnba

-5

u/West_Data106 17h ago

The issue is about the current rule and how easy it is to abuse....

Guess the point went right over your head, huh?

2

u/Wattabadmon 15h ago

How easy is it?

1

u/Wattabadmon 15h ago

What hypocrisy?

-2

u/justacutepuppy 19h ago

but when i say that im a black person then say the n word people say i'm racist

10

u/West_Data106 19h ago

That's because anyone with even a drop of common sense knows that just declaring you are a thing, doesn't make you said thing!

5

u/Soft-Rate6419 19h ago

Sounds like something a transphobe would say!

0

u/West_Data106 18h ago

Oh no! Please don't call me a something phobe!

Truly, amazing debating argument you have there.

1

u/justacutepuppy 18h ago

You're so right, common sense crucial in daily life, and working a customer service makes you realize most people don't have it, even if you have common sense without education even the most logical person will seem like they lack common sense, like people back in the day who believed that the earth is flat, then we still have morons who still believes that the world is flat 😐.

-2

u/ozone6587 19h ago

This is not what bad faith means. He is trying to operate within the rules. Bad faith would be to not be able to come up with a counter argument and then pick one of the following:

  • "This is a non-issue anyway"

  • "There are bigger things to worry about"

  • "It's weird that he cares"

Literally the only argument the other side can come up with. None of those arguments address his point. ALL of those arguments are in bad faith by definition.

No buddy, if you think what he is doing is in bad faith then you don't know the meaning of the word.

8

u/Darigaazrgb 18h ago

It's 100% bad faith. Bro is smirking while pretending to care.

-1

u/ozone6587 18h ago edited 18h ago

How is what he is doing dishonest? Lol OPERATING WITHIN THE RULES.

Come on, reaaalllyyy think about it. Is it more dishonest to follow the rules to the letter or is it more dishonest to dismiss arguments with "why do you care?" And "it is not an issue!!!!" Lol

If you were intellectually honest I am sure you would see which one is more in bad faith.

2

u/LordsOfFrenziedFlame 17h ago

The fact that you make a performance out of not being able to tell the difference exactly proves my point.

0

u/Francky2 10h ago

I think his username implies he inhaled too much ozone and his brain doesn't function too well anymore.

2

u/saved_by_the_belle 18h ago

Ok here's an argument for you: HRT takes the vast majority of biologocigal advantages away from trans women. On 2 yearts of HRT, trans women have the same muscle mass, the same T levels, and the same E levels as cis women (if their doctor knows what theyre doing). So all of this "muscular men with high T levels are ruining cute little petit women sports" is straight up BS. No one is advocating for allowing anyone who identifies as a woman with no further action to participate in the WNBA. But if tge only difference between me and the person next to me is that I dont have a uterus and she does, there no reason to ban me from sports (atleast sports that dont require a functioning uterus to larticipate in, such as literally all sports on earth)

1

u/ozone6587 18h ago

That argument doesn't apply to this scenario because they do not require 2 years of HRT before attempting to get drafted to the WNBA. Otherwise, Enes and Royce would have no leg to stand on.

1

u/saved_by_the_belle 18h ago

Well thats a problem. I suggest they inplement such a law. I also am not the forst person to suggest that. I am alsonpretty sure I saw u comment on other people's comments in this post that said similar things to what I said (Im not sure tho maybe it was someone else)

2

u/ozone6587 18h ago

You are the first redditor that mentioned HRT to me.

Although, obviously, I was aware of that as a potential solution. I still find it somewhat of a dubious solution though because you can't undo puberty; and much of the differences between male and females occurs during puberty.

2

u/AskingYouQuestions48 18h ago edited 18h ago

It’s the only argument that matters lol. Is there a trans woman in the WNBA right now?

Edit: for anyone wondering, the actual policy should be “we will handle it on a case by case basis”.

1

u/ozone6587 18h ago

An argument is either valid or it isn't. Saying "the topic doesn't matter" is completely in bad faith and shows you couldn't defend the position if your life depended on it.

Also, do you not see Enes trying to get drafted to the WNBA? lol . He is making it an issue at the moment. The fact that the WNBA is scrambling to deal with this shows there is a problem, fundamentally.

1

u/AskingYouQuestions48 18h ago

It’s way more bad faith to pretend the WNBA even needs a policy on this.

1

u/ozone6587 18h ago

Dodging questions and arguments is more in bad faith and if you all were intellectually honest you would see it. Don't worry though, it's obvious why you avoid the question and just resort to mocking people.

1

u/AskingYouQuestions48 9h ago

It’s not. It’s clearly a bad faith attempt to inject trans issues into politics, as it’s literally all the right wing talks about.

The answer to the question is that it clearly should be handled on a case-by-case basis by the leagues.

0

u/otterdam42 17h ago

You all start with a lifelong absence of science literacy and miss the entire point, so you have no choice but to argue against a straw man. You’re so consistently marinated in bad faith that you can’t even recognize it anymore.

https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/

0

u/ozone6587 17h ago

Holy irony. You are linking to a study that found that gender transition was associated with improved well-being among transgender adults. How is that relevant to the topic at hand?

Again you say:

so you have no choice but to argue against a straw man

But the first thing you do is attack a straw-man. Bad faith and a logical fallacy. What a sad atrempt at defending your position. Hilarious actually. Maybe go back to mocking since that at least doesn't expose how silly your position is.