Maybe get back to me when you've developed one of these.
November 11, 2025 at 11:38 AM
Maybe get back to me when you've developed one of these.
Who the actual fuck do you think you are? It is neither your 'job' to indoctrinate me nor my responsibility to be indoctrinated.
I see no point in continuing to listen to your reciting the same old bollocks from your scripture. Please consider yourself muted.
I see no point in continuing to listen to your reciting the same old bollocks from your scripture. Please consider yourself muted.
November 11, 2025 at 11:37 AM
Who the actual fuck do you think you are? It is neither your 'job' to indoctrinate me nor my responsibility to be indoctrinated.
I see no point in continuing to listen to your reciting the same old bollocks from your scripture. Please consider yourself muted.
I see no point in continuing to listen to your reciting the same old bollocks from your scripture. Please consider yourself muted.
'Transgender women are transgender women, not men pretending to be women.'
I will accept this, as soon as you explain what the difference is, and how it can be detected.
I will accept this, as soon as you explain what the difference is, and how it can be detected.
November 11, 2025 at 11:32 AM
'Transgender women are transgender women, not men pretending to be women.'
I will accept this, as soon as you explain what the difference is, and how it can be detected.
I will accept this, as soon as you explain what the difference is, and how it can be detected.
You can't define your terms, and it's my fault? You're having a laugh.
November 11, 2025 at 11:30 AM
You can't define your terms, and it's my fault? You're having a laugh.
But you've got the hypothesis wrong.
The hypothesis is that women have a right to participate in single sex sports competitions.
The corollary is that, regardless of medical attempts to disguise the effects of male puberty, men have no right to be admitted into women's single sex competitions.
The hypothesis is that women have a right to participate in single sex sports competitions.
The corollary is that, regardless of medical attempts to disguise the effects of male puberty, men have no right to be admitted into women's single sex competitions.
November 11, 2025 at 11:29 AM
But you've got the hypothesis wrong.
The hypothesis is that women have a right to participate in single sex sports competitions.
The corollary is that, regardless of medical attempts to disguise the effects of male puberty, men have no right to be admitted into women's single sex competitions.
The hypothesis is that women have a right to participate in single sex sports competitions.
The corollary is that, regardless of medical attempts to disguise the effects of male puberty, men have no right to be admitted into women's single sex competitions.
"I see no evidence."
November 11, 2025 at 11:18 AM
"I see no evidence."
ie. It's anti-women to tell men they aren't women. We're in real 'Through the Looking Glass' territory here.
November 11, 2025 at 11:16 AM
ie. It's anti-women to tell men they aren't women. We're in real 'Through the Looking Glass' territory here.
But what do you mean by 'erasure'? You're just substituting one hyperbole for another.
November 11, 2025 at 11:14 AM
But what do you mean by 'erasure'? You're just substituting one hyperbole for another.
Well done 'babe'.
November 11, 2025 at 10:51 AM
Well done 'babe'.
And the 'we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women' section that was edited out? No incitement to violence there.
November 11, 2025 at 10:45 AM
And the 'we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women' section that was edited out? No incitement to violence there.
It was an edit disguised as continuity. That's simply not acceptable.
November 11, 2025 at 10:41 AM
It was an edit disguised as continuity. That's simply not acceptable.
That's a thoughtful and constructive suggestion.
November 11, 2025 at 10:39 AM
That's a thoughtful and constructive suggestion.
Thank goodness for sophisticated political analysis.
November 11, 2025 at 10:37 AM
Thank goodness for sophisticated political analysis.
You're comparing bolting together two parts of a political speech, originally separated by almost an hour, to truncating a line consisting of identical components, and for which 'direction' is the only measurement?
I mean, I love a good analogy, but really.
I mean, I love a good analogy, but really.
November 11, 2025 at 10:36 AM
You're comparing bolting together two parts of a political speech, originally separated by almost an hour, to truncating a line consisting of identical components, and for which 'direction' is the only measurement?
I mean, I love a good analogy, but really.
I mean, I love a good analogy, but really.
'The cut didn't distort reality.'
Oxymoron.
Oxymoron.
November 11, 2025 at 10:30 AM
'The cut didn't distort reality.'
Oxymoron.
Oxymoron.
I think what disturbs me most in respect of this debate is that there is a real smell about it of 'journalistic ethics only really apply when the story is promoting an ideological perspective I dislike'.
Now I'm not a journalist, but even I can see that this is the top of a slippery slope.
Now I'm not a journalist, but even I can see that this is the top of a slippery slope.
November 11, 2025 at 10:29 AM
I think what disturbs me most in respect of this debate is that there is a real smell about it of 'journalistic ethics only really apply when the story is promoting an ideological perspective I dislike'.
Now I'm not a journalist, but even I can see that this is the top of a slippery slope.
Now I'm not a journalist, but even I can see that this is the top of a slippery slope.
