bitrex wrote:
> On 3/26/2022 7:10 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>> bitrex wrote:
>>> On 3/25/2022 6:23 PM, bitrex wrote:
>>>> On 3/25/2022 6:09 PM, Rickster wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:28:42 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> bitrex wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/25/2022 11:22 AM, John Doe wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We will see. Let's see if women in fact don't do anything about
>>>>>>>> transgender bullies beating up on girls in sports. That is a
>>>>>>>> huge question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Definitely an issue that really connects with the real-world
>>>>>>> problems of the regular American. Lol
>>>>>> That's interesting, if you mean that it isn't important because
>>>>>> it doesn't involve most people. Slavery and Jim Crow didn't
>>>>>> involve most people.
>>>>>
>>>>> I like the way you ask him a question, then answer it for him.
>>>>> Excellent technique.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I like that it does save time and it was a dumb analogy, anyway.
>>>
>>> Every time Tucker Carlson gets a time out on Twitter it's BASICALLY
>>> the same as the Holocaust
>>
>> Jim Crow, the Holocaust, and wokeness all warp the definition of
>> humanity. If eugenics had critics 50 years earlier when it was only a
>> harmless theory you would have said it doesn't connect with the real
>> world problems of the average person.
>>
>
> The Nazis would've put transsexuals to death, and the Moral Majority
> in 2022 would like to put them and all "degenerates" to death, a
> direct lineage of right-wing fascist philosophy. Nothing changed...

Nothing real. Just what you imagine about the right.

And Hitler was on the left, only to the right of Stalin. To believe
otherwise you have to believe that all of us are in the middle of the
two.

--
Defund the Thought Police

bitrex wrote:
> On 3/26/2022 7:02 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>> bitrex wrote:
>>> On 3/25/2022 6:09 PM, Rickster wrote:
>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:28:42 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>>>> bitrex wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/25/2022 11:22 AM, John Doe wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We will see. Let's see if women in fact don't do anything about
>>>>>>> transgender bullies beating up on girls in sports. That is a
>>>>>>> huge question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Definitely an issue that really connects with the real-world
>>>>>> problems of the regular American. Lol
>>>>> That's interesting, if you mean that it isn't important because it
>>>>> doesn't involve most people. Slavery and Jim Crow didn't involve
>>>>> most people.
>>>>
>>>> I like the way you ask him a question, then answer it for him.
>>>> Excellent technique.
>>>
>>> I like that it does save time and it was a dumb analogy, anyway.
>>
>> It wasn't an analogy. It was a critique of this logic: "If it doesn't
>> connect with the real-world problems of the regular American" then it
>> doesn't need to be considered.
>>
>>
>
> With respect to slavery I'd say the Civil War was certainly a big
> problem for most everyone at the time and a long while after. Some
> seem to still be fighting it

The Civil War wasn't an issue 10 or 100 or 200 years earlier when people
should have thought slavery was an issue.

But it wasn't on their minds when it should have been, or the Civil War
would not have happened.

Which was my original point. Just because it isn't currently affecting
most people does not mean they shouldn't be concerned about it.

The Left wants to use civil rights as a cudgel against every opposing
position. It's not possible to believe a judge has bad judgement wthout
being racist. You have to be demented to believe that but many people do
a convincing impression. And yet while they use civil rights as a
buzzword, they don't give a wit about civil society, which they destroy
with censoring, cancelling, and redefining the most basic elements of
society to suit themselves.

--
Defund the Thought Police

On 3/28/2022 8:01 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 3:21:26 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 17:01:43 +0100, l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
>>> <jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 09:28:55 +0100, l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
>>>>> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> They aren't previous men because they wanted to do well in women's sport.
>>>>>> Gender dysphoria is a mental conditions, and the best - and pretty much
>>>>>> the only - treatment that works, involves changing the body of the
>>>>>> sufferer into one that looks like the body of the preferred sex. Taking
>>>>>> part in sport as a member of the preferred sex is one of the activities
>>>>>> that reinforces the desired mental state.
>>>>> Absolutely correct., although in my case I was subjected to so much
>>>>> bullying in school at so-called sport that I spent most of my time
>>>>> trying hard to avoid it.
>>>> But surely some of the cases of transgenderism are faked,
>>> Very very few indeed. That is no reason for penalising the thousands of
>>> genuine transgender people who are faced with a choice between
>>> transitioning and suicide.
>> They don't need to play girls sports to prevent suicide.
> It's part of the process of getting them to fit in as girls. The frivolous objections of creeps like John Doe and Phil Allison shouldn't really be allowed to get in the way of an effective therapy.

