WWTBAM Bored

Estonut wrote:

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:I'm inclined to believe the boy, his parents, and the doctor who implemented the decision unless there's a damn good reason not to. And I doubt BiT has any more information about the specifics of this case than you or I do. Based on his explanation here, I'm pretty sure that's how he refers to all transgendered kids. That's not okay and it's important to say so.

Isn't it important to gather information first? You have previously claimed that you do so. Do you go into court with "I'm inclined to believe" or "I doubt?" Was there even a doctor involved in this particular case? There is a lot of information missing here. You didn't answer my questions, either.

• Is it OK for someone to refer to a transgender boy as a "gender confused girl [who] wants to be a boy" if it happens to be true?

• Do you believe that this has never been true?

You never answered these questions, either, Bob.

Get used to it. He demands factual answers from everyone, but never answers questions with anything but his opinion, backed up with links to other people's opinions. But he is very adamant about his opinions.

Estonut wrote:

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:I'm inclined to believe the boy, his parents, and the doctor who implemented the decision unless there's a damn good reason not to. And I doubt BiT has any more information about the specifics of this case than you or I do. Based on his explanation here, I'm pretty sure that's how he refers to all transgendered kids. That's not okay and it's important to say so.

Isn't it important to gather information first? You have previously claimed that you do so. Do you go into court with "I'm inclined to believe" or "I doubt?" Was there even a doctor involved in this particular case? There is a lot of information missing here. You didn't answer my questions, either.

• Is it OK for someone to refer to a transgender boy as a "gender confused girl [who] wants to be a boy" if it happens to be true?

• Do you believe that this has never been true?

You never answered these questions, either, Bob.

We're talking about a minor. Accordingly, the hormone injections required both a doctor's prescription and parental consent. I believe the boy, the doctor, and the parents. If BiT thinks they're all wrong, and he has the right to disregard the boy's identity, he's got the burden of proof.

Moreover, it was utterly clear from BiT's defense of his phrasing (which was obviously provocative in the first place) that he insists on referring to transgender people by their birth gender no matter what. So I think you're making specious excuses for him that don't deserve to be taken seriously, and really aren't worth much of my time to deal with. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Estonut wrote:

Estonut wrote:Isn't it important to gather information first? You have previously claimed that you do so. Do you go into court with "I'm inclined to believe" or "I doubt?" Was there even a doctor involved in this particular case? There is a lot of information missing here. You didn't answer my questions, either.

• Is it OK for someone to refer to a transgender boy as a "gender confused girl [who] wants to be a boy" if it happens to be true?

• Do you believe that this has never been true?

You never answered these questions, either, Bob.

We're talking about a minor. Accordingly, the hormone injections required both a doctor's prescription and parental consent. I believe the boy, the doctor, and the parents. If BiT thinks they're all wrong, and he has the right to disregard the boy's identity, he's got the burden of proof.

Moreover, it was utterly clear from BiT's defense of his phrasing (which was obviously provocative in the first place) that he insists on referring to transgender people by their birth gender no matter what. So I think you're making specious excuses for him that don't deserve to be taken seriously, and really aren't worth much of my time to deal with.

Again, you failed to answer 2 straightforward questions. I answered yours.

Bob78164 wrote:We're talking about a minor. Accordingly, the hormone injections required both a doctor's prescription and parental consent. I believe the boy, the doctor, and the parents. If BiT thinks they're all wrong, and he has the right to disregard the boy's identity, he's got the burden of proof.

A doctor's consent? You act like doctors, without exception, are perfect, moral, and all knowing. I can find a doctor that will:
* Kill a baby in a womb, regardless of reason or stage of pregnancy
* Prescribe opioids even though they are not medically necessary
* Prescribe medications to allow a person to voluntarily end their life.

I can prove the girl's gender. Her identity is a mental state. She may think she's Pocahontas or Hitler. I can't prove that. I can prove she isn't Pocahontas or Hitler. You would probably agree with me on that. Anyway, what she thinks she is is not relevant to the situation (athletic competition).

BackInTex wrote:Anyway, what she thinks she is is not relevant to the situation (athletic competition).

