If The Thomas Boy

[Bob78164]

If he wants to use his XY chromosomes and post-pubescent body to compete against bio-women, he deserves scorn.

The NCAA eligibility rules are ignorant and based on political correctness, not on any science.

Let's see. She plays by the rules and deserves scorn because you believe the rules are ignorant.

Got it.

Isn’t that what you said Stacy Abrams is doing?

Her opponent played by the rules but she claims the rules were wrong so she should have won?

Ms. Thomas doesn't set the NCAA's rules. Brian Kemp (who was then Secretary of State) did set the voter-suppression rules that probably allowed him to win the election. And then as Governor he signed into law a new set of voter-suppression rules designed to make it more likely he'll win again. --Bob

[BackInTex]

And by the way, if you're thinking I had some responsibility for accepting that case, I was at the time a fourth-year associate who was assigned to the case immediately after returning from my honeymoon. And the firm I was working for then turns out to be one of the most (politically) conservative firms in the city, so as you can imagine it wasn't a great fit, and I ended up leaving around the turn of the century. --Bob

Don’t blame others or you position within the company. Nothing ethics, morals, duty, whatever, says you have to put it up as one of your top 10. You’re proud of it.

Again (and without getting into privileged information), you have your facts wrong. Yes, I am proud to have been part of a legal team handling a high-profile First Amendment case based on a post-publication lawsuit. Just as I am proud of my current work defending Haely White against the lawsuit The Abbey filed against her.

Tell me, do you think Viet Nam vets should leave that information off of their resumes if they happened to believe the war was immoral? --Bob

So you like and support the first amendment? But you scorn and seem to hope for someone referring to a male (in biological context for you purists) as “he” gets sued or prosecuted. Got it.

You weren’t too concerned about Brad and Gwyneth's feelings. But you are for someone who will never see my or Flocks posts.

[Bob78164]

Don’t blame others or you position within the company. Nothing ethics, morals, duty, whatever, says you have to put it up as one of your top 10. You’re proud of it.

Again (and without getting into privileged information), you have your facts wrong. Yes, I am proud to have been part of a legal team handling a high-profile First Amendment case based on a post-publication lawsuit. Just as I am proud of my current work defending Haely White against the lawsuit The Abbey filed against her.

Tell me, do you think Viet Nam vets should leave that information off of their resumes if they happened to believe the war was immoral? --Bob

So you like and support the first amendment? But you scorn and seem to hope for someone referring to a male (in biological context for you purists) as “he” gets sued or prosecuted. Got it.

You weren’t too concerned about Brad and Gwyneth's feelings. But you are for someone who will never see my or Flocks posts.

I never once said that conduct should lead to a lawsuit or a criminal prosecution. (Although it would probably constitute creating a hostile work environment that would lead to a successful discrimination lawsuit.) It should lead to social stigma, just like using the n-word should. (And that would surely lead to a successful hostile-work-environment race discrimination suit.)

Gwyneth didn't join that lawsuit. We're just talking about Brad here. And again, it wasn't my job to sit in moral judgment of my client's conduct. Brad had his own lawyer for that, and a good one. It was my job to make sure my client had all of the protection the law allowed. And I'm proud that I'm very good at my job. --Bob

[Beebs52]

The more that other people speak up for trans people (or any other marginalized group), the more difficult it is for people like Flock to claim it's just a handful of malcontents with an agenda.

You may be right, but some folks, and I think you may be in the group, speak up just because of faux lib guilt, past transgressions, "old white man savior complex", etc, eh?

No, it's because I was bullied when I was a child so now since I'm able, I go after bullies.

Just saw this. Sorry you were bullied. I think a lot of peeps were bullied in some sense. I'm a woman. Don't think I wasn't bullied?
Probably not as deeply as you apparently, but at some point, I dealt with it. Also, don't think it was politically motivated bullying you're describing.