   Again, their therapy should not be to the detriment of all the women
that have worked hard to compete and then have to compete against a
former man's body.
Where are the women to men trans in men's sports? They aren't because
they were former women and don't have the male body characteristics to win.

 Are women to men having as tough of a time feeling as they don't fit
in  as men to women?
Mikek

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

amdx <amdx@knology.net> wrote:

>  Are women to men having as tough of a time feeling as they don't fit
> in  as men to women?

Very much so. They don't have the same problem as Mtf transgender
people, who are seen as 'dangerous men' (minus their penis, testicles
and testosterone) masquerading as women, but they do have to cope with
their family's reaction to losing a 'daughter' who was expected to bear
children.

The pressures on MtF are different, but they are responbsible for
causing a lot of mental illness, self-harm and suicides.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:56:11 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

>On 3/26/2022 7:10 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>> bitrex wrote:
>>> On 3/25/2022 6:23 PM, bitrex wrote:
>>>> On 3/25/2022 6:09 PM, Rickster wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:28:42 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>>>>> bitrex wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/25/2022 11:22 AM, John Doe wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We will see. Let's see if women in fact don't do anything about
>>>>>>>> transgender bullies beating up on girls in sports. That is a huge
>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Definitely an issue that really connects with the real-world
>>>>>>> problems of the regular American. Lol
>>>>>> That's interesting, if you mean that it isn't important because it
>>>>>> doesn't involve most people. Slavery and Jim Crow didn't involve
>>>>>> most people.
>>>>>
>>>>> I like the way you ask him a question, then answer it for him.
>>>>> Excellent technique.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I like that it does save time and it was a dumb analogy, anyway.
>>>
>>> Every time Tucker Carlson gets a time out on Twitter it's BASICALLY
>>> the same as the Holocaust
>>
>> Jim Crow, the Holocaust, and wokeness all warp the definition of
>> humanity. If eugenics had critics 50 years earlier when it was only a
>> harmless theory you would have said it doesn't connect with the real
>> world problems of the average person.
>>
>
>The Nazis would've put transsexuals to death, and the Moral Majority in
>2022 would like to put them and all "degenerates" to death,

Got a reference for that?

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 03:24:45 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
<fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:

>bitrex wrote:
>> On 3/26/2022 7:02 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>> bitrex wrote:
>>>> On 3/25/2022 6:09 PM, Rickster wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:28:42 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>>>>> bitrex wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/25/2022 11:22 AM, John Doe wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We will see. Let's see if women in fact don't do anything about
>>>>>>>> transgender bullies beating up on girls in sports. That is a
>>>>>>>> huge question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Definitely an issue that really connects with the real-world
>>>>>>> problems of the regular American. Lol
>>>>>> That's interesting, if you mean that it isn't important because it
>>>>>> doesn't involve most people. Slavery and Jim Crow didn't involve
>>>>>> most people.
>>>>>
>>>>> I like the way you ask him a question, then answer it for him.
>>>>> Excellent technique.
>>>>
>>>> I like that it does save time and it was a dumb analogy, anyway.
>>>
>>> It wasn't an analogy. It was a critique of this logic: "If it doesn't
>>> connect with the real-world problems of the regular American" then it
>>> doesn't need to be considered.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> With respect to slavery I'd say the Civil War was certainly a big
>> problem for most everyone at the time and a long while after. Some
>> seem to still be fighting it
>
>The Civil War wasn't an issue 10 or 100 or 200 years earlier when people
>should have thought slavery was an issue.
>
>But it wasn't on their minds when it should have been, or the Civil War
>would not have happened.
>
>Which was my original point. Just because it isn't currently affecting
>most people does not mean they shouldn't be concerned about it.
>
>The Left wants to use civil rights as a cudgel against every opposing
>position. It's not possible to believe a judge has bad judgement wthout
>being racist. You have to be demented to believe that but many people do
>a convincing impression. And yet while they use civil rights as a
>buzzword, they don't give a wit about civil society, which they destroy
>with censoring, cancelling, and redefining the most basic elements of
>society to suit themselves.

