On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 18:52:16 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
wrote:

>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).

Read this:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1250236061

Lots of cool stuff.

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

On 3/30/2022 7:18 AM, 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?
>
> [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?]

 This is already an issue, especially in the black community.
I enjoy watching Kevin Samuels although sometimes he is a bit harsh,
but he is giving tough love. He's trying to fix the 30% marriage rate of
Black women.
This particular video doesn't cover highly educated women picking men,
but many of his videos do,
and they often think they are going to marry a man the earns $200k to
$400k a year.
Kevin points out that that is less then 5% of men and those aren't
looking for the
30 year olds, they want the 22 year olds.
This video is a women building her business and delaying marriage.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwbPUZXek60

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wGaAGcLlig

                        Mikek

PS, Kevin doesn't think a women should weigh more than a man.

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

On 3/30/2022 8:52 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
> 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.

But that's because some idiot decided that male-female categories
make some sort of sense -- instead of more clearly sorting
contestants into similar capabilities (relying on genitalia as
the sole criteria).

As I said, you wouldn't want to watch a heavy-weight boxing a welter-weight
because it would be "no contest". You'd *expect* the heavy weight to win.

EVEN IF BOTH WERE (cis)FEMALE (or cismale)

You don't race a stock car against a rail on a dragstrip -- because you
KNOW the rail will win, hands down.

Instead, you try to match competitors as closely as possible to "make it
sporting".

Is it fair for a man with an artificial foot ("blade runner") to race
men with natural appendages? Can you demonstrate that the "blade"
doesn't give him an *advantage* (despite the thinking that he is, in
effect, "handicapped")?

How exciting is it to watch Jeopardy, Wheel of Fortune, etc. when one
contestant is clearly MUCH better than the others? Wanna bet their
viewership would fall if this was the case EVERY time?

[Why do the Japanese love *ties*?]

> 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).

I contend it is a silly distinction, in the 21st century.

Why not allow "doping"? And, the body that can better tolerate
(and respond to) the drugs should DESERVE to win, right? Clearly,
the other competitors can take the same drugs so the playing field
wouldn't be biased by one competitor having access to them while
another doesn't?

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

On 3/30/2022 6:46 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> 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.

Words mean little/nothing. Just like the morons trying to give the
appearance (with their words) of "protecting" the poor female athletes
*forced* to compete with transgender females (yet likely not giving a
shit about how females, in general, are treated).

I'm old enough that pronouns require conscious thought. E.g., I
grew up taught that you used "he" (now, "she") to describe the
reader or a third person, when writing. In English, we tend to think
of "one" as too formal/haughty to use in everyday speech so are left
with "they" -- which seems plural.

OTOH, I have no problem using "she" when referring to a "guy in drag"
(who clearly wants to be treated as a *she*).

It's more work, when approaching someone "cold", as you don't always
know what their preferences are. Just like approaching a "fat" woman
and not knowing if you should congratulate her on being pregnant! :>

We have a woman working at our local branch library who is clearly trans.
When I first saw her (in profile), I commented (to myself), "God, she's
TALL!" On closer inspection, its apparent that she is just a tall "guy"
but clearly wanting to be treated as a female. Thankfully, nametags
on employees make it easy to figure out how *she'd* like to be addressed!

Sort of like the "threat" that long hair posed to old farts in the 60's:
"let's vilify them hippies!" ("Mr. Smith, I'd like you to meet the
cardiologist who'll be doing your surgery...")

Must be tough to wake up each morning so terrified of how the world
isn't the same as it was in the 50's! (yet taking advantage of all
the other "progress" that has happened in the intervening decades!
I wonder how many of the "feet firmly planted in the past" types
would TRULY like to go back to the 50's -- if it meant they had
to live with ALL of that era's limitations??)

>> 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 am not claiming one is "better" than another. Rather, that there is an
unusual ("statistically significant"?) bias in the "sex" of folks in
positions of responsibility, higher wages, etc. From that observation
one would have to conclude bias (or sex-based incompetence).

> 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.

I think it is just an easy way to remove a large section of the population
from "the competition". Another way for males who feel threatened to try
to cling to positions of power, higher wages, etc. If we can make them
appear unusual, we can ignore them (and convince others to ignore them,
as well).

[I don't see any men complaining about women-dressed-as-men standing next to
them at the urinal! But, a man-dressed-as-a-woman in the ladies toilet is
obviously lewd!]

