Jump to content
WCSBoard

This Economist has it right

Akkula

By Akkula
in Politics

 Share

Recommended Posts

BYUcougfan Advanced Member

BYUcougfan

Posted
Posted
On 12/3/2024 at 2:46 PM, Sactowndog said:

Sure go ahead in the meantime you have no clear unambiguous standard on which to define.  It’s not the Dems who are your problem it’s the courts who won’t accept a vague definition.  

What happens with people who have ambiguous genetic makeups might be hard, but that is not the central point and as I said earlier, hard cases make bad law.  The central point is that there are manifest differences between men and women.  If Democrats insist on saying "men" can get pregnant and "women" with hairy penises can race against girls in the pool and on the track, and also insist on saying anyone who disagrees is some sort of bigot, then they get what they get at the ballot box.

  • Like 2
thelawlorfaithful Advanced Member

thelawlorfaithful

Posted
Posted
On 12/3/2024 at 2:24 PM, BYUcougfan said:

What happens with people who have ambiguous genetic makeups might be hard, but that is not the central point and as I said earlier, hard cases make bad law.  The central point is that there are manifest differences between men and women.  If Democrats insist on saying "men" can get pregnant and "women" with hairy penises can race against girls in the pool and on the track, and also insist on saying anyone who disagrees is some sort of bigot, then they get what they get at the ballot box.

And that’s where you should have left it. At some point people stop liking you and will stop listening and this is the Democrats fundamental problem going forward. 

  • Like 1
BYUcougfan Advanced Member

BYUcougfan

Posted
Posted
On 12/3/2024 at 3:28 PM, thelawlorfaithful said:

And that’s where you should have left it. At some point people stop liking you and will stop listening and this is the Democrats fundamental problem going forward. 

You said as much 3 or 4 pages ago.  I should have listened.

Sactowndog Advanced Member

Sactowndog

Posted
Posted
On 12/3/2024 at 2:24 PM, BYUcougfan said:

What happens with people who have ambiguous genetic makeups might be hard, but that is not the central point and as I said earlier, hard cases make bad law.  The central point is that there are manifest differences between men and women.  If Democrats insist on saying "men" can get pregnant and "women" with hairy penises can race against girls in the pool and on the track, and also insist on saying anyone who disagrees is some sort of bigot, then they get what they get at the ballot box.

Don’t think anyone said men can get pregnant.  But it is also true some women can’t either.  A fact you repeatedly ignore.  

  • Haha 1
  • Facepalm 1
Sactowndog Advanced Member

Sactowndog

Posted
Posted
On 12/3/2024 at 1:58 PM, bornontheblue said:

Wait, asking if someone can become a woman is not relevant? 

 

Not to this discussion. What is relevant is whom should be allowed to compete in the women’s division full stop.  

Sactowndog Advanced Member

Sactowndog

Posted
Posted
On 12/3/2024 at 2:24 PM, BYUcougfan said:

What happens with people who have ambiguous genetic makeups might be hard, but that is not the central point and as I said earlier, hard cases make bad law.  The central point is that there are manifest differences between men and women.  If Democrats insist on saying "men" can get pregnant and "women" with hairy penises can race against girls in the pool and on the track, and also insist on saying anyone who disagrees is some sort of bigot, then they get what they get at the ballot box.

Hard cases are the norm at the upper levels of sport.  A point you repeatedly ignore no matter how many statistics you are given that everyone is a fucking genetic outlier.  
 

But you keep living in your sanctimonious made up world.  

thelawlorfaithful Advanced Member

thelawlorfaithful

Posted
Posted
On 12/3/2024 at 6:44 PM, Sactowndog said:

Yes she did.  The issue was her cells did not respond to testosterone.   She had Swyer Syndrome 

https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/swyer-syndrome/

JFC no she did not. From the article.

Khelif has never publicly identified as transgender and has not disclosed any sexual development disorders, so the reason for the test result is unclear.

The IBA couldn’t get their story straight, was it a chromosome test or a testosterone test and was stripped of recognition by the IOC because of it. The test, whatever it was, has never been made public.

happycamper Advanced Member

happycamper

Posted
Posted
On 12/3/2024 at 2:35 PM, BYUcougfan said:

I don't know.  Here is what I do know and what my original point was.  Democrats are going to continue to have problems when they tell people to ignore what they do know.  You can go down the rabbit hole of every gene mutation if that floats your boat.

i mean. this whole election was "who is going to ignore what they do know harder". 

everyone knows that despite a booming stock market, it's harder to afford food and rent than 4 years ago.

everyone knows that tariffs are just a tax on consumers.

everyone knows that deporting illegals removes the labor pool for home construction and produce.

on the other hand, a lot of what "people do know" is wrong. 30 years ago everyone knew gay marriage wouldn't work. 60 years ago everyone knew interracial marriage was immoral. 100 years ago everyone knew buying stocks on 90% margin was awesome. so idk. 

  • Like 1
Spaztecs Advanced Member

Spaztecs

Posted
Posted
On 12/2/2024 at 1:29 PM, AztecAlien said:

What does this have to do with the definition of what a woman is, or the fact that women can't become a man and men can't get pregnant, period? 

 

 

Yer an idjit 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...