Labour leader Keir Stammer can't answer the simple question of whether a woman has a penis or not...

First topic message reminder :




What a complete numpty!!!

Quill is full of shit!!!

gelico wrote:Ah, must have missed this.  yes, I agree but not for gay only for trans.  You have the unfortunate habit of lumping the two together.  They are so so different....

What is the difference?  Perhaps the underlying urgency comes in varying degrees, but both the gay and the trans are haunted by being assigned the wrong body.  

A lot of things can affect the decision to undergo a sex reassignment operation - family, friends, work and professional - almost all of them individual, as we are all distinctive and have different life concerns.  But, the one thing the gay/trans have in common, whether the decision is made or no, is being in the wrong body. And that is what we are talking about.

Tommy Monk wrote:Quill is full of shit!!!

Why don't you let the intelligent folks engage in the debate from here on, tom. Your last 3 - 5 posts have been only invective and drivel. You seem to have run out of arguments.

Original Quill wrote:

gelico wrote:Ah, must have missed this.  yes, I agree but not for gay only for trans.  You have the unfortunate habit of lumping the two together.  They are so so different....

What is the difference?  Perhaps the underlying urgency comes in varying degrees, but both the gay and the trans are haunted by being assigned the wrong body.  

.

quill, do you even know any gay people? I do and I assure you they do not feel haunted at feeling trapped in the wrong body. They are perfectly happy with their ''assigned'' body they just fancy people with bodies that are likewise ''assigned''

Original Quill wrote:

gelico wrote:Ah, must have missed this.  yes, I agree but not for gay only for trans.  You have the unfortunate habit of lumping the two together.  They are so so different....

What is the difference?  Perhaps the underlying urgency comes in varying degrees, but both the gay and the trans are haunted by being assigned the wrong body.  

A lot of things can affect the decision to undergo a sex reassignment operation - family, friends, work and professional - almost all of them individual, as we are all distinctive and have different life concerns.  But, the one thing the gay/trans have in common, whether the decision is made or no, is being in the wrong body.  And that is what we are talking about.

So do you also think that family, friends, work etc would likewise affect a persons decision to ''be gay'' according to you you are lumping them both in the same bracket as having the same problems

If you think gay people are haunted by being trapped in the wrong body, why don't they transition?
This seems very ignorant, bordering on offensive.

I'm trying to follow your logic and all I can feel is that you have never even connected with any gay person.

gelico wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What is the difference?  Perhaps the underlying urgency comes in varying degrees, but both the gay and the trans are haunted by being assigned the wrong body.  

.

quill, do you even know any gay people?  

Yes.  Crissake, I live in San Francisco.

gelico wrote:I do and I assure you they do not feel haunted at feeling trapped in the wrong body.  They are perfectly happy with their ''assigned'' body they just fancy people with bodies that are likewise ''assigned''

How would you know?  I'm sure they don't share such intimate feelings with you.  If you are straight, I can assure you they don’t.  What do you think…they walk down the street and announce to complete strangers: Hi, I’m in the wrong body…wanna share a cab?

Many straights are like tom…and gays would hardly open up to one of his kind.  With his hostility, shared by so many far-right freaks, most are extremely guarded about it.

A lot of them don't recognize it in themselves.  Even if they do, it’s a bit personal. But I don't need to speak...Les can speak up.

gelico wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What is the difference?  Perhaps the underlying urgency comes in varying degrees, but both the gay and the trans are haunted by being assigned the wrong body.  

A lot of things can affect the decision to undergo a sex reassignment operation - family, friends, work and professional - almost all of them individual, as we are all distinctive and have different life concerns.  But, the one thing the gay/trans have in common, whether the decision is made or no, is being in the wrong body.  And that is what we are talking about.

So do you also think that family, friends, work etc would likewise affect a persons decision to ''be gay''  according to you you are lumping them both in the same bracket as having the same problems

I believe “being gay” is an underlying drive, not a "decision". It's an urgency or prepossession - just as it is with straights and their attraction, only with a different focus. But the "decision" for a transition can be more complex.

gelico wrote:If you think gay people are haunted by being trapped in the wrong body, why don't they transition?  This seems very ignorant, bordering on offensive.

I already explained that:

Original Quill wrote:A lot of things can affect the decision to undergo a sex reassignment operation - family, friends, work and professional - almost all of them individual, as we are all distinctive and have different life concerns.

A lot of gays do transition, but each individual has his/her own life-decisions to make.  There are many life-investments to consider...especially when you come upon the question later in life.  Consider Bruce Jenner or Zoey Tur...already with wives and children, etc.

Oh dear...

Tommy Monk wrote:Oh dear...

Perhaps you just realized how erroneous your ideas are.  If so, it's progress...  

"Man"... Definition...

'an adult male human being'


"Woman"... Definition...

