Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, stlrams said:

Living in Connecticut this has been a hot issue for some time.  There are 3 boys that have been dominating women’s track and field recently specifically the 100m and 200m races.   I think you can’t opt for any surgery until 18 to start the transition so they are 100% male while competing.  

I'm not an expert beyond that one Vice episode from three or fours years ago linked above but I don't think it is the surgery that matters, but it is the hormones.   If we allow girls the choice to stop themselves from growing up into men then doesn't most of the safety and performance concerns just go away? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Biological males playing female sports is not a good idea.  

I do appreciate that this thread is nearly 100% cordial and respectful. If this thread popped up 10 years ago, I can't imagine the level of discourse would be anywhere near this. It is such a com

This.  It's just a simple hard "no" and people are making it more complicated than it needs to be.  If I want to compete on the women's soccer team, the answer is no.  Not because I would dominat

8 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

I'm not an expert beyond that one Vice episode from three or fours years ago linked above but I don't think it is the surgery that matters, but it is the hormones.   If we allow girls the choice to stop themselves from growing up into men then doesn't most of the safety and performance concerns just go away? 

 

I believe the 3 boys competing as girls here are just identifying as girls.  Don’t think they started transition via hormones.  If you google pictures of them you can see they are all very muscular.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, stlrams said:

I believe the 3 boys competing as girls here are just identifying as girls.  Don’t think they started transition via hormones.  If you google pictures of them you can see they are all very muscular.  

But would they have?  Could they have?   Maybe in a few years we can differentiate based on such physical characteristics because we as a society have allowed the girls to choose to become women instead of men.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

A person might choose to live as a woman, but they can't choose to be female.  You're either born female or you're not, and there's nothing anybody can do about it one way or the other.

IMO, it makes a lot of sense to segregate bathrooms by gender, not sex, if we're going to segregate them at all.  On the other hand, it makes little to no sense to segregate sports by gender and lots of sense to segregate them by sex.

Bathrooms should be segregated between poop and pee.  Forget gender or sex or whatever.  If you gotta go #1 it's down the hall to the left. #2 over there by the newspaper stand. 

  • Thinking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Biff84 said:

Remember when allowing people to use the restroom of the gender they identify as was going to result in a bunch of perverts peeping and sexually assaulting women?

It’s the same scenario here. The assumption is that a bunch of kids are going to abuse this rule and ruin women’s sports. Reality is that some may try to so but it’s very unlikely to be widely abused and become a significant issue. Sure it will cause some problems from time to time but it’s a way to help a group that’s highly likely to suffer from severe depression and consider suicide. The good outweighs the bad.

What exactly is good about a biological male beating biological females in sports? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

What exactly is good about a biological male beating biological females in sports? 

 

The potential to decrease depression and suicide among trans youth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Wait for those of you that are against this are you allowing trans males that have hormones to compete in women’s sports?  Or trans people just can’t compete in sports at all?

If you are physically male, you play on a male team......simple.  In humans, males are physically stronger, and faster than females.....not all species are like that....humans are.

For me it's about physical strength, period.  In 8th grade we had a gal come out for football, and she got her butt kicked.  She hung in there for a bit, but ended up quitting.

I have zero problem with a female coming out for a male sport.....if they can physically hang, why not? 

So I guess if a male who identifies as a female gets hormone therapy and a sex change down the road there's room for discussion.....now we should be talking about an adult though. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Do you really think that number is a significant amount?

 

 

(Where have i heard that before?)

Clearly it is a significant issue for the trans community as this EO is likely the result of lobbying from trans leaders. I also believe that the bar for ‘significant’ gets lowered when talking about suicide and long term mental health.

There seems to be an assumption that any biologic male would dominate girls sports. For most that this ruling would apply to, I doubt they care to dominate, they’re just looking to be part of the team they identify as.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, The Z Machine said:

What about intersex people?

There will always be intersex people and that's a case of not letting the exception swallow the rule.

The more I read people's opinions on transgenderism, and this is not directed at any one person, the more I get a grasp on how obtusely some smart people can look at things. I remember Joe just was saying something about the left and common sense and Zow of all people said this was a way to cut someone short. To not give the opportunity to logically maintain and argue their position. That common sense was just a conceit of the party that had had it their way all along, a way of cementing unearned power. 

But Zow is wrong.

