@AverageJoe1 saidYou're lying as always; I never said it was OK for a man to compete against women in women's only event. I don't accept your labeling of transgender women as "man" and neither does the SCOTUS or the 46 States that allow a change of sex on drivers licenses.
Marauder thinksi/says/preaches/concescends that it is OK for muscular men to comepete physically against women. He writes that some women are as strong as men, which is true, and that that is reason enough to pass all laws providing Men can Compete against women. They can win awards and berths at the Olympics. THey can hurt women. Along the way, a woman may defeat a ...[text shortened]... ay have no genitals, maybe a little tube,, will best her in sports.
This is who we debate with.
Could you try to make one post without such a blatant lie about another poster's position?
1 edit
@no1marauder saidNote that the ONLY way that you can find a wah to support your position is to bring in an outside entity,,which is SCOTUS.
You're lying as always; I never said it was OK for a man to compete against women in women's only event. I don't accept your labeling of transgender women as "man" and neither does the SCOTUS or the 46 States that allow a change of sex on drivers licenses.
Could you try to make one post without such a blatant lie about another poster's position?
If nine families live on an island with no courts of law, and Family A wants their son to compete against all the 7 girls in the other families, in swimming or volleyball, would you let him?
Really, why must you be reliant (brrrr) on some opinions of judges, or of some guy at Rotary Club, to make this simple decision when the island people bring this issue up? Why? And why not your Own Opinion? Is that not what debate is for? There are no links to post on the island. And you mentioned transgender, states, driver licenses and states in your post above. What in the hell, Marauder.
Can you give us your own opinion? With your reasoning....
@Sleepyguy saidYou realize that the majority of posters here align themselves with the dems who would not acknowledge any of the wonderful news that Trump delivered on Tuesday.
After all the lies exposed over the last few years I trust the DOGE numbers more than anything disseminated by the govt. But even so, they couldn't even clap for brain cancer boy? What a bunch of pathetic miserable a-holes.
@AverageJoe1 saidI'm not interested in your disingenuous hypotheticals which all assume a male wants to play in a women's only event.
Note that the ONLY way that you can find a wah to support your position is to bring in an outside entity,,which is SCOTUS.
If nine families live on an island with no courts of law, and Family A wants their son to compete against all the 7 girls in the other families, in swimming or volleyball, would you let him?
Really, why must you be reliant (brrrr) on some o ...[text shortened]... st above. What in the hell, Marauder.
Can you give us your own opinion? With your reasoning....
I already gave my opinion on the real issue numerous times; who plays in such events should be up to the organization that holds them provided any exclusions of persons otherwise eligible are done based on scientific evidence saying they have some unfair competitive advantage.
@no1marauder saidHere again, you stretch and make complicated a simple question. A standout liberal characteristic.
I'm not interested in your disingenuous hypotheticals which all assume a male wants to play in a women's only event.
I already gave my opinion on the real issue numerous times; who plays in such events should be up to the organization that holds them provided any exclusions of persons otherwise eligible are done based on scientific evidence saying they have some unfair competitive advantage.
I'm sorry??? I cannot, to make my point of the question 'assume' that the male wants to play? Should I have said 'I assume male 'wants' to play? What is wrong with you man.
Everyone, this is entertaining, really. We have some floundering here. Above I listed these irrelevant words in his post. Sex, tran and gender. I asked about a man competing agains a girl.
NOW, he incorporates these words: Organiazation, Exclusions, Scientific Evidence. What in the hell??
His 'out' in his post is that he is not interested in my post. Hell, I am not interested in Shouse posts 95% of the time, but I respond straight out to th extent my brain can take it. But this question is not nearly as complex as Sonhouse.
Can Marauder answer this simple question? If MB's son wants to race Marauder's daughter, in a recognized race, would Marauder turn him loose on her? The boy has huge muscles and big hands. Or, will Marauder talk him to death like he does us.
Pitiful. (Did he really say scientific evidence above? quite boring poster.) Wants it to be "Up to the organization". Did I mention an organization>?
Dont bother, I win another. Directed verdict.
- Joined
- 09 Jan 22
- Moves
- 1139
@no1marauder saidThen you most certainly DID say it was OK for men to compete against women.
You're lying as always; I never said it was OK for a man to compete against women in women's only event. I don't accept your labeling of transgender women as "man"
@Cliff-Mashburn saidFunny, the man cannot go deep, he is like a screaming fairy wearing those big glasses.
Then you most certainly DID say it was OK for men to compete against women.
He suggests that we 'accept the teachings and new morals and ways of people'" people who are changing the very nature of humans as existed over 10,000 years'
He will say things are always evolving. Yes horses became cars. Problem is, Marauder thinks people are becoming something else
@Sleepyguy saidSo you believe the BS they found this ONE case of fraud running EIGHT BILLION when it was proved to be EIGHT MILLION.
After all the lies exposed over the last few years I trust the DOGE numbers more than anything disseminated by the govt. But even so, they couldn't even clap for brain cancer boy? What a bunch of pathetic miserable a-holes.
RIGHT, we trust Muskrat, right?
@Cliff-Mashburn saidThis is dumb semantics. Sports leagues have complex eligibility requirements for women's sports for a reason. The issue isn't black and white.
Then you most certainly DID say it was OK for men to compete against women.
- Joined
- 09 Jan 22
- Moves
- 1139
@wildgrass saidMost certainly is black and white.
This is dumb semantics. Sports leagues have complex eligibility requirements for women's sports for a reason. The issue isn't black and white.
If you were born with a dick you are a man and should not be allowed to compete against girls, or use their locker rooms and take showers with them.
@wildgrass saidProbably lies, as usual.
To be fair, none of this was "good news". They were just statements that Trump made.
@Cliff-Mashburn saidHow many times do I have to tell you people that when your premise is false, it renders your whole argument false?
Then you most certainly DID say it was OK for men to compete against women.
You guys haven't learned one bit about how freaking stupid you are to believe the words drooling from Trump's mouth.
@Cliff-Mashburn saidIt's not. Most athletes who are at the very elite level are somewhat genetic anomalies. Anatomy does not always correlate.
Most certainly is black and white.
If you were born with a dick you are a man and should not be allowed to compete against girls, or use their locker rooms and take showers with them.
XXY assigned female at birth?
Chimeras?
Hyperandrogenism?
Intersex?
Mark Weston? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Weston_(athlete)
@AverageJoe1 saidStop starting your conversation from the 'lie side'. Maybe then you won't end up there. And FFS, stop your stupid analogies. You NEVER get it right.
Here again, you stretch and make complicated a simple question. A standout liberal characteristic.
I'm sorry??? I cannot, to make my point of the question 'assume' that the male wants to play? Should I have said 'I assume male 'wants' to play? What is wrong with you man.
Everyone, this is entertaining, really. We have some floundering here. Above I listed the ...[text shortened]... organization". Did I mention an organization>?
Dont bother, I win another. Directed verdict.