• What is a women?

    From amdx@21:1/5 to All on Fri Mar 25 08:07:12 2022
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

     How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

     Female
     Noun
    an adult female human being.

     Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

                               Mikek

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to amdx on Fri Mar 25 06:31:36 2022
    On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 12:07:19 AM UTC+11, amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions from Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    It's probably from the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language. The Complete Oxford was originally published in 13 volumes, but there's a two volume version in very small print which comes with a magnifying glass.

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary>

    This isn't published by Google - it's one of the resources that search engines can access and Google isn't in a position to delete any of the entries.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to amdx on Fri Mar 25 13:59:18 2022
    They might redefine things, but you can work around it.

    What is the primary purpose of a woman's breasts?

    Few Westerners are brave enough to answer that one. Politicians won't
    touch it with a 10 foot pole. Because it destroys the cannibal left's
    agenda.

    I'm not much worried about big tech algorithms. On YouTube, we work around their banning of certain words, with alternate spellings.

    Something is wrong with YouTube moderators, I haven't been banned in months!


    amdx <amdx@knology.net> wrote:

    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

     How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

     Female
     Noun
    an adult female human being.

     Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

                               Mikek


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to amdx on Fri Mar 25 13:50:53 2022
    Anybody know how to change Xnews character set so it doesn't make an abortion out of this poster's posts?


    amdx <amdx@knology.net> wrote:

    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

     How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

     Female
     Noun
    an adult female human being.

     Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

                               Mikek


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to amdx on Fri Mar 25 10:04:37 2022
    On 3/25/2022 9:07 AM, amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

     How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

     Female
     Noun

    Something that run away when she see you coming

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Fri Mar 25 13:51:46 2022
    Bozo is a cannibal leftist.


    "the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions"
    (Bill Sloman)

    "the Mueller investigation was about Trump only because Trump made it so"
    (Bozo paraphrased)

    Bozo Bill Sloman, the most frequent troll in this group, is an attention-craving chronic liar who cannot be reasoned with...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to bitrex on Fri Mar 25 15:22:10 2022
    bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    amdx wrote:

    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun

    Something that run away when she see you coming

    Because he's wielding that nasty SCIENCE thing!

    We will see. Let's see if women in fact don't do anything about transgender bullies beating up on girls in sports. That is a huge question.

    Have you heard the one about Blackfeet Indians mutilating their unfaithful wives? He cuts off her nose. They still do!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to John Doe on Fri Mar 25 13:00:20 2022
    On 3/25/2022 11:22 AM, John Doe wrote:
    bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    amdx wrote:

    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun

    Something that run away when she see you coming

    Because he's wielding that nasty SCIENCE thing!

    We will see. Let's see if women in fact don't do anything about transgender bullies beating up on girls in sports. That is a huge question.

    Definitely an issue that really connects with the real-world problems of
    the regular American. Lol

    Have you heard the one about Blackfeet Indians mutilating their unfaithful wives? He cuts off her nose. They still do!

    Yeah men have abused women all the time throughout history I'm not
    surprised. John & Yoko wrote a song about it was called "Woman Is the
    Nigger of the World":

    <https://youtu.be/iYjEz441I4M>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From amdx@21:1/5 to bitrex on Fri Mar 25 14:58:45 2022
    On 3/25/2022 9:04 AM, bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 9:07 AM, amdx wrote:
     From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

      How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

      Female
      Noun

    Something that run away when she see you coming

    That would be,
    Something that run away when she sees you coming.

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to bitrex on Fri Mar 25 20:21:09 2022
    bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    John Doe wrote:
    bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
    amdx wrote:

    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female Noun

    Something that run away when she see you coming

    Because he's wielding that nasty SCIENCE thing!

    We will see. Let's see if women in fact don't do anything about
    transgender bullies beating up on girls in sports. That is a huge
    question.

    Definitely an issue that really connects with the real-world problems of
    the regular American. Lol

    It has a lot of meaning to low income black females who (used to) depend
    on sports for scholarships, income, and notoriety.

    Have you heard the one about Blackfeet Indians mutilating their
    unfaithful wives? He cuts off her nose. They still do!

    Yeah men have abused women all the time throughout history

    Bullshit. Men have loved and cared for women throughout human history.
    That's one reason we are at the top of the food chain.

    The idea women are "the niger of the world" is hilarious, unless you are (understandably) desperate for pussy.

    If bitrex isn't being racist, he's being sexist, or both.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jasen Betts@21:1/5 to John Doe on Fri Mar 25 20:31:24 2022
    On 2022-03-25, John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote:
    Anybody know how to change Xnews character set so it doesn't make an abortion out of this poster's posts?


    So you can weaoponise another newesreader feature to inconvenience
    respondents? I can't see any reason offer assistance, or even try
    to reduce the syllable count in this response.

    --
    Jasen.

    Go ahead, throw another tantrum, Edward will love that.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to Jasen Betts on Fri Mar 25 21:12:16 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    Huh???

    I want to see the poster's posts more clearly.

    A pointless troll reply...

    --
    Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:

    Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.freedyn.de!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx46.iad.POSTED!not-
    for-mail
    From: Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org>
    Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
    Subject: Re: What is a women?
    Organization: JJ's own news server
    Message-ID: <t1l8qs$1oe$1@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org>
    References: <t1keq0$tv7$1@dont-email.me> <t1khbs$hgp$1@dont-email.me> Injection-Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2022 20:31:24 -0000 (UTC)
    Injection-Info: gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org; posting-host="localhost:127.0.0.1"; logging-data="1806"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org"
    User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
    X-Face: ?)Aw4rXwN5u0~$nqKj`xPz>xHCwgi^q+^?Ri*+R(&uv2=E1Q0Zk(>h!~o2ID@6{uf8s;a +M[5[U[QT7xFN%^gR"=tuJw%TXXR'Fp~W;(T"1(739R%m0Yyyv*gkGoPA.$b,D.w:z+<'"=-lVT?6 {T?=R^:W5g|E2#EhjKCa+nt":4b}dU7GYB*HBxn&Td$@f%.kl^:7X8rQWd[NTc"P"u6nkisze/Q;8 "9Z{peQF,w)7UjV$c|
    RO/mQW/NMgWfr5*$-Z%u46"/00mx-,\R'fLPe.)^
    Lines: 13
    X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
    NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2022 21:00:49 UTC
    Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2022 20:31:24 -0000 (UTC)
    X-Received-Bytes: 1547
    Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:664142

    On 2022-03-25, John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote:
    Anybody know how to change Xnews character set so it doesn't make an abortion
    out of this poster's posts?


    So you can weaoponise another newesreader feature to inconvenience respondents? I can't see any reason offer assistance, or even try
    to reduce the syllable count in this response.

    --
    Jasen.

    Go ahead, throw another tantrum, Edward will love that.


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Del Rosso@21:1/5 to amdx on Fri Mar 25 17:24:23 2022
    amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    Mikek

    Biden explicitely stated that he would nominate a "black woman" but the
    woman in question doesn't know what he meant because she's not a
    biologist even though sex isn't determined by biology. I don't
    understand why you have trouble understanding that.