What was meant by "common sense" is that we have a million different avenues and ways to do things, already explored in history. We should act, in most if not all cases, on our inherited wisdom. It's a Burkean concept of how history moves. The dominant culture carries good ideas, the "inherited wisdom" theory goes, because what allowed it to be dominant was its proficiency at certain things. Things that logic dictates as a result of certain premises that wind up not being good for society are relegated to its dustbin precisely because these things, in the end, are either so immoral as to be repugnant or are not utile. We call that which we leave behind and enforce wisdom, not logic. Logic, as the famous dictum goes, is not the heart of the law.

And thus goes the basic biological distinctions between the sexes, apparent not only to eye, but to all senses, really. To reject the senses in this particular case to apply a weird utopian logic about the exceptions (both the dysphoric and intersexed) is silly and disastrous. It undercuts basic advances made in the name of gender roles (e.g., women participating in sports, generally a male province) and relegates them to the dustbin in hopes of a greater utopia. 

And yet again, the utopia sought is almost a nightmare of resultant effects, undoing the artifice that separating the sexes in sports was in the first place.

But what do I mean this "artifice"? I guess here the contrarian really gets a hold of me. What is this to some? Is the end of women's sports so bad if this is carried out to its logical extremes? I guess, in a roundabout way, some are all for the end to modern women's sport, anyway. Women's sports, to some, are dumb conceits resulting from other dumb utopian longings, those borne of feminist utopian longings that were always pie-in-the-sky. Some might wish that the men merrily join them in their pursuits and they can ruin hand-in-hand together that which was ridiculous in the first place. Women's sports? If some men never hear Martina Navratoliva's name again (and she was at the firestorm of this controversy back three years ago when she foresaw this exact thing and dissented publicly, getting called a transphobe) they'll not lose a wink of sleep over it. So God bless this cluster to all, and to all a good night. 

Edited by rockaction
  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we stop using the term “biological male” in here?  It’s weird and confusing.  My kid was assigned female at birth but now has hairy legs and a deep voice and maybe sorta barely a little facial hair.  To me it seems foolish to describe him as a “biological female” just because of what’s between his legs.

In any case, we already have terms that can avoid this confusion.  After someone transitions they can just be called a trans male or a trans female.  If talking about a person’s gender before transitioning you can say something like “assigned female at birth.”

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Wait for those of you that are against this are you allowing trans males that have hormones to compete in women’s sports?  Or trans people just can’t compete in sports at all?

I'm definitely ignorant on all the correct terminology so my statement here may be wrong but I'll do my best.  I think most of the people in here objecting to this EO are not talking about trans males but rather males that identify as female and have taken no steps to transition.  My take is I find that to be an unfair advantage - I have two daughters and if they had to start competing against an individual that was assigned male at birth (trying to use your language to be accurate) I would have a problem with that - especially in certain sports where it could possibly be a health risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

I think most of the people in here objecting to this EO are not talking about trans males but rather males that identify as female and have taken no steps to transition. 

Right, I understand that.  A person that was assigned male at birth but now identifies publicly as female HAS taken an enormous step to transition.  For some people, that’s the only step they ever take.  That person should be called a trans female.  Not a “male that identifies as female.”

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Right, I understand that.  A person that was assigned male at birth but now identifies publicly as female HAS taken an enormous step to transition.  For some people, that’s the only step they ever take.  That person should be called a trans female.  Not a “male that identifies as female.”

A much better solution is "trans woman." That terminology respects a person's gender identity while not erasing sex from our vocabulary.  (I'm cynical and I tend to think that "erasing sex from our vocabulary" is the point of this particular circumlocution, but I'm attributing that motivation to you personally).

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

A much better solution is "trans woman." That terminology respects a person's gender identity while not erasing sex from our vocabulary.  (I'm cynical and I tend to think that "erasing sex from our vocabulary" is the point of this particular circumlocution, but I'm attributing that motivation to you personally).

I’m not sure why this distinction matters to you. Other than medical providers, I don’t see why we have to distinguish people based on theirs genitalia at birth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

I’m not sure why this distinction matters to you. Other than medical providers, I don’t see why we have to distinguish people based on theirs genitalia at birth.

sports

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty indifferent either way. I have no idea what's right or wrong, and don't think it matters too much. 

I think it's very important to protect the rights and be kind to folks that identify as a gender that is different than the physical gender they were born with. However you identify, that's great, let's go have a cold beer.

