@no1marauder saidGreat attempt at a dodge🐑.
A stupid statement by a stupid man.
I'm not even sure medical organizations use the term "birth defects" anymore but even assuming just for the sake of arguments these are, how does that change anything? An all-encompassing definition has to apply to people with "birth defeats" too.
@mike69 saidAd Populum arguments are fallacious.
The fact that you think this is the problem when the whole picture has been explained over and over to you is amazing. You eviscerate yourself, you’re just either too dumb or proud to admit or see it! Here’s your logic, let’s piss on women’s rights and safety making up almost 51 percent of our population to satisfy an extremely tiny portion of the populations fairy tale of if ...[text shortened]... inspiration with such great insight and intelligence that I’m almost left speechless there marauder.
The only one trying to deny rights are you and the other right wingers. Extremely tiny portions of the population are individuals and the philosophy of this country is based on individual, not group, rights. Majorities can only take away the rights of individuals in a minority in a tyranny which is not what we're supposed to be.
@no1marauder saidAKA birth defects
That doesn't work; if you're going to make a legally binding definition, it can't omit something like 6 million individuals in the US alone.
And if a biologist says " “These are not hard categories with clear definitions.” why do you think a simple, small town lawyer is better qualified than him to decide?
At the early phases of these discussions, I relied on what p ...[text shortened]... y gender affirming surgery/treatments). None of you have been willing to admit those facts, however.
@mike69 saidYou really are as dumb as you seem, aren't you? The post directly dealt with Mott's "point" which was, I guess, people with "birth defects" don't have any rights.
Great attempt at a dodge🐑.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidTalking with an honest, not agenda driven person would have been nice.
You are not the only one that has encountered this numbskull awarding himself/herself victories
@no1marauder saidPlease explain why we have the “special olympics” then
A stupid statement by a stupid man.
I'm not even sure medical organizations use the term "birth defects" anymore but even assuming just for the sake of arguments these are, how does that change anything? An all-encompassing definition has to apply to people with "birth defeats" too.
@no1marauder saidThank you, what rights were they again?
You really are as dumb as you seem, aren't you? The post directly dealt with Mott's "point" which was, I guess, people with "birth defects" don't have any rights.
@no1marauder saidWell it’s like if I believe it, reform my body to half way resemble it, it’s true doesn’t work in the reality of pissing on the rights, safety and achievements of women even if it’s one. Let’s say if you take the best person from each sport and all of a sudden they said I believe I’m a woman, there would be no women’s sports left or any records not broken. The reason for the division is because of safety and it wouldn’t be fair or equal at all. I say it again da believe something doesn’t make it reality. Would you like a bunch more make believe examples?
Ad Populum arguments are fallacious.
The only one trying to deny rights are you and the other right wingers. Extremely tiny portions of the population are individuals and the philosophy of this country is based on individual, not group, rights. Majorities can only take away the rights of individuals in a minority in a tyranny which is not what we're supposed to be.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidPeople eligible to compete in the Special Olympics don't necessarily have "birth defects" (whatever that means): "To participate in the Special Olympics, a person must be at least 8 years old and identified by an agency or professional as having one of the following conditions: intellectual disabilities, cognitive delays as measured by formal assessment, or significant learning or vocational problems due to cognitive delay that require or have required specially designed instruction."
Please explain why we have the “special olympics” then
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Olympics
Nor are people with "birth defects" banned from top level competition including the Olympics: https://www.olympics.com/en/news/usa-brianna-cope-surfing-birth-defect-hand-bullies-interviews
So it's rather unclear what your point is.
@mike69 saidNo, I'd like some actual evidence that transgender women athletes have an unfair competitive advantage against cisgender ones. That a tiny number of the former have done well in a minute proportion of the literally hundreds of thousands of such competitions in the US each year is obviously insufficient.
Well it’s like if I believe it, reform my body to half way resemble it, it’s true doesn’t work in the reality of pissing on the rights, safety and achievements of women even if it’s one. Let’s say if you take the best person from each sport and all of a sudden they said I believe I’m a woman, there would be no women’s sports left or any records not broken. The reason for the ...[text shortened]... in da believe something doesn’t make it reality. Would you like a bunch more make believe examples?
It's a silly right wing scare tactic that admission of transgender women into competitions will end women's sports altogether (there were a record number of women athletes last year in the NCAA).
I've given up on saying to right wingers "You can't really seriously believe that" because it turns out you guys believe whatever your propaganda outlets tell you but if you have any semblance of rationality you know such a claim is utterly absurd.
1 edit
@Mott-The-Hoople saidSo you'd ban someone with Swyer Syndrome from athletic competition because they have a "birth defect" that causes them to not fit into the binary definition of male/female?
AKA birth defects
Mike you can answer that, too.