    --
    Defund the Thought Police

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Del Rosso@21:1/5 to bitrex on Fri Mar 25 17:28:35 2022
    bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 11:22 AM, John Doe wrote:

    We will see. Let's see if women in fact don't do anything about
    transgender bullies beating up on girls in sports. That is a huge
    question.

    Definitely an issue that really connects with the real-world problems
    of the regular American. Lol

    That's interesting, if you mean that it isn't important because it
    doesn't involve most people. Slavery and Jim Crow didn't involve most
    people.


    --
    Defund the Thought Police

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to Jeroen Belleman on Fri Mar 25 21:30:01 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    If you are not technically capable enough to ignore a thread branch,
    forget about using a kill file.

    Blabbing about its imaginary kill file friend and how everybody else
    spoils it...

    --
    Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!OJ1dlzimlgYiz7cymAcDYg.user.46.165.242.91.POSTED!not-for-mail
    From: Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please>
    Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
    Subject: Re: What is a women?
    Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2022 22:17:01 +0100
    Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
    Message-ID: <t1lbgd$v3j$1@gioia.aioe.org>
    References: <t1keq0$tv7$1@dont-email.me> <t1khbs$hgp$1@dont-email.me> <t1l8qs$1oe$1@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org>
    Mime-Version: 1.0
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="31859"; posting-host="OJ1dlzimlgYiz7cymAcDYg.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
    User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0
    X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
    Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:664146

    On 2022-03-25 21:31, Jasen Betts wrote:
    On 2022-03-25, John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote:
    Anybody know how to change Xnews character set so it doesn't make an abortion
    out of this poster's posts?


    So you can weaoponise another newesreader feature to inconvenience
    respondents? I can't see any reason offer assistance, or even try
    to reduce the syllable count in this response.


    I *do* wish people would stop arguing with this entity. If it
    weren't for those, I wouldn't get to see its inanities at all.

    Jeroen Belleman



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Hernandez@21:1/5 to All on Fri Mar 25 21:55:57 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

    The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

    And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

    The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
    breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
    CLUELESS...

    NOBODY likes the John Doe troll's contentless spam.

    And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has continued to post incorrectly formatted USENET articles that are devoid of content (latest example on
    Fri, 25 Mar 2022 21:12:16 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <t1lb7g$h30$2@dont-email.me>).

    This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
    readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
    follow the rules it uses to troll other posters.

    6UfLK87VDLW8

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rickster@21:1/5 to amdx on Fri Mar 25 15:07:06 2022
    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 9:07:19 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    I suppose you think this definition is clear? You do understand it requires you to define "male" first, right? If you define "male" or "man" similarly, you end up saying it produces "gametes" which fertilize the female gametes.

    Seems rather circuitous.

    --

    Rick C.

    - Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    - Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rickster@21:1/5 to Tom Del Rosso on Fri Mar 25 15:08:05 2022
    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    Mikek
    Biden explicitely stated that he would nominate a "black woman" but the
    woman in question doesn't know what he meant because she's not a
    biologist even though sex isn't determined by biology. I don't
    understand why you have trouble understanding that.


    Anyone in doubt of their own gender, can simply check their driver's license.

    --

    Rick C.

    + Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    + Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rickster@21:1/5 to Tom Del Rosso on Fri Mar 25 15:09:48 2022
    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:28:42 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 11:22 AM, John Doe wrote:

    We will see. Let's see if women in fact don't do anything about
    transgender bullies beating up on girls in sports. That is a huge
    question.

    Definitely an issue that really connects with the real-world problems
    of the regular American. Lol
    That's interesting, if you mean that it isn't important because it
    doesn't involve most people. Slavery and Jim Crow didn't involve most
    people.

    I like the way you ask him a question, then answer it for him. Excellent technique.

    --

    Rick C.

    -- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to John Doe on Fri Mar 25 18:14:58 2022
    On 3/25/2022 4:21 PM, John Doe wrote:
    bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    John Doe wrote:
    bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
    amdx wrote:

    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female Noun

    Something that run away when she see you coming

    Because he's wielding that nasty SCIENCE thing!

    We will see. Let's see if women in fact don't do anything about
    transgender bullies beating up on girls in sports. That is a huge
    question.

    Definitely an issue that really connects with the real-world problems of
    the regular American. Lol

    It has a lot of meaning to low income black females who (used to) depend
    on sports for scholarships, income, and notoriety.

    Only a tiny fraction of the population makes any money at all off
    playing sports, and only a tiny fraction of that ever make decent money. University sports are a fuckin' racket as anyone could tell you. and
    even Debi Thomas who won bronze at the Calgary Olympics in '88 was
    almost homeless as of 2015, even competing and winning at the top levels
    is no guarantee of anything.

    Despite being the first black FEMALE to ever win a medal at the Winter
    Games for the good ol' USA, she lost to that German so her coach dropped
    her and nobody gave a shit about her anymore:

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debi_Thomas#Personal_life>

    What a racket

    Have you heard the one about Blackfeet Indians mutilating their
    unfaithful wives? He cuts off her nose. They still do!

    Yeah men have abused women all the time throughout history

    Bullshit. Men have loved and cared for women throughout human history.

    JD's operating with some definition of "men" that excludes male
    Blackfeet Indians apparently but that wouldn't surprise me, either. Or
    maybe he figures men beat their wives because they love them too much lol

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to Jasen Betts on Fri Mar 25 22:17:01 2022
    On 2022-03-25 21:31, Jasen Betts wrote:
    On 2022-03-25, John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote:
    Anybody know how to change Xnews character set so it doesn't make an abortion
    out of this poster's posts?


    So you can weaoponise another newesreader feature to inconvenience respondents? I can't see any reason offer assistance, or even try
    to reduce the syllable count in this response.


    I *do* wish people would stop arguing with this entity. If it
    weren't for those, I wouldn't get to see its inanities at all.

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to bitrex on Fri Mar 25 18:25:15 2022
    On 3/25/2022 6:23 PM, bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 6:09 PM, Rickster wrote:
    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:28:42 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 11:22 AM, John Doe wrote:

    We will see. Let's see if women in fact don't do anything about
    transgender bullies beating up on girls in sports. That is a huge
    question.

    Definitely an issue that really connects with the real-world problems
    of the regular American. Lol
    That's interesting, if you mean that it isn't important because it
    doesn't involve most people. Slavery and Jim Crow didn't involve most
    people.

    I like the way you ask him a question, then answer it for him.
    Excellent technique.


    I like that it does save time and it was a dumb analogy, anyway.

    Every time Tucker Carlson gets a time out on Twitter it's BASICALLY the
    same as the Holocaust

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Rickster on Fri Mar 25 18:23:47 2022
    On 3/25/2022 6:09 PM, Rickster wrote:
    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:28:42 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 11:22 AM, John Doe wrote:

    We will see. Let's see if women in fact don't do anything about
    transgender bullies beating up on girls in sports. That is a huge
    question.