Ditto with any other way a subpopulation can be easily identified as
"different".

[The nazis though hair/eye color was a good way to discriminate! That
experiment didn't end well, for them.]

Sad to see people so afraid that they close their minds to new/different
ideas. Gotta wonder how crippled their designs must be to reflect that sort
of closed mindset... ("No, the drive wheels must be in the REAR cuz that's
how it has ALWAYS BEEN!")

On 3/30/2022 20:40, Don Y wrote:
> .....
>> 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).
>
> I contend it is a silly distinction, in the 21st century.

Well if you don't make it you sentence women to always be much further
down the table than men. Just look at the weight lifting records, the
sprint, marathon, swim, you name it records.
The distinction - when it is about physical abilities - is given by
design, nothing we can do about it. Or something, when males enter
competitions for women and collect the money - which is outright
cheating. Haven't heard of a female-> male transgender being very
successful in sport.
Sport is part of the entertainment industry and having no women
at the top would make things worse for both sides - viewers and
actors.

On 3/30/2022 11:27 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
> On 3/30/2022 20:40, Don Y wrote:
>> .....
>>> 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).
>>
>> I contend it is a silly distinction, in the 21st century.
>
> Well if you don't make it you sentence women to always be much further
> down the table than men. Just look at the weight lifting records, the
> sprint, marathon, swim, you name it records.

No, you just make distinctions based on some other criteria than *sex*!

Why can't you use body mass? Or muscle density? Or, performance in
past competitions?

We had some "landscape boulders" delivered many years ago. Basically,
just large rocks that make the yard more "interesting".

The delivery was made by a woman. The boulder weighed somewhere between
300 and 500 pounds (based on a volume estimate of 2-3 cu ft for granite).
Her initial placement (using a wheeled dolly) was "off". I told her where
I wanted it and bent over to help her move it into the desired position.
She just wrapped her arms around it and hefted it into place -- no need
for the customer to get involved! (I know *I* wouldn't have been able to
move it -- by myself -- as easily as she had!)

Would it be fair for her to compete with a man in a strength-based arena?
Would it be fair for her to compete with 100 pound FEMALE "petites"?

Or, should any such competition group her with others of roughly similar
abilities -- regardless of sex, hair color, number of toes, etc.?

When grouped with people of similar capabilities (using "capabilities"
as the sort criteria), then there is no need for a "women's class" and
a "man's class" -- to artificially guarantee a "best woman" and "best man".
Instead, it's "best welterweight", "best heavyweight", etc.

And, that "best" (theoretically) has an equal chance of being male *or*
female! Trans or cis!

> The distinction - when it is about physical abilities - is given by
> design, nothing we can do about it. Or something, when males enter
> competitions for women and collect the money - which is outright
> cheating. Haven't heard of a female-> male transgender being very
> successful in sport.

There have been cisfemales who were better than cismales -- in a given sport.
Ooops! Gotta be embarassing when a *woman* beats you, eh? :>

<https://www.huffpost.com/entry/king-vs-riggs-battle-of-the-sexes-led-to-significant_b_59ad5b58e4b0c50640cd60c3>

Should they have been better matched by *age*? Or, some other measure of
ABILITY (to make for a more "sporting"/unpredictable outcome)?

> Sport is part of the entertainment industry and having no women
> at the top would make things worse for both sides - viewers and
> actors.

See above. Note that, historically, women have been excluded from many
professions -- yet the people at the time didn't feel like they were
*missing* anything!

The US constitution didn't even give women the right to *vote*, hold office,
etc. And, folks of that day thought this was The Norm.

If we want to be "fair" to women, shouldn't 50% of all positions be set-aside
for females, given that they represent 50% of the population? By your above
reasoning, wouldn't anything less "make things worse for both sides"?

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 17:32:02 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
<pallison49@gmail.com> 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.

Yes. The softball ladies (they called themselves that) were much more
collegial than testosterone-saturated male teams.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

On 3/30/2022 22:03, Don Y wrote:
> ...
>
> The US constitution didn't even give women the right to *vote*, hold
> office,
> etc.  And, folks of that day thought this was The Norm.

I know, one of the few areas Bulgaria has been ahead of much of the
West is that - the first constitution after the Turks were no longer
in charge here, accepted in 1879, guaranteed women equal rights.
Not that significant given the millennia until that point but still :-).