Turning everything into racism probably makes the population more
racist. Almost certainly.

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 07:37:54 -0500, amdx <amdx@knology.net> wrote:

>On 3/28/2022 8:01 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 3:21:26 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 17:01:43 +0100, l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
>>>> <jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 09:28:55 +0100, l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
>>>>>> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They aren't previous men because they wanted to do well in women's sport.
>>>>>>> Gender dysphoria is a mental conditions, and the best - and pretty much
>>>>>>> the only - treatment that works, involves changing the body of the
>>>>>>> sufferer into one that looks like the body of the preferred sex. Taking
>>>>>>> part in sport as a member of the preferred sex is one of the activities
>>>>>>> that reinforces the desired mental state.
>>>>>> Absolutely correct., although in my case I was subjected to so much
>>>>>> bullying in school at so-called sport that I spent most of my time
>>>>>> trying hard to avoid it.
>>>>> But surely some of the cases of transgenderism are faked,
>>>> Very very few indeed. That is no reason for penalising the thousands of
>>>> genuine transgender people who are faced with a choice between
>>>> transitioning and suicide.
>>> They don't need to play girls sports to prevent suicide.
>> It's part of the process of getting them to fit in as girls. The frivolous objections of creeps like John Doe and Phil Allison shouldn't really be allowed to get in the way of an effective therapy.
>
>    Again, their therapy should not be to the detriment of all the women
>that have worked hard to compete and then have to compete against a
>former man's body.

My younger daughter was a baseball fan practically from birth. She
tried to play in the boys baseball leagues, but she wasn't strong
enough to hit homers, and the boys wouldn't accept her, even though
she is a great fielder.

So she cut over to girls softball and thrived. She was shortstop and
team captain at Cornell and is still in touch with her teammates.

I tell people that she dual-majored in softball and beer pong.

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 22:05:11 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
<pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

>jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
>====================================
>> >
>> > If you want social justice you don't let a few a previous men compete
>> > against the many women that have worked their whole lives to compete.
>>
>> We have Special Olympics. We should have Trans Olympics.
>>
>
>** Never work.
>

But imagine the adorable uniforms.

Every team would need a makeup manager.

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

<jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 22:05:11 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
> <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >
> >====================================
> >> >
> >> > If you want social justice you don't let a few a previous men compete
> >> > against the many women that have worked their whole lives to compete.
> >>
> >> We have Special Olympics. We should have Trans Olympics.
> >>
> >
> >** Never work.
> >
>
> But imagine the adorable uniforms.
>
> Every team would need a makeup manager.

You have some very curious and outdated ideas about transpeople. Most
of us are trying to fit in and be unobtrusive; very few ciswomen would
wear makeup whilst playing sport, so neither would transwomen.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On 3/29/2022 12:16 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 4:05:15 PM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>
>> ====================================
>>>> If you want social justice you don't let a few a previous men compete
>>>> against the many women that have worked their whole lives to compete.
>>> We have Special Olympics. We should have Trans Olympics.
>> ** Never work.
>>
>> Fake Trans athletes only want to steal awards off women whom they deeply despise.
>> Cos that is like taking candy from babies.
> Phil does have an odd enthusiasm for reminding us that he has some very silly ideas.
>
> Maybe he could list the fake trans athletes whose motivations he knows so much about. My suspicion is that every last one of them exists only in his fertile imagination, but maybe he will prove me wrong. And pigs might fly.
>
 I have no concern about fake trans, my concern are the real trans
competing against women.
                              Mikek

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Lizard Tuddenham wrote:
==========================
> <jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
>>
> > >> > If you want social justice you don't let a few a previous men compete
> > >> > against the many women that have worked their whole lives to compete.
> > >>
> > >> We have Special Olympics. We should have Trans Olympics.
> > >>
> > >
> > >** Never work.
> > >
> >
> > Every team would need a makeup manager.
>
> You have some very curious and outdated ideas about transpeople.