[silverscreenselect]

Here's some links for the e-bigots to NOT read and to ignore. Of course, that won't stop them from criticizing their content. Because they personally know transgender people and they assume I don't, so they know a lot better than me or anyone else about this topic.

https://sportsscientists.com/2019/03/on ... dvantages/

https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/08/st ... njections/

This last one summarizes a study published by the Journal of Medical Ethics. I have no idea whether the Journal of Medical Ethics is a bonafide publication. But just by being mentioned by me it is probably some right-wing hate group rag written by a group of nazis or something. But if you wish to make sure the Federalist is summarizing the report accurately, you can link to the actual study, but it looks like it'll cost you $40. Just sayin....

If you're going to cit scientific sources, you should at least understand what they say. I didn't download the New Zealand study because it cost $40, but the abstract is helpful. It says: "We conclude that the advantage to transwomen afforded by the IOC guidelines is an intolerable unfairness. This does not mean transwomen should be excluded from elite sport but that the existing male/female categories in sport should be abandoned in favour of a more nuanced approach satisfying both inclusion and fairness." Not much nuanced about Flock's screeches on this topic. I also looked at some other sites that referenced this study.

Far from arguing that transwomen be excluded, the authors are in favour of a radical change to what they describe as "the outdated structure of the gender division currently used in elite sport." They consider possible solutions in their research however, some options value inclusion more than fairness and vice versa. The potential solutions include excluding transwomen from competing in the women's division, creating a third division for transwomen and intersex women and calculating a handicap for transwomen based on their testosterone levels -- similar to that used in golf.

Their preferred option is an extension of this with a proposed algorithm that could account for a range of parameters, both physical and social, including pyshiological parameters, gender identity and could include socioeconomic status. Associate Professor Anderson says it is important to both extend and celebrate diversity while maintaining fairness for cis-women in sport. "To be simultaneously inclusive and fair at the elite level some innovative thinking is required, rather than attempting to shoehorn people into either 'male' or 'female'.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 092111.htm

As for Flock's first article, here's what it says, once you get past the headline, here's the conclusion they draw:

Therefore sports must impose some degree of adjustment on MTF athletes, for the sake of the majority. I appreciate that this line is “arbitrary” (we haven’t even discussed why the desired testosterone level is 10 or 5 nmol/L, and how that might be challenged). However, it’s an important line, and authorities have, understandably, tried to use testosterone to set it. With its bimodal distribution, and totally separate reference range, it’s the best candidate to achieve the desired degree of compromise.

In less accommodating moments, I find myself thinking, why should sport even accommodate those who switch? And I see many of you making this argument. But I would like to, and sport would like to, and what’s why we are where we are. Roads to hell, good intentions, and all that. Testosterone is, for now, where the ‘game’ is at – transgender MTF athletes DO have lot lower it, currently, so the fear doctrine about men simply identifying and competing like Zuby is misplaced. But equally, whether that’s enough is uncertain, and we are in a time where people are chipping away at the male-female divide, and this has real consequences for the integrity of women’s sport.

So, the author acknowledges that this is a difficult issue but that exactly what the requirements should be is uncertain. Both articles stress fairness, inclusion, and compromise, qualities that are conspicuously absent in all of Flock's froth-at-the-mouth derisive posts on this issue.

[Beebs52]

Here's some links for the e-bigots to NOT read and to ignore. Of course, that won't stop them from criticizing their content. Because they personally know transgender people and they assume I don't, so they know a lot better than me or anyone else about this topic.

https://sportsscientists.com/2019/03/on ... dvantages/

https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/08/st ... njections/

This last one summarizes a study published by the Journal of Medical Ethics. I have no idea whether the Journal of Medical Ethics is a bonafide publication. But just by being mentioned by me it is probably some right-wing hate group rag written by a group of nazis or something. But if you wish to make sure the Federalist is summarizing the report accurately, you can link to the actual study, but it looks like it'll cost you $40. Just sayin....

If you're going to cit scientific sources, you should at least understand what they say. I didn't download the New Zealand study because it cost $40, but the abstract is helpful. It says: "We conclude that the advantage to transwomen afforded by the IOC guidelines is an intolerable unfairness. This does not mean transwomen should be excluded from elite sport but that the existing male/female categories in sport should be abandoned in favour of a more nuanced approach satisfying both inclusion and fairness." Not much nuanced about Flock's screeches on this topic. I also looked at some other sites that referenced this study.