>
> If we want to be "fair" to women, shouldn't 50% of all positions be
> set-aside
> for females, given that they represent 50% of the population?  By your
> above
> reasoning, wouldn't anything less "make things worse for both sides"?

I was quite explicit what I was saying was about sport.
Like I said, everyone's genitalia are their own business - unless they
make it other than that, like cheating in sports or whatever.
Some day we may have other, better criteria than gender like you
suggest but for now we just don't have them.

On 3/30/2022 12:57 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
> On 3/30/2022 22:03, Don Y wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> The US constitution didn't even give women the right to *vote*, hold office,
>> etc. And, folks of that day thought this was The Norm.
>
> I know, one of the few areas Bulgaria has been ahead of much of the
> West is that - the first constitution after the Turks were no longer
> in charge here, accepted in 1879, guaranteed women equal rights.
> Not that significant given the millennia until that point but still :-).

The "save the poor, oppressed women athletes" crowd could be equally
vocal about rallying legislative support for the equal rights ammendment.
But, that would make women their *peers*, legally, and thus "diminish"
their standing!

>> If we want to be "fair" to women, shouldn't 50% of all positions be set-aside
>> for females, given that they represent 50% of the population? By your above
>> reasoning, wouldn't anything less "make things worse for both sides"?
>
> I was quite explicit what I was saying was about sport.

What makes "sport" so different/special? Why don't we treat men and women
differently across society? Why do we need a "best female" and "best male"
in sport X -- but not in every other facet of life?

Folks would be bullshit angry if we set aside positions for women "just because
they were women". But, (allegedly) eager to protect those women in sport?

> Like I said, everyone's genitalia are their own business - unless they
> make it other than that, like cheating in sports or whatever.

Where is the cheating? Does some guy put on a woman's bathing suit, compete,
win -- and *then* go back to dressing and acting like a man? Can you point to
documented cases where this has happened? Or, do you think men are so "weak"
competing against their "inferiors"? And, that the folks who know them will
eagerly congratulate them -- as MEN -- once they've reassumed their "real"
(male) identity?

I would think most people that knew such persons would shun them for such a
stunt. Perhaps even draw enough outrage for them to be publicly humiliated
in the press, etc.

If you want such (bad!) "attention", there are probably many more ways you
can get it (rob a bank, donate your life savings, run across traffic naked,
etc.)

> Some day we may have other, better criteria than gender like you
> suggest but for now we just don't have them.

We've simply CHOSEN not to have them. Let transgender folks compete and
pretty soon there will be a demand for new criteria:
"all the "best" women athletes are transgender... we've got to change
how we sort competitors to make things "fairer!"" (for some definition
of "fair")

On 3/31/2022 1:32, Don Y wrote:
> ...
>> Like I said, everyone's genitalia are their own business - unless they
>> make it other than that, like cheating in sports or whatever.
>
> Where is the cheating?  Does some guy put on a woman's bathing suit,
> compete,
> win -- and *then* go back to dressing and acting like a man?  Can you
> point to
> documented cases where this has happened?  Or, do you think men are so
> "weak"
> competing against their "inferiors"?  And, that the folks who know them
> will
> eagerly congratulate them -- as MEN -- once they've reassumed their "real"
> (male) identity?

Obviously the cheating is in the acquired physical superiority
while having been man. It can be way bigger than a woman can
achieve using any drugs - and drugs are not allowed...

On 3/30/2022 4:17 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
> On 3/31/2022 1:32, Don Y wrote:
>> ...
>>> Like I said, everyone's genitalia are their own business - unless they
>>> make it other than that, like cheating in sports or whatever.
>>
>> Where is the cheating? Does some guy put on a woman's bathing suit, compete,
>> win -- and *then* go back to dressing and acting like a man? Can you point to
>> documented cases where this has happened? Or, do you think men are so "weak"
>> competing against their "inferiors"? And, that the folks who know them will
>> eagerly congratulate them -- as MEN -- once they've reassumed their "real"
>> (male) identity?
>
> Obviously the cheating is in the acquired physical superiority
> while having been man. It can be way bigger than a woman can
> achieve using any drugs - and drugs are not allowed...

But where are the INSTANCES of the cheating? Are there "penis police"
checking all competitors? Do they research the lifestyle you've adopted
in the N months prior to registering as a competitor? Do they followup
for M months after to revoke your award(s) if you return to your cis-role?