'an adult female human'

Gender: either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female. - Oxford Dictionary

Original Quill wrote:Gender: either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female. - Oxford Dictionary

Lia Thomas is a biological man who won in a race against biological women

He won as a biological man

Just because his ''identity'' is a woman doesn't make him any less of an embarrassing cheat who clearly can't win against men.

Original Quill wrote:Gender: either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female. - Oxford Dictionary

so you've just destroyed your own argument with regards to sports rules being ''homophobic''

sports competitions are not won or lost based on any social or cultural differences, so what does gender matter when deciding sports rules?

gelico wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Gender: either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female. - Oxford Dictionary

so you've just destroyed your own argument with regards to sports rules being ''homophobic''

That really wasn't my point.  The argument came up as those opposed to my view complained that women born male, and growing up with a body of a male, are given an unfair advantage over women competitors.  My answer is either: a) a superior body is what competition is all about, or b) redefine the game.

The least acceptable answer is to exclude someone from competing simply because s/he is “too good”.  That’s like excluding some capitalist from trading on the big board because s/he’s "too rich".  Good luck getting that to fly.

gelico wrote:sports competitions are not won or lost based on any social or cultural differences, so  what does gender matter when deciding sports rules?

Real answer: It shouldn’t.  We should eliminate all partitions in sports, and let all people compete in all games – may the most successful be judged the winner.

Modern answer: Unfortunately, we have made an initial judgment that women cannot compete successfully against men in sports, and hence we have segregated them off into separate leagues of their own.  Regrettably, most end up as second-rate side-shows that we patronize.

If that sounds illiberal, so is segregation.  I feel many women would do quite well against men, if only they were given the chance.

Original Quill wrote:

gelico wrote:

so you've just destroyed your own argument with regards to sports rules being ''homophobic''

That really wasn't my point.  The argument came up as those opposed to my view complained that women born male, and growing up with a body of a male, are given an unfair advantage.  My answer is either: a) a superior body is what competition is all about, or b) redefine the game.

The least acceptable answer is to exclude someone from competing simply because s/he is “too good”.  That’s like excluding some capitalist from trading on the big board because s/he’s "too rich".  Good luck getting that to fly.

gelico wrote:sports competitions are not won or lost based on any social or cultural differences, so  what does gender matter when deciding sports rules?

Real answer: It shouldn’t.  We should eliminate all partitions in sports, and let all people compete in all games – may the most successful be judged the winner.

Modern answer: Unfortunately, we have made an initial judgment that women cannot compete successfully against men in ''certain'' sports, and hence we have segregated given them separate leagues of their own.  

If that sounds illiberal, so is segregation.  I feel many women would do quite well against men, if only they were given the chance.

not in all sports, quill.  It just isn't physically possibly, that's the whole reason for having separate leagues in the ones where physical strength is most key.

I see how you use the word segregation to try to give it a connection to racism.  It doesn't work.

It isn't segregation it is separate leagues based on common sense and fairness of ability.

I can't help but think that you actually see the sense of it all but you won't allow yourself to agree with anything Tommy thinks is a good idea, just on principle, so you will argue against it.

You're well educated and intelligent so I don't believe that you can't see the common sense behind the rules

You're just playing at being the argumentative troll for the sake of it,,,,,,no?

gelico wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That really wasn't my point.  The argument came up as those opposed to my view complained that women born male, and growing up with a body of a male, are given an unfair advantage.  My answer is either: a) a superior body is what competition is all about, or b) redefine the game.

The least acceptable answer is to exclude someone from competing simply because s/he is “too good”.  That’s like excluding some capitalist from trading on the big board because s/he’s "too rich".  Good luck getting that to fly.



Real answer: It shouldn’t.  We should eliminate all partitions in sports, and let all people compete in all games – may the most successful be judged the winner.

Modern answer: Unfortunately, we have made an initial judgment that women cannot compete successfully against men in ''certain'' sports, and hence we have segregated given them separate leagues of their own.  

If that sounds illiberal, so is segregation. I feel many women would do quite well against men, if only they were given the chance.

not in all sports, quill.  It just isn't physically possibly, that's the whole reason for having separate leagues in the ones where physical strength is most key.

Look at you: accepting the unproven assumption!  Going along with what the culture tells you!  Women are raised in a sexist society, to believe themselves unable to compete physically with men.  But their bodies are simply blood and muscle...just like men.  Were it not for that acculturation, I feel that women would fare quite well in a blind competition with men.

gelico wrote:I see how you use the word segregation to try to give it a connection to racism.  It doesn't work.

It isn't segregation it is separate leagues based on common sense and fairness of ability.