** It was a joke Joyce.

> Most of us are trying to fit in and be unobtrusive;

** fFat chance.

> very few ciswomen would wear makeup

** That is a horrible, derogatory term that women all hate.

> would wear makeup

** One or two female sprinters famously did.

whilst playing sport, so neither would transwomen.

** Logical fallacy.


....... Phil

amdx wrote:
===========
>>
> >>> We have Special Olympics. We should have Trans Olympics.
>
> >> ** Never work.
> >>
> >> Fake Trans athletes only want to steal awards off women whom they deeply despise.
> >> Cos that is like taking candy from babies.
> >
> I have no concern about fake trans, my concern are the real trans
> competing against women.
>

** There aren't any.
No proof of being "trans" is needed for a male to enter many women's events.
The ones we see now in swimming and athletics etc are opportunistic fakes.

...... Phil

jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
===================================
>
> My younger daughter was a baseball fan practically from birth. She
> tried to play in the boys baseball leagues, but she wasn't strong
> enough to hit homers, and the boys wouldn't accept her, even though
> she is a great fielder.
>
> So she cut over to girls softball and thrived. She was shortstop and
> team captain at Cornell and is still in touch with her teammates.
>

** Women's sports are different from men's, plenty of skill on display but played in much fairer spirit.
I enjoy watching Golf and Tennis on TV, but lean strongly towards women's events.
Australia's world no 1 tennis player ( Ash Barty) retired a few days ago a the peak of her career - bugger.

If even ONE good male player entered women's Golf or Tennis, he would win every match and title on offer.
I sure hope the relevant bodies never let it happen.

FYI:

Women players are welcome to enter male Golf tournaments - they are literally "open" to all comers subject to a qualifying standard.
This was common years ago, until the women's tour was established.
Those who attempted it lately finished way down the list.
Men hit their tee shots so much further than women.

...... Phil

On 3/25/2022 6:07 AM, amdx wrote:
> From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"
>
> How long before Googles deletes these definitions?
>
> Female
> Noun
> an adult female human being.
>
> Woman
> adjective
> of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
> distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
> which can be fertilized by male gametes.

Dictionaries constantly evolve.

You should, instead, ask what role you expect this "qualification"
to play.

Are you using it to determine the types of medical afflictions
the Pt is likely to experience?

Are you using it to determine how much you can afford NOT to pay
the job applicant? (oops!)

Or, to determine suitability to holding positions of power/authority,
advancement opportunities? (oops!)

Are you using it to determine whether or not you can exert control
over that entity's body? (oops!)

Are you using it to determine the suitability for that party to
perform a particular task? (spatial reasoning, digital dexterity)

Are you using it to gauge their body shape? (petite vs. large)

If, instead, you are using it to convince yourself that there is
(and should be!) some difference between "women" and "men" -- in
much the same way that you think there should be a substantive
difference between "blacks" and "whites", "jews" and "gentiles",
"blonds" and "brunettes", etc.) then I suspect you are just letting
your own, personal insecurities manifest.

I know "men" who are "weaklings" and "women" that you'd never want
to engage in a bar fight! I know "men" who are chefs and "women"
who are engineers. (I know men with larger "mammaries" than many
women! Should I call them "girls" and the flatter-chested women
"boys"?)

I suspect most "women" would be more appreciative of your efforts to
ensure them equal pay, equal respect, equal promotion opportunities,
etc. than to come to the defense of women competing (at a disadvantage?)
with transwomen. (yet, I don't see any impassioned posts about "equal
rights"...)

Does your employer have different standards for female job applicants
than men? Perhaps we should divide society along those lines and
split the opportunities, responsibilities, etc. based on percentage
representation in the population?

