What's the betting Rich will bitch about this being 'fake news'' :) https://plainsight.nz/fair-deal/
On 2023-04-30, John Bowes <bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
What's the betting Rich will bitch about this being 'fake news'' :)
https://plainsight.nz/fair-deal/
Thanks for the posting.
Reading through the article, near the start it occurred to me, what is the >Government doing meddling in sports. Surely each sport has it own body and >they can set the rules, as in no men in the weight lifters section.
Race cars have different formulas (class) and there are rules to what is >allowed. Come with a out of spec machine and you will not be allowed to
race.
So later down we have "SWSA wants the bill to spell out clearly that all >sporting bodies will be free to provide single sex sport where eligibility
is determined by sex, not gender identity.
As well, the bill appears to include clauses allowing for males who believe >they are female to claim they are being discriminated against if a sporting >organisation refuses them access into women’s or girls’ sport.
SWSA recommends that a new definition be included that defines sex as >biological sex at birth, not gender identity, and defines female as a
person of the female sex as observed at birth. Yes, we really do have to >state the bleeding obvious. They want females added as relevant stakeholders >(again, duh, obviously).
They’re also none too impressed with the centralisation of sport and >recreation under a commission since this would give individual sport’s >organisations little or no power when it came to dealing with disputes
and is likely to lead to distrust between yet another Wellington-based
sports bureaucracy and regional volunteers."
As is usual in cases such as this the Government should just butt out. No >need to try and be helpful. The sporting bodies can sort it out for
their sport.
On 30 Apr 2023 03:15:46 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:That is the funniest thing you have ever posted.
On 2023-04-30, John Bowes <bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
What's the betting Rich will bitch about this being 'fake news'' :)
https://plainsight.nz/fair-deal/
Thanks for the posting.
Reading through the article, near the start it occurred to me, what is the >>Government doing meddling in sports. Surely each sport has it own body and >>they can set the rules, as in no men in the weight lifters section.
Something will be needed to ensure that anti-discrimination laws are >appropriately adjusted. This is as some are starting to realise not a
simple issue as different countries are adopting different rules /
attitudes to the issues that are starting to come through. All New
Zealanders deserve to have certain rights, and that includes the very
small percentage of the population that have been through various
levels of gender transition. We have made a number of adjustments over
the years - and that has probably been helped by people like Georgina
Beyer. Gaining consensus takes time; there are different issues
arising, and different attitudes from different individuals, some who
are not particularly rational . . . For example to use the
obsession of John Bowes, Georgina Beyer may have been accepted as a
woman for use of toilets in Parliament, but it may not have been as
simple elsewhere; in many cities new toilet facilities are unisex;
some have a separate male urinal where that may ease congestion.
Race cars have different formulas (class) and there are rules to what is >>allowed. Come with a out of spec machine and you will not be allowed to >>race.
So later down we have "SWSA wants the bill to spell out clearly that all >>sporting bodies will be free to provide single sex sport where eligibility >>is determined by sex, not gender identity.
As well, the bill appears to include clauses allowing for males who believe >>they are female to claim they are being discriminated against if a sporting >>organisation refuses them access into women’s or girls’ sport.
SWSA recommends that a new definition be included that defines sex as >>biological sex at birth, not gender identity, and defines female as a >>person of the female sex as observed at birth. Yes, we really do have to >>state the bleeding obvious. They want females added as relevant stakeholders >>(again, duh, obviously).
They’re also none too impressed with the centralisation of sport and >>recreation under a commission since this would give individual sport’s >>organisations little or no power when it came to dealing with disputes
and is likely to lead to distrust between yet another Wellington-based >>sports bureaucracy and regional volunteers."
As is usual in cases such as this the Government should just butt out. No >>need to try and be helpful. The sporting bodies can sort it out for
their sport.
On 30 Apr 2023 03:15:46 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-04-30, John Bowes <bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
What's the betting Rich will bitch about this being 'fake news'' :)
https://plainsight.nz/fair-deal/
Thanks for the posting.
Reading through the article, near the start it occurred to me, what is the >Government doing meddling in sports. Surely each sport has it own body and >they can set the rules, as in no men in the weight lifters section. Something will be needed to ensure that anti-discrimination laws are appropriately adjusted. This is as some are starting to realise not asimple issue as different countries are adopting different rules /
attitudes to the issues that are starting to come through. All New Zealanders deserve to have certain rights, and that includes the very
small percentage of the population that have been through various
levels of gender transition. We have made a number of adjustments over
the years - and that has probably been helped by people like Georgina
Beyer. Gaining consensus takes time; there are different issues
arising, and different attitudes from different individuals, some who
are not particularly rational . . . For example to use the
obsession of John Bowes, Georgina Beyer may have been accepted as a
woman for use of toilets in Parliament, but it may not have been as
simple elsewhere; in many cities new toilet facilities are unisex;
some have a separate male urinal where that may ease congestion.
Race cars have different formulas (class) and there are rules to what is >allowed. Come with a out of spec machine and you will not be allowed to >race.
So later down we have "SWSA wants the bill to spell out clearly that all >sporting bodies will be free to provide single sex sport where eligibility >is determined by sex, not gender identity.
As well, the bill appears to include clauses allowing for males who believe >they are female to claim they are being discriminated against if a sporting >organisation refuses them access into women’s or girls’ sport.
SWSA recommends that a new definition be included that defines sex as >biological sex at birth, not gender identity, and defines female as a >person of the female sex as observed at birth. Yes, we really do have to >state the bleeding obvious. They want females added as relevant stakeholders
(again, duh, obviously).
They’re also none too impressed with the centralisation of sport and >recreation under a commission since this would give individual sport’s >organisations little or no power when it came to dealing with disputes
and is likely to lead to distrust between yet another Wellington-based >sports bureaucracy and regional volunteers."
As is usual in cases such as this the Government should just butt out. No >need to try and be helpful. The sporting bodies can sort it out for
their sport.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Indeed they are, but men are able to urinate standing up - in the past
On 30 Apr 2023 03:15:46 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:That is the funniest thing you have ever posted.
On 2023-04-30, John Bowes <bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
What's the betting Rich will bitch about this being 'fake news'' :)
https://plainsight.nz/fair-deal/
Thanks for the posting.
Reading through the article, near the start it occurred to me, what is the >>>Government doing meddling in sports. Surely each sport has it own body and >>>they can set the rules, as in no men in the weight lifters section.
Something will be needed to ensure that anti-discrimination laws are >>appropriately adjusted. This is as some are starting to realise not a >>simple issue as different countries are adopting different rules / >>attitudes to the issues that are starting to come through. All New >>Zealanders deserve to have certain rights, and that includes the very
small percentage of the population that have been through various
levels of gender transition. We have made a number of adjustments over
the years - and that has probably been helped by people like Georgina >>Beyer. Gaining consensus takes time; there are different issues
arising, and different attitudes from different individuals, some who
are not particularly rational . . . For example to use the
obsession of John Bowes, Georgina Beyer may have been accepted as a
woman for use of toilets in Parliament, but it may not have been as
simple elsewhere; in many cities new toilet facilities are unisex;
some have a separate male urinal where that may ease congestion.
"some have a separate male urinal where that may ease congestion" - most of us >would never have understood that urinals were intended to ease congestion - so >well done for posing a new idea. I thought, apparently wrongly, that urinals >were for peeing in.