I use the words that best express my meaning - yes, 'segregation' is arbitrary, like racism.  The word existed before I was born, but yes...it does serve my point.  Words are about communication, and if I can communicate better using a word that carries extra-meaning, that's a good thing!

gelico wrote:I can't help but think that you actually see the sense of it all but you won't allow yourself to agree with anything Tommy thinks is a good idea, just on principle, so you will argue against it.

You're well educated and intelligent so I don't believe that you can't see the common sense behind the rules

You're just playing at being the argumentative troll for the sake of it,,,,,,no?

Tommy is the worst of all offenders: he believes in open, unabashed disenfranchisement.  You and I at least argue the validity of the reasons.

Yes, I dig my shovel deeper than most.  I believe that sexism, like racism, goes much deeper than most people are willing to concede.  Most people believe that such ugly biases are only skin-deep, and they have only to stop using the 'N' word, or the 'B' word, and all will be OK.

I go much deeper, and ask how do you come up with such expressions, and what underlying beliefs must you hold that you adopt them??  It is the ‘host of beliefs’ that underlie, that are parts of the culture - and until we eradicate those, we will never be rid of racism or sexism.

One such belief that underlies the culture of sexism is the belief that women can never be as good as men.  I raised my daughters to disbelieve that, and lo…look what I was rewarded with: one daughter a physician with a Fullbright, another daughter with a Harvard MBA and an attorney.  Don’t talk to me about how women aren’t good enough!

Competitive sports is no different: it’s just the deep-seated belief that the game is about physicalness that gives the male the advantage.  You may remember me talking about playing basketball with the Arizona State University women’s team…and how they eschewed the physical game, and developed the outside shot.  They were unbeatable.  And now look…the champion NBA team, The Golden State Warriors, has the most outside shooters in the game.  Someone watched those women, and learned!

So, dig your shovels deeper.  Don’t accept that blacks should all be tap-dancers, or that women should be in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.  Throw the best of them in with the lot, and some of them will be champions.

Original Quill wrote:

gelico wrote:

not in all sports, quill.  It just isn't physically possibly, that's the whole reason for having separate leagues in the ones where physical strength is most key.

Look at you: accepting the unproven assumption!  Going along with what the culture tells you!  Women are raised in a sexist society, to believe themselves unable to compete physically with men.  But their bodies are simply blood and muscle...just like men.  Were it not for that acculturation, I feel they would fare quite well.

unproven assumption? what on earth are you talking about? lololol.

gelico wrote:I can't help but think that you actually see the sense of it all but you won't allow yourself to agree with anything Tommy thinks is a good idea, just on principle, so you will argue against it.

You're well educated and intelligent so I don't believe that you can't see the common sense behind the rules

You're just playing at being the argumentative troll for the sake of it,,,,,,no?

Tommy is the worst of all offenders: he believes in open, unabashed disenfranchisement.  You and I at least argue the validity of the reasons.

Yes, I dig my shovel deeper than most.  I believe that sexism, like racism, goes much deeper than most people are willing to concede.  Most people believe that such ugly biases are only skin-deep, and they have only to stop using the 'N' word, or the 'B' word, and all will be OK.

I go much deeper, and ask how do you come up with such expressions, and what underlying beliefs must you hold that you adopt them??  It is the ‘host of beliefs’ that underlie, that are parts of the culture - and until we eradicate those, we will never be rid of racism or sexism.

One such belief that underlies the culture of sexism is the belief that women can never be as good as men.  I raised my daughters to disbelieve that, and lo…look what I was rewarded with: one daughter a physician with a Fullbright, another daughter with a Harvard MBA and an attorney.  Don’t talk to me about how women aren’t good enough!

Competitive sports is no different: it’s just the deep-seated belief that the game is about physicalness that gives the male the advantage.  You may remember me talking about playing basketball with the Arizona State University women’s team…and how they eschewed the physical game, and developed the outside shot.  They were unbeatable.  And now look…the champion NBA team, The Golden State Warriors, has the most outside shooters in the game.  Someone watched those women, and learned!

So, dig your shovels deeper.  Don’t accept that blacks should all be tap-dancers, or that women should be in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.  Throw the best of them in with the lot, and some of them will be champions.

I'll take that as a yes then,,,,

gelico wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Look at you: accepting the unproven assumption!  Going along with what the culture tells you!  Women are raised in a sexist society, to believe themselves unable to compete physically with men.  But their bodies are simply blood and muscle...just like men.  Were it not for that acculturation, I feel they would fare quite well.

unproven assumption?  what on earth are you talking about?  lololol.


Tommy is the worst of all offenders: he believes in open, unabashed disenfranchisement.  You and I at least argue the validity of the reasons.

Yes, I dig my shovel deeper than most.  I believe that sexism, like racism, goes much deeper than most people are willing to concede.  Most people believe that such ugly biases are only skin-deep, and they have only to stop using the 'N' word, or the 'B' word, and all will be OK.