Far from arguing that transwomen be excluded, the authors are in favour of a radical change to what they describe as "the outdated structure of the gender division currently used in elite sport." They consider possible solutions in their research however, some options value inclusion more than fairness and vice versa. The potential solutions include excluding transwomen from competing in the women's division, creating a third division for transwomen and intersex women and calculating a handicap for transwomen based on their testosterone levels -- similar to that used in golf.

Their preferred option is an extension of this with a proposed algorithm that could account for a range of parameters, both physical and social, including pyshiological parameters, gender identity and could include socioeconomic status. Associate Professor Anderson says it is important to both extend and celebrate diversity while maintaining fairness for cis-women in sport. "To be simultaneously inclusive and fair at the elite level some innovative thinking is required, rather than attempting to shoehorn people into either 'male' or 'female'.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 092111.htm

As for Flock's first article, here's what it says, once you get past the headline, here's the conclusion they draw:

Therefore sports must impose some degree of adjustment on MTF athletes, for the sake of the majority. I appreciate that this line is “arbitrary” (we haven’t even discussed why the desired testosterone level is 10 or 5 nmol/L, and how that might be challenged). However, it’s an important line, and authorities have, understandably, tried to use testosterone to set it. With its bimodal distribution, and totally separate reference range, it’s the best candidate to achieve the desired degree of compromise.

In less accommodating moments, I find myself thinking, why should sport even accommodate those who switch? And I see many of you making this argument. But I would like to, and sport would like to, and what’s why we are where we are. Roads to hell, good intentions, and all that. Testosterone is, for now, where the ‘game’ is at – transgender MTF athletes DO have lot lower it, currently, so the fear doctrine about men simply identifying and competing like Zuby is misplaced. But equally, whether that’s enough is uncertain, and we are in a time where people are chipping away at the male-female divide, and this has real consequences for the integrity of women’s sport.

So, the author acknowledges that this is a difficult issue but that exactly what the requirements should be is uncertain. Both articles stress fairness, inclusion, and compromise, qualities that are conspicuously absent in all of your screeds

Fixed it for ya

[Bob Juch]

And by the way, if you're thinking I had some responsibility for accepting that case, I was at the time a fourth-year associate who was assigned to the case immediately after returning from my honeymoon. And the firm I was working for then turns out to be one of the most (politically) conservative firms in the city, so as you can imagine it wasn't a great fit, and I ended up leaving around the turn of the century. --Bob

Don’t blame others or you position within the company. Nothing ethics, morals, duty, whatever, says you have to put it up as one of your top 10. You’re proud of it.

Again (and without getting into privileged information), you have your facts wrong. Yes, I am proud to have been part of a legal team handling a high-profile First Amendment case based on a post-publication lawsuit. Just as I am proud of my current work defending Haely White against the lawsuit The Abbey filed against her.

Tell me, do you think Viet Nam vets should leave that information off of their resumes if they happened to believe the war was immoral? --Bob

Here's an article on the Haely White case: https://wehoville.com/2021/11/17/judge- ... s-drugged/

It's too bad she didn't have a blood test immediately afterward. Are you aware of several incidents where a bartender spiked a bottle with a drug and then used that bottle to make a drink for certain patrons? Nothing would show on video unless it was clear enough to show the prepared bottle not being used for anyone else. However, since she was with a friend, why would someone think drugging her would be productive?

[Bob Juch]

You may be right, but some folks, and I think you may be in the group, speak up just because of faux lib guilt, past transgressions, "old white man savior complex", etc, eh?

No, it's because I was bullied when I was a child so now since I'm able, I go after bullies.

Just saw this. Sorry you were bullied. I think a lot of peeps were bullied in some sense. I'm a woman. Don't think I wasn't bullied?
Probably not as deeply as you apparently, but at some point, I dealt with it. Also, don't think it was politically motivated bullying you're describing.

I am always for the underdog as a result.

[flockofseagulls104]

Here's some links for the e-bigots to NOT read and to ignore. Of course, that won't stop them from criticizing their content. Because they personally know transgender people and they assume I don't, so they know a lot better than me or anyone else about this topic.

https://sportsscientists.com/2019/03/on ... dvantages/

https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/08/st ... njections/

This last one summarizes a study published by the Journal of Medical Ethics. I have no idea whether the Journal of Medical Ethics is a bonafide publication. But just by being mentioned by me it is probably some right-wing hate group rag written by a group of nazis or something. But if you wish to make sure the Federalist is summarizing the report accurately, you can link to the actual study, but it looks like it'll cost you $40. Just sayin....

If you're going to cit scientific sources, you should at least understand what they say. I didn't download the New Zealand study because it cost $40, but the abstract is helpful. It says: "We conclude that the advantage to transwomen afforded by the IOC guidelines is an intolerable unfairness. This does not mean transwomen should be excluded from elite sport but that the existing male/female categories in sport should be abandoned in favour of a more nuanced approach satisfying both inclusion and fairness." Not much nuanced about Flock's screeches on this topic. I also looked at some other sites that referenced this study.

Far from arguing that transwomen be excluded, the authors are in favour of a radical change to what they describe as "the outdated structure of the gender division currently used in elite sport." They consider possible solutions in their research however, some options value inclusion more than fairness and vice versa. The potential solutions include excluding transwomen from competing in the women's division, creating a third division for transwomen and intersex women and calculating a handicap for transwomen based on their testosterone levels -- similar to that used in golf.

Their preferred option is an extension of this with a proposed algorithm that could account for a range of parameters, both physical and social, including pyshiological parameters, gender identity and could include socioeconomic status. Associate Professor Anderson says it is important to both extend and celebrate diversity while maintaining fairness for cis-women in sport. "To be simultaneously inclusive and fair at the elite level some innovative thinking is required, rather than attempting to shoehorn people into either 'male' or 'female'.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 092111.htm

As for Flock's first article, here's what it says, once you get past the headline, here's the conclusion they draw:

Therefore sports must impose some degree of adjustment on MTF athletes, for the sake of the majority. I appreciate that this line is “arbitrary” (we haven’t even discussed why the desired testosterone level is 10 or 5 nmol/L, and how that might be challenged). However, it’s an important line, and authorities have, understandably, tried to use testosterone to set it. With its bimodal distribution, and totally separate reference range, it’s the best candidate to achieve the desired degree of compromise.

In less accommodating moments, I find myself thinking, why should sport even accommodate those who switch? And I see many of you making this argument. But I would like to, and sport would like to, and what’s why we are where we are. Roads to hell, good intentions, and all that. Testosterone is, for now, where the ‘game’ is at – transgender MTF athletes DO have lot lower it, currently, so the fear doctrine about men simply identifying and competing like Zuby is misplaced. But equally, whether that’s enough is uncertain, and we are in a time where people are chipping away at the male-female divide, and this has real consequences for the integrity of women’s sport.

So, the author acknowledges that this is a difficult issue but that exactly what the requirements should be is uncertain. Both articles stress fairness, inclusion, and compromise, qualities that are conspicuously absent in all of your screeds

Fixed it for ya

Wow, talk about scanning it and just showing the parts you like. Zuby, BTW was an ordinary guy who bragged he could press more than the world champion female. Not a guy who had undergone any kind of treatment. He was used to illustrate a bad example. You conveniently ignore most of the article, which answers all the bullshit reasons you have for letting trans-women compete against women.
I also would not be against creating a separate athletic category for trans. I am for protecting women's sports. there is a reason there are separate categories for mens and womens sports. The NCAA and other governing bodies are, for arbitrary and non scientific reasons, destroying sports for women. That could be one solution.

You did not read it. And if you did, you did nolt comprehend any of it, and you do what you always do, ignore anything that does not agree with your narrative. You are to be ignored. Which is what I do. But I must say I am surprised that you bothered to click on the links.

[Beebs52]

No, it's because I was bullied when I was a child so now since I'm able, I go after bullies.

Just saw this. Sorry you were bullied. I think a lot of peeps were bullied in some sense. I'm a woman. Don't think I wasn't bullied?
Probably not as deeply as you apparently, but at some point, I dealt with it. Also, don't think it was politically motivated bullying you're describing.

I am always for the underdog as a result.

The underdog is not always right.

[Bob78164]

Don’t blame others or you position within the company. Nothing ethics, morals, duty, whatever, says you have to put it up as one of your top 10. You’re proud of it.

Again (and without getting into privileged information), you have your facts wrong. Yes, I am proud to have been part of a legal team handling a high-profile First Amendment case based on a post-publication lawsuit. Just as I am proud of my current work defending Haely White against the lawsuit The Abbey filed against her.

Tell me, do you think Viet Nam vets should leave that information off of their resumes if they happened to believe the war was immoral? --Bob

Here's an article on the Haely White case: https://wehoville.com/2021/11/17/judge- ... s-drugged/

It's too bad she didn't have a blood test immediately afterward. Are you aware of several incidents where a bartender spiked a bottle with a drug and then used that bottle to make a drink for certain patrons? Nothing would show on video unless it was clear enough to show the prepared bottle not being used for anyone else. However, since she was with a friend, why would someone think drugging her would be productive?

I’m counsel of record and the case is still live. The only place I’m talking about the details of the case is in court. The judge did stick to his tentative ruling dismissing The Abbey’s defamation and trade libel claims. —Bob

[silverscreenselect]

You conveniently ignore most of the article, which answers all the bullshit reasons you have for letting trans-women compete against women.

I did read the article. Rather than cut and paste the entire thing, I copied the conclusion, which made two big points: (1) self-identification for determining who is a female in athletics is not sufficient and (2) basing it on testosterone levels (the exact amount of which is still up in the air) is the best solution we have at the moment.

The various sporting authorities are all over the place on what their requirements are for trans athletes, and I'm all for having standards which may vary somewhat from sport to sport. And this is something that will take time and experimentation before we get things exactly right. But that's a far cry from the hateful, bigoted comments you've made in this thread and others, all supposedly in the name of protecting women's sports (which I highly doubt you give the slightest shit about other than as a way to get at trans females).

[BackInTex]

Just another bigot's thoughts. And reported on Fox News no less.

Anyone with any basic understanding on biology and the difference between men and women knows it's ridiculous. It's male puberty that really grants boys and men that physical performance in sport," she told News.com.au. "And I think it's irrefutable — it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise."

"In everyday society, of course we want an inclusive, egalitarian [society]. We want equality, lack of discrimination, and of course every single person should have equal access to life and services and work in society. Of course, we all want that, and so do I," she said.

"In sport? It’s different. Sport is about physical ability. It’s not just about discrimination, it’s not just about equality and equal access. It is a physical ability. Now, if you’ve got one group — males — that are on average stronger, taller, faster, as opposed to women, there has to be a divide. There has to be a division."

[Bob78164]

Just another bigot's thoughts. And reported on Fox News no less.

Anyone with any basic understanding on biology and the difference between men and women knows it's ridiculous. It's male puberty that really grants boys and men that physical performance in sport," she told News.com.au. "And I think it's irrefutable — it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise."

"In everyday society, of course we want an inclusive, egalitarian [society]. We want equality, lack of discrimination, and of course every single person should have equal access to life and services and work in society. Of course, we all want that, and so do I," she said.

"In sport? It’s different. Sport is about physical ability. It’s not just about discrimination, it’s not just about equality and equal access. It is a physical ability. Now, if you’ve got one group — males — that are on average stronger, taller, faster, as opposed to women, there has to be a divide. There has to be a division."

You're missing my point, or deflecting from it. It's not your views on how transgender athletes should be handled that make you a bigot. I don't have an informed opinion on that subject, and really don't care enough to take the time to form one.