    Definitely an issue that really connects with the real-world problems
    of the regular American. Lol
    That's interesting, if you mean that it isn't important because it
    doesn't involve most people. Slavery and Jim Crow didn't involve most
    people.

    I like the way you ask him a question, then answer it for him. Excellent technique.


    I like that it does save time and it was a dumb analogy, anyway.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to amdx on Fri Mar 25 18:49:09 2022
    On 3/25/2022 3:58 PM, amdx wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 9:04 AM, bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 9:07 AM, amdx wrote:
     From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

      How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

      Female
      Noun

    Something that run away when she see you coming

    That would be,
    Something that run away when she sees you coming.


    Great. He finds a dictionary and now he self-identifies as my grammar
    teacher.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Rickster on Fri Mar 25 18:34:39 2022
    On 3/25/2022 6:07 PM, Rickster wrote:
    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 9:07:19 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    I suppose you think this definition is clear? You do understand it requires you to define "male" first, right? If you define "male" or "man" similarly, you end up saying it produces "gametes" which fertilize the female gametes.

    Seems rather circuitous.


    Every word in this dictionary is defined in terms of other words in the dictionary!

    What the fuck is this. Must be some kind of conspiracy.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Allison@21:1/5 to bitrex on Fri Mar 25 16:14:22 2022
    bitrex wrote:
    ===========
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    Seems rather circuitous.

    Every word in this dictionary is defined in terms of other words in the dictionary!


    ** Writers of dictionaries assume readers are speakers of the language concerned.
    ( except for language crossover versions)

    The definitions are derived from researching publications in the language including newspapers and magazines.
    Over time, definitions may change while most words have a variety of meanings depending on context.
    The reader has to sort that out.

    Their useful purpose is to offer readers pithy definitions, at a point in time, with the commonly accepted spellings.
    Dictionaries do NOT define the language nor include many special or technical terms.
    Also, while English is spoken in many countries, corresponding dictionaries differ quite a bit in definitions and spellings.


    What the fuck is this. Must be some kind of conspiracy.

    ** Only looks that way to the terminally paranoid.



    ...... Phil

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Phil Allison on Fri Mar 25 20:25:42 2022
    On 3/25/2022 7:14 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
    bitrex wrote:
    ===========
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    Seems rather circuitous.

    Every word in this dictionary is defined in terms of other words in the
    dictionary!


    ** Writers of dictionaries assume readers are speakers of the language concerned.
    ( except for language crossover versions)

    The definitions are derived from researching publications in the language including newspapers and magazines.
    Over time, definitions may change while most words have a variety of meanings depending on context.
    The reader has to sort that out.

    Their useful purpose is to offer readers pithy definitions, at a point in time, with the commonly accepted spellings.
    Dictionaries do NOT define the language nor include many special or technical terms.
    Also, while English is spoken in many countries, corresponding dictionaries differ quite a bit in definitions and spellings.

    Yes, there's no "one True English" or any other language. The English of yesterday is different than the English of today which is different than
    the English of tomorrow & it's always been that way.

    Would be easier to understand my acquaintance from Scotland if it wasn't
    that way, I'm sure my 5x great grandfather could just fine, in text it's
    okay, but 300 years and 3 beers in him later at the "pub" I can grasp
    maybe 50% of what he says on the first try. Eh?

    What the fuck is this. Must be some kind of conspiracy.

    ** Only looks that way to the terminally paranoid.

    I called a liquor store a "packie" and he thought I was being a bigot,
    doesn't have any connotation that way in New England it's short for
    "package store" but pronounced the same as "Paki"

    ...... Phil


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Phil Allison on Fri Mar 25 20:44:45 2022
    On 3/25/2022 8:41 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
    bitrex wrote:
    ===========


    ** Writers of dictionaries assume readers are speakers of the language concerned.
    ( except for language crossover versions)

    The definitions are derived from researching publications in the language including newspapers and magazines.
    Over time, definitions may change while most words have a variety of meanings depending on context.
    The reader has to sort that out.

    Their useful purpose is to offer readers pithy definitions, at a point in time, with the commonly accepted spellings.
    Dictionaries do NOT define the language nor include many special or technical terms.
    Also, while English is spoken in many countries, corresponding dictionaries differ quite a bit in definitions and spellings.

    I called a liquor store a "packie" and he thought I was being a bigot,
    doesn't have any connotation that way in New England it's short for
    "package store" but pronounced the same as "Paki"


    ** There is an Australian dictionary - " The Macquarie Dictionary" .
    My edition has over 2000 large pages.
    One entry is for " turd strangler ".

    Guess what it means ?


    ..... Phil

    Ahh, is it the opposite of something that's a "piece o' piss"?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Allison@21:1/5 to bitrex on Fri Mar 25 17:41:51 2022
    bitrex wrote:
    ===========


    ** Writers of dictionaries assume readers are speakers of the language concerned.
    ( except for language crossover versions)

    The definitions are derived from researching publications in the language including newspapers and magazines.
    Over time, definitions may change while most words have a variety of meanings depending on context.
    The reader has to sort that out.

    Their useful purpose is to offer readers pithy definitions, at a point in time, with the commonly accepted spellings.
    Dictionaries do NOT define the language nor include many special or technical terms.
    Also, while English is spoken in many countries, corresponding dictionaries differ quite a bit in definitions and spellings.

    I called a liquor store a "packie" and he thought I was being a bigot, doesn't have any connotation that way in New England it's short for
    "package store" but pronounced the same as "Paki"


    ** There is an Australian dictionary - " The Macquarie Dictionary" .
    My edition has over 2000 large pages.
    One entry is for " turd strangler ".

    Guess what it means ?


    ..... Phil

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Phil Allison on Fri Mar 25 21:13:33 2022
    On 3/25/2022 8:57 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
    On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 11:44:53 AM UTC+11, bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 8:41 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
    bitrex wrote:
    ===========


    ** Writers of dictionaries assume readers are speakers of the language concerned.
    ( except for language crossover versions)

    The definitions are derived from researching publications in the language including newspapers and magazines.
    Over time, definitions may change while most words have a variety of meanings depending on context.
    The reader has to sort that out.

    Their useful purpose is to offer readers pithy definitions, at a point in time, with the commonly accepted spellings.
    Dictionaries do NOT define the language nor include many special or technical terms.
    Also, while English is spoken in many countries, corresponding dictionaries differ quite a bit in definitions and spellings.

    I called a liquor store a "packie" and he thought I was being a bigot, >>>> doesn't have any connotation that way in New England it's short for
    "package store" but pronounced the same as "Paki"


    ** There is an Australian dictionary - " The Macquarie Dictionary" .
    My edition has over 2000 large pages.
    One entry is for " turd strangler ".

    Guess what it means ?



    Ahh, is it the opposite of something that's a "piece o' piss"?


    ** No, it's Aussie slang for a plumber.


    ...... Phil


    That make sense.