I go much deeper, and ask how do you come up with such expressions, and what underlying beliefs must you hold that you adopt them??  It is the ‘host of beliefs’ that underlie, that are parts of the culture - and until we eradicate those, we will never be rid of racism or sexism.

One such belief that underlies the culture of sexism is the belief that women can never be as good as men.  I raised my daughters to disbelieve that, and lo…look what I was rewarded with: one daughter a physician with a Fullbright, another daughter with a Harvard MBA and an attorney.  Don’t talk to me about how women aren’t good enough!

Competitive sports is no different: it’s just the deep-seated belief that the game is about physicalness that gives the male the advantage.  You may remember me talking about playing basketball with the Arizona State University women’s team…and how they eschewed the physical game, and developed the outside shot.  They were unbeatable.  And now look…the champion NBA team, The Golden State Warriors, has the most outside shooters in the game.  Someone watched those women, and learned!

So, dig your shovels deeper.  Don’t accept that blacks should all be tap-dancers, or that women should be in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.  Throw the best of them in with the lot, and some of them will be champions.

The unproven assumption that men are better than women!  My own daughters prove you wrong.  The Arizona State Women's basketball team prove you wrong.  The world champion Golden State Warriors prove you wrong.  Every day, diligent women are proving you wrong.

Women can compete quite well, thank you; all they have to do is figure out how to make the game come to them.

Original Quill wrote:

gelico wrote:

The unproven assumption that men are better than women!  My own daughters prove you wrong.  The Arizona State Women's basketball team prove you wrong.  The world champion Golden State Warriors prove you wrong.  Every day, diligent women are proving you wrong.

Women can compete quite well, thank you; all they have to do is figure out how to make the game come to them.

I didn't say better, quill.

Because of the biological differences, men in general are stronger, bigger built, taller etc so in some sports pitting one against another is just unfair.

Your daughters play basketball against men? and win? in that case, bravo to them

I am talking generally though, of course.

If it were not the case then in days gone by it would have been women who were out in suits of armour on the battlefield swinging their clubs and swords around for hours on end, rather than the men.

Although to be fair, women would have had a lot more sense and would have sorted out any disagreements over a cuppa and a chinwag but still,,,,

''The Arizona State Women's basketball team prove you wrong''.


I don't know why they prove me wrong,??

In what way?

gelico wrote:

Original Quill wrote:


The unproven assumption that men are better than women!  My own daughters prove you wrong.  The Arizona State Women's basketball team prove you wrong.  The world champion Golden State Warriors prove you wrong.  Every day, diligent women are proving you wrong.

Women can compete quite well, thank you; all they have to do is figure out how to make the game come to them.

I didn't say better, quill.  

Because of the biological differences, men in general are stronger, bigger built, taller etc so in some sports pitting one against another is just unfair.

Your daughters play basketball against men?  and win?  in that case, bravo to them

I am talking generally though, of course.

If it were not the case then in days gone by it would have been women who were out in suits of armour on the battlefield swinging their clubs and swords around for hours on end, rather than the men.  

Although to be fair, women would have had a lot more sense and would have sorted out any disagreements over a cuppa and a chinwag but still,,,,

You're confusing the examples.  My daughters are professionals, who make fools out of men of the equivalent accomplishments.  The Arizona State Women's basketball team invented a style that made strength irrelevant, and it was picked up and copied by the world champion Golden State Warriors.  Each of these women, in their own way, offer up an example of women showing others how to succeed.

Try it.  What do young women have to lose?

Original Quill wrote:

gelico wrote:

I didn't say better, quill.  

Because of the biological differences, men in general are stronger, bigger built, taller etc so in some sports pitting one against another is just unfair.

Your daughters play basketball against men?  and win?  in that case, bravo to them

I am talking generally though, of course.

If it were not the case then in days gone by it would have been women who were out in suits of armour on the battlefield swinging their clubs and swords around for hours on end, rather than the men.  

Although to be fair, women would have had a lot more sense and would have sorted out any disagreements over a cuppa and a chinwag but still,,,,

You're confusing the examples.  My daughters are professionals, who make fools out of men of the equivalent accomplishments.  

So do your daughters play against men in matches?

gelico wrote:

Original Quill wrote:You're confusing the examples.  My daughters are professionals, who make fools out of men of the equivalent accomplishments.  

So do your daughters play against men in matches?

Yes.  The physician daughter "controls the match" in the surgery room, filled with men.  The lawyer "controls the match" in the courtroom, filled with men.  The MBA daughter "controls the match" in the boardroom, also filled with men.  Those are "matches" with 'life or death' consequences.

The physician daughter is an anesthesiologist, and is responsible for keeping a patient alive during any surgical procedure.  In addition to medical school, she had to go through two residencies: 1) for surgery; 2) for anesthesiology.  After graduation, she studied a year and a summer at the University of Groningen, Netherlands, under a Fulbright scholarship.