What makes you a bigot is your insistence on referring to your brother-in-law's niece by male nouns and pronouns. That is you making a deliberate choice to cause pain to another human being (a family member, no less) for no reason other than to vindicate or assert your own twisted sense of morality.

Our selection of gendered nouns and pronouns to refer to people in the English language is a social choice. Nothing more, nothing less. You are making a social choice with no practical impact other than to cause pain to other people. That's bigotry, and it's contemptible. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Just another bigot's thoughts. And reported on Fox News no less.

Anyone with any basic understanding on biology and the difference between men and women knows it's ridiculous. It's male puberty that really grants boys and men that physical performance in sport," she told News.com.au. "And I think it's irrefutable — it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise."

"In everyday society, of course we want an inclusive, egalitarian [society]. We want equality, lack of discrimination, and of course every single person should have equal access to life and services and work in society. Of course, we all want that, and so do I," she said.

"In sport? It’s different. Sport is about physical ability. It’s not just about discrimination, it’s not just about equality and equal access. It is a physical ability. Now, if you’ve got one group — males — that are on average stronger, taller, faster, as opposed to women, there has to be a divide. There has to be a division."

You're missing my point, or deflecting from it. It's not your views on how transgender athletes should be handled that make you a bigot. I don't have an informed opinion on that subject, and really don't care enough to take the time to form one.

What makes you a bigot is your insistence on referring to your niece by male nouns and pronouns. That is you making a deliberate choice to cause pain to another human being (a family member, no less) for no reason other than to vindicate or assert your own twisted sense of morality.

Our selection of gendered nouns and pronouns to refer to people in the English language is a social choice. Nothing more, nothing less. You are making a social choice with no practical impact other than to cause pain to other people. That's bigotry, and it's contemptible. --Bob

bob, why don't you learn something for a change and mind your own business. You've got a lot of your own shit you need to get together. I suggest you concentrate on that. You've got no grounds on which to even believe you have any relevant advice to give anyone else, much less throw self-righteous crap at them. I am sure that being dressed down by you in your usual hateful way is going to make BiT see the light and change his evil ways. I know it always works for me.

[Bob78164]

Just another bigot's thoughts. And reported on Fox News no less.

You're missing my point, or deflecting from it. It's not your views on how transgender athletes should be handled that make you a bigot. I don't have an informed opinion on that subject, and really don't care enough to take the time to form one.

What makes you a bigot is your insistence on referring to your niece by male nouns and pronouns. That is you making a deliberate choice to cause pain to another human being (a family member, no less) for no reason other than to vindicate or assert your own twisted sense of morality.

Our selection of gendered nouns and pronouns to refer to people in the English language is a social choice. Nothing more, nothing less. You are making a social choice with no practical impact other than to cause pain to other people. That's bigotry, and it's contemptible. --Bob

bob, why don't you learn something for a change and mind your own business. You've got a lot of your own shit you need to get together. I suggest you concentrate on that. You've got no grounds on which to even believe you have any relevant advice to give anyone else, much less throw self-righteous crap at them. I am sure that being dressed down by you in your usual hateful way is going to make BiT see the light and change his evil ways. I know it always works for me.

For someone who gets up in arms about me supposedly interjecting myself into a conversation between you and someone else, you show remarkably little hesitancy in doing so yourself. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

You're missing my point, or deflecting from it. It's not your views on how transgender athletes should be handled that make you a bigot. I don't have an informed opinion on that subject, and really don't care enough to take the time to form one.

What makes you a bigot is your insistence on referring to your niece by male nouns and pronouns. That is you making a deliberate choice to cause pain to another human being (a family member, no less) for no reason other than to vindicate or assert your own twisted sense of morality.

Our selection of gendered nouns and pronouns to refer to people in the English language is a social choice. Nothing more, nothing less. You are making a social choice with no practical impact other than to cause pain to other people. That's bigotry, and it's contemptible. --Bob

bob, why don't you learn something for a change and mind your own business. You've got a lot of your own shit you need to get together. I suggest you concentrate on that. You've got no grounds on which to even believe you have any relevant advice to give anyone else, much less throw self-righteous crap at them. I am sure that being dressed down by you in your usual hateful way is going to make BiT see the light and change his evil ways. I know it always works for me.

