StringJunky

Diff'rent strokes... I actually meant all the different physical forms they take... with their clothes on.

Not in those exact words but as a paraphrase I've read something about him recently to the same effect. Sabre-rattling by the Chinese, Kim and Putin is all it is, and Biden is just suggesting he knows this, I think. Those despots don't have the conventional means to worry NATO, so they wave the biggest sticks they've got, even though they know that would be game over.

I think there might be too much emphasis on testosterone by trans-opponents because they persistently visualize the classic masculine proportions in a drag-like feminine presentation , but not all gender-dysphorics are like that. This person below is the other extreme, and then there's all the gender-dysphorics inbetween. There is as much diversity in this group as there is in cis-genders. Just as with them, you can't monolithically describe gender-dysphorics. The only way to judge eligibility with fairness is by what a person can do and their physical ability put into the appropriate sporting class. Picture this person thrashing sporting cis-women at 100m because they were a cis-man. Not likely, is it? I think people need to go out there, and the internet is a good resource for this, and actually look at trans-people.... the whole gamut. It's pretty obvious to me that human gender is not binary and people can be born with mismatched personal identities to which they sense they belong. Then there's those individuals who identify with neither... they are in a state of gender equilibrium. As iNow has already suggested the solution, it's a practical method to properly accomodate this diversity in a fair and equitable way in sporting competition.

Physical skill is a brain and muscle memory thing, so there's no biological reason women can't have it with the same frequency and competence level as men.

I notice the GOP likes to legislate social matters but not so much fiscal ones... hmmm. "Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie." - Pink Floyd

They were just given money and they did the rest.

Yes, but the difference is they are existent in the present moment and Anglo-Saxons are skeletal in the ground or in museums. Progressivism is nearly always alien to Luddites, obviously, as your silly photo implies. If you take that personally, I don't mind. We shouldn't deny as a society what we have learned since your time as youngster.

Like I said, it's a way of distinguishing themselves as a more 'legitimate' inhabitant because they have been in a place far longer.

927 A.D. when it became the Kingdom of England, led by King Aethelsten. Prior to that it was a group of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. 'Anglo-Saxon' is an archaic descriptor. It's like calling modern Canadians 'Franco-English'.

One can be English and Ango-Saxon, but one cannot be Ango-Saxon and have non-white immigrant ancestry. It's a way of distingushing white English people from naturalised English people i.e have non-English ancestry. The motives are malign.

Nope.

It's a means of separating a group from others in an elitist/racist fashion.

Politically, using 'Anglo-Saxon' connotes with labels like 'Aryan', and all that it implies. Funny really because Anglo-Saxon is French! They are saying 'We are English because our roots lie in France'.

Have a look at Vespel, but it's very expensive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vespel#:~:text=Vespel is mostly used in,hostile and extreme environmental conditions.

Brevity leads to more potential interpretations, potentially.