What she thinks isn't relevant, I would agree. It's what the governing body for that sport thinks. And they think she should compete. At the world championship level, they already have standards about hormone levels in place, and while it's no surprise that high school athletic associations are behind the times in this regard, eventually they will adopt standards, the same as they are adopting standards about steroid and other drug use.

You're not going to see a flood of teenage boys undergoing hormone treatment so they can compete in girls' athletic events.

silverscreenselect wrote: You're not going to see a flood of teenage boys undergoing hormone treatment so they can compete in girls' athletic events.

Probably will see more biological males competing as women than we will see mass school shooters.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: You're not going to see a flood of teenage boys undergoing hormone treatment so they can compete in girls' athletic events.

Probably will see more biological males competing as women than we will see mass school shooters.

I certainly hope so!

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote:Anyway, what she thinks she is is not relevant to the situation (athletic competition).

What she thinks isn't relevant . . . .

You bought into what BiT is doing. This is a transgender boy, forced to compete as a girl. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:This is a transgender boy, forced to compete as a girl. --Bob

No one forced her to compete. She chose to "compete" with the unfair government sanctioned advantage of doctor prescribed steroids.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:This is a transgender boy, forced to compete as a girl. --Bob

No one forced her to compete. She chose to "compete" with the unfair government sanctioned advantage of doctor prescribed steroids.

BiT, I don't care about the high-school athletics aspect of this discussion (although the obvious solution here is to let him compete as a boy, just like all the other boys get to). What I do care about is your bigoted refusal to refer to him as a boy. --Bob

My opinion, FWIW is that there are two different things that are being considered here:

SEX. A person's sex is determined at birth. It is determined by their chromosomes. If a person has XY, they are male, XX they are female. With some rare exceptions (Klinefelter syndrome), that is their sex.
GENDER. The person's psychological sex. I will not get into the debate whether it is innate or acquired. I don't care, and I have no problem with it. The person can act on it with medical procedures or not. It is up to them, but their biological sex remains the same, as I understand it.

I do disagree with the rulings of the controlling sports authorities. I believe that people should only be able to participate in sports based on their SEX, not their GENDER. Why it is not that way is because of political correctness, which is unfair to those whose sex and gender are the same. But apparently, it is not up to a vote.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:This is a transgender boy, forced to compete as a girl. --Bob

No one forced her to compete. She chose to "compete" with the unfair government sanctioned advantage of doctor prescribed steroids.

Steroids or hormones?

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:This is a transgender boy, forced to compete as a girl. --Bob

No one forced her to compete. She chose to "compete" with the unfair government sanctioned advantage of doctor prescribed steroids.

Steroids or hormones?

Careful, you're gonna pull a stupid muscle.

Martina Navratilova is on BackInTex's side.

Trans athletes make great gains, yet resentment still flares

jarnon wrote:Martina Navratilova is on BackInTex's side.

Trans athletes make great gains, yet resentment still flares

Both photos in the article make excellent arguments that such competition is unfair to non-trans females.

jarnon wrote:Martina Navratilova is on BackInTex's side.

Trans athletes make great gains, yet resentment still flares

As is every other sane non-delusional person in the world.

And the hits (against women) keep on coming from the left.


House Dems Introduce Bill To FORCE Schools To Allow Transgender Male Athletes To Compete As Females

All but one Democrat in the House of Representatives (and at least two Republicans) have signed on to a bill that would force schools to allow male athletes who identify as women to compete on women-only sports teams even if they have a clear statistical advantage over female athletes.

Absolutely insane.

BackInTex wrote:And the hits (against women) keep on coming from the left.


House Dems Introduce Bill To FORCE Schools To Allow Transgender Male Athletes To Compete As Females

All but one Democrat in the House of Representatives (and at least two Republicans) have signed on to a bill that would force schools to allow male athletes who identify as women to compete on women-only sports teams even if they have a clear statistical advantage over female athletes.

Absolutely insane.

Please cite the exact language in the bill that would have the effect you claim it would have.

I doubt you can do so because I don't think the bill has any such language. This is an effort to raise a boogeyman to generate unfounded and fear-based opposition to making gender identity a protected category.

In other words, Republicans are still using the "death panels" playbook of lying about bills in order to generate opposition. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:And the hits (against women) keep on coming from the left.


