iNow

I have no idea and it’s irrelevant to my point

Yes. Accept them as women, because they are. Your proposal here is akin to refusing to accept gay marriage and forcing same sex couples to be called civilly unioned, or suggesting blacks be treated separate but equal.

So you see? The suggestion that reading comprehension challenges might be at play is an observation, and a well founded one at that. It’s also giving you the benefit of the doubt since the only other explanation is that you are PURPOSEFULLY misrepresenting the views of other. No, I don’t think that’s what you’re doing. I think you’re misunderstanding what others are saying. I’m suggesting this based on a consistent pattern throughout. Not an attack. Not an ad hom. An observation based on a consistent pattern of evidence. I hope this helps. That’s fine and I accept your concession. It’s really a shame though as I’d much rather we find common ground and help each other improve our stances and sharpen our viewpoints. On another note, I do love how you accuse me of condescension then in the next sentence suggest I’m immature (as a debater or otherwise). Fun times

It’s really not. You continue misusing that term. It is not an ad hom no matter how many times you repeat yourself claiming otherwise. How about this… Consider my mention of “comprehension challenges” as an observation based on the evidence available; a sincere attempt to better understand why this discussion with you feels so consistently full of friction. Please try not to consider it as an attack on you because it simply is not, nor is it an attempt to bolster my own position with fallacious logic. It’s simply the only way we can reasonably explain why so very many interactions with you here seem to go so unnecessarily and so consistently sideways (that and your needlessly combative nature), and I’m hardly the only one who’s noticed: EDIT: Continued below. My intent to merge posts failed when x-posting with our good man, joigus

Enjoy the show when all 2 of them ultimately decide to compete? 😂

I accept no blame on that bc the aspersions cast were also themselves fallacious and misdirected. I’ll give Holmes the benefit of the doubt here and assume it was a sincere issue of inaccurate reading comprehension, but I did not engage in any ad hom attacks in order to further my position in this thread. That claim was and continues to be absolutely baseless.

I think the better question perhaps is why can’t you see that gender divisions / classes and how trans humans interact with those is equally arbitrary… just like ALL rules in ALL sports which are arbitrary, too.

I hear ya, but this stance reminds me of folks asking why there’s no White History Month, or able-bodied folks moaning about lots having handicapped parking spaces, or people being confused about why we celebrate Jackie Robinson. As I said before, trans athletes are already competing. They have been for decades too, even if the issue “feels” new to many folks today. That fact alone should change the framing in peoples minds about this. If, however, it doesn’t then the core issue now IMO becomes whether we’re going to continue forcing them to hide and pretend and be inauthentic with themselves and with us as passive spectators when they do, or whether we’re going to keep treating “them” as separate and different.

Remind me never to buy a cliffs notes summary that you’ve authored. That’s a bit like saying Huckleberry Finn is a book mostly about boats. 😂

Unless you’re intentionally misreading me, then this suggests likely challenges with reading comprehension. I do not think that word means what you think it means. The assertion about that being an ad hom is about as valid as when you claimed this was your thread.

And the counter argument is that once you move away from scientific explanations, then any conclusions you draw are specious to the point of fiction. Without scientific rigor or ability to falsify hypotheses, then you're sharing little more than opinions or preferences. Doing what you propose moves us into a space where suggestions that god created the universe are functionally equivalent to suggestions that unicorns created the universe, or that the universe came from mashed potatoes, or from the wand of Harry Potter. Those aren't explanations. They're unfounded assertions. They perhaps make you feel better psychologically, but they "explain" nothing whatsoever if validity and accuracy are your goal.

An interesting finding, adding to other existing work that had already similarly pointed in this direction. Perhaps some of us truly are just "wired" differently. What do you think? https://neurosciencenews.com/spirituality-brain-neurotheology-18845/

Gravel also slows the water. Slows erosion. Some water seeps downward into soil. The rest (that which is above the layer being absorbed into soil) flows away through the pipe. Downward perforation placement is correct, as is ability for underlying gravel to saturate

Not just a chance, but a high likelihood. Depends on intensity and duration of exposure Also, this isn’t a megathread. That was a bit presumptuous 😂

You can’t be serious? This sounds rather naive even if I stipulate your premise that transparency is often hard to find in China. MANY people know what’s going on and they need to be 007 to do so.

Even just this week the courts had to strike down a law related to social media posts that got passed by the Republican legislature in Florida and signed by Republican Governor Ron Desantis for being against the first amendment. Once again our nostalgic friend is posting based on fictions and mythologies

It’s horrible. All six of them won a trophy. We need legislation to prevent that!! [/sarcasm]

Thank you for reminding me how even ridiculous children can post dumb things on the internet And you meant swat, not swap.

I reckon you fellas do, tho. No worries.

Unsure why that earned a neg rep, but even in the face of cultural appropriation I wonder who cares

Why deny any of it? Race is a social construct. Also, more to the point, who cares?

I agree with you. This is not a formal refereed debate.

Ok. It’s not tho You’ve also quoted me out of context, which I didn’t do to you. Whatever tho

The 6 I referenced were the cisgendered people that folks claim are facing unfair competition, not the number of trans athletes, though obviously there’s a correlation. It was also a number used for humor to convey a point than it was a precise count.

Not really, no. I’m not saying Holmes is an idiot and therefore his claim is wrong. I’m showing where you claim relies on fallacies and is little more than a personal preference or opinion. If, however, you disagree and feel you’re being personally attacked, then use the report post function so I can be dealt with properly. Now THIS right here is much closer to a personal attack. And this too: