Poll: What should women do about transdudes in female sports?

[YoursTruly]

How about biology, faggot?

Throughout all of the human history, people could have gender somebody with 99.9% of certainty by just looking at them, and if that is not possible, today it's easy to determine their gender by chromosome structure. The 0.01% uncertainty would be reserved for intersex people or hermaphrodites, who also identify themselves to just one gender and they chose to live by it.

The problem with leftist morons is they're arguing that there is no objective standard that exist by which gender can be determined, and that gender is completely subjective, and that people can determine their own gender based not on biology, or chose their gender in abeyance with biology, that person can have all biological characteristics of a male, but if that person just SAY that is female, then is female.

That completely fit the whole leftist ideology, since most of what they're saying is based on lies, anyways.

Scientist can dig up bones that are 1,000 years old and determine if it was male or female. Democrats can't tell which is which on a live person.

 

[scruffy]

Your ignorance and utter stupidity is clear.
Your perversion is also clear.
You're a tough guy behind the keyboard but most certainly a pussy in public.
Still, you will die.
And
The world will celebrate a little less hate and a lot less stupid.

Now be sure to take those kids to church, to religious school, to scouts, and to participate in athletics because THAT'S where they'll be safe from "indoctrination"

You ignorant ass.

Triggered?

 

[Ame®icano]

Again, if I really thought you had the capacity to be educated, I'd bother... I only post links when they interest me.

I understand your "feelings" are hurt because I used your own links to beat your arguments. I was so mean to you, and I am not sorry at all.

Well, the pay arrangement would probably be piecework, which is what I do now. So if she gets XX for every job completed, that's pretty much what I get. My overhead is generally pretty low. Of course, I would have to find someone who can do the same quality of work that I do.

If you really stick to what you said, than you just beat your own argument in regards Lilly Ledbetter, who got paid adequately for the quality of work she performed.

It is when your disagreement is irrational. If you are against gay marriage, don't have one. Saying no one else can have one, either, is hateful.

Unless you quote exactly what I said, you're lying again. What I said I don't care if gays wants to live together in some kind of government approved civil union, or such, but what left wants to call a marriage is simply not feasible. You don't get to be in marriage by just changing the definition of the word. But hey, you socialist fucks are never satisfied with any compromise, and you keep pushing your insanity so far that even lifelong traditional leftists are scratching their heads. How insane is to call your own mothers - birthing persons, or mankind - peoplekind? Heck, even word "gay" doesn't mean what it used to mean, due to your constant advance of culture wars.

 

[Ame®icano]

Scientist can dig up bones that are 1,000 years old and determine if it was male or female. Democrats can't tell which is which on a live person.

In I way, I said exactly the same thing. Read HERE.

 

[JoeB131]

I understand your "feelings" are hurt because I used your own links to beat your arguments.

No, you really didn't... you whined that because they didn't study every last trans person, the few they did manage to study didn't count. They did the work, you really didn't.

f you really stick to what you said, than you just beat your own argument in regards Lilly Ledbetter, who got paid adequately for the quality of work she performed.

Actually, no, she got paid less than her male counterparts because he boss discriminated against her by keeping pay a secret. Had she known when she within the time period after getting her first check, she'd have had a case. This is what Congress corrected with the law most Republicans voted against.

Unless you quote exactly what I said, you're lying again. What I said I don't care if gays wants to live together in some kind of government approved civil union, or such, but what left wants to call a marriage is simply not feasible. You don't get to be in marriage by just changing the definition of the word.

But we've been changing the definition of marriage for centuries. For most of history, marriage was a transfer of a woman as property. We don't have dowries anymore. Women don't need their father's permission to get married like they did in years past. Marriages are no longer arranged. People no longer feel a need to immediately get married because someone got knocked up. We now allow for "no-fault" divorces where people don't have to go in and prove that their spouse was beating them to get out of a marriage.

I've known gay people who have been in long term relationships. I've known married straight couples who cheat, who get divorced in less than a year, etc. You got Trump who is on marriage number 3 and cheating on his spouse with porn stars. You really can't hold something up as "This is too good for you" and then not treat it like it's very good yourselves.