House Dems Introduce Bill To FORCE Schools To Allow Transgender Male Athletes To Compete As Females

All but one Democrat in the House of Representatives (and at least two Republicans) have signed on to a bill that would force schools to allow male athletes who identify as women to compete on women-only sports teams even if they have a clear statistical advantage over female athletes.

Absolutely insane.

Please cite the exact language in the bill that would have the effect you claim it would have.

I doubt you can do so because I don't think the bill has any such language. This is an effort to raise a boogeyman to generate unfounded and fear-based opposition to making gender identity a protected category.

In other words, Republicans are still using the "death panels" playbook of lying about bills in order to generate opposition. --Bob

Pretty much everything in the bill says it Bob. Everywhere 'sex' is used in the Civil Rights Act is replaced with 'sex, sexual orientation, gender identity' and where sex wasn't defined, it is now added including the other words. That will be all that's needed to bring on the lawsuits with liberal judges. Confused males will claim discrimination because of their sexual identity and away we go. No, the bill doesn't specify specifically everything it will impact. That is not the way laws are written. Quit acting stupid. You said you were smart. Act it. Or are you just being dishonest?

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:And the hits (against women) keep on coming from the left.


House Dems Introduce Bill To FORCE Schools To Allow Transgender Male Athletes To Compete As Females



Absolutely insane.

Please cite the exact language in the bill that would have the effect you claim it would have.

I doubt you can do so because I don't think the bill has any such language. This is an effort to raise a boogeyman to generate unfounded and fear-based opposition to making gender identity a protected category.

In other words, Republicans are still using the "death panels" playbook of lying about bills in order to generate opposition. --Bob

Pretty much everything in the bill says it Bob. Everywhere 'sex' is used in the Civil Rights Act is replaced with 'sex, sexual orientation, gender identity' and where sex wasn't defined, it is now added including the other words. That will be all that's needed to bring on the lawsuits with liberal judges. Confused males will claim discrimination because of their sexual identity and away we go. No, the bill doesn't specify specifically everything it will impact. That is not the way laws are written. Quit acting stupid. You said you were smart. Act it. Or are you just being dishonest?

This reminds me of arguments about the Equal Rights Amendment.

Now you're admitting that the bill does not, in fact, force schools to allow transgender girls to compete against cis-gender girls. And you're calling me dishonest?

The bill makes gender identity a protected class. No more, no less. You don't like that idea because (as you've demonstrated) you are so bigoted against transgender people that you refuse to acknowledge their identity. And to gin up opposition to the bill, you're inventing horrible consequences that the bill doesn't actually impose.

Sounds to me like the usual Republican playbook.

In contrast, Section 7 of this bill, which really was introduced in the Texas Legislature, would subject women who undergo abortions to capital murder charges that carry the death penalty. When Democrats point out the horrible things Republicans want to do with their power, we back up our claims with facts. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Please cite the exact language in the bill that would have the effect you claim it would have.

I doubt you can do so because I don't think the bill has any such language. This is an effort to raise a boogeyman to generate unfounded and fear-based opposition to making gender identity a protected category.

In other words, Republicans are still using the "death panels" playbook of lying about bills in order to generate opposition. --Bob

Pretty much everything in the bill says it Bob. Everywhere 'sex' is used in the Civil Rights Act is replaced with 'sex, sexual orientation, gender identity' and where sex wasn't defined, it is now added including the other words. That will be all that's needed to bring on the lawsuits with liberal judges. Confused males will claim discrimination because of their sexual identity and away we go. No, the bill doesn't specify specifically everything it will impact. That is not the way laws are written. Quit acting stupid. You said you were smart. Act it. Or are you just being dishonest?

This reminds me of arguments about the Equal Rights Amendment.

Now you're admitting that the bill does not, in fact, force schools to allow transgender girls to compete against cis-gender girls. And you're calling me dishonest?

The bill makes gender identity a protected class. No more, no less. You don't like that idea because (as you've demonstrated) you are so bigoted against transgender people that you refuse to acknowledge their identity. And to gin up opposition to the bill, you're inventing horrible consequences that the bill doesn't actually impose.

Sounds to me like the usual Republican playbook.

