Could you repeat that, please? I didn’t quite hear you.
Yes, I could repeat that.
Saying “sure” is not the same as posting a proof of the (alleged) fact that “Everyone who read your 10:20-timestamped post about “Michael” understood…”, etc.
Please post the proof or apologize for lying.
Thank you.
I was among those, labeled as “everyone”, who read your 10:20-timestamped post about “Michael” and understood that it was about an alleged incident in which someone claiming to be a transgender girl took inappropriate pictures of girls in the girls’ restroom and showed them to boys.
Odd word structurements. What are you?
Oh thank you, that was much clearer that time.
You’re welcome.
Please do provide us with a response.
Yes indeed.
Do you have a proof from those labeled as “everyone” that you were among those labeled as “everyone” ?
Yes. Do you have a mailing address?
No, I do not.
What does it have with proving that "you have a proof from those labeled as “everyone” that you were among those labeled as “everyone” ?
I apologize in advance for our country’s unwieldy legal strictures, but in 2009 the Supreme Court ruled in Cooper v. Wolowitz that transcribed and notarized eyewitness accounts are non-transferable via electronic means. Mailing address?
No apology is necessary. Please provide an explanation of what does " it have to do with proving that "you have a proof from those labeled as “everyone” that you were among those labeled as “everyone” ?
Thank you.
I don’t mean to nitpick your otherwise excellent response, jimbuff314, but I think you may have overlooked the fact that the majority opinion specifically restricted that ruling to local server paths located entirely within the Northern Hemisphere, due to possible impacts from the Coriolis effect.
Eyewitness accounts, assiduously accumulated by myself and my associates from the group heretofore labeled “everyone”, testifying as to my membership in aforementioned group, notarized at this late hour by a most honorable notary public, await the transport through the internation mail system for your perusal and edification. Please to provide mailing address so accomplishment means may be effectuated. I beg you to accept my humble apologies for my government’s intransigence, unnecessary though they may be.
So soon as our esteemed colleague may furnish forth an extant mailing address so that we may delineate hemispherical locality, we shall proceed to server path adjustment so that our exalted Supreme Court instructions will not be circumvented. I remain your faithful and humble etc.
Is this an actual, factual event that happened in real life?
If it is, did the person known as Michael have the sort of medical and psychological evaluation described in post 161 with respect to identifying as female? If not, what, if anything, supports Michael’s gender identification as female?
If it’s not an actual event, then is it fair to say you created a false story in order to advance some point – a parable, if you will? Can you explain the point without resort to fiction?
Can I suggest that some change in wording is of value here?
In the first two paragraphs, you suggest some framework exists to evaluate self-identification; there is some objective criteria applied to the gender identification when the gender does not match the biological sex.
But in summarizing, you return to the phrase “self-identification,” and emphasize that self-identification alone is sufficient. I believe this emphasis fuels the belief that all that’s needed is literally a self-declaration, with nothing more from any other source required.
I do not believe it is unreasonable for cis women to be worried about safety if the message is that they have no right to complain if an outwardly male person enters a women’s restroom, even if that person simply claims a gender identification of female. But neither do I believe you’re advocating otherwise – I just think you’ve settled on a phrase that invites that image and does little to dispel it.
So, to be clear: your use of “self-identification,” does not literally begin and end with a declaration by the person, correct?
A friend of mine wrote this article this morning. Tho we generally see quite eye-to-eye on political/social issues, I’m not sure I’m entirely with him in his conclusions here. But we are of similar age/education/background, and I think he does a decent job of expressing some of my confusion.
My confusion is not allayed by folk who act as tho there is a simple solution. Just this morning I was wondering about athletic teams. Is a transwoman a woman for purposes of competing in womens’ teams? In HS, apparently yes. In the Olympics, I think not. Why is that? And if we are re-examining gender roles, why even have different boys’ and girls’ teams? (This from a person who strongly wishes HS/college sports were drastically de-emphasized, and would prefer universal co-ed recreational sports.)
No, my confusion is not a mask for my suspicion that boys are going to try to sneak into girls’ locker rooms. It is distressing that this foolishness derailed any possible intelligent discussion.
Sorry, guys. This is nowhere near the discussion I had hoped for when I started this thread. So I’m going to ask the mods if they would kindly close this thread. Anyone who wants to continue spewing venom (from all sides), please start whatever new threads you wish.
Alkash, you have had your fun. Now it stops.
I have noted on previous occasions that it can be difficult to distinguish stupidity from trolling. However, with your posts, including threadshitting, junior molding, and other efforts to raise hackles, there is no question.
If you continue your behavior, you will begin receiving Warnings for trolling.
[ /Moderating ]
I have to admit that being asked to “co tongue” my behavior would just baffle the shit out of me.
Your question is not answerable, because the international Olympic committee has actually had this figured out for a decade. See page 3 of my lengthy report at this link for citations.
http://transascity.org/cross-training-the-history-and-future-of-transgender-and-intersex-athletes-3/
Transgender women who have had an orchiectomy/gonadectomy, or intersex women who can prove their hormone levels are controlled in a he long term in the female range (generally, 2 years) compete as women. And unsurprisingly, transgender women meeting the IOC regulations generally don’t even place in the top 20 in female events.
There’s about 10,000 more words and about 30 citations in my article which explore the facts behind transgender and intersex participation in sports there. If you are willing to read through it all, it may answer several of your sports questions.