And what is the difference between a "male urinal" and a
female urinal, please do not provide any detail, just a generic explanantion >will suffice.
Apart from the humour your post is just pontless drivel.
Race cars have different formulas (class) and there are rules to what is >>>allowed. Come with a out of spec machine and you will not be allowed to >>>race.
So later down we have "SWSA wants the bill to spell out clearly that all >>>sporting bodies will be free to provide single sex sport where eligibility >>>is determined by sex, not gender identity.
As well, the bill appears to include clauses allowing for males who believe >>>they are female to claim they are being discriminated against if a sporting >>>organisation refuses them access into women’s or girls’ sport.
SWSA recommends that a new definition be included that defines sex as >>>biological sex at birth, not gender identity, and defines female as a >>>person of the female sex as observed at birth. Yes, we really do have to >>>state the bleeding obvious. They want females added as relevant stakeholders >>>(again, duh, obviously).
They’re also none too impressed with the centralisation of sport and >>>recreation under a commission since this would give individual sport’s >>>organisations little or no power when it came to dealing with disputes >>>and is likely to lead to distrust between yet another Wellington-based >>>sports bureaucracy and regional volunteers."
As is usual in cases such as this the Government should just butt out. No >>>need to try and be helpful. The sporting bodies can sort it out for
their sport.
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 5:02:27?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:A level playing field requires that discrimination be carefully
On 30 Apr 2023 03:15:46 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-04-30, John Bowes <bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:Something will be needed to ensure that anti-discrimination laws are
What's the betting Rich will bitch about this being 'fake news'' :)
https://plainsight.nz/fair-deal/
Thanks for the posting.
Reading through the article, near the start it occurred to me, what is the >> >Government doing meddling in sports. Surely each sport has it own body and >> >they can set the rules, as in no men in the weight lifters section.
appropriately adjusted. This is as some are starting to realise not a
simple issue as different countries are adopting different rules /
attitudes to the issues that are starting to come through. All New
Zealanders deserve to have certain rights, and that includes the very
small percentage of the population that have been through various
levels of gender transition. We have made a number of adjustments over
the years - and that has probably been helped by people like Georgina
Beyer. Gaining consensus takes time; there are different issues
arising, and different attitudes from different individuals, some who
are not particularly rational . . . For example to use the
obsession of John Bowes, Georgina Beyer may have been accepted as a
woman for use of toilets in Parliament, but it may not have been as
simple elsewhere; in many cities new toilet facilities are unisex;
some have a separate male urinal where that may ease congestion.
It's not about discrimination you fucking imbecile! It's about a level playing field in sport.
Something your posts show you know nothing about.I agree with your admiration for the world's first openly transgender
Women deserve the rights they've fought for over the last fifty odd years by people like Georgina Beyer. A better human being than you'll ever be Rich!
Gender transition is an unnecessary thing!Georgina Beyers and many others would not have agreed with you; it is disappointing to see such bigotry and ignorance still being pushed,
Tell me Rich do the parents of your granddaughters leave you alone with them ever. Because I wonder if your not just a shirt lifter but also a kiddy fiddler considering how immersed you are in the tranny bullshit that they were born in the wrong body.In your case I can believe you were born in the wrong body because you come across as a shit house rat rather than a homo sapiens...
Race cars have different formulas (class) and there are rules to what is
allowed. Come with a out of spec machine and you will not be allowed to
race.
So later down we have "SWSA wants the bill to spell out clearly that all
sporting bodies will be free to provide single sex sport where eligibility >> >is determined by sex, not gender identity.
As well, the bill appears to include clauses allowing for males who believe >> >they are female to claim they are being discriminated against if a sporting >> >organisation refuses them access into women’s or girls’ sport.
SWSA recommends that a new definition be included that defines sex as
biological sex at birth, not gender identity, and defines female as a
person of the female sex as observed at birth. Yes, we really do have to
state the bleeding obvious. They want females added as relevant stakeholders
(again, duh, obviously).
They’re also none too impressed with the centralisation of sport and
recreation under a commission since this would give individual sport’s
organisations little or no power when it came to dealing with disputes
and is likely to lead to distrust between yet another Wellington-based
sports bureaucracy and regional volunteers."
As is usual in cases such as this the Government should just butt out. No >> >need to try and be helpful. The sporting bodies can sort it out for
their sport.
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 05:11:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Indeed they are, but men are able to urinate standing up - in the past
On 30 Apr 2023 03:15:46 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:That is the funniest thing you have ever posted.
On 2023-04-30, John Bowes <bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
What's the betting Rich will bitch about this being 'fake news'' :) >>>> https://plainsight.nz/fair-deal/
Thanks for the posting.
Reading through the article, near the start it occurred to me, what is the
Government doing meddling in sports. Surely each sport has it own body and
they can set the rules, as in no men in the weight lifters section.
Something will be needed to ensure that anti-discrimination laws are >>appropriately adjusted. This is as some are starting to realise not a >>simple issue as different countries are adopting different rules / >>attitudes to the issues that are starting to come through. All New >>Zealanders deserve to have certain rights, and that includes the very >>small percentage of the population that have been through various
levels of gender transition. We have made a number of adjustments over >>the years - and that has probably been helped by people like Georgina >>Beyer. Gaining consensus takes time; there are different issues
arising, and different attitudes from different individuals, some who >>are not particularly rational . . . For example to use the
obsession of John Bowes, Georgina Beyer may have been accepted as a >>woman for use of toilets in Parliament, but it may not have been as >>simple elsewhere; in many cities new toilet facilities are unisex;
some have a separate male urinal where that may ease congestion.
"some have a separate male urinal where that may ease congestion" - most of us
would never have understood that urinals were intended to ease congestion - so
well done for posing a new idea. I thought, apparently wrongly, that urinals
were for peeing in.
many sports grounds and schools with male pupils provided a long
trough so many could stand and urinate more quickly (and with less spillage), than women could get through their separate cubicals. As
women started attending sports games in greater numbers, there were
often queues for the Womens facilities as they had to wait for longer
than men, and more Womens toilets had to be built. Clearly you either
did not attend sports games or were even then unobservant . . .
And what is the difference between a "male urinal" and aWas there any pont to your drivel, Tony?
female urinal, please do not provide any detail, just a generic explanantion
will suffice.
Apart from the humour your post is just pontless drivel.
Race cars have different formulas (class) and there are rules to what is >>>allowed. Come with a out of spec machine and you will not be allowed to >>>race.
So later down we have "SWSA wants the bill to spell out clearly that all >>>sporting bodies will be free to provide single sex sport where eligibility
is determined by sex, not gender identity.
As well, the bill appears to include clauses allowing for males who believe
they are female to claim they are being discriminated against if a sporting
organisation refuses them access into women’s or girls’ sport.
SWSA recommends that a new definition be included that defines sex as >>>biological sex at birth, not gender identity, and defines female as a >>>person of the female sex as observed at birth. Yes, we really do have to >>>state the bleeding obvious. They want females added as relevant stakeholders
(again, duh, obviously).
They’re also none too impressed with the centralisation of sport and >>>recreation under a commission since this would give individual sport’s >>>organisations little or no power when it came to dealing with disputes >>>and is likely to lead to distrust between yet another Wellington-based >>>sports bureaucracy and regional volunteers."
