And you did attack him personally and it was glorious.
That Idaho law is only going to get implemented in more red states. It was an educated guess as to whether Walter supported that or not.
See, as far as I’m concerned this post of yours passes the (admittedly low) bar of being able to discuss physiological differences between transgender women and cisgender women, and the issue of what kinds and extents of physiological differences should be considered to make athletic competition officially “unfair”, without misgendering anybody or using hate speech against transgender people.
So yeah, I’d be willing to have that conversation with you, if I thought either of us really knew enough about the relevant biological, psychological or sociological issues to make a dent in our ignorance, which I kind of doubt is the case.
And while that may be a low bar, it’s one that many previous discussants of this issue (as well as the cited article in the OP of the closed thread) haven’t been able to clear, so, y’know, credit where it’s due.
(One passage from that article that I must say I heartily enjoyed, however:
The ACLU, as usual, rocks.) 
mmm … so … this is what a 5-minute hate looks like then. Glad to be experiencing that just online rather than, say, Beijing 1960s.
Time was when I thought that we all clearly understood that using “she” for transwomen was a courtesy title - a social white lie to make things easier for gender-non-conforming guys having a hard time. So this is a real lesson to me in how that sort of thing can really colonise your brain and I’m glad I had the opportunity to learn that lesson without ever personally getting to the screaming at people online phase.
The project to help vulnerable people by just pretending a little harder is doomed. It’s never going to actually work because people actually can tell the difference between men and women from their bodies, and when it gets to the stage of colonising all women’s spaces the people who are going to suffer are the original vulnerable people that the policy of politely pretending was meant to protect. Not the sociopaths who are currently invading the trans rights movement due to gender-self-id and other dumb ideas - they’ll just move on to the next good thing.
I can’t say I’m really all that surprised by 4w being considered a hate site because everything in the reality-about-sex community is a “hate site” now - Fair Play for Women, SEGM, LGB Alliance … all those places that have actual facts and statistics.
I’m currently estimating about 5-10 years for the impossibility of actually consistently pretending that you can see gender and not see sex to really hit home.
So, see you in six or more years I guess
oh - ps.
For god’s sake touch grass y’all
Gotta say, I can’t recall ever seeing anything of note from Apidistra. But if the above is indicative of the stuff he usual posts then holy hell, fuck that guy.
Well, it was a stupid guess and you were wrong. I was unfamiliar with the law you were referring to but I’ve read up about it in the meantime and I think it’s obscene. Furthermore, there’s no way to honestly infer support for that law from my position in either this thread or the previous one.
For the avoidance of doubt, my position is this:
• Transwomen athletes who’ve completed male puberty are very likely to have innate physical advantages over cisgender women against whom they compete. I believe those advantages are unfair. While the IOC has made recommendations for trans athletes to level the playing field, including taking hormone treatments to reduce their T-Levels to <10 nmol/l, there’s convincing evidence that those recommendations don’t go far enough. At the very least, the science is not settled. It’s perfectly possible to have a good faith conversion about this, as the bone of contention isn’t whether all transwomen should be barred from competing against cisgender women, but whether a specific subset of transwomen have done enough to nullify the physical advantages conferred on them by male puberty.
• These concerns don’t apply to transmen who’ve completed female puberty, because female puberty doesn’t confer on them the same set of athletic advantages. If anything, transmen are at a disadvantage.
• Transwomen who transitioned before completing male puberty and took puberty blockers etc… should be free to compete against cisgender women without restrictions.
That’s it. Why you thought that constituted solid grounds on which to make an “educated guess” that I’d want trans kids’ parents locked up for trying to get them treatment is a complete fucking mystery. Care to elaborate? Or are you more a drive-by snark kind of poster?
I have a better idea, why don’t you just fuck off and not come back?
Well, i hope you take this lesson, that it’s not a “social white lie” but rather, describes a real phenomenon, and chew on that.
I’d like to give you a tiny science bite as you leave. The process of sexualization of a fetus isn’t a “one and done”. Even if you just look at gross physical features, the existence of intersex people proves that. And the brain is an organ that is sexualized. That’s what leads, for instance, to sexual orientation.
Well, my impression is that this is where you should have been in the first place because your “question” was a poorly disguised diatribe against Aspidistra. Whether he/she deserved it or not isn’t the point. The point is that ATMB is not the place for that.
Well, I guess this paragraph answers the OP’s question about hate speech.
So, hateful and stupid, then.
Indeed you are.
Trolling the Pit with “I know you are but what am I” kindergarten-level wit is a bold move. Let’s see how this pans out for the new kid…
@SmartAleq’s post was exactly on point, though: sports are full of athletes whose success is due to innate physical advantages.
Perhaps there are activists who have been railing for years against the unfair advantages that tall basketball players have over short players, or large football players have over skinny football players, or tiny jockeys have over huge jockeys. Those activists have some real credibility when they complain about the advantages that transgirls have over cisgirls.
But anyone who’s only picked up the “unfair physical advantage” banner in the past few years, and only applies it to trans girls, still ignoring the other unfair physical advantages, has absolutely zero credibility.
And that was weak and sad.
Try harder or go home.
This particular type of physical advantage, the one that accrues from going through puberty with functioning testicles, is one that has been ‘picked up’ since Day 1 of Women’s Sport. It’s not as though the concept of testosterone fueled athletic performance is something dreamed up in the last decade.
If we actually believe that all genetic physical advantages are “fair”, then there wouldn’t be women’s divisions at all for any sport. Which, I guess, is fine for the dudes, probably sucks for the ladies who will be lucky to have a chance at the club level of any sport.
I just noticed that @MrDibble and I are both having cake day today. Happy cake day to you.
Yeah, Happy Cake Day dudes!
Personally, I don’t care much for cake and would prefer a keg day. 
dafuq?
See, WalterBishop, this is the sort of thing debaters should definitely not be doing if they want to have a reasoned and respectful discussion about fairness issues in sports competition involving cisgender and transgender women. (And to be fair, I haven’t seen you ever trying to do it, so props for that.)
Nobody here advocating for trans rights is “pretending” about anything. Calling somebody a woman does not necessarily mean that you believe—or are trying to convince her or anybody else that you believe—that she was born with a vagina rather than a penis.
You’re going to be disappointed in your unrealistic malevolent “expectation”. After all, it’s been centuries if not millennia that people have been “pretending” that they can call both adoptive mothers and biological mothers “mothers”. And we don’t seem to have found it “impossible” yet.
Face it, the biological definition of “mother” for a species like ours is just as anatomically specific and unyielding as the biological definition of “female”. If you didn’t grow an individual in your own uterus, then biologically speaking you’re not that individual’s mother.
And yet, our society and innumerable previous human societies have found no “impossibility” whatsoever in using the same word and social category to refer to both biological and adoptive mothers. Occasionally we specify which kind we mean when particular circumstances require us to distinguish between them, but in the vast majority of situations, a mother is just called a mother, whether adoptive or biological.
In the same way, there is no linguistic or sociological “impossibility” whatsoever in using the term “woman” and associated feminine pronouns to refer to both cisgender and transgender women, despite their undeniable and acknowledged biological differences. We can occasionally specify which kind we mean when particular circumstances require us to distinguish between them, but in the vast majority of situations, a woman is just called a woman, whether transgender or cisgender.
Hopefully, at some point in the next 5-10 years you’ll manage to understand that. In the meantime, I doubt we’ll miss you and your ugly vilification of transgender people around here.