When it comes to college and HS sports? I can understand arguments against it. It doesn't seem fair. 

And then again, life isn't fair. If a young lady loses the AA Iowa state 100 meter hurdles to a young lady that was born with male parts, I can understand why she'd be disappointed. But I also think she'll be okay. And if the young lady that was born with male parts has to compete against males born with male parts, she'll be okay too. 

Not sure what's right, but i think at the end of the day, we're talking about a few kids having to deal with a little disappointment either way. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rockaction said:
17 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

I’m not sure why this distinction matters to you. Other than medical providers, I don’t see why we have to distinguish people based on theirs genitalia at birth.

sports

"Sports" isn't a good argument.  It's not necessarily incorrect, but simply stating "sports" seems to be assuming your conclusion rather than providing an argument towards your conclusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Biff84 said:

Clearly it is a significant issue for the trans community as this EO is likely the result of lobbying from trans leaders. I also believe that the bar for ‘significant’ gets lowered when talking about suicide and long term mental health.

There seems to be an assumption that any biologic male would dominate girls sports. For most that this ruling would apply to, I doubt they care to dominate, they’re just looking to be part of the team they identify as.

KD: "All I know is that
There were rumors he was into field hockey players
There were rumors
So he applied basically"

Interjection: "So I went out for the team"

KD: "And went off with the team
It's like, he was gone -they just like
It was so hush hush
They were so, quiet about it
And then the next thing you know"

Edited by rockaction
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

"Sports" isn't a good argument.  It's not necessarily incorrect, but simply stating "sports" seems to be assuming your conclusion rather than providing an argument towards your conclusion.

I'm merely pointing out what the OP and everything else is about in the thread for my good friend who is wondering why we're referring to biology and biological categorization and the like. Sports is at the crux of the matter. That's why we're doing it. It is the issue. Naturally people are reverting back to biology. That's the crux of the problem to be solved or mitigated by the EO. 

Edited by rockaction
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In reference to the Pixies song above, there was actually a young guy from Mass. back in 1990-91 or so who played (what I would call center midfield) on the local high school's girls' field hockey team. The civil rights laws of the state mandated that he be allowed, and he proceeded unabated. Sure enough, championship day came down and it was time to do all the capsules for the local state championship games. There he was front and center, just freaking moving. I mean this guy was a girl all-stater. And he scored two goals and they won 2-1. Cut to aging broadcaster, utterly bewildered, trying to dryly explain what in heaven's name was going all for a viewership that had to clock north of fifty on average.

Hooo boy. That one was funny as a teen who didn't know any better.

Now, it's a territorial pissing ground for those inclined towards rights recognition/those not inclined. It's no longer a sports story. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

I’m not sure why this distinction matters to you. Other than medical providers, I don’t see why we have to distinguish people based on theirs genitalia at birth.

In most contexts it wouldn't matter.  In a few it does.  Medicine is one.  Sports (the topic of this thread) is another.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

"Sports" isn't a good argument.  It's not necessarily incorrect, but simply stating "sports" seems to be assuming your conclusion rather than providing an argument towards your conclusion.

Maybe a better way of putting it is that literally nobody thinks that gender identity matters for sports -- the issue is whether biology matters or not.  It doesn't seem helpful to try to have that discussion with biology being placed off limits.

Again, the cynic in me notes that that's probably the point.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

In most contexts it wouldn't matter.  In a few it does.  Medicine is one.  Sports (the topic of this thread) is another.

Shouldn’t it be further narrowed to something like “elite professional or collegiate sports in very specific situations?”  For one thing, literally half of transgender people are trans males.  Is there a reason we should be preventing them from playing sports?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, why is it OK that short unathletic boys have to play basketball in a league with tall athletic ones?  Isn’t that “biologically unfair”?  Why is that different than what we’re discussing here?  Some people are better at sports than other people.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Shouldn’t it be further narrowed to something like “elite professional or collegiate sports in very specific situations?”  For one thing, literally half of transgender people are trans males.  Is there a reason we should be preventing them from playing sports?

I don't know enough about the competitive issues involved with trans men playing men's sports to have an opinion.  That doesn't seem to be much of an issue compared to the other case, of trans women playing women's sports.