    I thought it was like if your favorite team does really badly in a game
    you say "That was a real turd strangler"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Allison@21:1/5 to bitrex on Fri Mar 25 17:57:17 2022
    On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 11:44:53 AM UTC+11, bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 8:41 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
    bitrex wrote:
    ===========


    ** Writers of dictionaries assume readers are speakers of the language concerned.
    ( except for language crossover versions)

    The definitions are derived from researching publications in the language including newspapers and magazines.
    Over time, definitions may change while most words have a variety of meanings depending on context.
    The reader has to sort that out.

    Their useful purpose is to offer readers pithy definitions, at a point in time, with the commonly accepted spellings.
    Dictionaries do NOT define the language nor include many special or technical terms.
    Also, while English is spoken in many countries, corresponding dictionaries differ quite a bit in definitions and spellings.

    I called a liquor store a "packie" and he thought I was being a bigot,
    doesn't have any connotation that way in New England it's short for
    "package store" but pronounced the same as "Paki"


    ** There is an Australian dictionary - " The Macquarie Dictionary" .
    My edition has over 2000 large pages.
    One entry is for " turd strangler ".

    Guess what it means ?



    Ahh, is it the opposite of something that's a "piece o' piss"?


    ** No, it's Aussie slang for a plumber.


    ...... Phil

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From amdx@21:1/5 to Phil Allison on Fri Mar 25 21:44:39 2022
    On 3/25/2022 7:57 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
    On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 11:44:53 AM UTC+11, bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 8:41 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
    bitrex wrote:
    ===========
    ** Writers of dictionaries assume readers are speakers of the language concerned.
    ( except for language crossover versions)

    The definitions are derived from researching publications in the language including newspapers and magazines.
    Over time, definitions may change while most words have a variety of meanings depending on context.
    The reader has to sort that out.

    Their useful purpose is to offer readers pithy definitions, at a point in time, with the commonly accepted spellings.
    Dictionaries do NOT define the language nor include many special or technical terms.
    Also, while English is spoken in many countries, corresponding dictionaries differ quite a bit in definitions and spellings.

    I called a liquor store a "packie" and he thought I was being a bigot, >>>> doesn't have any connotation that way in New England it's short for
    "package store" but pronounced the same as "Paki"

    ** There is an Australian dictionary - " The Macquarie Dictionary" .
    My edition has over 2000 large pages.
    One entry is for " turd strangler ".

    Guess what it means ?



    Ahh, is it the opposite of something that's a "piece o' piss"?

    ** No, it's Aussie slang for a plumber.


    ...... Phil

     I was leaning towards Sphincter.
                    Mikek

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From amdx@21:1/5 to Rickster on Fri Mar 25 21:40:42 2022
    On 3/25/2022 5:07 PM, Rickster wrote:
    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 9:07:19 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.
    I suppose you think this definition is clear? You do understand it requires you to define "male" first, right? If you define "male" or "man" similarly, you end up saying it produces "gametes" which fertilize the female gametes.

    Seems rather circuitous.

    It seems you are confused and don't know the difference between a man
    and a woman?
                              Mikek

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From amdx@21:1/5 to bitrex on Fri Mar 25 21:38:00 2022
    On 3/25/2022 5:49 PM, bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 3:58 PM, amdx wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 9:04 AM, bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 9:07 AM, amdx wrote:
     From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

      How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

      Female
      Noun

    Something that run away when she see you coming

    That would be,
    Something that run away when she sees you coming.


    Great. He finds a dictionary and now he self-identifies as my grammar teacher.
    Well, I did get it half corrected! :-)

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to amdx on Sat Mar 26 14:18:27 2022
    On 26-Mar-22 12:07 am, amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

     How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

     Female
     Noun
    an adult female human being.

     Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

                               Mikek


    Dictionaries just tell you how words are used by native speakers of a
    language. They cannot help you make judgements about real-life issues.

    Sylvia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Liz Tuddenham@21:1/5 to Rickster on Sat Mar 26 08:23:51 2022
    Rickster <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    Mikek
    Biden explicitely stated that he would nominate a "black woman" but the woman in question doesn't know what he meant because she's not a
    biologist even though sex isn't determined by biology. I don't
    understand why you have trouble understanding that.


    Anyone in doubt of their own gender, can simply check their driver's license.

    Mine only shows 'sex', not 'gender'.

    --
    ~ Liz Tuddenham ~
    (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
    www.poppyrecords.co.uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to Edward Hernandez on Sat Mar 26 08:52:21 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    Poor liddle Eddie got spanked and just can't get over it.

    Unless Eddie is nym-shifting, it has never posted anything NORMAL
    except when it got a severe spanking...

    https://groups.google.com/g/sci.electronics.repair/c/MesPLcGU4BE

    Is the stalker a nym-shifting troll, or a newbie netcop wannabe?

    See also...
    Peter Weiner <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
    Edward H. <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
    Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com>

    Eddie is an example for all newbies. Don't get spanked!

    Spanked Eddie...

    --
    Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com> wrote:

    Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.freedyn.de!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx10.ams4.POSTED!
    not-for-mail
    From: Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: What is a women?
    Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,free.spam
    References: <t1keq0$tv7$1@dont-email.me> <t1khbs$hgp$1@dont-email.me> <t1l8qs$1oe$1@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org> <t1lb7g$h30$2@dont-email.me>
    Lines: 25
    Message-ID: <NTq%J.413695$an1.140642@usenetxs.com>
    X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
    NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2022 21:55:57 UTC
    Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2022 21:55:57 GMT
    X-Received-Bytes: 1500
    Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:664153 free.spam:17785

    The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

    The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

    And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

    The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
    breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
    CLUELESS...

    NOBODY likes the John Doe troll's contentless spam.

    And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has continued to post incorrectly formatted USENET articles that are devoid of content (latest example on
    Fri, 25 Mar 2022 21:12:16 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <t1lb7g$h30$2@dont-email.me>).

    This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
    readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even follow the rules it uses to troll other posters.

    6UfLK87VDLW8




    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to amdx on Sat Mar 26 09:09:12 2022
    amdx wrote:

    Rickster wrote:
    amdx wrote:

    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce
    eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    I suppose you think this definition is clear? You do understand it
    requires you to define "male" first, right? If you define "male" or
    "man" similarly, you end up saying it produces "gametes" which
    fertilize the female gametes. Seems rather circuitous.

    It seems you are confused and don't know the difference between a man
    and a woman?

    "the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions"
    (Bill "Bozo" Sloman)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to Phil Allison on Sat Mar 26 09:05:26 2022
    Phil Allison wrote:

    The definitions are derived from researching publications in the
    language including newspapers and magazines.

    Yep! Sometimes that happens after they have been tipped off by one of us ordinary users. Like if you notice the current definition does not fit the current usage.


    BUY NOW AND SAVE!!!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Hernandez@21:1/5 to All on Sat Mar 26 09:25:34 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

    The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

    And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

    The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
    breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
    CLUELESS...

    And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
    incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:52:21 -0000
    (UTC) in message-id <t1mk85$fm2$1@dont-email.me>.