But hey, you socialist fucks are never satisfied with any compromise, and you keep pushing your insanity so far that even lifelong traditional leftists are scratching their heads.

Because your compromise was the moral equivalent to a colored drinking fountain. This is why the courts struck them down, because once you concede that the underlying act isn't illegal (Lawrence v. Texas, that struck down all the remaining sodomy laws), then there is no reason to really deny same sex marriages the same rights and privileges of opposite sex marriages.

How insane is to call your own mothers - birthing persons, or mankind - peoplekind? Heck, even word "gay" doesn't mean what it used to mean, due to your constant advance of culture wars.

Except I've never heard anyone use those terms...

As far as the evolution of the word Gay, initially, it meant someone who was with loose morals. Then it meant "happy", and now it means homosexual.

 

[lantern2814]

When I was kid, I had a gold fish with longer attention span than yours. That would explain your replies to others being chopped into tiny sections with one liners jumping all over from one topic to another, with never making any valuable point. You're incapable of putting two sentences together that accommodate each other. You just throw on the screen whatever comes up to you in a moment, related or unrelated to the discussion, with hope it will stick. Of course you can't answer any question when you don't have enough brain power to formulate one, and in absence of intelligence you rely on talking points, and insults to compensate for your shortcomings.

Now, back to your inane claim about gender pay gap, that is like everything else we're discussing here, based on a lie.

Religions rely on faith and myths, powers that tell to people how to behave, and the religion of feminism is no exception. One of the most powerful myths of feminism is the gender pay gap, which is relatively simple idea that women are paid less than man for doing the same work. Why the myth itself is simple to understand, reality is more complicated. There was of course the time when employers could pay women less money for doing the same work, but those days are gone with legislations enacted some sixty years ago, and they're not coming back.

The gender pay gap myth is so powerful that both, feminists and economist are trying to find it for decades, they scout every country in the western world and found - nothing. Yet, it is plainly evident that women earn less money than men. But that's the point, earning and paying is not the same thing. Once scholars in the field isolated variables, such as age, seniority, training, and work hours, the gender pay gap vanished. This is usually the point when someone say that "female workers are undervalued" and would just pay workers in female dominated professions more money, but that's not how it works. Wages and salaries for women and men are regulated by market forces. It depends how rare their skillset is, and how easy would be to replace us. If women and men could earn more money by doing less important work, those vacancies would be flooded with applicants, and each applicant would lose their competitive advantage, which means, employers could afford to pay them less. Defenders of the gender pay gap, which basically is everyone on the left, like to point to senior figures, and claim that women are underrepresented at the top of economic ladder, and those claims, just like very other leftist agenda being based on a lie, is also a lie. Women are les likely to go for the top by their own choice.

Anyways, isn't feminism meant to bring the whole system down? There are many successful women in my family, my stepmom worked very hard to keep her clothing stores afloat just to sell those later in her life, my wife is mortgage banker, my older daughter works in data analytics, etc... I know the success it possible, and however difficult it might to be attain, the rewards are glorious. Most women are smart enough to not fall into a trap set by leftists and feminists. and they know there is always possibility of failure, but they don't allow leftists and feminist to make excuses for their own.

As usually, I doubt that you're capable to reach the end of the post, yet to understand it, but you're free to read this as many times your tiny brain need it to comprehend it. Yeah, I know it might be hard for you to return with some cohesive reply in more than a two sentences, from which most of them will be woke rants caused by you "losing it" over and over. But hey, you never shown to be a person of high expectations, and I am in no doubt that the pattern will continue.

He also doesn’t factor in experience, length of time at the job in question, hours worked (there are women who work part time in order to be home when the kids get out of school), a host of other factors. Just parroting the same lie over and over again.

 

[lantern2814]

Your ignorance and utter stupidity is clear.
Your perversion is also clear.
You're a tough guy behind the keyboard but most certainly a pussy in public.
Still, you will die.
And
The world will celebrate a little less hate and a lot less stupid.

Now be sure to take those kids to church, to religious school, to scouts, and to participate in athletics because THAT'S where they'll be safe from "indoctrination"

You ignorant ass.

Projecting again. Just sad. Whine harder.