Edit: Before somebody else points this out, I know that many or most "men's sports" are technically open to both sexes.  That mostly doesn't matter because women aren't competitive against male athletes, so we talk about "men's sports" and "women's sports," but really only the latter is truly segregated.  My understanding is the issue with trans men involves hormone supplements / doping but that isn't really what rules against doping were designed to address and I don't know if those rules can be appropriately tweaked or not.

Edited by IvanKaramazov
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I don't know enough about the competitive issues involved with trans men playing men's sports to have an opinion.  That doesn't seem to be much of an issue compared to the other case, of trans women playing women's sports.

OK so we’re up to 50% of trans people where playing with the gender they identify with doesn’t seem to be much of an issue.

What about trans women that aren’t actually very good at sports?  Any competitive problem letting them play in a league with cis women?  It would seem to me that this group probably makes up a significant percentage of the remaining 50%.

Edited by fatguyinalittlecoat
Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read Biden's EO.

Here's what my EO would look like.

1. Anyone who wants to can play boys' or men's sports.

2. You can play girls' or women's sports if (a) you were assigned female at birth and have not taken hormones to transition, or (b) you currently identify as female and wouldn't dominate the competition. Trans women totally dominating their peers shouldn't be allowed.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

isn't it sexist to have "girls" and "boys" sports anyway ? 

I mean, if we're going to really try and be fair and equal - let them compete fairly and equally 

anyone here have band kids? I did - and when they auditioned or competed - it was whomever was best got the chair (position/rank), gender didn't matter. I'm sure there are other examples where there is competition and boys/girl is irrelevant. 

do that with everything - its time ...... if you're good enough, you play and are on the team. If you're not, you don't

fair and equal  

 

if "biology" matters ..... then obviously we have to then conclude that men are better than women (physically / sports). ..... anyone here want to admit that? 

Edited by Stealthycat
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

But would they have?  Could they have?   Maybe in a few years we can differentiate based on such physical characteristics because we as a society have allowed the girls to choose to become women instead of men.  

It doesn't freaking matter.  Surgery ain't going to change the fact that they are biological males.  They will always have 1000x the testosterone of women regardless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Wait for those of you that are against this are you allowing trans males that have hormones to compete in women’s sports?  Or trans people just can’t compete in sports at all?

Don't be silly.  They can compete with men - as they should be because, y'know, they are biological males.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Biff84 said:

The potential to decrease depression and suicide among trans youth.

That's a bunch of baloney.  Their suicide rates are 40%+ and it's NOT because they can't compete in sports.  They have a clear mental issue.  Up until 2019 it was considered a mental issue until they changed it for "compassionate" reasons.  However, despite that, the suicide rate has remained unchanged. 

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Right, I understand that.  A person that was assigned male at birth but now identifies publicly as female HAS taken an enormous step to transition.  For some people, that’s the only step they ever take.  That person should be called a trans female.  Not a “male that identifies as female.”

I'm not "arguing" about those distinctions - I've already stated I'm not well versed in this area.  I will defer to your expertise.  I think my stance is fairly clear - if a person was assigned male at birth and has a physical advantage over people who were assigned female at birth in sports then I don't think they should be allowed to play female sports.  Due to unfair competitive advantage and the risk of injury.  Hopefully this is clear.

Edited by AAABatteries
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I haven't read Biden's EO.

Here's what my EO would look like.

1. Anyone who wants to can play boys' or men's sports.

2. You can play girls' or women's sports if (a) you were assigned female at birth and have not taken hormones to transition, or (b) you currently identify as female and wouldn't dominate the competition. Trans women totally dominating their peers shouldn't be allowed.

I agree with this in theory although the concept "wouldn't dominate the competition" is so subjective that I'm not sure there's an equitable way to judge it.  That's why I would think we would have to default to not allowing it.

I would also include "or propose a physical risk to other competitors"

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Also, why is it OK that short unathletic boys have to play basketball in a league with tall athletic ones?  Isn’t that “biologically unfair”?  Why is that different than what we’re discussing here?  Some people are better at sports than other people.

They don't "have to" - most areas have lower level basketball leagues for the kids that are not good or athletic enough to play in the "better" leagues.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

isn't it sexist to have "girls" and "boys" sports anyway ? 