As is usual in cases such as this the Government should just butt out. No >>>need to try and be helpful. The sporting bodies can sort it out for >>>their sport.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 22:33:47 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 5:02:27?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On 30 Apr 2023 03:15:46 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-04-30, John Bowes <bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:Something will be needed to ensure that anti-discrimination laws are
What's the betting Rich will bitch about this being 'fake news'' :)
https://plainsight.nz/fair-deal/
Thanks for the posting.
Reading through the article, near the start it occurred to me, what is the
Government doing meddling in sports. Surely each sport has it own body and
they can set the rules, as in no men in the weight lifters section.
appropriately adjusted. This is as some are starting to realise not a
simple issue as different countries are adopting different rules /
attitudes to the issues that are starting to come through. All New
Zealanders deserve to have certain rights, and that includes the very
small percentage of the population that have been through various
levels of gender transition. We have made a number of adjustments over
the years - and that has probably been helped by people like Georgina
Beyer. Gaining consensus takes time; there are different issues
arising, and different attitudes from different individuals, some who
are not particularly rational . . . For example to use the
obsession of John Bowes, Georgina Beyer may have been accepted as a
woman for use of toilets in Parliament, but it may not have been as
simple elsewhere; in many cities new toilet facilities are unisex;
some have a separate male urinal where that may ease congestion.
It's not about discrimination you fucking imbecile! It's about a level playing field in sport.A level playing field requires that discrimination be carefully
applied and fair. We have lived with and often approve discrimination
in many sports; retaining human rights while ensuring that any discrimination within the rules is fair is exactly what the discussion
is all about.
Something your posts show you know nothing about.I agree with your admiration for the world's first openly transgender
Women deserve the rights they've fought for over the last fifty odd years by people like Georgina Beyer. A better human being than you'll ever be Rich!
mayor and member of parliament. In 2020, her achievements and her
advocacy for LGBTIQA+ rights were recognised when she was made a
Member of the New Zealand Order of Merit [MNZM]. Hon. Ron Mark, Mayor
of Carterton, said that recognition was long overdue. “She was
respected, elected, and selected on merit. Wairarapa folk can be
proud that they were the first in the world to do that, and see past ethnicity, sexuality, and choose a person solely on their merits."
Gender transition is an unnecessary thing!Georgina Beyers and many others would not have agreed with you; it is disappointing to see such bigotry and ignorance still being pushed,
albeit by a very small group of New Zealanders.
In your case I can believe you were born in the wrong body because you come across as a shit house rat rather than a homo sapiens...Tell me Rich do the parents of your granddaughters leave you alone with them ever. Because I wonder if your not just a shirt lifter but also a kiddy fiddler considering how immersed you are in the tranny bullshit that they were born in the wrong body.
Race cars have different formulas (class) and there are rules to what is >> >allowed. Come with a out of spec machine and you will not be allowed to >> >race.
So later down we have "SWSA wants the bill to spell out clearly that all >> >sporting bodies will be free to provide single sex sport where eligibility
is determined by sex, not gender identity.
As well, the bill appears to include clauses allowing for males who believe
they are female to claim they are being discriminated against if a sporting
organisation refuses them access into women’s or girls’ sport.
SWSA recommends that a new definition be included that defines sex as
biological sex at birth, not gender identity, and defines female as a
person of the female sex as observed at birth. Yes, we really do have to >> >state the bleeding obvious. They want females added as relevant stakeholders
(again, duh, obviously).
They’re also none too impressed with the centralisation of sport and >> >recreation under a commission since this would give individual sport’s >> >organisations little or no power when it came to dealing with disputes >> >and is likely to lead to distrust between yet another Wellington-based >> >sports bureaucracy and regional volunteers."
As is usual in cases such as this the Government should just butt out. No
need to try and be helpful. The sporting bodies can sort it out for
their sport.
On 30 Apr 2023 03:15:46 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-04-30, John Bowes <bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
What's the betting Rich will bitch about this being 'fake news'' :)
https://plainsight.nz/fair-deal/
Thanks for the posting.
Reading through the article, near the start it occurred to me, what is the >>Government doing meddling in sports. Surely each sport has it own body and >>they can set the rules, as in no men in the weight lifters section.
Something will be needed to ensure that anti-discrimination laws are >appropriately adjusted blah bla blah...
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 05:11:37 -0000 (UTC), TonyMore dfrivel, you are so far off topic that you must surely be embarrassed.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Indeed they are, but men are able to urinate standing up - in the past
On 30 Apr 2023 03:15:46 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:That is the funniest thing you have ever posted.
On 2023-04-30, John Bowes <bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
What's the betting Rich will bitch about this being 'fake news'' :)
https://plainsight.nz/fair-deal/
Thanks for the posting.
Reading through the article, near the start it occurred to me, what is the >>>>Government doing meddling in sports. Surely each sport has it own body and >>>>they can set the rules, as in no men in the weight lifters section.
Something will be needed to ensure that anti-discrimination laws are >>>appropriately adjusted. This is as some are starting to realise not a >>>simple issue as different countries are adopting different rules / >>>attitudes to the issues that are starting to come through. All New >>>Zealanders deserve to have certain rights, and that includes the very >>>small percentage of the population that have been through various
levels of gender transition. We have made a number of adjustments over >>>the years - and that has probably been helped by people like Georgina >>>Beyer. Gaining consensus takes time; there are different issues
arising, and different attitudes from different individuals, some who
are not particularly rational . . . For example to use the
obsession of John Bowes, Georgina Beyer may have been accepted as a
woman for use of toilets in Parliament, but it may not have been as >>>simple elsewhere; in many cities new toilet facilities are unisex;
some have a separate male urinal where that may ease congestion.
"some have a separate male urinal where that may ease congestion" - most of >>us
would never have understood that urinals were intended to ease congestion - >>so
well done for posing a new idea. I thought, apparently wrongly, that urinals >>were for peeing in.
many sports grounds and schools with male pupils provided a long
trough so many could stand and urinate more quickly (and with less
spillage), than women could get through their separate cubicals. As
women started attending sports games in greater numbers, there were
often queues for the Womens facilities as they had to wait for longer
than men, and more Womens toilets had to be built. Clearly you either
did not attend sports games or were even then unobservant . . .
Mine was not drivel, yours was.And what is the difference between a "male urinal" and a
female urinal, please do not provide any detail, just a generic explanantion >>will suffice.
Apart from the humour your post is just pontless drivel.
Was there any pont to your drivel, Tony?
Race cars have different formulas (class) and there are rules to what is >>>>allowed. Come with a out of spec machine and you will not be allowed to >>>>race.
So later down we have "SWSA wants the bill to spell out clearly that all >>>>sporting bodies will be free to provide single sex sport where eligibility >>>>is determined by sex, not gender identity.
As well, the bill appears to include clauses allowing for males who believe >>>>they are female to claim they are being discriminated against if a sporting >>>>organisation refuses them access into women’s or girls’ sport.
SWSA recommends that a new definition be included that defines sex as >>>>biological sex at birth, not gender identity, and defines female as a >>>>person of the female sex as observed at birth. Yes, we really do have to >>>>state the bleeding obvious. They want females added as relevant >>>>stakeholders
(again, duh, obviously).
They’re also none too impressed with the centralisation of sport and >>>>recreation under a commission since this would give individual sport’s >>>>organisations little or no power when it came to dealing with disputes >>>>and is likely to lead to distrust between yet another Wellington-based >>>>sports bureaucracy and regional volunteers."