Having graduated from Harvard University (AB), Harvard Business School (MBA) and Harvard Law School (JD), the attorney daughter is a licensed member of the Massachusetts State Bar, and is the business CEO of a major medical concern affiliated with the T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University.

Original Quill wrote:

gelico wrote:

So do your daughters play against men in matches?

Yes.  The physician daughter "controls the match" in the surgery room, filled with men.  The lawyer "controls the match" in the courtroom, filled with men.  The MBA daughter "controls the match" in the boardroom, also filled with men.  Those are "matches" with 'life or death' consequences.

The physician daughter is an anesthesiologist, and is responsible for keeping a patient alive during any surgical procedure.  In addition to medical school, she had to go through two residencies: 1) for surgery; 2) for anesthesiology.  After graduation, she studied a year and a summer at the University of Groningen, Netherlands, under a Fulbright scholarship.

Having graduated from Harvard University (AB), Harvard Business School (MBA) and Harvard Law School (JD), the attorney daughter is a licensed member of the Massachusetts State Bar, and is the business CEO of a major medical concern affiliated with the T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University.

Do your daughters play basketball matches against men?

gelico wrote:Do your daughters play basketball matches against men?

No...too busy, I would guess.  They were never particularly competitively sports-inclined, tho' my older daughter went out for sculling in college, and the younger was a biker with her dad.

Original Quill wrote:

gelico wrote:Do your daughters play basketball matches against men?

No...too busy, I would guess.  They were never particularly competitively sports-inclined, tho' my older daughter went out for sculling in college, and the younger was a biker with her dad.

So when I stated that men are generally stronger, taller, heavier than women and that in certain sports it would be unfair to have biological men against biological women, you said ''no, that was an 'unproven assumption' and that your own daughters proved me wrong''

well, they could only prove me wrong if they had put that to the test and won, they didn't (too busy) so they haven't proved me wrong at all and, to sum up,,,,,you're talking cobblers

gelico wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No...too busy, I would guess.  They were never particularly competitively sports-inclined, tho' my older daughter went out for sculling in college, and the younger was a biker with her dad.

So when I stated that men are generally stronger, taller, heavier than women and that in certain sports it would be unfair to have biological men against biological women, you said ''no, that was an 'unproven assumption' and that your own daughters proved me wrong''

well, they could only prove me wrong if they had put that to the test and won, they didn't (too busy) so they haven't proved me wrong at all and, to sum up,,,,,you're talking cobblers

There are many things that men do that are not dependent on strength, and in these things women are their equal.  My daughters exemplify competing to get into schools, gaining degrees and achieving in the professions.

Even in those things where strength matters, look how women change the game to suit their skills.  That's why I bring up the Arizona State University women's basketball team.  They developed the long-shot, and no longer have to compete in the low-post position (under the basket, where the 7-foot tall centers dominate).  Moreover, the outside shot gains 3-points, not just 2-points...so each successful shot is 50% more rewarding.

BTW...it appears women figured this out.  Now, the world champion Golden State Warriors excel in the outside shot, and they are - well, world champions.  

Original Quill wrote:

gelico wrote:

So when I stated that men are generally stronger, taller, heavier than women and that in certain sports it would be unfair to have biological men against biological women, you said ''no, that was an 'unproven assumption' and that your own daughters proved me wrong''

well, they could only prove me wrong if they had put that to the test and won, they didn't (too busy) so they haven't proved me wrong at all and, to sum up,,,,,you're talking cobblers

There are many things that men do that are not dependent on strength, and in these things women are their equal.  My daughters exemplify competing to get into schools, gaining degrees and achieving in the professions.

Yes, quill, I know.  I've made that same point myself, several times now.

The same applies in the sporting arena

Any sport that requires quick mental reflexes, style, flair, deftness, accuracy etc would mean that women would totally be equal to any man, if not superior in some respects.  I've said that all along so I have no idea why you are even arguing that point.

But it still doesn't negate the fact that in some sports that require brute force and muscle mass, clearly a biological woman and a biological man are, generally speaking, very unequal.

That's what I can't understand is that you call that an ''unproven assumption'' which is ridiculous and you have danced all round the houses trying to give me examples of why and you have nothing.

I know you understand the simple biology of it quill, which is why I mentioned that it's an ego thing with you.  You get the truth but you can't bring yourself to acknowledge it so you dance about and avoid it

but you know what, quill?

that's ok

gelico wrote:But it still doesn't negate the fact that in some sports that require brute force and muscle mass, clearly a biological woman and a biological man are, generally speaking, very unequal.

The formula is to eliminate “brute force and muscle mass”.  That’s the very strategy that the Arizona State University women’s basketball team used to avoid the ‘brute force’ game - use the outside shot to avoid the inside game - and it went on to be the winning strategy in the National Basketball Association...the pinnacle in the game.