For someone who gets up in arms about me supposedly interjecting myself into a conversation between you and someone else, you show remarkably little hesitancy in doing so yourself. --Bob

Annoying, ain't it?

[Bob78164]

bob, why don't you learn something for a change and mind your own business. You've got a lot of your own shit you need to get together. I suggest you concentrate on that. You've got no grounds on which to even believe you have any relevant advice to give anyone else, much less throw self-righteous crap at them. I am sure that being dressed down by you in your usual hateful way is going to make BiT see the light and change his evil ways. I know it always works for me.

For someone who gets up in arms about me supposedly interjecting myself into a conversation between you and someone else, you show remarkably little hesitancy in doing so yourself. --Bob

Annoying, ain't it?

No. Just hypocritical on your part. --Bob

[BackInTex]

Just another bigot's thoughts. And reported on Fox News no less.

Anyone with any basic understanding on biology and the difference between men and women knows it's ridiculous. It's male puberty that really grants boys and men that physical performance in sport," she told News.com.au. "And I think it's irrefutable — it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise."

"In everyday society, of course we want an inclusive, egalitarian [society]. We want equality, lack of discrimination, and of course every single person should have equal access to life and services and work in society. Of course, we all want that, and so do I," she said.

"In sport? It’s different. Sport is about physical ability. It’s not just about discrimination, it’s not just about equality and equal access. It is a physical ability. Now, if you’ve got one group — males — that are on average stronger, taller, faster, as opposed to women, there has to be a divide. There has to be a division."

You're missing my point, or deflecting from it. It's not your views on how transgender athletes should be handled that make you a bigot. I don't have an informed opinion on that subject, and really don't care enough to take the time to form one.

What makes you a bigot is your insistence on referring to your niece by male nouns and pronouns. That is you making a deliberate choice to cause pain to another human being (a family member, no less) for no reason other than to vindicate or assert your own twisted sense of morality.

Our selection of gendered nouns and pronouns to refer to people in the English language is a social choice. Nothing more, nothing less. You are making a social choice with no practical impact other than to cause pain to other people. That's bigotry, and it's contemptible. --Bob

First, I have no relatives who are transgender so none of my nieces would be pleased with me doing what you think I should do. You should work on your reading comprehension or consider Prevagen.

Two, my choice is to be correct, not cause pain. And being correct, refusing to submit to the absurd is a practical impact.

[flockofseagulls104]

For someone who gets up in arms about me supposedly interjecting myself into a conversation between you and someone else, you show remarkably little hesitancy in doing so yourself. --Bob

Annoying, ain't it?

No. Just hypocritical on your part. --Bob

Says the King of Hypocrites.

[Bob78164]

Just another bigot's thoughts. And reported on Fox News no less.

You're missing my point, or deflecting from it. It's not your views on how transgender athletes should be handled that make you a bigot. I don't have an informed opinion on that subject, and really don't care enough to take the time to form one.

What makes you a bigot is your insistence on referring to your niece by male nouns and pronouns. That is you making a deliberate choice to cause pain to another human being (a family member, no less) for no reason other than to vindicate or assert your own twisted sense of morality.

Our selection of gendered nouns and pronouns to refer to people in the English language is a social choice. Nothing more, nothing less. You are making a social choice with no practical impact other than to cause pain to other people. That's bigotry, and it's contemptible. --Bob

First, I have no relatives who are transgender so none of my nieces would be pleased with me doing what you think I should do. You should work on your reading comprehension or consider Prevagen.

Two, my choice is to be correct, not cause pain. And being correct, refusing to submit to the absurd is a practical impact.

You're correct that I omitted the term "brother-in-law's." I've corrected the omission. Apparently you have a narrower view of family than I do. So be it.