As is usual in cases such as this the Government should just butt out. No >>>>need to try and be helpful. The sporting bodies can sort it out for >>>>their sport.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 05:11:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
More dfrivel, you are so far off topic that you must surely be embarrassed.Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Indeed they are, but men are able to urinate standing up - in the past >many sports grounds and schools with male pupils provided a long
On 30 Apr 2023 03:15:46 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:That is the funniest thing you have ever posted.
On 2023-04-30, John Bowes <bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
What's the betting Rich will bitch about this being 'fake news'' :) >>>>> https://plainsight.nz/fair-deal/
Thanks for the posting.
Reading through the article, near the start it occurred to me, what is the
Government doing meddling in sports. Surely each sport has it own body and
they can set the rules, as in no men in the weight lifters section.
Something will be needed to ensure that anti-discrimination laws are >>>appropriately adjusted. This is as some are starting to realise not a >>>simple issue as different countries are adopting different rules / >>>attitudes to the issues that are starting to come through. All New >>>Zealanders deserve to have certain rights, and that includes the very >>>small percentage of the population that have been through various >>>levels of gender transition. We have made a number of adjustments over >>>the years - and that has probably been helped by people like Georgina >>>Beyer. Gaining consensus takes time; there are different issues >>>arising, and different attitudes from different individuals, some who >>>are not particularly rational . . . For example to use the
obsession of John Bowes, Georgina Beyer may have been accepted as a >>>woman for use of toilets in Parliament, but it may not have been as >>>simple elsewhere; in many cities new toilet facilities are unisex; >>>some have a separate male urinal where that may ease congestion.
"some have a separate male urinal where that may ease congestion" - most of
us
would never have understood that urinals were intended to ease congestion -
so
well done for posing a new idea. I thought, apparently wrongly, that urinals
were for peeing in.
trough so many could stand and urinate more quickly (and with less >spillage), than women could get through their separate cubicals. As
women started attending sports games in greater numbers, there were
often queues for the Womens facilities as they had to wait for longer
than men, and more Womens toilets had to be built. Clearly you either
did not attend sports games or were even then unobservant . . .
Funny how Rich posts bullshit in an attempt to make the left look like freedom fighters but as the thread gets longer the bullshit gets higher? He's as feral as that pos Shaneel Lol and is most likely a shirt lifter not trusted to be left alone withAnd what is the difference between a "male urinal" and a
female urinal, please do not provide any detail, just a generic explanantion
will suffice.
Apart from the humour your post is just pontless drivel.
Was there any pont to your drivel, Tony?Mine was not drivel, yours was.
Race cars have different formulas (class) and there are rules to what is >>>>allowed. Come with a out of spec machine and you will not be allowed to >>>>race.
So later down we have "SWSA wants the bill to spell out clearly that all >>>>sporting bodies will be free to provide single sex sport where eligibility
is determined by sex, not gender identity.
As well, the bill appears to include clauses allowing for males who believe
they are female to claim they are being discriminated against if a sporting
organisation refuses them access into women’s or girls’ sport.
SWSA recommends that a new definition be included that defines sex as >>>>biological sex at birth, not gender identity, and defines female as a >>>>person of the female sex as observed at birth. Yes, we really do have to >>>>state the bleeding obvious. They want females added as relevant >>>>stakeholders
(again, duh, obviously).
They’re also none too impressed with the centralisation of sport and >>>>recreation under a commission since this would give individual sport’s >>>>organisations little or no power when it came to dealing with disputes >>>>and is likely to lead to distrust between yet another Wellington-based >>>>sports bureaucracy and regional volunteers."
As is usual in cases such as this the Government should just butt out. No
need to try and be helpful. The sporting bodies can sort it out for >>>>their sport.
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 16:57:17 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 30 Apr 2023 03:15:46 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-04-30, John Bowes <bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
What's the betting Rich will bitch about this being 'fake news'' :)
https://plainsight.nz/fair-deal/
Thanks for the posting.
Reading through the article, near the start it occurred to me, what is the >>>Government doing meddling in sports. Surely each sport has it own body and >>>they can set the rules, as in no men in the weight lifters section.
Something will be needed to ensure that anti-discrimination laws are >>appropriately adjusted blah bla blah...
What is a woman Rich80105?
Bill.
On Mon, 01 May 2023 05:27:39 +1200, BR <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:I hold that view Rich because it's true! Hell Georgina was a better man than you can hope to be Rich! Now get back on topic you utterly useless tranny loving bitch!
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 16:57:17 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 30 Apr 2023 03:15:46 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-04-30, John Bowes <bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
What's the betting Rich will bitch about this being 'fake news'' :) >>>> https://plainsight.nz/fair-deal/
Thanks for the posting.
Reading through the article, near the start it occurred to me, what is the
Government doing meddling in sports. Surely each sport has it own body and
they can set the rules, as in no men in the weight lifters section.
Something will be needed to ensure that anti-discrimination laws are >>appropriately adjusted blah bla blah...
What is a woman Rich80105?
Bill.We had that discussion a few weeks ago - but elsewhere in this thread
John Bowes made it clear that he regards Georgina Beyers as having
been a good woman - for example he said: "Women deserve the rights
they've fought for over the last fifty odd years by people like
Georgina Beyer. A better human being than you'll ever be Rich! "
It is certainly one opinion; but you may feel that John Bowes has not adequaetly explained just why he holds that view. Was she a woman in
your view, Bill?
What is a woman Rich80105?
Bill.
We had that discussion a few weeks ago -
but elsewhere in this thread
John Bowes made it clear that he regards Georgina Beyers as having
been a good woman - for example he said: "Women deserve the rights
they've fought for over the last fifty odd years by people like
Georgina Beyer. A better human being than you'll ever be Rich! "
It is certainly one opinion; but you may feel that John Bowes has not >adequaetly explained just why he holds that view. Was she a woman in
your view, Bill?
On Mon, 01 May 2023 21:57:31 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
What is a woman Rich80105?
Bill.
We had that discussion a few weeks ago -
Yes, and you never did asnswer the question. You were as evasive then
as you are now.
but elsewhere in this thread
John Bowes made it clear that he regards Georgina Beyers as having
been a good woman - for example he said: "Women deserve the rights
they've fought for over the last fifty odd years by people like
Georgina Beyer. A better human being than you'll ever be Rich! "
I don't speak for other people. The question wasn't directed at any
third party, it was directed at you.
It is certainly one opinion; but you may feel that John Bowes has not >>adequaetly explained just why he holds that view. Was she a woman in
your view, Bill?
Of course he wasn't a woman. He was a transvestite. Transvestites have
never been women and never will be.
Bill.
On Tue, 02 May 2023 05:22:49 +1200, BR <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:It's got nothing to do with language Rich! What it has to do with is the rights of women to have safe places not infested with men with mental disorders like you! But guess you're so far left the idea of right is repugnant to you and the nut cases that
On Mon, 01 May 2023 21:57:31 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
What is a woman Rich80105?
Bill.
We had that discussion a few weeks ago -
Yes, and you never did asnswer the question. You were as evasive then
as you are now.
but elsewhere in this thread
John Bowes made it clear that he regards Georgina Beyers as having
been a good woman - for example he said: "Women deserve the rights >>they've fought for over the last fifty odd years by people like
Georgina Beyer. A better human being than you'll ever be Rich! "
I don't speak for other people. The question wasn't directed at any
third party, it was directed at you.