Maybe women soldiers should wear pink uniforms so the opposing forces
can ensure only *their* women soldiers fire on YOUR women soldiers?
We can make that determination prior to issuing your uniform (at
short-arm inspection)...

Have HALF of your bosses been women? Half of your colleagues? Half
of your CEOs (just from your PERSONAL observations, not expecting you
to be able to know about the population as a whole)? Politicians?
Doctors? Lawyers? Auto-mechanics? Plumbers? Do you really think
there haven't been an equal number of "females" qualified for those roles?

[Personally, I've never had a female boss. Nor employer. And, only
*once* had a boss that was an engineer -- so the "male-STEM-bias" can't
explain away that (I've known several female engineers). OTOH, every
"HR" person I've encountered has been female, save one.]

If sports wanted to be "fair", they would assess the ATHLETIC
qualities of the participants and qualify the competitions accordingly.

You don't see "welter-weights" boxing "heavy-weights"! Why not?
Shouldn't the *bigger* boxer be ALLOWED to clean the little guy's
clock? ("Oh, but that wouldn't be *sporting*!")

Do we sort *jockeys* based on length of penis?? Or, amount of leg hair?

How does "sex/gender" *meaningfully* act to sort competitors? (in ANY
competition -- sports or otherwise)

Entities/individuals exist in an N-dimensional space. "Sex", "hair color",
"religious belief", "ethnicity", "BMI", "height", "weight", ... can each
be used to subdivide that space. Only a fool resorts to simple subdivisions.

IEEE Bill needs to be committed bill....@ieee.org wrote:
============================================
>>
> > jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> > ===================================
> > >
> > > My younger daughter was a baseball fan practically from birth. She
> > > tried to play in the boys baseball leagues, but she wasn't strong
> > > enough to hit homers, and the boys wouldn't accept her, even though
> > > she is a great fielder.
> > >
> > > So she cut over to girls softball and thrived. She was shortstop and
> > > team captain at Cornell and is still in touch with her teammates.
> > >
> > ** Women's sports are different from men's, plenty of skill on display but played in much fairer spirit.
> > I enjoy watching Golf and Tennis on TV, but lean strongly towards women's events.
> > Australia's world no 1 tennis player ( Ash Barty) retired a few days ago a the peak of her career - bugger.
> >
> > If even ONE good male player entered women's Golf or Tennis, he would win every match and title on offer.
>
> Idiot assertion.

** Totally CORRECT statement of fact.
------------------------------------------------------------
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)
>
> Billy Jean King wiped the floor with Bobby Riggs.

** ROTFLMAO !!

Totally FUCKING IRRELEVANT !!!!!
Did Bill even READ the damn Wiki ?
> > Women players are welcome to enter male Golf tournaments - they are literally "open" to all comers subject to a qualifying standard.
> > This was common years ago, until the women's tour was established.
> > Those who attempted it lately finished way down the list.
> > Men hit their tee shots so much further than women.

> Most men...

** Wrong topic - you demented POS fuckhead.

...... Phil

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 17:04:30 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
<pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lizard Tuddenham wrote:
>==========================
>> <jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
>>>
>> > >> > If you want social justice you don't let a few a previous men compete
>> > >> > against the many women that have worked their whole lives to compete.
>> > >>
>> > >> We have Special Olympics. We should have Trans Olympics.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >** Never work.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Every team would need a makeup manager.
>>
>> You have some very curious and outdated ideas about transpeople.
>
> ** It was a joke Joyce.
>
>> Most of us are trying to fit in and be unobtrusive;
>
>** fFat chance.
>
>> very few ciswomen would wear makeup
>
>** That is a horrible, derogatory term that women all hate.

As they say in Texas, call me anything you like just don't call me
late for dinner.

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

IEEE Bill needs to be committed bill....@ieee.org wrote:
============================================
>> >
> > > > If even ONE good male player entered women's Golf or Tennis, he would win every match and title on offer.
> > >
> > > Idiot assertion.
> >
> > ** Totally CORRECT statement of fact.
>
>>>
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)

** A staged joke of an event.
> You snipped the bit where I did point out that Bobby Riggs had beaten Margaret Court earlier in the same year,

** So even a 55 year old * has been* can beat a top female on a good day.
Imagine what a top, 25 year old male pro can do.