The fundamental point remains. You're deliberately elevating your own comfort level with a social choice over another human being's very real pain. That's a choice that can and should have social consequences. --Bob

[tlynn78]

You're missing my point, or deflecting from it. It's not your views on how transgender athletes should be handled that make you a bigot. I don't have an informed opinion on that subject, and really don't care enough to take the time to form one.

What makes you a bigot is your insistence on referring to your niece by male nouns and pronouns. That is you making a deliberate choice to cause pain to another human being (a family member, no less) for no reason other than to vindicate or assert your own twisted sense of morality.

Our selection of gendered nouns and pronouns to refer to people in the English language is a social choice. Nothing more, nothing less. You are making a social choice with no practical impact other than to cause pain to other people. That's bigotry, and it's contemptible. --Bob

First, I have no relatives who are transgender so none of my nieces would be pleased with me doing what you think I should do. You should work on your reading comprehension or consider Prevagen.

Two, my choice is to be correct, not cause pain. And being correct, refusing to submit to the absurd is a practical impact.

You're correct that I omitted the term "brother-in-law's." I've corrected the omission. Apparently you have a narrower view of family than I do. So be it.

The fundamental point remains. You're deliberately elevating your own comfort level with a social choice over another human being's very real pain. That's a choice that can and should have social consequences. --Bob

LOL! BiT! Bobbo won't be frens with you now. "Social consequences" indeed.

[flockofseagulls104]

First, I have no relatives who are transgender so none of my nieces would be pleased with me doing what you think I should do. You should work on your reading comprehension or consider Prevagen.

Two, my choice is to be correct, not cause pain. And being correct, refusing to submit to the absurd is a practical impact.

You're correct that I omitted the term "brother-in-law's." I've corrected the omission. Apparently you have a narrower view of family than I do. So be it.

The fundamental point remains. You're deliberately elevating your own comfort level with a social choice over another human being's very real pain. That's a choice that can and should have social consequences. --Bob

LOL! BiT! Bobbo won't be frens with you now. "Social consequences" indeed.

Whooooaaah! bob don't like it when you butt into a virtue-signaling, self-righteous rant he's giving to someone else.

[Beebs52]

You're missing my point, or deflecting from it. It's not your views on how transgender athletes should be handled that make you a bigot. I don't have an informed opinion on that subject, and really don't care enough to take the time to form one.

What makes you a bigot is your insistence on referring to your niece by male nouns and pronouns. That is you making a deliberate choice to cause pain to another human being (a family member, no less) for no reason other than to vindicate or assert your own twisted sense of morality.

Our selection of gendered nouns and pronouns to refer to people in the English language is a social choice. Nothing more, nothing less. You are making a social choice with no practical impact other than to cause pain to other people. That's bigotry, and it's contemptible. --Bob

First, I have no relatives who are transgender so none of my nieces would be pleased with me doing what you think I should do. You should work on your reading comprehension or consider Prevagen.

Two, my choice is to be correct, not cause pain. And being correct, refusing to submit to the absurd is a practical impact.

You're correct that I omitted the term "brother-in-law's." I've corrected the omission. Apparently you have a narrower view of family than I do. So be it.

The fundamental point remains. You're deliberately elevating your own comfort level with a social choice over another human being's very real pain. That's a choice that can and should have social consequences. --Bob

WTF are you talking about? Who's pain? Social versus scientific? Do you need a snack or something?

[flockofseagulls104]

First, I have no relatives who are transgender so none of my nieces would be pleased with me doing what you think I should do. You should work on your reading comprehension or consider Prevagen.

Two, my choice is to be correct, not cause pain. And being correct, refusing to submit to the absurd is a practical impact.

You're correct that I omitted the term "brother-in-law's." I've corrected the omission. Apparently you have a narrower view of family than I do. So be it.

The fundamental point remains. You're deliberately elevating your own comfort level with a social choice over another human being's very real pain. That's a choice that can and should have social consequences. --Bob

WTF are you talking about? Who's pain? Social versus scientific? Do you need a snack or something?

Why do you want to nit-pick a perfectly good insane rant?