In contrast, Section 7 of this bill, which really was introduced in the Texas Legislature, would subject women who undergo abortions to capital murder charges that carry the death penalty. When Democrats point out the horrible things Republicans want to do with their power, we back up our claims with facts. --Bob

Like I said, be honest. You know this bill will make it happen. Its happening without the bill. This will only expedite things.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Pretty much everything in the bill says it Bob. Everywhere 'sex' is used in the Civil Rights Act is replaced with 'sex, sexual orientation, gender identity' and where sex wasn't defined, it is now added including the other words. That will be all that's needed to bring on the lawsuits with liberal judges. Confused males will claim discrimination because of their sexual identity and away we go. No, the bill doesn't specify specifically everything it will impact. That is not the way laws are written. Quit acting stupid. You said you were smart. Act it. Or are you just being dishonest?

This reminds me of arguments about the Equal Rights Amendment.

Now you're admitting that the bill does not, in fact, force schools to allow transgender girls to compete against cis-gender girls. And you're calling me dishonest?

The bill makes gender identity a protected class. No more, no less. You don't like that idea because (as you've demonstrated) you are so bigoted against transgender people that you refuse to acknowledge their identity. And to gin up opposition to the bill, you're inventing horrible consequences that the bill doesn't actually impose.

Sounds to me like the usual Republican playbook.

In contrast, Section 7 of this bill, which really was introduced in the Texas Legislature, would subject women who undergo abortions to capital murder charges that carry the death penalty. When Democrats point out the horrible things Republicans want to do with their power, we back up our claims with facts. --Bob

Like I said, be honest. You know this bill will make it happen. Its happening without the bill. This will only expedite things.

You've gone from stating as fact that the bill will have those consequences to arguing that some hypothetical liberal judge somewhere might make it happen (notwithstanding a clear activist conservative majority on the Supreme Court). You don't get to chide me for being dishonest. --Bob

My solution:
If we are going to go this way, instead of trying to sort it out in terms of political correctness, let's do it scientifically.

I was taught the main biological determinant of sex in the human species is the chromosome pair. Males are XY and Females are XX. Has that changed? Until biological males can conceive and give birth to babies, and/or biological females can produce sperm to impregnate a female, that is the definition of sex.

Sports:
Instead of Men's sports and Women's Sports, change it to X sports and Y sports.
X Sports are limited only to humans that have only X chromosomes. No human with Y chromosomes can compete in this category.
Y Sports are open to anyone with any combination of chromosomes.

Bathrooms:
X Bathrooms can be used with humans who have only X chromosomes or those humans that identify as female PROVIDING they do NOT have any male genitalia.
Y Bathrooms are open to any chromosome combination at their own choosing.

I don't really care about gender identity. Any human can identify as whatever gender they can dream up, fine with me. As with gay marriage, it doesn't effect me at all. But I do mind changing the laws based on the prevailing political correctness of the day. This solution should make everyone happy unless they have ulterior motives.

OK, I don't think this idea was on hannity, and since it seems the President monitors my posts, expect to see this solution popping up soon. Liberals, start
lining up to call me names, telling me I am just repeating what I saw on the dasterdly XXXX website, trolling me or whatever you can think of that doesn't address the point.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:My solution:
If we are going to go this way, instead of trying to sort it out in terms of political correctness, let's do it scientifically.

I was taught the main biological determinant of sex in the human species is the chromosome pair. Males are XY and Females are XX. Has that changed? Until biological males can conceive and give birth to babies, and/or biological females can produce sperm to impregnate a female, that is the definition of sex.

Flock, you sound just like the laws in some of the Southern states in segregated south who attempted to "scientifically" define what a Negro was.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:My solution:
If we are going to go this way, instead of trying to sort it out in terms of political correctness, let's do it scientifically.

I was taught the main biological determinant of sex in the human species is the chromosome pair. Males are XY and Females are XX. Has that changed? Until biological males can conceive and give birth to babies, and/or biological females can produce sperm to impregnate a female, that is the definition of sex.

Flock, you sound just like the laws in some of the Southern states in segregated south who attempted to "scientifically" define what a Negro was.

- so, climate science is unquestionable, but x & y chromosomes, not so much?