> > > > Women players are welcome to enter male Golf tournaments - they are literally "open" to all comers subject to a qualifying standard.
> > > > This was common years ago, until the women's tour was established.
> > > > Those who attempted it lately finished way down the list.
> > > > Men hit their tee shots so much further than women.
>
> > > Most men...
> >
> > ** Wrong topic - you demented POS fuckhead.
>
> And why would you think that

** Cos "most men" are not top level pro golfers you

- you ASD FUCKED MORON

....... Phil

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has continued to post incorrectly
formatted USENET articles that are devoid of content (latest example on
Wed, 30 Mar 2022 10:37:09 -0000 (UTC) in message-id
<t21bsk$a6s$1@dont-email.me>).

NOBODY likes the John Doe troll's contentless spam.

Further, Troll Doe stated the following in message-id
<svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000
(UTC):

> Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
> except insults to this group.

Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe's post ratio
to USENET has been 54.1% of its posts contributing "nothing except
insults" to USENET.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
follow the rules it uses to troll other posters.

SwwaBHeYvuiT

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

> On 3/25/2022 6:07 AM, amdx wrote:
> > From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"
> >
> > How long before Googles deletes these definitions?
> >
> > Female
> > Noun
> > an adult female human being.
> >
> > Woman
> > adjective
> > of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
> > distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
> > which can be fertilized by male gametes.
>
> Dictionaries constantly evolve.
>
> You should, instead, ask what role you expect this "qualification"
> to play.
>
> Are you using it to determine the types of medical afflictions
> the Pt is likely to experience?
>
> Are you using it to determine how much you can afford NOT to pay
> the job applicant? (oops!)
>
> Or, to determine suitability to holding positions of power/authority,
> advancement opportunities? (oops!)
>
> Are you using it to determine whether or not you can exert control
> over that entity's body? (oops!)
>
> Are you using it to determine the suitability for that party to
> perform a particular task? (spatial reasoning, digital dexterity)
>
> Are you using it to gauge their body shape? (petite vs. large)
>
> If, instead, you are using it to convince yourself that there is
> (and should be!) some difference between "women" and "men" -- in
> much the same way that you think there should be a substantive
> difference between "blacks" and "whites", "jews" and "gentiles",
> "blonds" and "brunettes", etc.) then I suspect you are just letting
> your own, personal insecurities manifest.
>
> I know "men" who are "weaklings" and "women" that you'd never want
> to engage in a bar fight! I know "men" who are chefs and "women"
> who are engineers. (I know men with larger "mammaries" than many
> women! Should I call them "girls" and the flatter-chested women
> "boys"?)
>
> I suspect most "women" would be more appreciative of your efforts to
> ensure them equal pay, equal respect, equal promotion opportunities,
> etc. than to come to the defense of women competing (at a disadvantage?)
> with transwomen. (yet, I don't see any impassioned posts about "equal
> rights"...)
>
> Does your employer have different standards for female job applicants
> than men? Perhaps we should divide society along those lines and
> split the opportunities, responsibilities, etc. based on percentage
> representation in the population?
>
> Maybe women soldiers should wear pink uniforms so the opposing forces
> can ensure only *their* women soldiers fire on YOUR women soldiers?
> We can make that determination prior to issuing your uniform (at
> short-arm inspection)...
>
> Have HALF of your bosses been women? Half of your colleagues? Half
> of your CEOs (just from your PERSONAL observations, not expecting you
> to be able to know about the population as a whole)? Politicians?
> Doctors? Lawyers? Auto-mechanics? Plumbers? Do you really think
> there haven't been an equal number of "females" qualified for those roles?
>
> [Personally, I've never had a female boss. Nor employer. And, only
> *once* had a boss that was an engineer -- so the "male-STEM-bias" can't
> explain away that (I've known several female engineers). OTOH, every
> "HR" person I've encountered has been female, save one.]
>
> If sports wanted to be "fair", they would assess the ATHLETIC
> qualities of the participants and qualify the competitions accordingly.
>
> You don't see "welter-weights" boxing "heavy-weights"! Why not?
> Shouldn't the *bigger* boxer be ALLOWED to clean the little guy's
> clock? ("Oh, but that wouldn't be *sporting*!")
>
> Do we sort *jockeys* based on length of penis?? Or, amount of leg hair?
>
> How does "sex/gender" *meaningfully* act to sort competitors? (in ANY
> competition -- sports or otherwise)
>
> Entities/individuals exist in an N-dimensional space. "Sex", "hair color",
> "religious belief", "ethnicity", "BMI", "height", "weight", ... can each
> be used to subdivide that space. Only a fool resorts to simple subdivisions.