 

[Ame®icano]

No, you really didn't... you whined that because they didn't study every last trans person, the few they did manage to study didn't count. They did the work, you really didn't.

I quoted their finding from your own link two times already. When link says: "Research in these areas is extremely limited, and more research needs to be done to find conclusive results"... it simply means junk science, no reliable results to confirm anything they were trying to prove. To a normal person that would be enough to stop, rethink the "theory" and maybe start over. You see. most of people change their theories to suit the facts, only leftists tries to change the facts to suit their theory, because their "theory" is the perfect world they're trying to build, where other people are just tools to be used, or obstacles to be removed.

In reality, what happened with that article's medical study resulted in the unlikely collision of two worlds. The study tries to prove that those who are transgender have differently wired brains. If they succeeded then transgender community could claim biological reasons for their transformation and behavior, and therefore their movement would be harder to challenge. But here is a problem. What they're trying to prove, and they failed miserably is the clear example of "transmedicalism" which is despised by many transactivists. Beside, it annoyed feminists in much larger numbers because it resurrected the concept of "female brain" which feminists were trying to defeat for decades.

My point here is not to challenge or condemn any group, but to draw attention to a problem - They can't both be right.

When subjectivity replaces objectivity, and when emotions count as much as data, who is to say what's right anymore? You?

Actually, no, she got paid less than her male counterparts because he boss discriminated against her by keeping pay a secret. Had she known when she within the time period after getting her first check, she'd have had a case. This is what Congress corrected with the law most Republicans voted against.

As discussed earlier, employee's pay is always considered a secret. Regardless... Although I work as automation engineer, I am mathematician by trade and that gives me ability to recognize the patterns, and from my lifelong experience I learned to never doubt the patterns. Having said that, I notice that every time leftists begins their sentence with "actually", they're trying to formulate the the answer that they know it has no connection to reality, it's more like a fishing for the best narrative for their predetermined outcome. In other words, what you wrote above is bullshit. Before we continue this conversation, I suggest you read the dissent from Justice Ginsberg, and if needed quote her exact words, then I'll tell you why you're wrong.

But we've been changing the definition of marriage for centuries. For most of history, marriage was a transfer of a woman as property. We don't have dowries anymore. Women don't need their father's permission to get married like they did in years past. Marriages are no longer arranged. People no longer feel a need to immediately get married because someone got knocked up. We now allow for "no-fault" divorces where people don't have to go in and prove that their spouse was beating them to get out of a marriage.

Wrong again. Even way back, what you call "transfer of the woman as property" (whose property if I may ask?) was the outcome of the marriage, not marriage itself. Second, women didn't always had rights they have today, but they always had rights, and property did not. Third, if you mean property as in my hand or foot.. or my heart. Yes. A man will cherish and love his own body. Biblically a married man and woman become one. Man are to put her first when making choices. She does not belong to him in the sense of having no will of her own, like a slave. But she chooses to team up with man like a member of a team. She has chosen to be his partner in life and all he does, or she does, they do - together. The definition didn't change, marriage is still considered union in between man and a woman. Learn the difference.

I've known gay people who have been in long term relationships. I've known married straight couples who cheat, who get divorced in less than a year, etc. You got Trump who is on marriage number 3 and cheating on his spouse with porn stars. You really can't hold something up as "This is too good for you" and then not treat it like it's very good yourselves.

None of that has nothing to do with the principle, or purpose, or definition of marriage.

Because your compromise was the moral equivalent to a colored drinking fountain. This is why the courts struck them down, because once you concede that the underlying act isn't illegal (Lawrence v. Texas, that struck down all the remaining sodomy laws), then there is no reason to really deny same sex marriages the same rights and privileges of opposite sex marriages.

Do I need to remind you that segregation was enshrined in Democratic party platform and enforced by Woodrow Wilson, and every Democrat president before CRA of 1964.

Except I've never heard anyone use those terms...

As far as the evolution of the word Gay, initially, it meant someone who was with loose morals. Then it meant "happy", and now it means homosexual.

It's been going for few years now and it's coming from far left, like that bimbo AOC, and others.