It is certainly one opinion; but you may feel that John Bowes has not >>adequaetly explained just why he holds that view. Was she a woman in >>your view, Bill?
Of course he wasn't a woman. He was a transvestite. Transvestites have >never been women and never will be.
Bill.And there we have the nub of the issue - languages change to meet new circumstances, and there is often resistance to those changes. See for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgina_Beyer
where the words "she" and ""her"" are used throughout, and from the references those words were used consistently by her political allies
and opposing parties. Whatever words you want to use, she was first a
human being, a citizen of New Zealand, and a representative of her electorate. She and others who have gone through or go through similar medical and other related procedures remain citizens, entitled to
human rights and our respect. Using definitions of words as a weapon
against some people in our country is not productive, it is not
consistent with qualities such as respect, recognition of individuals,
or human rights, or of equal opportunity which are principles said to
be shared by most political parties. To foment disagreements through
petty use of words is not helpful to the New Zealand most want to live
in. I am confident that you BR have the capacity to see that semantic arguments while important, should be used to foment dissent where none
is needed; our laws should recognise all New Zealanders and treat them fairly, and at times careful use of language is needed to avoisd
needless misunderstandings and unhelpful arguments.
On Tue, 02 May 2023 05:22:49 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:Ecellent, so you clearly agree that the people who preevented Posie Parker from enjoying her right to freedom of speech were disrespecting her and others who share her beliefs.
On Mon, 01 May 2023 21:57:31 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
What is a woman Rich80105?
Bill.
We had that discussion a few weeks ago -
Yes, and you never did asnswer the question. You were as evasive then
as you are now.
but elsewhere in this thread
John Bowes made it clear that he regards Georgina Beyers as having
been a good woman - for example he said: "Women deserve the rights >>>they've fought for over the last fifty odd years by people like
Georgina Beyer. A better human being than you'll ever be Rich! "
I don't speak for other people. The question wasn't directed at any
third party, it was directed at you.
It is certainly one opinion; but you may feel that John Bowes has not >>>adequaetly explained just why he holds that view. Was she a woman in
your view, Bill?
Of course he wasn't a woman. He was a transvestite. Transvestites have >>never been women and never will be.
Bill.
And there we have the nub of the issue - languages change to meet new >circumstances, and there is often resistance to those changes. See for >example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgina_Beyer
where the words "she" and ""her"" are used throughout, and from the >references those words were used consistently by her political allies
and opposing parties. Whatever words you want to use, she was first a
human being, a citizen of New Zealand, and a representative of her >electorate. She and others who have gone through or go through similar >medical and other related procedures remain citizens, entitled to
human rights and our respect. Using definitions of words as a weapon
against some people in our country is not productive, it is not
consistent with qualities such as respect, recognition of individuals,
or human rights, or of equal opportunity which are principles said to
be shared by most political parties. To foment disagreements through
petty use of words is not helpful to the New Zealand most want to live
in. I am confident that you BR have the capacity to see that semantic >arguments while important, should be used to foment dissent where none
is needed; our laws should recognise all New Zealanders and treat them >fairly, and at times careful use of language is needed to avoisd
needless misunderstandings and unhelpful arguments.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 02 May 2023 05:22:49 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:Ecellent, so you clearly agree that the people who preevented Posie Parker from
On Mon, 01 May 2023 21:57:31 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
What is a woman Rich80105?
Bill.
We had that discussion a few weeks ago -
Yes, and you never did asnswer the question. You were as evasive then
as you are now.
but elsewhere in this thread
John Bowes made it clear that he regards Georgina Beyers as having
been a good woman - for example he said: "Women deserve the rights >>>>they've fought for over the last fifty odd years by people like >>>>Georgina Beyer. A better human being than you'll ever be Rich! "
I don't speak for other people. The question wasn't directed at any
third party, it was directed at you.
It is certainly one opinion; but you may feel that John Bowes has not >>>>adequaetly explained just why he holds that view. Was she a woman in >>>>your view, Bill?
Of course he wasn't a woman. He was a transvestite. Transvestites have >>>never been women and never will be.
Bill.
And there we have the nub of the issue - languages change to meet new >>circumstances, and there is often resistance to those changes. See for >>example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgina_Beyer
where the words "she" and ""her"" are used throughout, and from the >>references those words were used consistently by her political allies
and opposing parties. Whatever words you want to use, she was first a
human being, a citizen of New Zealand, and a representative of her >>electorate. She and others who have gone through or go through similar >>medical and other related procedures remain citizens, entitled to
human rights and our respect. Using definitions of words as a weapon >>against some people in our country is not productive, it is not
consistent with qualities such as respect, recognition of individuals,
or human rights, or of equal opportunity which are principles said to
be shared by most political parties. To foment disagreements through
petty use of words is not helpful to the New Zealand most want to live
in. I am confident that you BR have the capacity to see that semantic >>arguments while important, should nit be used to foment dissent where none >>is needed; our laws should recognise all New Zealanders and treat them >>fairly, and at times careful use of language is needed to avoisd
needless misunderstandings and unhelpful arguments.
enjoying her right to freedom of speech were disrespecting her and others who >share her beliefs.
There are two sides to this and so far you have acknowledged only one side.
On Tue, 2 May 2023 02:36:48 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe simplicity is all yours Rich. Because you're a simpleton! Your avoidance of the issue at hand is noted. The subject under discussion isn't about many different points of view it's about the feral nature of the tranny's like you demanding they be
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:distract from the reality that there are many different views; and
On Tue, 02 May 2023 05:22:49 +1200, BR <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:Ecellent, so you clearly agree that the people who preevented Posie Parker from
On Mon, 01 May 2023 21:57:31 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
What is a woman Rich80105?
Bill.
We had that discussion a few weeks ago -
Yes, and you never did asnswer the question. You were as evasive then >>>as you are now.
but elsewhere in this thread
John Bowes made it clear that he regards Georgina Beyers as having >>>>been a good woman - for example he said: "Women deserve the rights >>>>they've fought for over the last fifty odd years by people like >>>>Georgina Beyer. A better human being than you'll ever be Rich! "
I don't speak for other people. The question wasn't directed at any >>>third party, it was directed at you.
It is certainly one opinion; but you may feel that John Bowes has not >>>>adequaetly explained just why he holds that view. Was she a woman in >>>>your view, Bill?
Of course he wasn't a woman. He was a transvestite. Transvestites have >>>never been women and never will be.
Bill.
And there we have the nub of the issue - languages change to meet new >>circumstances, and there is often resistance to those changes. See for >>example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgina_Beyer
where the words "she" and ""her"" are used throughout, and from the >>references those words were used consistently by her political allies >>and opposing parties. Whatever words you want to use, she was first a >>human being, a citizen of New Zealand, and a representative of her >>electorate. She and others who have gone through or go through similar >>medical and other related procedures remain citizens, entitled to
human rights and our respect. Using definitions of words as a weapon >>against some people in our country is not productive, it is not >>consistent with qualities such as respect, recognition of individuals, >>or human rights, or of equal opportunity which are principles said to
be shared by most political parties. To foment disagreements through >>petty use of words is not helpful to the New Zealand most want to live >>in. I am confident that you BR have the capacity to see that semantic >>arguments while important, should nit be used to foment dissent where none >>is needed; our laws should recognise all New Zealanders and treat them >>fairly, and at times careful use of language is needed to avoisd >>needless misunderstandings and unhelpful arguments.
enjoying her right to freedom of speech were disrespecting her and others who
share her beliefs.
