How many males do you know of playing female high school or ANY level sports...anywhere in the world?
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
That's an interesting point. So if people can self identify their gender to use the restroom, how do we legally keep "female identifying" high school boys out of girl's sports?
Europe has managed to do so just fine.
I'm not aware of any males even attempting to play on women's sports teams. Females on male teams...yes, not even that uncommon.
Anyone watch 60 Minutes yesterday? They had a segment on a trans Asian lady swimmer who was recruited to swim for the Harvard women's team. She was a beautiful girl, a lesbian who wanted to be a guy. Swam with the girls but dressed and acted like a guy on campus. Wanted to do the male hormones bit but wouldn't be able to compete with the girls if she did. Ended up getting her breasts removed (got "topped" as they call it), took the male hormones and joined the Harvard men's swimming team. She didn't get "bottomed" though. Keeping open the option to have children.
* She went from being pretty much the best swimmer on the women's team to pretty much the worst swimmer on the men's team. She said her goal became to not finish in last place in every competition - something she has accomplished only once.
Last edited:
No need for the condescending "son" there, Kopi. Not just here on the Paddock, but everywhere it's about men creeping on daughters. Just thought it was interesting.
It's all a ploy to get Obama to break out his real birth certificate. Pretty clever if you ask me, and who doesn't want to see a Kenyan birth certificate for a precious little Muslim girl, <strike>Ayesha</strike> Barack Hussein Obama.
Haha. But really, it's damn near the same thing.
By the time this hits SCOTUS, presumably Garland would be on the court and recuse himself (I don't think there's even a 1% chance he decides or is allowed to). That leaves an interesting 4-4 split (assuming politics > legal reasoning). What a mess. Would be as messy, and damaging to the Court's public image, as Bush v. Gore.
Sounds like a pervert just making stuff up so she/he can look at some naked dudes in the locker room.
No need to go this route. The 4-4 court has been very beneficial to the left thus far.
Senate doesn't nominate: "The President . . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court." Easy to point out the constitutional roles and say Rs are trying to usurp executive power. Don't think that's a winning strategy.
No, you haven't answered my very simple question. I asked whether or not you previously posted as Deeefense. That's all. And you never stated one of two answers, Yes, or no.
The reason I feel it's relevant is that Deeefense finally admitted that he/she had spent time on political campaigns previously and I, at least for one, felt like some of the posts Deeefense submitted carried more of a campaign line than an individual's own opinion and/or statement. Especially when some of those posts where obviously cut/pasted from some other content.
If I'm engaging with someone, I like to have some perspective on where they are coming from.
Yes. No. It's that easy.
I know the law: you are conrrect.
But... interpretations and careful wording... "Dear Mr President, we have given consent to and are advising you that Ms Smith would be an excellent candidate for SCOTUS...".
Obama wants to circumvent the law? Two can play that game.
I wouldn't bet my house on it, but I like to think people are more truthful than not. So I'll take the "yes" and move on.
I would bet a large sum of money fuzz is not defense.
However, if I was wrong (I'm probably not) I wouldn't pay him.
However, if I was wrong (I'm probably not) I wouldn't pay him.
That was just an example, do YOU want pervy old men following your wife or daughter into the LADIES room? All that pervy old man has to say is " I am a transgender woman". I hope McCory stands up for what is right and tell all the do gooders, who have NOT thought this issue thru, to go to hell.
If you support open bathrooms, then we may as well have no gender specific rules at all in this country.
BTW, just curious, how many transgender people do you know that has been discriminated against?
Following them into the "LADIES" room to what? My wife would probably tell you that she gets dressed with a "pervy old man" daily and it doesn't really bother her.
Here is the issue. We have always had "open bathrooms". I promise you that you have shared a public bathroom with a transgender person and never knew it. Our current laws have worked out ok for...pretty much forever but now some reactionary bigots who have lost their battles to keep our women barefoot and pregnant, to save our lily white schools and businesses from the darkies, lost their battle to save marriage from the queers...they've got to have someone to hate on so now they take aim on transgenders.
