zapatos

I don't think Stringy said otherwise. You figure out what the rules should be for Transgender competitors, you monitor everyone, you react to infractions based on the rules.

Please be specific. WHO is unwilling to discuss specifics?

I'm often bad at interpreting what is behind people's comments. I should probably quit trying. While I feel the topic of transgender people and sports needs a full discussion there are not many proposals I'm ready to get behind, this one included. If gender reassignment was being done to get an unfair advantage in sports I imagine I would be behind the proposal to ban that. However, if a person gains an advantage simply by following their nature, including surgery/hormones, I'm not sure that is "unfair", and no more 'artificial' than having surgery to fix scoliosis. To me that sounds similar to suggesting that women get an unfair advantage at work because they can get extra time off for having children. Transgender people are not 'invading' a space owned by those who are not transgender, they are instead equal to all others and looking to fit into the spaces that already exist, just like everyone else is.

So let's review what I said to Curious. "Why are you "concerned"? Is someone in danger? Do you have examples of injuries? This is just another issue concerning sports, along with equitable pay, the rule regarding turnovers due to fumbles that go out of the end zone, and the use of HGH. Trying to scare people with scenarios like Mike Tyson killing young ladies in the ring simply feeds into peoples' fears and makes this a more difficult issue than it needs to be. People also used to be afraid that women would die if they were allowed to compete in the marathon." I asked him questions. Told him how I viewed the issue. And suggested that Mike Tyson was a bad example. What was next? When Curious suggested someone could be in danger I discussed how safety concerns could be seen when there were only women or only men competing but that we didn't stop people who were too powerful from competing. "Mike Tyson brutalized many of the fighters he faced. Some literally ran away from him in the ring. If we take your scenario of "different categories for different danger levels" then we would need boxing weight classes such as welterweight, cupcake welterweight, and ass-stomping welterweight. When Ronda Rousey was at her prime no one could fight her without a serious risk to life and limb. She would not have been allowed to fight anyone due to being put into a fighting class occupied only by herself." And then finally when Curious said "You need to get of your high horse and stop assuming people who are interested in this have an anti trans agenda." I responded with: "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. If you don't want us to assume you and another have an anti-trans agenda then stop saying things that sound like you do have an agenda." So... Where did I stop him from voicing his opinion? Where did I stop him from explaining his point of view? When did I jump down his throat and accuse him of having an agenda? This is where you come closest to what I said, but as I explained to Area54, starting out a conversation on Transgender's right in sports should not begin with: "I support transgender rights, but there are serious issues with former men entering women's sports. Mike Tyson would be an example." as it sounds (to me anyway) as if the person has an agenda. I'd even go so far as to say that Curious' "get off your high horse" was at least as provocative as my "stop saying things that sound like you do have an agenda.", and his comment was of course said prior to my "agenda" comment. As I seem to be under focus here I'd be happy to have you parse my comments to Curious and tell me exactly which ones are out of line. I promise I'll take your comments seriously.

He also painted a picture of what will happen if someone who is transgender is allowed to compete in women's sports. "I support transgender rights, but there are serious issues with former men entering women's sports. Mike Tyson would be an example." Here's the picture that pops to mind as someone who is going to compete against your daughter: It is unfair to transgender people to have their very personal and difficult situation presented as such an extreme caricature. It is reminiscent of dog whistle used by people who don't want transgender people to be able to use a particular bathroom by suggesting that perverts will now have a license to peek at your 8 year old daughter as she uses the restroom at school. The increasing acceptance of transgender athletes means there is legitimately a serious discussion that needs to take place. So let's not begin that serious discussion with a highly insulting caricature of the people who are impacted by this discussion.

It was fun while it lasted. Good luck to you.

Can you explain what you mean by this? Focus is very much a function of how the brain works. I don't see how you can possibly suggest that lack of focus is strictly a self-esteem problem. One of the symptoms of COVID is lack of focus. Surely having COVID is not a self-esteem issue.

My biggest problems with all levels of government is that they are composed of people who too often have 'agendas'. For example in FL the governor Ron DeSantis didn't want the Federal Government to mandate masks on his state, but then he banned localities from enforcing their own mask mandates. He didn't want to be pushed around but was happy to push others around. Similarly letting the states set their own 'lowest' minimum wages would allow them to impose their way on municipalities, just as the Federal Government attempts to impose their way on the states. It seems like all we ever do is try to find the best of the myriad of bad governing models.

Does it make more sense to push the authority to set wages to an entity even lower than state level? I understand why you think state level is better than federal level, but wouldn't municipality level be even better than state level? Certainly conditions in NYC are different than in Schenectady, NY.

Stop assuming I'm talking about you. You're dodging my question and answering one I didn't ask so you can pontificate. Don't waste my time. If you just want to preach then say so.

You promised to answer my question. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. If you don't want us to assume you and another have an anti-trans agenda then stop saying things that sound like you do have an agenda.

No, I don't. I'm exploring why you think gender is a simple matter of science.

What is your gender identification based on?

Perhaps you can help me as I seem to be fooled here. What gender do you associate with the following?

Mike Tyson brutalized many of the fighters he faced. Some literally ran away from him in the ring. If we take your scenario of "different categories for different danger levels" then we would need boxing weight classes such as welterweight, cupcake welterweight, and ass-stomping welterweight. When Ronda Rousey was at her prime no one could fight her without a serious risk to life and limb. She would not have been allowed to fight anyone due to being put into a fighting class occupied only by herself.

Why are you "concerned"? Is someone in danger? Do you have examples of injuries? This is just another issue concerning sports, along with equitable pay, the rule regarding turnovers due to fumbles that go out of the end zone, and the use of HGH. Trying to scare people with scenarios like Mike Tyson killing young ladies in the ring simply feeds into peoples' fears and makes this a more difficult issue than it needs to be. People also used to be afraid that women would die if they were allowed to compete in the marathon.

Any relationship?

Well, that is the purpose that YOU assign to life. I don't see though where life has any inherent purpose to it, and given the wide range of answers to this question, I don't think that an inherent purpose is obvious.

Very astute. Yet you are unable to understand what the word "no" means in response to a yes/no question that you asked.

"No" was the answer to your question. The words that followed in my post were a reasonable interpretation of what studiot intended to convey, and were meant to correct your misinterpretation.

No, it means that if the OP was somewhat difficult to address, then your post is a complete disaster.

Who in the hell put them in charge?!?! I didn't vote for them! Are they also in charge of what we have for dinner? Because if so I'm pretty sure that tonight I'm having Cheese Nips and M&Ms.

Ah yes, Dr. Evil is going to implement Operation "Destructive Disaster" to wipe out all digital information but will leave all Walker's Caskets untouched. Brilliant! And all we have to do is pay him "One Million Dollars"!!!!

I can tell you for a fact that is not true.

All those word but still no answer. What a crock.