Absolutely first class summing up of the idiotic anomalies created by
mental pigmys who don't understand biology and go through life trying to
force everyone else to believe in a false reality which corresponds to
their own level of ignorance

Would you mind if I keep a copy and use it (with due credits) when
needed?

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On 3/30/2022 4:53 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> Absolutely first class summing up of the idiotic anomalies created by
> mental pigmys who don't understand biology and go through life trying to
> force everyone else to believe in a false reality which corresponds to
> their own level of ignorance
>
> Would you mind if I keep a copy and use it (with due credits) when
> needed?

Skip the accreditation but feel free to paraphrase/quote as you like.

I wonder how long before we hear these same "champions of fairness
in women's sports" ALSO championing EQUALITY of women in ALL things?

[Gotta wonder what life is going to be like for men coming of age, now.
Given that so many FEWER of them are pursuing an education. Will the
female doctors/lawyers/engineers/PROFESSIONALS be willing to "settle"
for a "truck driver" as a mate? How will *he* look his friends in the
eye when they all implicitly know SHE is the breadwinner?]

(sigh) Gotta be tough living in perpetual fear of a life that
is changing around you and you're desperately clinging to YOUR past.
Better buy a gun! That will make you feel "potent", eh?

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Wed, 30 Mar 2022 12:41:40 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <t21j64$3ke$2@dont-email.me>.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
follow the rules it uses to troll other posters.

5z6oPPep7IPi

On 30/03/2022 14:18, Don Y wrote:
> On 3/30/2022 4:53 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>> Absolutely first class summing up of the idiotic anomalies created by
>> mental pigmys who don't understand biology and go through life trying to
>> force everyone else to believe in a false reality which corresponds to
>> their own level of ignorance
>>
>>   Would you mind if I keep a copy and use it (with due credits) when
>> needed?
>
> Skip the accreditation but feel free to paraphrase/quote as you like.
>
> I wonder how long before we hear these same "champions of fairness
> in women's sports" ALSO championing EQUALITY of women in ALL things?

For those in this group, it will never happen. They are old, bitter,
bigoted and ignorant, and that won't change. They will probably deny
being misogynist (and racist, homophobic, and allergic to pretty much
anyone that doesn't conform to their personal image) and try to cover it
up, but it's usually quite obvious. They'll tell you that they even
employee a female/black/gay/Muslim engineer and that they do quite a
good job for a girl/black/whatever - thinking that "proves" they are not
bigoted.

They absolutely /love/ the myth that women's sport is being taken over
and spoiled by transgenders. In many places it's getting too hard to
boost your feeble self-image by beating down on women as women's rights
and equality have improved, but non-binary people are an easy target
that have become more visible in recent years. And you can rail against
them while claiming to be protecting women - it's the ideal situation
for them.

So no, they won't change - we just have to wait for them to die off.
Somebody in another thread quoted "science progresses one funeral at a
time" - sometimes the same applies to social justice.

>
> [Gotta wonder what life is going to be like for men coming of age, now.
> Given that so many FEWER of them are pursuing an education.  Will the
> female doctors/lawyers/engineers/PROFESSIONALS be willing to "settle"
> for a "truck driver" as a mate?  How will *he* look his friends in the
> eye when they all implicitly know SHE is the breadwinner?]

My mother earned twice as much as my father. It never bothered them.