    This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
    readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
    follow it's own rules that it uses to troll other posters.

    hIBoJohiRHmp

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Sat Mar 26 09:22:46 2022
    Sylvia Else wrote:

    amdx wrote:

    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

     How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

     Female
     Noun
    an adult female human being.

     Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    Dictionaries just tell you how words are used by native speakers of a language. They cannot help you make judgements about real-life issues.

    Only totally corrupt judges. Real judges use dictionaries every day all day
    to help make judgments. Semantics is their thing, or at least it's supposed
    to be.

    Judges must be language experts because they must understand the meaning of written laws. Their job is to apply law to facts. They cannot do that unless they know what words mean. The meaning of a particular word or phrase is frequently questioned in court cases. They debate meanings all the time.

    A law is only good if its meaning is understood. That is a thing between the lawmaker and the governed. Meanings are critically important in law.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Allison@21:1/5 to Jerfoff Dope on Sat Mar 26 02:56:18 2022
    Jerfoff Dope wrote:
    ------------------------
    Sylvia Else wrote:

    Dictionaries just tell you how words are used by native speakers of a language. They cannot help you make judgements about real-life issues.

    Real judges use dictionaries every day all day
    to help make judgments.

    ** Bullshit.

    Semantics is their thing,

    ** Bullshit.


    Judges must be language experts because they must understand the meaning of written laws.

    ** Legal jargon is nothing like ordinary language - fuckwit.

    FOAD .

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to Phil Allison on Sat Mar 26 10:44:10 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    So many Australian trolls, from such a squeaky little country...

    --
    Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

    X-Received: by 2002:a37:2f04:0:b0:663:397d:7051 with SMTP id v4-20020a372f04000000b00663397d7051mr9683474qkh.333.1648288579022; Sat, 26 Mar 2022 02:56:19 -0700 (PDT)
    X-Received: by 2002:a25:d211:0:b0:633:8b43:3a7a with SMTP id j17-20020a25d211000000b006338b433a7amr14273835ybg.344.1648288578859; Sat, 26 Mar 2022 02:56:18 -0700 (PDT)
    Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
    Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
    Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2022 02:56:18 -0700 (PDT)
    In-Reply-To: <t1mm15$fm2$5@dont-email.me>
    Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=118.208.231.160; posting-account=B_tJMAoAAAAmar-1r2H3x4CMhbFEou3n
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 118.208.231.160
    References: <t1keq0$tv7$1@dont-email.me> <ja7f03Fqb5eU2@mid.individual.net> <t1mm15$fm2$5@dont-email.me>
    User-Agent: G2/1.0
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Message-ID: <c3ba2c86-cb7d-49f7-9c02-373f68c8ae57n@googlegroups.com>
    Subject: Re: What is a women?
    From: Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com>
    Injection-Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2022 09:56:19 +0000
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
    Lines: 24
    Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:664203

    Jerfoff Dope wrote:
    ------------------------
    Sylvia Else wrote:

    Dictionaries just tell you how words are used by native speakers of a
    language. They cannot help you make judgements about real-life issues.

    Real judges use dictionaries every day all day
    to help make judgments.

    ** Bullshit.

    Semantics is their thing,

    ** Bullshit.


    Judges must be language experts because they must understand the meaning of >> written laws.

    ** Legal jargon is nothing like ordinary language - fuckwit.

    FOAD .





    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to Edward Hernandez on Sat Mar 26 10:44:58 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    Poor liddle Eddie got spanked and just can't get over it.

    Unless Eddie is nym-shifting, it has never posted anything NORMAL
    except when it got a severe spanking...

    https://groups.google.com/g/sci.electronics.repair/c/MesPLcGU4BE

    Is the stalker a nym-shifting troll, or a newbie netcop wannabe?

    See also...
    Peter Weiner <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
    Edward H. <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
    Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com>

    Eddie is an example for all newbies. Don't get spanked!

    Spanked Eddie...

    --
    Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com> wrote:

    Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.freedyn.de!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.
    net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx13.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
    From: Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: What is a women?
    Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,free.spam
    References: <t1keq0$tv7$1@dont-email.me> <t1khbs$hgp$1@dont-email.me> <t1l8qs$1oe$1@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org> <t1lb7g$h30$2@dont-email.me> <NTq%J.413695$an1.140642@usenetxs.com> <t1mk85$fm2$1@dont-email.me>
    Lines: 22
    Message-ID: <i_A%J.783089$5u1.558364@usenetxs.com>
    X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
    NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2022 09:25:34 UTC
    Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2022 09:25:34 GMT
    X-Received-Bytes: 1485
    Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:664201 free.spam:17789

    The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

    The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

    And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

    The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
    breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
    CLUELESS...

    And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:52:21 -0000
    (UTC) in message-id <t1mk85$fm2$1@dont-email.me>.

    This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
    readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even follow it's own rules that it uses to troll other posters.

    hIBoJohiRHmp



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Hernandez@21:1/5 to All on Sat Mar 26 10:54:09 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

    The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

    And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

    The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
    breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
    CLUELESS...

    And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
    incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Sat, 26 Mar 2022 10:45:09 -0000
    (UTC) in message-id <t1mqrl$um0$2@dont-email.me>.

    srgHdgwZHjST

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Sat Mar 26 10:55:14 2022
    One, especially a foulmouthed Australian troll like "Phil", might be
    surprised at how little "legal jargon" there is in a courtroom. Yes they do have a large vocabulary, but that's not what they excel at. Language usage, argument, and the ability to reference case law to support their argument, is what they excel at.

    Lawyers are easy to understand, even when they are lying. Communications is there thing. Legal jargon might be important when they are talking to a
    judge, when the judge is their only audience. But legal jargon most certainly is not what lawyers employ when they are trying to convince a jury.

    A large vocabulary is required because they must, to some degree, be knowledgeable of practically everything. That's a lot of jargon.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Hernandez@21:1/5 to All on Sat Mar 26 10:57:19 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

    The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

    And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

    The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
    breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
    CLUELESS...

    NOBODY likes the John Doe troll's contentless spam.

    And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has continued to post incorrectly formatted USENET articles that are devoid of content (latest example on
    Sat, 26 Mar 2022 10:55:39 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <t1mrfa$um0$4@dont-email.me>).

    Further, Troll Doe stated the following in message-id <svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000
    (UTC):

    Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
    except insults to this group.

    Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe's post ratio
    to USENET has been 55.7% of its posts contributing "nothing except
    insults" to USENET.

    This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
    readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
    follow the rules it uses to troll other posters.

    o6x0yDhxz5nw

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Del Rosso@21:1/5 to bitrex on Sat Mar 26 07:02:35 2022
    bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 6:09 PM, Rickster wrote:
    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:28:42 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 11:22 AM, John Doe wrote:

    We will see. Let's see if women in fact don't do anything about
    transgender bullies beating up on girls in sports. That is a huge
    question.

    Definitely an issue that really connects with the real-world
    problems of the regular American. Lol
    That's interesting, if you mean that it isn't important because it
    doesn't involve most people. Slavery and Jim Crow didn't involve
    most people.