Or, is it faux-outrage over something that isn't really happening?

Again, think about it from a practical standpoint: such "cheating"
would require *Bob* to suddenly claim to be *Roberta* for the purposes
of a sporting competition. Then, to resume his cis-role as *Bob*
after the competition -- EVEN IF HE LOSES!

All the while, KNOWING that his friends and family will KNOW he competed
AS A WOMAN. And, if not truly "trans", will know he did this AS A CHEAT.
How does that afford you any sort of recognition that you'd WANT?

Why not get roaring drunk and stand in the middle of a roadway screaming
profanities until arrested for disturbing the peace? That has the benefit
of giving you an EXCUSE for your aberrant behavior... along with your 15
minutes of fame! (or, do something TRULY benevolently noteworthy so folks
WANT to remember your accomplishment!)

On 3/31/2022 2:39, Don Y wrote:
> On 3/30/2022 4:17 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>> On 3/31/2022 1:32, Don Y wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> Like I said, everyone's genitalia are their own business - unless they
>>>> make it other than that, like cheating in sports or whatever.
>>>
>>> Where is the cheating?  Does some guy put on a woman's bathing suit,
>>> compete,
>>> win -- and *then* go back to dressing and acting like a man?  Can you
>>> point to
>>> documented cases where this has happened?  Or, do you think men are
>>> so "weak"
>>> competing against their "inferiors"?  And, that the folks who know
>>> them will
>>> eagerly congratulate them -- as MEN -- once they've reassumed their
>>> "real"
>>> (male) identity?
>>
>> Obviously the cheating is in the acquired physical superiority
>> while having been man. It can be way bigger than a woman can
>> achieve using any drugs - and drugs are not allowed...
>
> But where are the INSTANCES of the cheating?  Are there "penis police"
> checking all competitors?  Do they research the lifestyle you've adopted
> in the N months prior to registering as a competitor?  Do they followup
> for M months after to revoke your award(s) if you return to your cis-role?
>
> Or, is it faux-outrage over something that isn't really happening?
>
> Again, think about it from a practical standpoint:  such "cheating"
> would require *Bob* to suddenly claim to be *Roberta* for the purposes
> of a sporting competition.  Then, to resume his cis-role as *Bob*
> after the competition -- EVEN IF HE LOSES!
>
> All the while, KNOWING that his friends and family will KNOW he competed
> AS A WOMAN.  And, if not truly "trans", will know he did this AS A CHEAT.
> How does that afford you any sort of recognition that you'd WANT?
>
> Why not get roaring drunk and stand in the middle of a roadway screaming
> profanities until arrested for disturbing the peace?  That has the benefit
> of giving you an EXCUSE for your aberrant behavior... along with your 15
> minutes of fame!  (or, do something TRULY benevolently noteworthy so folks
> WANT to remember your accomplishment!)

I think there are. Not many but I think recently some story of that kind
hit me over some medium, some former man had won something for women
and there was an outcry. But I am not following this really, I never
knew personally people of changed gender etc. so my interest is very
superficial.

On 3/30/2022 5:29 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>> Again, think about it from a practical standpoint: such "cheating"
>> would require *Bob* to suddenly claim to be *Roberta* for the purposes
>> of a sporting competition. Then, to resume his cis-role as *Bob*
>> after the competition -- EVEN IF HE LOSES!
>>
>> All the while, KNOWING that his friends and family will KNOW he competed
>> AS A WOMAN. And, if not truly "trans", will know he did this AS A CHEAT.
>> How does that afford you any sort of recognition that you'd WANT?
>
> I think there are. Not many but I think recently some story of that kind
> hit me over some medium, some former man had won something for women
> and there was an outcry. But I am not following this really, I never
> knew personally people of changed gender etc. so my interest is very
> superficial.

I think that there is fake outrage from people who THINK this is happening.
But, AFAICT, no one has followed up to see if these "cheaters" have
"reverted" to a cis life.

The fact that they may only NOW feel comfortable "coming out" (so to speak)
may just be coincidental with their deciding to exercise that newfound
freedom in ways they'd never dreamed, before.

[I.e., you don't think folks FAKE being LGBTQ just for special attention?
Or, because they get 10% off on their next purchase for being so? :-/ ]

On 25/03/2022 11:07 pm, 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.
>
>                            Mikek
>

A woman: A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, who looks smoking hot in lingerie.

or as Sigmund Freud said "after studding them for thirty years, I find
myself asking 'what is it that they really want'?