Men will get on fine in an equal society, even a truck driver married to
a female doctor, as long as they don't expect special treatment just
because they are male. A truck driver who wants to live in the 1950's
and expects his doctor wife to provide him with dinner and a beer in
front of the tele is not going to get on well. But people to who see
life with a partner as an equal, honest and fair partnership will do
fine, regardless of combinations of male, female, non-binary, truck
driver and doctor.

>
> (sigh)  Gotta be tough living in perpetual fear of a life that
> is changing around you and you're desperately clinging to YOUR past.
> Better buy a gun!  That will make you feel "potent", eh?

I am glad to live in a country where the only question that is answered
"better buy a gun" is "How do I tale up elk-hunting as a hobby?".

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

> On 3/30/2022 4:53 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> > Absolutely first class summing up of the idiotic anomalies created by
> > mental pigmys who don't understand biology and go through life trying to
> > force everyone else to believe in a false reality which corresponds to
> > their own level of ignorance
> >
> > Would you mind if I keep a copy and use it (with due credits) when
> > needed?
>
> Skip the accreditation but feel free to paraphrase/quote as you like.

Thanks, it is too good to be allowed to lapse into oblivion.

> I wonder how long before we hear these same "champions of fairness
> in women's sports" ALSO championing EQUALITY of women in ALL things?

Equality of opportunity doesn't worry me; enforced equality of results
is much more worrying. All targetted positive discrimination is
widespread negative discrimination under another name.

I have worked for good and bad bosses, some were female and some were
male, there was no correlation. I was mainly taught by males (because
that's how things were in those days), but found I learned a lot more
easily from females. I have known excellent female engineers who were
denied the chance to excel because they were female - and really bad
male engineers who held down unsuitable jobs because they could throw
their weight around when challenged.

The whole male/female thing is a mess, mainly because of lazy thinking
and prejudice.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 19:15:23 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

>
>[Personally, I've never had a female boss. Nor employer. And, only
>*once* had a boss that was an engineer -- so the "male-STEM-bias" can't
>explain away that (I've known several female engineers). OTOH, every
>"HR" person I've encountered has been female, save one.]

My boss is female. She manages immense detail so I can design one
thing at a time. I hate to task switch.

>
>If sports wanted to be "fair", they would assess the ATHLETIC
>qualities of the participants and qualify the competitions accordingly.
>
>You don't see "welter-weights" boxing "heavy-weights"! Why not?
>Shouldn't the *bigger* boxer be ALLOWED to clean the little guy's
>clock? ("Oh, but that wouldn't be *sporting*!")
>
>Do we sort *jockeys* based on length of penis?? Or, amount of leg hair?
>
>How does "sex/gender" *meaningfully* act to sort competitors? (in ANY
>competition -- sports or otherwise)
>
>Entities/individuals exist in an N-dimensional space. "Sex", "hair color",
>"religious belief", "ethnicity", "BMI", "height", "weight", ... can each
>be used to subdivide that space. Only a fool resorts to simple subdivisions.

No. Many clever people do it for power and profit.

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

On 3/30/2022 5:15, Don Y wrote:
> ....
> If sports wanted to be "fair", they would assess the ATHLETIC
> qualities of the participants and qualify the competitions accordingly.
>
> You don't see "welter-weights" boxing "heavy-weights"!  Why not?
> Shouldn't the *bigger* boxer be ALLOWED to clean the little guy's
> clock?  ("Oh, but that wouldn't be *sporting*!")
>
> Do we sort *jockeys* based on length of penis??  Or, amount of leg hair?
>
> How does "sex/gender" *meaningfully* act to sort competitors?  (in ANY
> competition -- sports or otherwise)

Don, of course nothing can be 100% fair when many people are involved.
And of course it is everyone's own busyness what the do with their
genitalia.
That is, until they make it other people's busyness.
In sport, a mediocre male athlete suddenly has his dick chopped off
and there we are, he is a champion - among women. Clearly unfair.
They ban athletes for life for much less, like using drugs etc.

Is it not practical to divide women/men by chromosome count or
something? That would be fair enough I suppose (but I don't know
much if anything about biology).

(about to email you on another topic but saw this first)