    I like the way you ask him a question, then answer it for him.
    Excellent technique.

    I like that it does save time and it was a dumb analogy, anyway.

    It wasn't an analogy. It was a critique of this logic: "If it doesn't
    connect with the real-world problems of the regular American" then it
    doesn't need to be considered.


    --
    Defund the Thought Police

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Del Rosso@21:1/5 to bitrex on Sat Mar 26 07:10:47 2022
    bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 6:23 PM, bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 6:09 PM, Rickster wrote:
    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:28:42 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 11:22 AM, John Doe wrote:

    We will see. Let's see if women in fact don't do anything about
    transgender bullies beating up on girls in sports. That is a huge
    question.

    Definitely an issue that really connects with the real-world
    problems of the regular American. Lol
    That's interesting, if you mean that it isn't important because it
    doesn't involve most people. Slavery and Jim Crow didn't involve
    most people.

    I like the way you ask him a question, then answer it for him.
    Excellent technique.


    I like that it does save time and it was a dumb analogy, anyway.

    Every time Tucker Carlson gets a time out on Twitter it's BASICALLY
    the same as the Holocaust

    Jim Crow, the Holocaust, and wokeness all warp the definition of
    humanity. If eugenics had critics 50 years earlier when it was only a
    harmless theory you would have said it doesn't connect with the real
    world problems of the average person.

    --
    Defund the Thought Police

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to bitrex on Sat Mar 26 11:55:09 2022
    bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    Rickster wrote:
    Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    bitrex wrote:
    John Doe wrote:

    We will see. Let's see if women in fact don't do anything about
    transgender bullies beating up on girls in sports. That is a huge
    question.

    Definitely an issue that really connects with the real-world problems
    of the regular American.

    That's interesting, if you mean that it isn't important because it
    doesn't involve most people. Slavery and Jim Crow didn't involve most
    people.

    I like the way you ask him a question, then answer it for him.
    Excellent technique.

    I like that it does save time and it was a dumb analogy, anyway.

    It was not an analogy.

    That's like one of our US representatives on Tucker Carlson misusing "hypothetical". She doesn't know or doesn't care what "hypothetical" is...

    https://youtu.be/YSxnyA_8RI0?t=593

    https://youtu.be/YSxnyA_8RI0?t=912

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to amdx@knology.net on Sat Mar 26 12:39:18 2022
    On a sunny day (Fri, 25 Mar 2022 08:07:12 -0500) it happened amdx <amdx@knology.net> wrote in <t1keq0$tv7$1@dont-email.me>:

    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

     How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

     Female
     Noun
    an adult female human being.

     Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    You need the right spice model.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Tom Del Rosso on Sat Mar 26 08:56:11 2022
    On 3/26/2022 7:10 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 6:23 PM, bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 6:09 PM, Rickster wrote:
    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:28:42 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 11:22 AM, John Doe wrote:

    We will see. Let's see if women in fact don't do anything about
    transgender bullies beating up on girls in sports. That is a huge >>>>>>> question.

    Definitely an issue that really connects with the real-world
    problems of the regular American. Lol
    That's interesting, if you mean that it isn't important because it
    doesn't involve most people. Slavery and Jim Crow didn't involve
    most people.

    I like the way you ask him a question, then answer it for him.
    Excellent technique.


    I like that it does save time and it was a dumb analogy, anyway.

    Every time Tucker Carlson gets a time out on Twitter it's BASICALLY
    the same as the Holocaust

    Jim Crow, the Holocaust, and wokeness all warp the definition of
    humanity. If eugenics had critics 50 years earlier when it was only a harmless theory you would have said it doesn't connect with the real
    world problems of the average person.


    The Nazis would've put transsexuals to death, and the Moral Majority in
    2022 would like to put them and all "degenerates" to death, a direct
    lineage of right-wing fascist philosophy. Nothing changed...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Tom Del Rosso on Sat Mar 26 06:04:03 2022
    On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 10:10:55 PM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 6:23 PM, bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 6:09 PM, Rickster wrote:
    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:28:42 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 11:22 AM, John Doe wrote:

    <snip>

    Jim Crow, the Holocaust, and wokeness all warp the definition of
    humanity. If eugenics had critics 50 years earlier when it was only a harmless theory you would have said it doesn't connect with the real
    world problems of the average person.

    Galton invented the term in 1883 - 139 years ago.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

    It wasn't a harmless theory. It motivated some thoroughly evil US legislation in the early 1900's, and Hitler doted on it.

    By 1945 it had a great many critics - the Nazi enthusiasm for eugenics had been noticed, even if you have missed it.
    The practical implementation of eugenic ideas was carried out by people who didn't know enough about genetics to have achieved the effect they wanted . People who did know about genetics never though well of the idea, even when Galton first articulated
    it.

    It was always pernicious nonsense, and you don't seem to realise quite how pernicious it was.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Tom Del Rosso on Sat Mar 26 09:12:40 2022
    On 3/26/2022 7:02 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 6:09 PM, Rickster wrote:
    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:28:42 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 11:22 AM, John Doe wrote:

    We will see. Let's see if women in fact don't do anything about
    transgender bullies beating up on girls in sports. That is a huge
    question.

    Definitely an issue that really connects with the real-world
    problems of the regular American. Lol
    That's interesting, if you mean that it isn't important because it
    doesn't involve most people. Slavery and Jim Crow didn't involve
    most people.

    I like the way you ask him a question, then answer it for him.
    Excellent technique.

    I like that it does save time and it was a dumb analogy, anyway.

    It wasn't an analogy. It was a critique of this logic: "If it doesn't
    connect with the real-world problems of the regular American" then it
    doesn't need to be considered.



    With respect to slavery I'd say the Civil War was certainly a big
    problem for most everyone at the time and a long while after. Some seem
    to still be fighting it

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to bitrex on Sat Mar 26 13:23:30 2022
    Most people, at least most men, would just like to keep the cannibal left
    from forcing the rest of us to spectate their confused puppets...

    https://youtu.be/-xsyH5qrHyM?t=32

    Q: Are you a vet?

    A: I'm not a vet but I know what a dog is.

    That is classic.



    bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    On 3/26/2022 7:10 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 6:23 PM, bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 6:09 PM, Rickster wrote:
    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:28:42 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >>>>>> bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 11:22 AM, John Doe wrote:

    We will see. Let's see if women in fact don't do anything about >>>>>>>> transgender bullies beating up on girls in sports. That is a huge >>>>>>>> question.

    Definitely an issue that really connects with the real-world
    problems of the regular American. Lol
    That's interesting, if you mean that it isn't important because it >>>>>> doesn't involve most people. Slavery and Jim Crow didn't involve
    most people.

    I like the way you ask him a question, then answer it for him.
    Excellent technique.


    I like that it does save time and it was a dumb analogy, anyway.

    Every time Tucker Carlson gets a time out on Twitter it's BASICALLY
    the same as the Holocaust

    Jim Crow, the Holocaust, and wokeness all warp the definition of
    humanity. If eugenics had critics 50 years earlier when it was only a
    harmless theory you would have said it doesn't connect with the real
    world problems of the average person.