I haven't heard of "loose morals" definition, just the "happy" and "carefree". Regardless, why definition needed to change at all to mean homosexual, when there is absolutely no historical connection between the previous and new definition? Anything to do with acceptance, or rejection?

 

[Ame®icano]

He also doesn’t factor in experience, length of time at the job in question, hours worked (there are women who work part time in order to be home when the kids get out of school), a host of other factors. Just parroting the same lie over and over again.

I agree. And as I said in post you quoted, neither economist or feminists couldn't find the hard proof that gender pay gap exists. Women and men are paid the same amount of money for the same work. While is true that women do earn less money than men, that is because of the choices they make, and you listed some of them.

If woman and man are paid to, let's say, dig holes in the ground, and they're paid per finished hole, either one who dig more holes will make more money. There is no pay gap, there is only productivity gap. However, if they're both paid per hour, the person who works longer hours will make more money, but man's productivity will be lower to match the productivity of the woman, or likely of they're both leftist they would probably just be milking the time. Again, if paid hourly, and woman leave half day thru to do her hair, or because she isn't feeling working anymore, there is no point arguing why is she making less money. It was her choice.

 

[Cecilie1200]

He also doesn’t factor in experience, length of time at the job in question, hours worked (there are women who work part time in order to be home when the kids get out of school), a host of other factors. Just parroting the same lie over and over again.

There's also the case of salaried positions - jobs where you get the same set monthly amount regardless of how much work time you put in, for those who don't know - where a lot of men are putting in 50-60 hours a week while their female counterparts in the company are putting in 40-50. When it comes time for performance reviews and raises, that does make a difference.

I've never personally had a salaried position, because I would rather shoot myself in the foot than get promoted to a management and supervisory job. But I've been the admin assistant for a lot of them, and my experience is that male bosses were more likely to be the last one out the door and work on the weekends and be on-call even when they weren't working.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When I was kid, I had a gold fish with longer attention span than yours. That would explain your replies to others being chopped into tiny sections with one liners jumping all over from one topic to another, with never making any valuable point. You're incapable of putting two sentences together that accommodate each other. You just throw on the screen whatever comes up to you in a moment, related or unrelated to the discussion, with hope it will stick. Of course you can't answer any question when you don't have enough brain power to formulate one, and in absence of intelligence you rely on talking points, and insults to compensate for your shortcomings.

 

[JoeB131]

He also doesn’t factor in experience, length of time at the job in question, hours worked (there are women who work part time in order to be home when the kids get out of school), a host of other factors. Just parroting the same lie over and over again.

And if Goodyear wanted to make that case in court, that was fine. They didn't. They lied to her about how much less she was making.

I quoted their finding from your own link two times already. When link says: "Research in these areas is extremely limited, and more research needs to be done to find conclusive results"...

So you pick out one caveat, and ignore the rest of the article so you can enjoy your bigotry, got it.

Biblically a married man and woman become one. Man are to put her first when making choices. She does not belong to him in the sense of having no will of her own, like a slave. But she chooses to team up with man like a member of a team. She has chosen to be his partner in life and all he does, or she does, they do - together. The definition didn't change, marriage is still considered union in between man and a woman. Learn the difference.

I thought you were non-religious, but you want to fall back on the "BIBLE" to make your point? Sorry, man, even in the bible, they had polygamy. Women in Bible times didn't pick their mate, marriages were arranged.

None of that has nothing to do with the principle, or purpose, or definition of marriage.

Sure it does. Either you think marriages should be forever, or you don't. You can't wallow in your divorces and adultery and then tell the gays, "This is too good for you."

Now, me, I'm not a fan of marriage. Saw too many senior NCO's get screwed by cheating spouses when I was in the service, had too many Jr. enlisted I had to counsel when their cheating spouses caused their performance to falter (not a good thing when you are dealing with ammo and explosives.) . But dammit, if you are going to say, "this is a holy rite", then act like it is

Do I need to remind you that segregation was enshrined in Democratic party platform and enforced by Woodrow Wilson, and every Democrat president before CRA of 1964.

Only if you want to point out how profoundly ignorant of history you are. I could go through a whole list, but the key one was that Harry Truman was the one who desegregated the Armed Forces. This is why Strom Thurmond ran against him in 1948. FDR had a pretty good record of advancing civil rights. Same with JFK.