Absolutely right. It's like one of those old Mad magazine fold-ins.
November 11, 2025 at 10:15 AM
Absolutely right. It's like one of those old Mad magazine fold-ins.
'The programme aired without anyone seeing any issues with the edit.'
I'm not convinced that arguing it wasn't editorial bias because nobody complained is really the way to go here.
I'm not convinced that arguing it wasn't editorial bias because nobody complained is really the way to go here.
November 11, 2025 at 10:13 AM
'The programme aired without anyone seeing any issues with the edit.'
I'm not convinced that arguing it wasn't editorial bias because nobody complained is really the way to go here.
I'm not convinced that arguing it wasn't editorial bias because nobody complained is really the way to go here.
Strictly speaking, the only way one could be over the limit but not 'marginally' over the limit would be if one were travelling at infinite speed.
I hope this helps people work out where the cut-off point lies.
I hope this helps people work out where the cut-off point lies.
November 11, 2025 at 10:04 AM
Strictly speaking, the only way one could be over the limit but not 'marginally' over the limit would be if one were travelling at infinite speed.
I hope this helps people work out where the cut-off point lies.
I hope this helps people work out where the cut-off point lies.
'Likewise, saying transgender people don’t exist corresponds to transphobia.'
But no one is saying that trans identified people 'don't exist'.
Katie Price claims to be the reincarnation of Pablo Picasso. I am sceptical, but I would never argue that she doesn't exist.
But no one is saying that trans identified people 'don't exist'.
Katie Price claims to be the reincarnation of Pablo Picasso. I am sceptical, but I would never argue that she doesn't exist.
November 11, 2025 at 9:58 AM
'Likewise, saying transgender people don’t exist corresponds to transphobia.'
But no one is saying that trans identified people 'don't exist'.
Katie Price claims to be the reincarnation of Pablo Picasso. I am sceptical, but I would never argue that she doesn't exist.
But no one is saying that trans identified people 'don't exist'.
Katie Price claims to be the reincarnation of Pablo Picasso. I am sceptical, but I would never argue that she doesn't exist.
Hence my point about 'absence of evidence'.
Instead, you base your claim, that trans identified males have no unfair advantage over women, solely on medal winning.
This is a random and inappropriate factor for comparison that only demonstrates your scientific illiteracy.
It means nothing.
4/4
Instead, you base your claim, that trans identified males have no unfair advantage over women, solely on medal winning.
This is a random and inappropriate factor for comparison that only demonstrates your scientific illiteracy.
It means nothing.
4/4
November 11, 2025 at 9:49 AM
Hence my point about 'absence of evidence'.
Instead, you base your claim, that trans identified males have no unfair advantage over women, solely on medal winning.
This is a random and inappropriate factor for comparison that only demonstrates your scientific illiteracy.
It means nothing.
4/4
Instead, you base your claim, that trans identified males have no unfair advantage over women, solely on medal winning.
This is a random and inappropriate factor for comparison that only demonstrates your scientific illiteracy.
It means nothing.
4/4
There is an enormous body of research that examines the average 10-12% performance gap between the sexes. Perhaps most often cited is that high school boys outperform elite professional female athletes across various sporting disciplines with monotonous regularity.
You ignore it completely.
3/4
You ignore it completely.
3/4
November 11, 2025 at 9:49 AM
There is an enormous body of research that examines the average 10-12% performance gap between the sexes. Perhaps most often cited is that high school boys outperform elite professional female athletes across various sporting disciplines with monotonous regularity.
You ignore it completely.
3/4
You ignore it completely.
3/4
There is an enormous body of research that examines sex differences with respect to height, size, strength, skeletal difference, bone density, muscle mass and distribution, heart size, lung capacity etc.
You ignore it completely.
2/4
You ignore it completely.
2/4
November 11, 2025 at 9:49 AM
There is an enormous body of research that examines sex differences with respect to height, size, strength, skeletal difference, bone density, muscle mass and distribution, heart size, lung capacity etc.
You ignore it completely.
2/4
You ignore it completely.
2/4
'Care to explain ...'
Of course.
You argue that, because trans-identified males haven't appeared among the medals¹, they possess no inherent or unfair advantage over women in sport.
¹ They have, of course, but let's leave that to one side for the moment.
1/4
Of course.
You argue that, because trans-identified males haven't appeared among the medals¹, they possess no inherent or unfair advantage over women in sport.
¹ They have, of course, but let's leave that to one side for the moment.
1/4
November 11, 2025 at 9:49 AM
'Care to explain ...'
Of course.
You argue that, because trans-identified males haven't appeared among the medals¹, they possess no inherent or unfair advantage over women in sport.
¹ They have, of course, but let's leave that to one side for the moment.
1/4
Of course.
You argue that, because trans-identified males haven't appeared among the medals¹, they possess no inherent or unfair advantage over women in sport.
¹ They have, of course, but let's leave that to one side for the moment.
1/4