On 3/31/2022 4:51, Don Y wrote:
> On 3/30/2022 5:29 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>>> Again, think about it from a practical standpoint:  such "cheating"
>>> would require *Bob* to suddenly claim to be *Roberta* for the purposes
>>> of a sporting competition.  Then, to resume his cis-role as *Bob*
>>> after the competition -- EVEN IF HE LOSES!
>>>
>>> All the while, KNOWING that his friends and family will KNOW he competed
>>> AS A WOMAN.  And, if not truly "trans", will know he did this AS A
>>> CHEAT.
>>> How does that afford you any sort of recognition that you'd WANT?
>>
>> I think there are. Not many but I think recently some story of that kind
>> hit me over some medium, some former man had won something for women
>> and there was an outcry. But I am not following this really, I never
>> knew personally people of changed gender etc. so my interest is very
>> superficial.
>
> I think that there is fake outrage from people who THINK this is happening.
> But, AFAICT, no one has followed up to see if these "cheaters" have
> "reverted" to a cis life.
>
> The fact that they may only NOW feel comfortable "coming out" (so to speak)
> may just be coincidental with their deciding to exercise that newfound
> freedom in ways they'd never dreamed, before.
>
> [I.e., you don't think folks FAKE being LGBTQ just for special attention?
> Or, because they get 10% off on their next purchase for being so?  :-/ ]

Well of course I don't know their motivation. But the money in
in sport can be good.
Sportsmen get punished for accidentally getting exposed to some drug
and being caught so the intention is irrelevant.
I located what had hit me a few days ago (did not read much past
the title, my search was "Florida governor transgender sport", that's
what I remembered...... but it worked):

https://www.bbc.com/sport/swimming/60842863

On 3/31/2022 5:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 2:52:25 AM UTC+11, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Except that he wouldn't have had his dick chopped (along with his testicles) in order to compete as a woman.
>
> The motivation for that depends on a a mental problem - gender dysphoria - which happens to respond well to that kind of drastic approach, and doesn't seem to respond to any other approach.
>
> Competing as a woman is a way of persuading his - now her - brain, that he/she is now recognised as woman by his/her social environment, which does seem to be what makes this therapy work.

Well I can see how society should be open to help these people
but in sport that would not be on society but on the girl runner
up who would have collected the top prize. I don't know how
widespread a practice this is, I posted a link to the only
case I have heard of in my previous post to Don, and it seems
it has been dealt with fairly (i.e. the girl runner up has
been declared champion but the transgender athlete has been
allowed to compete, I think - I did not read the entire thing).

> It is a truly inelegant solution, but ti does work.
>
>> 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).
>
> It's trivial to look at the sex chromosome, but gender dysphoria happens in the brain, and we don't know why.
>

Well if it is trivial for sport purposes it should be enough.
Not more humiliating than looking at their genitalia anyway.

On 3/30/2022 11:01 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
> On 3/31/2022 4:51, Don Y wrote:
>> On 3/30/2022 5:29 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>>>> Again, think about it from a practical standpoint: such "cheating"
>>>> would require *Bob* to suddenly claim to be *Roberta* for the purposes
>>>> of a sporting competition. Then, to resume his cis-role as *Bob*
>>>> after the competition -- EVEN IF HE LOSES!
>>>>
>>>> All the while, KNOWING that his friends and family will KNOW he competed
>>>> AS A WOMAN. And, if not truly "trans", will know he did this AS A CHEAT.
>>>> How does that afford you any sort of recognition that you'd WANT?
>>>
>>> I think there are. Not many but I think recently some story of that kind
>>> hit me over some medium, some former man had won something for women
>>> and there was an outcry. But I am not following this really, I never
>>> knew personally people of changed gender etc. so my interest is very
>>> superficial.
>>
>> I think that there is fake outrage from people who THINK this is happening.
>> But, AFAICT, no one has followed up to see if these "cheaters" have
>> "reverted" to a cis life.
>>
>> The fact that they may only NOW feel comfortable "coming out" (so to speak)
>> may just be coincidental with their deciding to exercise that newfound
>> freedom in ways they'd never dreamed, before.
>>
>> [I.e., you don't think folks FAKE being LGBTQ just for special attention?
>> Or, because they get 10% off on their next purchase for being so? :-/ ]
>
> Well of course I don't know their motivation. But the money in
> in sport can be good.
> Sportsmen get punished for accidentally getting exposed to some drug
> and being caught so the intention is irrelevant.

Cheating is all about intent. You don't ACCIDENTALLY claim to be a woman...

> I located what had hit me a few days ago (did not read much past
> the title, my search was "Florida governor transgender sport", that's
> what I remembered...... but it worked):
>
> https://www.bbc.com/sport/swimming/60842863

DeSantis is another Trump wannabe. He's stoking the culture wars
(when you don't have any governing policies, play the "culture"
card).

One wonders if DeSantis was on the operating table and a transgender
doctor was hovering over him with a scalpel if he would defer the
(life saving) surgery until a cis surgeon could be located. I.e.,
beyond the theatrics of appealing to your perceived base, just
how deep do your convictions go, governor?

(Wanna bet Tucker Carlson was vaccinated -- as often as it was
offered and probably jumped the line in each case? Despite
badmouthing the whole effort -- maybe he didn't trust "Trump's
Vaccine" -- which, notably, the orange one was quick to accept!)

On 31/03/2022 01:39, Don Y wrote:
> On 3/30/2022 4:17 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>> On 3/31/2022 1:32, Don Y wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> Like I said, everyone's genitalia are their own business - unless they
>>>> make it other than that, like cheating in sports or whatever.
>>>
>>> Where is the cheating?  Does some guy put on a woman's bathing suit,
>>> compete,
>>> win -- and *then* go back to dressing and acting like a man?  Can you
>>> point to
>>> documented cases where this has happened?  Or, do you think men are
>>> so "weak"
>>> competing against their "inferiors"?  And, that the folks who know
>>> them will
>>> eagerly congratulate them -- as MEN -- once they've reassumed their
>>> "real"
>>> (male) identity?
>>
>> Obviously the cheating is in the acquired physical superiority
>> while having been man. It can be way bigger than a woman can
>> achieve using any drugs - and drugs are not allowed...
>
> But where are the INSTANCES of the cheating?  Are there "penis police"
> checking all competitors?  Do they research the lifestyle you've adopted
> in the N months prior to registering as a competitor?  Do they followup
> for M months after to revoke your award(s) if you return to your cis-role?

Maybe we should follow the ancient Greeks - sports should be conducted
naked, and be male-only (with a easy-to-check definition of "male" !).
That would perhaps shut the bigots up for a bit. (The rule of competing
naked was introduced after a woman, disguised as a man, won an important
race.)

>
> Or, is it faux-outrage over something that isn't really happening?
>

That's it, yes.

There is /always/ going to be a bit of cheating. It doesn't matter what
rules you set, how fair you try to make it - a small proportion of
people will try to cheat, and spoil things for others. Heathy people
fake handicaps (especially mental handicaps) to compete in the
Paraolympics, and surely there will be /some/ men willing to fake being
women just so that they can win a trophy or medal. But it is going to
be a tiny number, especially if it means surgery, irreversible hormone
treatment, and that sort of thing. And of those that might be willing
to go through this, only a tiny number have a chance in many high-level
competitions. Top-level female athletes will out-run, out-jump and
out-throw most men.

It seems some people here think an average man can put on a skirt, have
a close shave, and win an Olympic medal in a women's event. This is
totally unrealistic.

What /has/ happened, is that some people born with male physical
characteristics and female psychological gender, have been confirmed as
women, and then entered sporting competitions with some success. It has
been very rare, and it has only occurred in a few sports -
weight-lifting is, I believe, the prime case. It is not cheating, but
it is arguably unfair (and also arguably fair - arguments go both ways).
It will probably result in some rules here, such as requiring people to
have had their legal and official gender for a certain number of years
before competing.

But really, it is not a problem of any significance - compared to drug
abuse, sabotage, bribery, corruption, abuse by trainers and all the
other things that go wrong in sport, it is an irrelevance.

Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote:

>... I never
> knew personally people of changed gender etc. so my interest is very
> superficial.

You might have met some and never known. The idea most people have of a
stubbly-faced giant in a frock wearing badly-applied makeup is
completely wrong. There are many thousands of transpeople going about
their business in the normal way, so unless you are a recluse you are
almost certain to have met some of them.

The 'obvious' transwomen are those going through "pink mist": an early
phase of post-transition life. This is equivalent to early teenage in
girls, where they want to try all the fashions and makeup, irrespective
of whether they are appropriate They soon get over this and then
settle down to dressing and looking the same as any other women of their
age.