It was taught by Sun Tzu in The Art of War: “You can be sure of succeeding in your attacks if you only attack places which are undefended.” – Sun Tzu, The Art of War. In other words: ‘Strike where the enemy ain’t’.  The outside shot in basketball eliminates the necessity of “brute force and muscle mass”!  You don't need to go inside...shoot where they ain't.  Incidentally, Edward I made good use of this strategy by use of the Welsh long-bow: strike well before the enemy is even met!  

gelico wrote:That's what I can't understand is that you call that an ''unproven assumption'' which is ridiculous and you have danced all round the houses trying to give me examples of why and you have nothing.

The “unproven assumption” is: you assume you must compete with “brute force and muscle mass.”  But, 'assumption is the mother of all fuk-ups!'  https://medium.com/carwow-product-engineering/assumption-is-the-mother-of-all-f-ups-784f20b8378d You still cling to this notion, when there are better ways if only you use your imagination.   Another, more positive way of saying it is: ‘Think outside of the box’.  Or: ‘Work smarter, not harder’.  Or: ‘Play to your strengths, and the enemy’s weaknesses’.  Simply put: strike where the other guy ain’t!

gelico wrote:I know you understand the simple biology of it quill, which is why I mentioned that it's an ego thing with you.  You get the truth but you can't bring yourself to acknowledge it so you dance about and avoid it

but you know what, quill?

that's ok

As long as you think “it’s an ego thing” you misperceive the message.  In other words, in Sun Tzu’s words about misperceived [unproven] assumptions: ‘I’m winning’.  But the mission in communicating is not to win, but to convey.  Anyone can learn to win, but first they have to learn to listen.

“You can be sure of succeeding in your attacks if you only attack places which are undefended.” – Sun Tzu, The Art of War.

A man is not a woman.

Tommy Monk wrote:A man is not a woman.

Biologically, perhaps.  Mentally/emotionally, no.  Gay/trans men are a fact of life that you can't change, tom.  

So how do you eliminate brute force and muscle mass? You could try making a woman increase muscle mass but weight for weight it wouldn't be the equivalent of the male, maybe we can reduce the brute force and muscle mass in the male, still wouldn't equate. It might just be possible if you start the process before puberty but then you seem to be advocating for women to become men to compete with men and vice versa, how do you equalise foot racing for instance with males and females, the only possible way is handicapping, the men don't start until the women are 3/4 of the way around the track, might work for long distance could be a problem in short distance or maybe the men could carry extra weight.

Original Quill wrote:

gelico wrote:But it still doesn't negate the fact that in some sports that require brute force and muscle mass, clearly a biological woman and a biological man are, generally speaking, very unequal.

The formula is to eliminate “brute force and muscle mass”.  That’s the very strategy that the Arizona State University women’s basketball team used to avoid the ‘brute force’ game - use the outside shot to avoid the inside game - and it went on to be the winning strategy in the National Basketball Association...the pinnacle in the game.

Good for them, but that is ONE formula for ONE game.  I'm not against adaptations made and formulas implemented in order to even things up but basketball is only one sport relying on height/weight/strength.  There are many others and until such ''formulas'' can be found in these sports, the rules should remain the same.



The “unproven assumption” is: you assume you must compete with “brute force and muscle mass.”  

And that isnt true at all quill.

I don't know if you are deliberately lying here or whether you have become confused on the issue

what i said was,,,,''Generally speaking, biological males are taller heavier and stronger than biological females''

You said that was an unproven assumption,,,


and therefore have an unfair advantage in ''certain'' sports''

which they most certainly do

Vintage wrote:So how do you eliminate brute force and muscle mass? You could try making a woman increase muscle mass but weight for weight it wouldn't be the equivalent of the male, maybe we can reduce the brute force and muscle mass in the male, still wouldn't equate. It might just be possible if you start the process before puberty but then you seem to be advocating for women to become men to compete with men and vice versa, how do you equalise foot racing for instance with males and females, the only possible way is handicapping, the men don't start until the women are 3/4 of the way around the track, might work for long distance could be a problem in short distance or maybe the men could carry extra weight.

Thus, a ''trans'' woman running in a race for men and women, now has an unfair advantage over the males and the females

yaaay

gelico wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The formula is to eliminate “brute force and muscle mass”.  That’s the very strategy that the Arizona State University women’s basketball team used to avoid the ‘brute force’ game - use the outside shot to avoid the inside game - and it went on to be the winning strategy in the National Basketball Association...the pinnacle in the game.

Good for them, but that is ONE formula for ONE game.  I'm not against adaptations made and formulas implemented in order to even things up but basketball is only one sport relying on height/weight/strength.  There are many others and until such ''formulas'' can be found in these sports, the rules should remain the same.