I mean, if we're going to really try and be fair and equal - let them compete fairly and equally 

anyone here have band kids? I did - and when they auditioned or competed - it was whomever was best got the chair (position/rank)

do that with everything - its time ...... if you're good enough, you play and are on the team. If you're not, you don't

 

fair and equal  

this wouldn't work because eventually the fringe groups would cry that girls are being dominated by the men and would never make the team.  Then we would have to have more "diversity" rules where teams MUST have X numbers of women on the team.  They don't want an equal starting point.  The want an equal outcome.

So sports (in this case) would be watered down.  We wouldn't have the best competing against the best.

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:
12 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Wait for those of you that are against this are you allowing trans males that have hormones to compete in women’s sports?  Or trans people just can’t compete in sports at all?

Don't be silly.  They can compete with men - as they should be because, y'know, they are biological males.

Trans males are people that were assigned female at birth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Trans males are people that were assigned female at birth.

Then they should be playing with females.  I mean, we have technology that can identify men vs women, right?  Aren't men XY and women XX or something like that?  How about if you have ovaries you're a woman?  

Maybe I'm missing something?

Maybe we should have Mens sports, Women's sports and then a third Category called "Other"?

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

I would also include "or propose a physical risk to other competitors"

This is only an issue in a minority of women’s sports.  This isn’t a reason to prevent a trans woman from competing in swimming or track or tennis or volleyball or a lot of other sports.  We can have special rules for certain sports due to safety if that seemed sensible but I’m not sure that’s really even necessary. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BladeRunner said:

Then they should be playing with females.  I mean, we have technology that can identify men vs women, right?  Aren't men XY and women XX or something like that?  How about if you have ovaries you're a woman?  

Maybe I'm missing something?

Some trans women supplement with testosterone.  That can change their appearance to make them look more masculine and could also give them a competitive advantage over cis females in certain sports.  I was asking whether it’s OK  for such a person to participate in women’s sports.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Some trans women supplement with testosterone.  That can change their appearance to make them look more masculine and could also give them a competitive advantage over cis females in certain sports.  I was asking whether it’s OK  for such a person to participate in women’s sports.

I would say No.

It doesn't matter if it's an actual woman taking testosterone or an actual male taking Estrogen.  Actual males will ALWAYS have 1000x more testosterone than an actual female regardless of what extra hormones they are taking.  The testosterone will always be significantly higher in men.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:
5 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Some trans women supplement with testosterone.  That can change their appearance to make them look more masculine and could also give them a competitive advantage over cis females in certain sports.  I was asking whether it’s OK  for such a person to participate in women’s sports.

I would say No.

OK so what you’re saying is that trans males (at least those that have started taking testosterone) shouldn’t be allowed to play any sports at all.  They can’t play with the men because they were assigned female at birth but they also can’t play with women because they’re taking testosterone.  I think that’s bad public policy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

This is only an issue in a minority of women’s sports.  This isn’t a reason to prevent a trans woman from competing in swimming or track or tennis or volleyball or a lot of other sports.  We can have special rules for certain sports due to safety if that seemed sensible but I’m not sure that’s really even necessary. 

I agree that safety does apply to limited sports and the competitive advantage applies to more but not all.  I would be fine with those be excluded if there a simple way to agree to it.  I don’t see that happening so by default I would imagine it’s all or nothing.

I understand it’s a difficult situation and sucks for those individuals - I would be in favor of states, cities and leagues deciding for themselves and not having it be an EO.  I’d hold the same stance at those levels but then at least I could decide if I wanted to participate and not have it default to all.  I’d be supportive of alternative leagues where this was allowed but I doubt there would be funding and enough participation to have them survive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

OK so what you’re saying is that trans males (at least those that have started taking testosterone) shouldn’t be allowed to play any sports at all.  They can’t play with the men because they were assigned female at birth but they also can’t play with women because they’re taking testosterone.  I think that’s bad public policy.

Nope, that's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that if you were born with female parts and estrogen then you play female sports.  if you were born with male parts and testosterone then you play male sports.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While discussing this issue I think it’s important to go back to some first principles.  What are sports for?  Why do we value them?  What are the benefits?

People seem to have very different ideas about these questions and that may be driving some disagreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

OK so what you’re saying is that trans males (at least those that have started taking testosterone) shouldn’t be allowed to play any sports at all.  They can’t play with the men because they were assigned female at birth but they also can’t play with women because they’re taking testosterone.  I think that’s bad public policy.

I don't think there are any rules stopping females from playing men's sports.  Maybe there are in some sports, but I'm moderately sure that that isn't a universal thing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...