I don't personally know anyone who is transgender, how about you? But see, that's the thing. You didn't even know there was a problem, did you? I do have two cousins who are gay and have transgender friends and they both assure me that "they (transgenders) are around" and 99.9% of the time you will never know it. I mean you've not seen people that you've not wondered...is that a woman or a man? I know I have.
So again...do we need to start carrying our birth certificates with us and have bathroom monitors who check before we enter?
Some of you are so ignorant. Pervy old men can't walk into a ladies room and claim that they are transgender. I guess they could dress up as a woman and walk in...can't they do that today?
As for unisex bathrooms...been to Paris? Bathrooms have privacy stalls. Does it really matter if the stink from next door is coming from a male or female anus?
One rich guy fleeing high taxes is putting a $140 million hole in the New Jersey budget. New Jersey's top rate is about 9%. This is a cautionary tale for other high tax states like California, New York, Oregon, Illinois, etc.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...00&jumpTo=comment-122315554#comment-122315554
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...00&jumpTo=comment-122315554#comment-122315554
Last edited:
If you cant tell the difference between a transgender and woman, I dont know what to tell you.
Also, your solution about bathroom stalls keeps missing the mark. As I said, I dont know the answer, but were talking about open locker rooms and showering, not a private stall. I am also assuming that you have never been in a locker room based on your perceived notions of a locker room, which is fine, just trying to get an honest answer that doesnt askew the facts.
Are there going to be abuses? Of course.
Do transgenders hide in the bushes like buffalo Bill waiting for the opportunity to strike your children while they bath? No
But you are ignoring the fact that this issue has been pushed to the forefront based on a transgender suing for being excluded from the locker room to undress and shower with other girls.
I think we should go back to men are men, women are women, marriage is marriage, and quit changing all the rules and making everything a shade of gray in the name of 'liberty'.
Preach it! And back when women stayed in the kitchen and kept their pretty little mouths shut! When blacks would just whistle and sing songs in the fields all the live long day! When being gay just meant you were happy as hell. Man I miss the good ol days!
American taxpayers have been voting with their feet for the last 40 years, escaping high tax high regulation unfriendly states for low tax great business environments, the census results are inescapable. democrat liberal bastions in the northeast are losing people to the more free south. even the formerly fast growing miracle state of California has incredibly taxed & spent & regulated themselves enough to stop the century long increase in population to now a net decline.
Yes, the answer to science and increasing knowledge is to keep everything the same. Why be right when you can be simple?
there is that, also. Conservatives do have the tendency of successful heterosexual reproduction producing more humans.
the Democrat plans of encouraging homosexual pairing combined with abortions all the way up to 9th month is a questionable strategery for the growth of the liberal population in America.
the Democrat plans of encouraging homosexual pairing combined with abortions all the way up to 9th month is a questionable strategery for the growth of the liberal population in America.
I'm just saying that looking at census population figures is a pretty crude tool. Per capita GDP growth over the past several years is a very even mix of red (ND and TX), blue (CA and WA) and purple (CO and NH) states.
A lot goes into economic growth besides petty state legislature politics.
Which is why they need all the Mexicans in the country. Anchor babies are a nice dependent class to have on board.
I'm extrapolating slightly, but Occam's Razor exists for a reason.
Last edited:
Different issue. We're talking scientific advances on what it is to be a man or a woman, which is more than hot dog or taco (or reproductive capability). Occam's Razor would not apply where new information was present, correct? And where the new information is not assumptions required for the alternative explanation, but facts? I realize your point that often simple is the correct explanation for competing hypothesis where one requires additional assumptions (which is where conspiracy theories often fall flat - they require so many unproveable assumptions as to be useless exercises in legit explanation), but I don't think that applies in the context of the conversation at hand where science points to other markers of genetic identity (which is itself something of a human construct anyway).
Anyway, my use of "simple" was probably incorrect there, when what I really meant was "it is what it is" or tradition (for lack of a better word). "It should be X because it was X," which to me is one of the hallmarks of the simple minded or intellectual incurious.