    The Nazis would've put transsexuals to death, and the Moral Majority in
    2022 would like to put them and all "degenerates" to death, a direct
    lineage of right-wing fascist philosophy. Nothing changed...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Sat Mar 26 10:07:15 2022
    On 3/26/2022 4:23 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
    Rickster <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    Mikek
    Biden explicitely stated that he would nominate a "black woman" but the
    woman in question doesn't know what he meant because she's not a
    biologist even though sex isn't determined by biology. I don't
    understand why you have trouble understanding that.


    Anyone in doubt of their own gender, can simply check their driver's license.

    Mine only shows 'sex', not 'gender'.



    Another howler from a former America's Next Top Dipshit:

    <https://i.redd.it/jjixgmdd6kp81.jpg>

    Pretty much no sharper than 90% of lawmakers in the US either,
    anthropologists they are not.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Sat Mar 26 09:35:35 2022
    On 3/26/2022 9:04 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 10:10:55 PM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 6:23 PM, bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 6:09 PM, Rickster wrote:
    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:28:42 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >>>>>> bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 11:22 AM, John Doe wrote:

    <snip>

    Jim Crow, the Holocaust, and wokeness all warp the definition of
    humanity. If eugenics had critics 50 years earlier when it was only a
    harmless theory you would have said it doesn't connect with the real
    world problems of the average person.

    Galton invented the term in 1883 - 139 years ago.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

    It wasn't a harmless theory. It motivated some thoroughly evil US legislation in the early 1900's, and Hitler doted on it.

    By 1945 it had a great many critics - the Nazi enthusiasm for eugenics had been noticed, even if you have missed it.
    The practical implementation of eugenic ideas was carried out by people who didn't know enough about genetics to have achieved the effect they wanted . People who did know about genetics never though well of the idea, even when Galton first
    articulated it.

    It was always pernicious nonsense, and you don't seem to realise quite how pernicious it was.


    Tom seems like the type of guy who figures that Jim Crow laws never had
    any applicability to whites which is definitely not true; there were
    certainly ways the state exercised control over whites also and in that
    vein it doesn't take too much thought to figure out what they were.

    30 out of 48 states in the mid 20th century enforced anti-miscegenation
    laws and they applied to whites also. But I suppose the freedom-loving
    right is accustomed to the state dictating who they many marry and have children with. Fur zee good of zee Volk!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Sat Mar 26 13:28:35 2022
    Bozo doesn't even know what a dog is.


    Bozo Bill Sloman, the most frequent troll in this group, is an attention-craving chronic liar who cannot be reasoned with...

    "the Mueller investigation was about Trump only because Trump made it so"
    (Bozo paraphrased)

    "the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions"
    (Bill Sloman)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Sat Mar 26 07:56:16 2022
    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:23:51 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    Rickster <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    Mikek
    Biden explicitely stated that he would nominate a "black woman" but the
    woman in question doesn't know what he meant because she's not a
    biologist even though sex isn't determined by biology. I don't
    understand why you have trouble understanding that.


    Anyone in doubt of their own gender, can simply check their driver's license.

    Mine only shows 'sex', not 'gender'.

    Either you have a Y chromosone, or not.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com on Sat Mar 26 07:57:19 2022
    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 12:39:18 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Fri, 25 Mar 2022 08:07:12 -0500) it happened amdx ><amdx@knology.net> wrote in <t1keq0$tv7$1@dont-email.me>:

    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

     How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

     Female
     Noun
    an adult female human being.

     Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, >>distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    You need the right spice model.

    Some people like the Alternate Solver.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to bitrex on Sat Mar 26 10:16:54 2022
    On 3/26/2022 10:07 AM, bitrex wrote:
    On 3/26/2022 4:23 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
    Rickster <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    amdx wrote:
     From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    Mikek
    Biden explicitely stated that he would nominate a "black woman" but the >>>> woman in question doesn't know what he meant because she's not a
    biologist even though sex isn't determined by biology. I don't
    understand why you have trouble understanding that.


    Anyone in doubt of their own gender, can simply check their driver's
    license.

    Mine only shows 'sex', not 'gender'.



    Another howler from a former America's Next Top Dipshit:

    <https://i.redd.it/jjixgmdd6kp81.jpg>

    Pretty much no sharper than 90% of lawmakers in the US either, anthropologists they are not.

    "When you die they will.." Who's "they"? Like the state bone-examiner's department who analyzes the bones of every person who dies? Lol talk
    about the "nanny state" I guess they just assume it exists already.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rickster@21:1/5 to bitrex on Sat Mar 26 09:45:13 2022
    On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 9:12:48 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
    On 3/26/2022 7:02 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 6:09 PM, Rickster wrote:
    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:28:42 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 11:22 AM, John Doe wrote:

    We will see. Let's see if women in fact don't do anything about
    transgender bullies beating up on girls in sports. That is a huge >>>>>> question.

    Definitely an issue that really connects with the real-world
    problems of the regular American. Lol
    That's interesting, if you mean that it isn't important because it
    doesn't involve most people. Slavery and Jim Crow didn't involve
    most people.

    I like the way you ask him a question, then answer it for him.
    Excellent technique.

    I like that it does save time and it was a dumb analogy, anyway.

    It wasn't an analogy. It was a critique of this logic: "If it doesn't connect with the real-world problems of the regular American" then it doesn't need to be considered.


    With respect to slavery I'd say the Civil War was certainly a big
    problem for most everyone at the time and a long while after. Some seem
    to still be fighting it

    The civil war was just a manifestation of the underlying problems of prejudice and bigotry. Not much different from what we have today. The conclusion of the war was not the culmination of those problems.

    --

    Rick C.

    --- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    --- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rickster@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sat Mar 26 09:49:52 2022
    On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 10:56:32 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:23:51 +0000, l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    Rickster <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    Mikek
    Biden explicitely stated that he would nominate a "black woman" but the >> > woman in question doesn't know what he meant because she's not a
    biologist even though sex isn't determined by biology. I don't
    understand why you have trouble understanding that.


    Anyone in doubt of their own gender, can simply check their driver's license.

    Mine only shows 'sex', not 'gender'.
    Either you have a Y chromosone, or not.

    Can't argue with logic like that!

    You could just as well define a woman as having two X chromosomes. What if you have two X and a single Y? Is that male because of having the Y or female because of having two X?

    --

    Rick C.

    --+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    --+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rickster@21:1/5 to John Doe on Sat Mar 26 09:41:17 2022
    On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 7:55:16 AM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:
    bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:
    Rickster wrote:
    Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    bitrex wrote:
    John Doe wrote:

    We will see. Let's see if women in fact don't do anything about
    transgender bullies beating up on girls in sports. That is a huge
    question.

    Definitely an issue that really connects with the real-world problems >>>> of the regular American.
    That's interesting, if you mean that it isn't important because it
    doesn't involve most people. Slavery and Jim Crow didn't involve most
    people.