At my age I can only aspire to be identified as an ugly old bat, so I
don't try to pretend to be anything else.

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

On 3/31/2022 4:48 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> The 'obvious' transwomen are those going through "pink mist": an early
> phase of post-transition life. This is equivalent to early teenage in
> girls, where they want to try all the fashions and makeup, irrespective
> of whether they are appropriate They soon get over this and then
> settle down to dressing and looking the same as any other women of their
> age.

I notice a tendency towards dark, "unusual" shades of nail polish -- dark
green, blue, etc. Hands seem to be a reasonably good indicator of birth sex
(though I wouldn't rely on it).

I'm concerned as to supporting surgical remedies at too young an age,
though.

A local group paid for a dual mastectomy for a young girl. She would be high
school to ~21 age group (I am not familiar with the specifics). I am *hoping*
that there was some counseling involved before the procedure...

[I simply can't relate to not knowing who/what you are, sexual preferences,
etc. I can't imagine what it is like to be black, handicapped, female, etc.
in anything other than an "intellectual" understanding. I just don't have
the skillset to imagine those sorts of mindsets, having always known who I
was, what I wanted to do with my life, etc.]

Too many young people seem to experiment with their appearance, "essence",
etc. Blue or green hair is one thing -- it will grow out. Tattoos can
be removed and/or will naturally fade (all colors except black, apparently).
Names/handles can be "restored" (I knew a girl who called herself "Lara"
pronounced in an overly dramatic manner. When I asked her to spell it -- to
be sure I heard her correctly -- she replied "L-A-U-R-A".

"Oh, *Laura*!"
<frown> "No, LARA!"
<shrug>

But, radical surgical alterations tend to be for life!

David Brown wrote:
=================
>
> Heathy people
> fake handicaps (especially mental handicaps) to compete in the
> Paraolympics, and surely there will be /some/ men willing to fake being
> women just so that they can win a trophy or medal.
> But it is going to be a tiny number,

** As is the number of winners and record holders - you fucking imbecile.

> especially if it means surgery, irreversible hormone treatment,

** FFS have you understood anything ??

No such drastic steps are required under current IOC or similar rules at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

> Top-level female athletes will out-run, out-jump and
> out-throw most men.

** Not one tiny bit relevant to the topic.
> It seems some people here think an average man can put on a skirt, have
> a close shave, and win an Olympic medal in a women's event.

** Fucking bullshit, no one thinks that.

> But really, it is not a problem of any significance

** Unchecked it would become a MASSIVE problem.
Easily destroying all interest in competition level women's sports.

YOU have to be one of the MOST autistic, retarded POS posting here.
And that is saying something.

....... Phil

On 31/03/2022 15:54, Phil Allison wrote:
> David Brown wrote:

<snip>

>
> ...... Phil
>

There - I've fixed your post by cutting out the putrid, irrational,
unjustified, hateful, bigoted, antisocial, potty-mouthed drivel in your
post. I've left the bits that can tolerate the light of day.

You really do represent all the worst of Internet discussions, don't
you? Does your mother know you are using the computer?

In some parts of the world, women need permission from a male family
member - father, husband, brother or even son - before doing anything
outside the house. For cases like you, you should require permission
from a female family member before communicating outside the house. You
are an embarrassment to yourself.

David Brown is a raving Psychopath
-----------------------------------------------------
>
>
> There - I've fixed your post by cutting out the putrid, irrational,
> unjustified, hateful, bigoted, antisocial, potty-mouthed drivel in your
> post. I've left the bits that can tolerate the light of day.

** ROTFL - the raving nut case Brown fuckwit deleted the lot.

Every word I posted was very clear, logical and well justified.
Brown is vile, retarded, autistic cunt of the worst kind
Right up there with demented IEEE Bill.

> You really do represent all the worst of Internet discussions, don't
> you? Does your mother know you are using the computer?

** LOL - that is so fucking absurd.

At least the Brown fuckwit realises when his puerile bullshitting has been exposed and stops.
(Rest of his asinine verbal diarrhoea snipped for public sanity. )

BTW:

Get cancer and die you POS fucking asshole.
====================================

....... Phil

On 31/03/2022 16:37, Phil Allison wrote:
<snip>

Do you ever wonder why people don't seem to like you?