There are two sides to this and so far you have acknowledged only one side. You are being overly simplistic - and I suspect you are trying to
that deliberate provocation makes achieving mutual respect and
understanding of different positions difficult. Ideally we should all
be able to agree that all New Zealanders deserve to enjoy normal human rights, that we should respect all others regardless of differences
while also expecting reasonable and rational behaviour, as well as
mutual respect - some aspects of those ideals were clearly missing
from the clashes between those holding different views that you have referred to. .
On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 6:41:19?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:treated as women even though the facts and the science prove they're men and don't have the right to walk all over the rights of women!
On Tue, 2 May 2023 02:36:48 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe simplicity is all yours Rich. Because you're a simpleton! Your avoidance of the issue at hand is noted. The subject under discussion isn't about many different points of view it's about the feral nature of the tranny's like you demanding they be
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:distract from the reality that there are many different views; and
On Tue, 02 May 2023 05:22:49 +1200, BR <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:Ecellent, so you clearly agree that the people who preevented Posie Parker from
On Mon, 01 May 2023 21:57:31 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
What is a woman Rich80105?
Bill.
We had that discussion a few weeks ago -
Yes, and you never did asnswer the question. You were as evasive then
as you are now.
but elsewhere in this thread
John Bowes made it clear that he regards Georgina Beyers as having
been a good woman - for example he said: "Women deserve the rights
they've fought for over the last fifty odd years by people like
Georgina Beyer. A better human being than you'll ever be Rich! "
I don't speak for other people. The question wasn't directed at any
third party, it was directed at you.
It is certainly one opinion; but you may feel that John Bowes has not
adequaetly explained just why he holds that view. Was she a woman in
your view, Bill?
Of course he wasn't a woman. He was a transvestite. Transvestites have
never been women and never will be.
Bill.
And there we have the nub of the issue - languages change to meet new
circumstances, and there is often resistance to those changes. See for
example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgina_Beyer
where the words "she" and ""her"" are used throughout, and from the
references those words were used consistently by her political allies
and opposing parties. Whatever words you want to use, she was first a
human being, a citizen of New Zealand, and a representative of her
electorate. She and others who have gone through or go through similar
medical and other related procedures remain citizens, entitled to
human rights and our respect. Using definitions of words as a weapon
against some people in our country is not productive, it is not
consistent with qualities such as respect, recognition of individuals,
or human rights, or of equal opportunity which are principles said to
be shared by most political parties. To foment disagreements through
petty use of words is not helpful to the New Zealand most want to live
in. I am confident that you BR have the capacity to see that semantic
arguments while important, should nit be used to foment dissent where none >> >>is needed; our laws should recognise all New Zealanders and treat them
fairly, and at times careful use of language is needed to avoisd
needless misunderstandings and unhelpful arguments.
enjoying her right to freedom of speech were disrespecting her and others who
share her beliefs.
There are two sides to this and so far you have acknowledged only one side. >> You are being overly simplistic - and I suspect you are trying to
that deliberate provocation makes achieving mutual respect and
understanding of different positions difficult. Ideally we should all
be able to agree that all New Zealanders deserve to enjoy normal human
rights, that we should respect all others regardless of differences
while also expecting reasonable and rational behaviour, as well as
mutual respect - some aspects of those ideals were clearly missing
from the clashes between those holding different views that you have
referred to. .
Your weasel words mean nothing like so many of your posts defending the undefendable!
On Tue, 2 May 2023 02:36:48 -0000 (UTC), TonyYes that is exactly what I said - the fact that those who attacked Posie Parker did not allow her to speak shows massive disrespect. I saw no evidence at all of any disrespect by Posie and her supporters.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 02 May 2023 05:22:49 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:Ecellent, so you clearly agree that the people who preevented Posie Parker >>from
On Mon, 01 May 2023 21:57:31 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
What is a woman Rich80105?
Bill.
We had that discussion a few weeks ago -
Yes, and you never did asnswer the question. You were as evasive then >>>>as you are now.
but elsewhere in this thread
John Bowes made it clear that he regards Georgina Beyers as having >>>>>been a good woman - for example he said: "Women deserve the rights >>>>>they've fought for over the last fifty odd years by people like >>>>>Georgina Beyer. A better human being than you'll ever be Rich! "
I don't speak for other people. The question wasn't directed at any >>>>third party, it was directed at you.
It is certainly one opinion; but you may feel that John Bowes has not >>>>>adequaetly explained just why he holds that view. Was she a woman in >>>>>your view, Bill?
Of course he wasn't a woman. He was a transvestite. Transvestites have >>>>never been women and never will be.
Bill.
And there we have the nub of the issue - languages change to meet new >>>circumstances, and there is often resistance to those changes. See for >>>example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgina_Beyer
where the words "she" and ""her"" are used throughout, and from the >>>references those words were used consistently by her political allies
and opposing parties. Whatever words you want to use, she was first a >>>human being, a citizen of New Zealand, and a representative of her >>>electorate. She and others who have gone through or go through similar >>>medical and other related procedures remain citizens, entitled to
human rights and our respect. Using definitions of words as a weapon >>>against some people in our country is not productive, it is not >>>consistent with qualities such as respect, recognition of individuals,
or human rights, or of equal opportunity which are principles said to
be shared by most political parties. To foment disagreements through >>>petty use of words is not helpful to the New Zealand most want to live >>>in. I am confident that you BR have the capacity to see that semantic >>>arguments while important, should nit be used to foment dissent where none >>>is needed; our laws should recognise all New Zealanders and treat them >>>fairly, and at times careful use of language is needed to avoisd
needless misunderstandings and unhelpful arguments.
enjoying her right to freedom of speech were disrespecting her and others who >>share her beliefs.
There are two sides to this and so far you have acknowledged only one side.
You are being overly simplistic - and I suspect you are trying to
distract from the reality that there are many different views; and
that deliberate provocation makes achieving mutual respect and
understanding of different positions difficult. Ideally we should all
be able to agree that all New Zealanders deserve to enjoy normal human >rights, that we should respect all others regardless of differences
while also expecting reasonable and rational behaviour, as well as
mutual respect - some aspects of those ideals were clearly missing
from the clashes between those holding different views that you have
referred to. .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 2 May 2023 02:36:48 -0000 (UTC), TonyYes that is exactly what I said - the fact that those who attacked Posie Parker
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You are being overly simplistic - and I suspect you are trying to
On Tue, 02 May 2023 05:22:49 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:Ecellent, so you clearly agree that the people who preevented Posie Parker >>>from
On Mon, 01 May 2023 21:57:31 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
What is a woman Rich80105?
Bill.
We had that discussion a few weeks ago -
Yes, and you never did asnswer the question. You were as evasive then >>>>>as you are now.
but elsewhere in this thread
John Bowes made it clear that he regards Georgina Beyers as having >>>>>>been a good woman - for example he said: "Women deserve the rights >>>>>>they've fought for over the last fifty odd years by people like >>>>>>Georgina Beyer. A better human being than you'll ever be Rich! "
I don't speak for other people. The question wasn't directed at any >>>>>third party, it was directed at you.
It is certainly one opinion; but you may feel that John Bowes has not >>>>>>adequaetly explained just why he holds that view. Was she a woman in >>>>>>your view, Bill?