So the only Democratic Presidents between Wilson and LBJ were.. um. FDR, Truman and JFK, all of whom had pretty decent records on civil rights.

 

[JoeB131]

I haven't heard of "loose morals" definition, just the "happy" and "carefree". Regardless, why definition needed to change at all to mean homosexual, when there is absolutely no historical connection between the previous and new definition? Anything to do with acceptance, or rejection?

Your ignorance knows no bounds.

Words change meaning all the time.

Macaroni used to mean a fashion style before it became a noodle.
Awful used to mean terrifying instead of terrible.
Spam used to mean a really awful processed meat until it became a word for unwanted junk mail.

Now, yes, gay people took on the moniker "gay" instead of the more clinical "homosexual". Oh well. Words change meaning.

 

[WEATHER53]

Pick on somebody your own size

And sex

 

[Ame®icano]

So you pick out one caveat, and ignore the rest of the article so you can enjoy your bigotry, got it.

If you read my previous post I provided several, but in a nutshell, that is the conclusion of the study.

I thought you were non-religious, but you want to fall back on the "BIBLE" to make your point? Sorry, man, even in the bible, they had polygamy. Women in Bible times didn't pick their mate, marriages were arranged.

To be precise, I made three points, from which one of them was biblical, and you ignored the other two.
It's true, I am not religious at all, but I like to read, so when I was young I did read most of the Bibles, and the Koran, and the Tanakh, I even read some of Tripitaka, long long ago. My approach to religion is more like to a life philosophy of the certain era, then from religious angle. You know, I don't really have to be a meteorologist to talk about weather, or to be a doctor to know what headache is, or how to stop the bleeding from bullet wound, or immobilize the bone, or revive the person... I don't have to be religious to read religious books. Besides, sometimes talking or arguing about religion with some of my religious friends, does make a good conversation. You know, I did read Mein Kampf, and Das Kapital, because it's good to know and understand the enemy. Have you read Communist Manifesto? I did. You see, to me, all those ideological books are similar to religions, the only difference is an audience, and how do you act on it. I know you're young, and stupid. Maybe you should read some of the books from Freud, Fromm, Hegel, Spinoza, Engels, Hesse, Orwell ... to give you an idea, and most of them are with heavy leftists point of view.

Polygamy doesn't invalidate meaning of marriage. Arranged marriages neither.

Sure it does. Either you think marriages should be forever, or you don't. You can't wallow in your divorces and adultery and then tell the gays, "This is too good for you."

Now, me, I'm not a fan of marriage. Saw too many senior NCO's get screwed by cheating spouses when I was in the service, had too many Jr. enlisted I had to counsel when their cheating spouses caused their performance to falter (not a good thing when you are dealing with ammo and explosives.) . But dammit, if you are going to say, "this is a holy rite", then act like it is

No it doesn't. Beside wedding vows in between two people, there is nothing I know of that say couples must remain together. Only celestial marriages are intended to continue forever and into the afterlife, with condition that man and woman don't break their covenants. Having said that Catholic church allows couples to petition for their marriage annulment. Islam does it too, and even specify what does belong to wife once she get divorced. For Jewish people, I wouldn't know from the top of my head. I would recommend that instead of insinuations about what you think it is, or what someone who knows even less than you told you something that you mindlessly repeat, you read some of those books before you open your mouth. If you did, your posts wouldn't look this awkward. And not just religious books.

Only if you want to point out how profoundly ignorant of history you are. I could go through a whole list, but the key one was that Harry Truman was the one who desegregated the Armed Forces. This is why Strom Thurmond ran against him in 1948. FDR had a pretty good record of advancing civil rights. Same with JFK.

So the only Democratic Presidents between Wilson and LBJ were.. um. FDR, Truman and JFK, all of whom had pretty decent records on civil rights.

For once, you are right. Harry Truman did desegregate the military, because military was in his control. Other than that, you're revisionist about everything else. And please remind me, and yourself, which president I specifically named when I was talking about segregation? Did segregation ended during FDR, or Truman, or JFK? You should stop twisting my words into something I didn't say. Fucking loser.