The “unproven assumption” is: you assume you must compete with “brute force and muscle mass.”  

And that isnt true at all quill.

I don't know if you are deliberately lying here or whether you have become confused on the issue

what i said was,,,,''Generally speaking, biological males are taller heavier and stronger than biological females''

You said that was an unproven assumption,,,

and therefore have an unfair advantage in ''certain'' sports''

which they most certainly do

Whatever!  You are saying that males have an unfair advantage what with “brute force and muscle mass.”  And that is just not true…it’s an “unproven assumption”, that defeats you mentally before you even start.

There are lots of ways around “brute force and muscle mass.”  In basketball, it’s the outside shot.  In American football it’s the swing pass - essentially a running play that avoids “brute force and muscle mass.”  In baseball, it’s the ‘bunt’, which the women in softball have turned into the ‘slapper’ play.  Suffice it to say that in every sport, for every play that calls upon “brute force and muscle mass," there is a play that uses leverage and skill instead.

Only in golf does the ‘T-off’ have to be compensated-for between men and women – and golf isn’t a sport…it’s just watching grass grow.  

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:A man is not a woman.

Biologically, perhaps.  Mentally/emotionally, no.  Gay/trans men are a fact of life that you can't change, tom.  

Biologically a man... and mental illness makes them think they are a woman!


It doesn't matter how much they might "think" they are a woman, they are not, they are a man!

This man "thinks" he's a cat...





So... does that mean he's a cat...!?


So we should release him into the jungle or put him in a zoo in the enclosure with other tigers!?


Or is he just a deluded crank...? Mentally ill...?


Are we allowed to laugh and say he's not a cat?


Are we allowed to treat him like a man and not like a cat?





This man thinks he is Jesus...


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3708509/Australian-man-thinks-Jesus-remembers-life-century.html


So... Shall we put him in the Vatican and let him take over from the Pope!?


Or is he just a deluded crank...? Mentally ill...?


Are we allowed to laugh and say he is not Jesus?


Are we allowed to treat him like everybody else and not treat him like Jesus?


And what about all the others out there who currently think they are Jesus too...?





But if a man says he "thinks" he is a woman...


Madness!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:This man "thinks" he's a cat...



So... does that mean he's a cat...!?

So we should release him into the jungle or put him in a zoo in the enclosure with other tigers!?

Or is he just a deluded crank...? Mentally ill...?

Are we allowed to laugh and say he's not a cat?

Are we allowed to treat him like a man and not like a cat?



This man thinks he is Jesus...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3708509/Australian-man-thinks-Jesus-remembers-life-century.html

So... Shall we put him in the Vatican and let him take over from the Pope!?

Or is he just a deluded crank...? Mentally ill...?

Are we allowed to laugh and say he is not Jesus?

Are we allowed to treat him like everybody else and not treat him like Jesus?

And what about all the others out there who currently think they are Jesus too...?



But if a man says he "thinks" he is a woman...

Madness!!!

Why do you feel you have to do anything?  Do you think you are god?

Original Quill wrote:

gelico wrote:

And that isnt true at all quill.

I don't know if you are deliberately lying here or whether you have become confused on the issue

what i said was,,,,''Generally speaking, biological males are taller heavier and stronger than biological females''

You said that was an unproven assumption,,,

and therefore have an unfair advantage in ''certain'' sports''

which they most certainly do

Whatever!  You are saying that males have an unfair advantage what with “brute force and muscle mass.”  And that is just not true…it’s an “unproven assumption”, that defeats you mentally before you even start.

There are lots of ways around “brute force and muscle mass.”  In basketball, it’s the outside shot.  In American football it’s the swing pass - essentially a running play that avoids “brute force and muscle mass.”  In baseball, it’s the ‘bunt’, which the women in softball have turned into the ‘slapper’ play.  Suffice it to say that in every sport, for every play that calls upon “brute force and muscle mass," there is a play that uses leverage and skill instead.

Only in golf does the ‘T-off’ have to be compensated-for between men and women – and golf isn’t a sport…it’s just watching grass grow.  

you seem so blissfully unaware of how much you contradict yourself constantly



what i said was,,,,''Generally speaking, biological males are taller heavier and stronger than biological females''

You said that was an unproven assumption,,,




But you then go on to say ''There are lots of ways around “brute force and muscle mass.”


You deny the very existence of a biological advantage in a male in the first place so why the need to find ways around something that is merely an 'unproven assumption'.?


If females need to find a way round the advantage of muscle mass and strength that a biological male has over a female then you surely has to concede the advantage is there and not just an 'unproven assumption'

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:This man "thinks" he's a cat...



So... does that mean he's a cat...!?

So we should release him into the jungle or put him in a zoo in the enclosure with other tigers!?