Of course he wasn't a woman. He was a transvestite. Transvestites have >>>>>never been women and never will be.
Bill.
And there we have the nub of the issue - languages change to meet new >>>>circumstances, and there is often resistance to those changes. See for >>>>example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgina_Beyer
where the words "she" and ""her"" are used throughout, and from the >>>>references those words were used consistently by her political allies >>>>and opposing parties. Whatever words you want to use, she was first a >>>>human being, a citizen of New Zealand, and a representative of her >>>>electorate. She and others who have gone through or go through similar >>>>medical and other related procedures remain citizens, entitled to
human rights and our respect. Using definitions of words as a weapon >>>>against some people in our country is not productive, it is not >>>>consistent with qualities such as respect, recognition of individuals, >>>>or human rights, or of equal opportunity which are principles said to >>>>be shared by most political parties. To foment disagreements through >>>>petty use of words is not helpful to the New Zealand most want to live >>>>in. I am confident that you BR have the capacity to see that semantic >>>>arguments while important, should nit be used to foment dissent where none >>>>is needed; our laws should recognise all New Zealanders and treat them >>>>fairly, and at times careful use of language is needed to avoisd >>>>needless misunderstandings and unhelpful arguments.
enjoying her right to freedom of speech were disrespecting her and others who
share her beliefs.
There are two sides to this and so far you have acknowledged only one side. >>
distract from the reality that there are many different views; and
that deliberate provocation makes achieving mutual respect and >>understanding of different positions difficult. Ideally we should all
be able to agree that all New Zealanders deserve to enjoy normal human >>rights, that we should respect all others regardless of differences
while also expecting reasonable and rational behaviour, as well as
mutual respect - some aspects of those ideals were clearly missing
from the clashes between those holding different views that you have >>referred to. .
did not allow her to speak shows massive disrespect. I saw no evidence at all >of any disrespect by Posie and her supporters.
I am still pleased that your post said almolst exactl;y that except you forgot >to make it balanced.
Clear now?
On Tue, 2 May 2023 21:03:54 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe spinoff is not worthy of my time. And you fail to understand what you wrote, that is a very sad thing. Maybe you should stop writing altogether.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 2 May 2023 02:36:48 -0000 (UTC), TonyYes that is exactly what I said - the fact that those who attacked Posie >>Parker
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You are being overly simplistic - and I suspect you are trying to >>>distract from the reality that there are many different views; and
On Tue, 02 May 2023 05:22:49 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:Ecellent, so you clearly agree that the people who preevented Posie Parker >>>>from
On Mon, 01 May 2023 21:57:31 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
What is a woman Rich80105?
Bill.
We had that discussion a few weeks ago -
Yes, and you never did asnswer the question. You were as evasive then >>>>>>as you are now.
but elsewhere in this thread
John Bowes made it clear that he regards Georgina Beyers as having >>>>>>>been a good woman - for example he said: "Women deserve the rights >>>>>>>they've fought for over the last fifty odd years by people like >>>>>>>Georgina Beyer. A better human being than you'll ever be Rich! "
I don't speak for other people. The question wasn't directed at any >>>>>>third party, it was directed at you.
It is certainly one opinion; but you may feel that John Bowes has not >>>>>>>adequaetly explained just why he holds that view. Was she a woman in >>>>>>>your view, Bill?
Of course he wasn't a woman. He was a transvestite. Transvestites have >>>>>>never been women and never will be.
Bill.
And there we have the nub of the issue - languages change to meet new >>>>>circumstances, and there is often resistance to those changes. See for >>>>>example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgina_Beyer
where the words "she" and ""her"" are used throughout, and from the >>>>>references those words were used consistently by her political allies >>>>>and opposing parties. Whatever words you want to use, she was first a >>>>>human being, a citizen of New Zealand, and a representative of her >>>>>electorate. She and others who have gone through or go through similar >>>>>medical and other related procedures remain citizens, entitled to >>>>>human rights and our respect. Using definitions of words as a weapon >>>>>against some people in our country is not productive, it is not >>>>>consistent with qualities such as respect, recognition of individuals, >>>>>or human rights, or of equal opportunity which are principles said to >>>>>be shared by most political parties. To foment disagreements through >>>>>petty use of words is not helpful to the New Zealand most want to live >>>>>in. I am confident that you BR have the capacity to see that semantic >>>>>arguments while important, should nit be used to foment dissent where none >>>>>is needed; our laws should recognise all New Zealanders and treat them >>>>>fairly, and at times careful use of language is needed to avoisd >>>>>needless misunderstandings and unhelpful arguments.
enjoying her right to freedom of speech were disrespecting her and others >>>>who
share her beliefs.
There are two sides to this and so far you have acknowledged only one side. >>>
that deliberate provocation makes achieving mutual respect and >>>understanding of different positions difficult. Ideally we should all
be able to agree that all New Zealanders deserve to enjoy normal human >>>rights, that we should respect all others regardless of differences
while also expecting reasonable and rational behaviour, as well as
mutual respect - some aspects of those ideals were clearly missing
from the clashes between those holding different views that you have >>>referred to. .
did not allow her to speak shows massive disrespect. I saw no evidence at all >>of any disrespect by Posie and her supporters.
I am still pleased that your post said almolst exactl;y that except you >>forgot
to make it balanced.
Clear now?
As always you choose to see only what you wish to see. There was
little respect for the opinions of others from many at that fracas - >including Minshull, Tamaki and those protesting against bigotry. Many
of them saw themselves as giving "due respect" to the "other side",
but there was little respect from anyone.
You could improve your understanding by reading this: >https://thespinoff.co.nz/the-side-eye/02-05-2023/the-side-eye-the-trans-tipping-point
On Tue, 2 May 2023 00:34:59 -0700 (PDT), John Bowestreated as women even though the facts and the science prove they're men and don't have the right to walk all over the rights of women!
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 6:41:19?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 2 May 2023 02:36:48 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe simplicity is all yours Rich. Because you're a simpleton! Your avoidance of the issue at hand is noted. The subject under discussion isn't about many different points of view it's about the feral nature of the tranny's like you demanding they be
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:You are being overly simplistic - and I suspect you are trying to
On Tue, 02 May 2023 05:22:49 +1200, BR <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:Ecellent, so you clearly agree that the people who preevented Posie Parker from
On Mon, 01 May 2023 21:57:31 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
What is a woman Rich80105?
Bill.
We had that discussion a few weeks ago -
Yes, and you never did asnswer the question. You were as evasive then >> >>>as you are now.
but elsewhere in this thread
John Bowes made it clear that he regards Georgina Beyers as having
been a good woman - for example he said: "Women deserve the rights
they've fought for over the last fifty odd years by people like
Georgina Beyer. A better human being than you'll ever be Rich! "
I don't speak for other people. The question wasn't directed at any
third party, it was directed at you.
It is certainly one opinion; but you may feel that John Bowes has not >> >>>>adequaetly explained just why he holds that view. Was she a woman in >> >>>>your view, Bill?
Of course he wasn't a woman. He was a transvestite. Transvestites have >> >>>never been women and never will be.
Bill.