 

[Ame®icano]

Your ignorance knows no bounds.

Words change meaning all the time.

Macaroni used to mean a fashion style before it became a noodle.
Awful used to mean terrifying instead of terrible.
Spam used to mean a really awful processed meat until it became a word for unwanted junk mail.

Now, yes, gay people took on the moniker "gay" instead of the more clinical "homosexual". Oh well. Words change meaning.

Now you're funny. How shallow you need to be to take everything you read for granted? Even with so little expectation from you, you always manage to provide even less. You're typical product of the leftist educational system.

Macaroni were always Italian word for not just any noodle, but specific type of noodle. Macaroni fashion style was named after Italian macaroni noodles. Word macaroni never changed its meaning, the new fashion did get a new name. You're such a waste of time.

And in regards the word "gay", beside answering something that nobody asked you, you didn't answer the question you were asked. Why did they took the word "gay" to describe themselves? Acceptance or rejection? You as a "bottom" dude should know that.

 

[JoeB131]

f you read my previous post I provided several, but in a nutshell, that is the conclusion of the study.

Nope, that's your conclusion, because you just can't let go of your hate, and really need to believe just because you picked up a tranny in a bar once, you really have a case of the Not-Gays.

Oh, I'm going to ignore most of your word salads, so just a hint- Write as though you are being paid by the point and penalized by the word.

to give you an idea, and most of them are with heavy leftists point of view.

As Jamie Lee Curtis said in "A fish called Wanda", a monkey can read philosophy, he just doesn't understand it.

Polygamy doesn't invalidate meaning of marriage. Arranged marriages neither.

Well, actually, it COMPLETELY does. It shows that marriage in the past DID NOT mean what it means today. So there is no rational reason to deny it to gay people.

No it doesn't. Beside wedding vows in between two people, there is nothing I know of that say couples must remain together. Only celestial marriages are intended to continue forever and into the afterlife, with condition that man and woman don't break their covenants.

Celestial Marriages,.... wait a minute, are you a Mormon Crazy?

There is no afterlife. And in this corporeal world, we don't honor our covenants as it is. The diffrence now is that we don't stone women to death for cheating like the Bible says to.

For once, you are right. Harry Truman did desegregate the military, because military was in his control. Other than that, you're revisionist about everything else. And please remind me, and yourself, which president I specifically named when I was talking about segregation? Did segregation ended during FDR, or Truman, or JFK? You should stop twisting my words into something I didn't say. Fucking loser.

No, what you said was EVERY president enshrined segregation, and that simply wasn't true. YOU FUCKING LIED. HST ended segregation in the military. I'd post a bunch of links with FDR and JFK's contributions as well, but links with you are pearls before swine.

The racists WERE in the Democrats, but then they went to the Republicans and were much happier there.

You see, FDR was the game changer, when he aligned working class whites and blacks in a single coalition. That meant playing a balancing game of expanding rights while still placating the black man. (As opposed to all previous compromises, which was rolling back rights for black people) Of course, Republicans stopped giving a shit about Civil Rights after Rutherford B. Hayes stole the presidency in 1876.

 

[JoeB131]

And in regards the word "gay", beside answering something that nobody asked you, you didn't answer the question you were asked. Why did they took the word "gay" to describe themselves? Acceptance or rejection? You as a "bottom" dude should know that.

Dude, your gay obsessions just don't work here.

Why is it every homophobic asshole is so well versed in gay sex acts? It's like the vegetarian who can't stop talking about steaks...

 

[Ame®icano]

No, what you said was EVERY president enshrined segregation, and that simply wasn't true. YOU FUCKING LIED. HST ended segregation in the military. I'd post a bunch of links with FDR and JFK's contributions as well, but links with you are pearls before swine.

Quote my words.

The racists WERE in the Democrats, but then they went to the Republicans and were much happier there.

If true, than you won't have a problem to provide a year when that happened.

 

[Ame®icano]

Dude, your gay obsessions just don't work here.

Why is it every homophobic asshole is so well versed in gay sex acts? It's like the vegetarian who can't stop talking about steaks...

The question was, why would word change?

As expected, no answer from you.