Or is he just a deluded crank...? Mentally ill...?

Are we allowed to laugh and say he's not a cat?

Are we allowed to treat him like a man and not like a cat?



This man thinks he is Jesus...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3708509/Australian-man-thinks-Jesus-remembers-life-century.html

So... Shall we put him in the Vatican and let him take over from the Pope!?

Or is he just a deluded crank...? Mentally ill...?

Are we allowed to laugh and say he is not Jesus?

Are we allowed to treat him like everybody else and not treat him like Jesus?

And what about all the others out there who currently think they are Jesus too...?



But if a man says he "thinks" he is a woman...

Madness!!!

Why do you feel you have to do anything?  Do you think you are god?

Exactly!!!


Why does anyone have to do anything about any of them...?


And why are you arguing that a man who starts to think he's a woman is somehow any different to the other examples I gave, and somehow a special case that needs totally different treatment...???


Apart from mental health treatment maybe...?


Why does the whole of normal society have to change and bow down to any of the above...???

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Why do you feel you have to do anything?  Do you think you are god?

Tommy Monk wrote:Exactly!!!

Why does anyone have to do anything about any of them...?

So…give it up.  Why waste the effort?

Tommy Monk wrote:And why are you arguing that a man who starts to think he's a woman is somehow any different to the other examples I gave, and somehow a special case that needs totally different treatment...???

Apart from mental health treatment maybe...?

Why does the whole of normal society have to change and bow down to any of the above...???

Because you raised it.  You are the one acting abnormally…I’m just trying to help you get back on an even keel.  You are trying to fight a fact with denial; what could be more feckless?  You can’t do anything about the LBGHT; they are a fact of life…so, move on.

You didn't answer the question...

Tommy Monk wrote:


You didn't answer the question...

of course he didn't,,,


'If females need to find a way round the advantage of muscle mass and strength that a biological male has over a female then you surely has to concede the advantage is there in the first place and it's not just an 'unproven assumption'



He has ignored this.


when quill is faced with a fact he doesn't like, he fights it with denial.

Tommy Monk wrote:You didn't answer the question...

Yes I did.  I'll repeat the answer: "Why waste the effort?"  What you don't realize is you're the one proposing a change. If you don't change anything, what is will still be.

Treat everybody the same, hands off and don't worry about it.  No reason to exclude the trans from any league.  Problem solved...

gelico wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

You didn't answer the question...

of course he didn't,,,

'If females need to find a way round the advantage of muscle mass and strength that a biological male has over a female then you surely has to concede the advantage is there in the first place and it's not just an 'unproven assumption'


He has ignored this.

when quill is faced with a fact he doesn't like, he fights it with denial.

Don't overthink it.  The answer is so obvious that anything more is redundant.  The trick is the team that scores more, wins.  If the trans can score more, one should make every effort to recruit them on one's team.  Or do you want lower scores?

Perhaps...maybe you need a new coach for your team.  

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:You didn't answer the question...

Yes I did.  I'll repeat the answer: "Why waste the effort?"  What you don't realize is you're the one proposing a change. If you don't change anything, what is will still be.

Treat everybody the same, hands off and don't worry about it.  No reason to exclude the trans from any league.  Problem solved...

No... You say one thing for the 2 examples I gave of men who think they are something they are not (the cat and Jesus), but then you advocate doing something totally different when it's a man who thinks he's something he's not (a woman)... And you want everyone else to pander to their delusions too!


You can't have it both ways!

Original Quill wrote:

gelico wrote:

of course he didn't,,,

'If females need to find a way round the advantage of muscle mass and strength that a biological male has over a female then you surely has to concede the advantage is there in the first place and it's not just an 'unproven assumption'


He has ignored this.

when quill is faced with a fact he doesn't like, he fights it with denial.

Don't overthink it.  The answer is so obvious that anything more is redundant.  The trick is the team that scores more, wins.  If the trans can score more, one should make every effort to recruit them on one's team.  Or do you want lower scores?

Perhaps...maybe you need a new coach for your team.  

**don't overthink it**   **use tricks**


hahahahahahahahahaha.  You are the one who has danced about all over the thread in your desperate attempts to avoid the obvious

Generally speaking a biological male is stronger/heavier/taller than a biological woman and therefore  has a physical advantage over them.



try not to overthink that one quill


you can implement all the formulas, strategies, 'tricks' you like to equal things up.  I don't disagree with that but to say that the statement above is an unproven assumption is sheer ignorance.

If it wasn't a fact then biological women wouldn't need to implement strategies, tricks and formulas, now would they?

like I said,,,

try not to overthink it

Bloody hell, it may actually be quicker to have a sex change, than read through this never ending thread,

Syl wrote:Bloody hell, it may actually be quicker to have a sex change, than read through this never ending thread,