And there we have the nub of the issue - languages change to meet new >> >>circumstances, and there is often resistance to those changes. See for >> >>example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgina_Beyer
where the words "she" and ""her"" are used throughout, and from the
references those words were used consistently by her political allies >> >>and opposing parties. Whatever words you want to use, she was first a >> >>human being, a citizen of New Zealand, and a representative of her
electorate. She and others who have gone through or go through similar >> >>medical and other related procedures remain citizens, entitled to
human rights and our respect. Using definitions of words as a weapon
against some people in our country is not productive, it is not
consistent with qualities such as respect, recognition of individuals, >> >>or human rights, or of equal opportunity which are principles said to >> >>be shared by most political parties. To foment disagreements through
petty use of words is not helpful to the New Zealand most want to live >> >>in. I am confident that you BR have the capacity to see that semantic >> >>arguments while important, should nit be used to foment dissent where none
is needed; our laws should recognise all New Zealanders and treat them >> >>fairly, and at times careful use of language is needed to avoisd
needless misunderstandings and unhelpful arguments.
enjoying her right to freedom of speech were disrespecting her and others who
share her beliefs.
There are two sides to this and so far you have acknowledged only one side.
distract from the reality that there are many different views; and
that deliberate provocation makes achieving mutual respect and
understanding of different positions difficult. Ideally we should all
be able to agree that all New Zealanders deserve to enjoy normal human
rights, that we should respect all others regardless of differences
while also expecting reasonable and rational behaviour, as well as
mutual respect - some aspects of those ideals were clearly missing
from the clashes between those holding different views that you have
referred to. .
Because of the simple biological fact that you and the left ignore Rich! he fact that men can't be women no matter what bullshit this Labour propaganda site might claim!Your weasel words mean nothing like so many of your posts defending the undefendable!https://thespinoff.co.nz/the-side-eye/02-05-2023/the-side-eye-the-trans-tipping-point
Now tell us what you believe in "undefendable", John . . .
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:You ain't missing nothing Tony. It's just a stupid diatribe blaming the straight community for showing their utter contempt for fucking imbeciles like Rich and the tranny community. Showing what crybabys supporters of the tranny mental aberration they
On Tue, 2 May 2023 21:03:54 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 2 May 2023 02:36:48 -0000 (UTC), TonyYes that is exactly what I said - the fact that those who attacked Posie >>Parker
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 02 May 2023 05:22:49 +1200, BR <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:Ecellent, so you clearly agree that the people who preevented Posie Parker
On Mon, 01 May 2023 21:57:31 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
What is a woman Rich80105?
Bill.
We had that discussion a few weeks ago -
Yes, and you never did asnswer the question. You were as evasive then >>>>>>as you are now.
but elsewhere in this threadI don't speak for other people. The question wasn't directed at any >>>>>>third party, it was directed at you.
John Bowes made it clear that he regards Georgina Beyers as having >>>>>>>been a good woman - for example he said: "Women deserve the rights >>>>>>>they've fought for over the last fifty odd years by people like >>>>>>>Georgina Beyer. A better human being than you'll ever be Rich! " >>>>>>
It is certainly one opinion; but you may feel that John Bowes has not >>>>>>>adequaetly explained just why he holds that view. Was she a woman in >>>>>>>your view, Bill?
Of course he wasn't a woman. He was a transvestite. Transvestites have >>>>>>never been women and never will be.
Bill.
And there we have the nub of the issue - languages change to meet new >>>>>circumstances, and there is often resistance to those changes. See for >>>>>example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgina_Beyer
where the words "she" and ""her"" are used throughout, and from the >>>>>references those words were used consistently by her political allies >>>>>and opposing parties. Whatever words you want to use, she was first a >>>>>human being, a citizen of New Zealand, and a representative of her >>>>>electorate. She and others who have gone through or go through similar >>>>>medical and other related procedures remain citizens, entitled to >>>>>human rights and our respect. Using definitions of words as a weapon >>>>>against some people in our country is not productive, it is not >>>>>consistent with qualities such as respect, recognition of individuals, >>>>>or human rights, or of equal opportunity which are principles said to >>>>>be shared by most political parties. To foment disagreements through >>>>>petty use of words is not helpful to the New Zealand most want to live >>>>>in. I am confident that you BR have the capacity to see that semantic >>>>>arguments while important, should nit be used to foment dissent where none
is needed; our laws should recognise all New Zealanders and treat them >>>>>fairly, and at times careful use of language is needed to avoisd >>>>>needless misunderstandings and unhelpful arguments.
from
enjoying her right to freedom of speech were disrespecting her and others
who
share her beliefs.
There are two sides to this and so far you have acknowledged only one side.
You are being overly simplistic - and I suspect you are trying to >>>distract from the reality that there are many different views; and >>>that deliberate provocation makes achieving mutual respect and >>>understanding of different positions difficult. Ideally we should all >>>be able to agree that all New Zealanders deserve to enjoy normal human >>>rights, that we should respect all others regardless of differences >>>while also expecting reasonable and rational behaviour, as well as >>>mutual respect - some aspects of those ideals were clearly missing >>>from the clashes between those holding different views that you have >>>referred to. .
did not allow her to speak shows massive disrespect. I saw no evidence at all
of any disrespect by Posie and her supporters.
I am still pleased that your post said almolst exactl;y that except you >>forgot
to make it balanced.
Clear now?
As always you choose to see only what you wish to see. There was
little respect for the opinions of others from many at that fracas - >including Minshull, Tamaki and those protesting against bigotry. Many
of them saw themselves as giving "due respect" to the "other side",
but there was little respect from anyone.
You could improve your understanding by reading this: >https://thespinoff.co.nz/the-side-eye/02-05-2023/the-side-eye-the-trans-tipping-pointThe spinoff is not worthy of my time. And you fail to understand what you wrote, that is a very sad thing. Maybe you should stop writing altogether.
On Tue, 02 May 2023 05:22:49 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 01 May 2023 21:57:31 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
What is a woman Rich80105?
Bill.
We had that discussion a few weeks ago -
Yes, and you never did asnswer the question. You were as evasive then
as you are now.
but elsewhere in this thread
John Bowes made it clear that he regards Georgina Beyers as having
been a good woman - for example he said: "Women deserve the rights >>>they've fought for over the last fifty odd years by people like
Georgina Beyer. A better human being than you'll ever be Rich! "
I don't speak for other people. The question wasn't directed at any
third party, it was directed at you.
It is certainly one opinion; but you may feel that John Bowes has not >>>adequaetly explained just why he holds that view. Was she a woman in
your view, Bill?
Of course he wasn't a woman. He was a transvestite. Transvestites have >>never been women and never will be.
Bill.
And there we have the nub of the issue - languages change to meet new >circumstances, and there is often resistance to those changes. See for >example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgina_Beyer
where the words "she" and ""her"" are used throughout, and from the >references those words were used consistently by her political allies
and opposing parties.
Whatever words you want to use, she was first a
human being, a citizen of New Zealand, and a representative of her >electorate.
She and others who have gone through or go through similar
medical and other related procedures remain citizens, entitled to
human rights and our respect. Using definitions of words as a weapon
against some people in our country is not productive, it is not
consistent with qualities such as respect, recognition of individuals,
or human rights, or of equal opportunity which are principles said to
be shared by most political parties.
To foment disagreements through
petty use of words is not helpful to the New Zealand most want to live
in.
I am confident that you BR have the capacity to see that semantic
arguments while important, should be used to foment dissent where none
is needed;
our laws should recognise all New Zealanders and treat them
fairly, and at times careful use of language is needed to avoisd
needless misunderstandings and unhelpful arguments.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 108:53:54 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,710 |