    I like the way you ask him a question, then answer it for him.
    Excellent technique.

    I like that it does save time and it was a dumb analogy, anyway.
    It was not an analogy.

    That's like one of our US representatives on Tucker Carlson misusing "hypothetical". She doesn't know or doesn't care what "hypothetical" is...

    https://youtu.be/YSxnyA_8RI0?t=593

    https://youtu.be/YSxnyA_8RI0?t=912

    The "hypothetical" situation Maria Salazar is talking about was phrases by Carlson when he said, "IF...". She is saying that has not happened and may not happen, therefore is hypothetical according to the definition of the word. collinsdictionary.com

    "If something is hypothetical, it is based on possible ideas or situations rather than actual ones."

    That's exactly the correct usage.

    The second video is the same. Carlson offers the hypothetical situation of there being a choice of closing the US borders "tonight". That is not an option. There is no bill before Congress to vote on, so it's hypothetical.

    Seems you are clearly the one who does not understand the meaning of "hypothetical".

    --

    Rick C.

    ++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    ++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rickster@21:1/5 to bitrex on Sat Mar 26 09:26:54 2022
    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 6:34:47 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 6:07 PM, Rickster wrote:
    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 9:07:19 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    I suppose you think this definition is clear? You do understand it requires you to define "male" first, right? If you define "male" or "man" similarly, you end up saying it produces "gametes" which fertilize the female gametes.

    Seems rather circuitous.

    Every word in this dictionary is defined in terms of other words in the dictionary!

    The fact that you went overseas on vacation and returned home doesn't mean you are going in circles... even if you are circling the drain at the time.

    --

    Rick C.

    -+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rickster@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Sat Mar 26 09:30:01 2022
    On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 4:24:35 AM UTC-4, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
    Rickster <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    Mikek
    Biden explicitely stated that he would nominate a "black woman" but the woman in question doesn't know what he meant because she's not a biologist even though sex isn't determined by biology. I don't
    understand why you have trouble understanding that.


    Anyone in doubt of their own gender, can simply check their driver's license.
    Mine only shows 'sex', not 'gender'.

    I suppose you could use a bit of time with a dictionary.

    --

    Rick C.

    +- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    +- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to Rickster on Sat Mar 26 18:56:52 2022
    Rickster <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
    Rickster wrote:
    Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    amdx wrote:

    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female Noun an adult female human being.

    Woman adjective of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring
    or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of
    gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    Biden explicitely stated that he would nominate a "black woman"
    but the woman in question doesn't know what he meant because she's
    not a biologist even though sex isn't determined by biology. I
    don't understand why you have trouble understanding that.

    Anyone in doubt of their own gender, can simply check their driver's
    license.

    Mine only shows 'sex', not 'gender'.

    Either you have a Y chromosone, or not.

    Can't argue with logic like that!

    You could just as well define a woman as having two X chromosomes. What
    if you have two X and a single Y? Is that male because of having the Y
    or female because of having two X?

    It's a lesbian trapped inside a man's body.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to Rickster on Sat Mar 26 18:53:28 2022
    Apparently Ricksy is going deaf.

    https://youtu.be/YSxnyA_8RI0?t=593

    Zelensky proposed a peaceful solution. Tucker Carlson asked why she wasn't pushing for it.

    As a representative, she helps MAKE law. Carlson asked "Why don't you make legislation that incorporates Zelensky's proposal for peace?"
    (paraphrased)

    Nothing hypothetical about that.

    https://youtu.be/YSxnyA_8RI0?t=912

    "Would you support the US military securing the United States border
    tonight, or on the same timetable as sending Migs to Ukraine?"

    Given the fact she is a LAWMAKER, that is not a hypothetical. She can help
    make that law.

    She's not running for office, she can answer Yes or No.

    "Do you support grabbing guns?" <-- Similarly NOT a hypothetical

    The representative doesn't know or doesn't care what "hypothetical" means.



    Rickster <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 7:55:16 AM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:
    bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:
    Rickster wrote:
    Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    bitrex wrote:
    John Doe wrote:

    We will see. Let's see if women in fact don't do anything about
    transgender bullies beating up on girls in sports. That is a huge
    question.

    Definitely an issue that really connects with the real-world
    problems
    of the regular American.
    That's interesting, if you mean that it isn't important because it
    doesn't involve most people. Slavery and Jim Crow didn't involve most
    people.

    I like the way you ask him a question, then answer it for him.
    Excellent technique.

    I like that it does save time and it was a dumb analogy, anyway.
    It was not an analogy.

    That's like one of our US representatives on Tucker Carlson misusing
    "hypothetical". She doesn't know or doesn't care what "hypothetical"
    is...

    https://youtu.be/YSxnyA_8RI0?t=593

    https://youtu.be/YSxnyA_8RI0?t=912

    The "hypothetical" situation Maria Salazar is talking about was phrases by
    Carlson when he said, "IF...". She is saying that has not happened and may
    not happen, therefore is hypothetical according to the definition of the
    word. collinsdictionary.com

    "If something is hypothetical, it is based on possible ideas or situations
    rather than actual ones."

    That's exactly the correct usage.

    The second video is the same. Carlson offers the hypothetical situation
    of there being a choice of closing the US borders "tonight". That is not an option. There is no bill before Congress to vote on, so it's hypothetical.

    Seems you are clearly the one who does not understand the meaning of
    "hypothetical".


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Liz Tuddenham@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sat Mar 26 20:00:51 2022
    <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:23:51 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    Rickster <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    Mikek
    Biden explicitely stated that he would nominate a "black woman" but the >> > woman in question doesn't know what he meant because she's not a
    biologist even though sex isn't determined by biology. I don't
    understand why you have trouble understanding that.


    Anyone in doubt of their own gender, can simply check their driver's
    license.

    Mine only shows 'sex', not 'gender'.

    Either you have a Y chromosone, or not.

    I don't know whether I have or not, I've never had a chromosome test.
    It would also depend on which organs they tested; some organs and body
    parts can have different chromosomes from others (chimera).

    In any case, gender isn't determined by chromosomes.


    --
    ~ Liz Tuddenham ~
    (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
    www.poppyrecords.co.uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Sat Mar 26 20:27:38 2022
    liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:23:51 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    Rickster <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    Mikek
    Biden explicitely stated that he would nominate a "black woman" but
    the
    woman in question doesn't know what he meant because she's not a
    biologist even though sex isn't determined by biology. I don't
    understand why you have trouble understanding that.


    Anyone in doubt of their own gender, can simply check their driver's
    license.

    Mine only shows 'sex', not 'gender'.

    Either you have a Y chromosone, or not.

    I don't know whether I have or not, I've never had a chromosome test.
    It would also depend on which organs they tested; some organs and body
    parts can have different chromosomes from others (chimera).

    In any case, gender isn't determined by chromosomes.

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender

    gender noun

    2a : sex sense 1a

    sex noun

    1a : either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Liz Tuddenham@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sat Mar 26 21:11:44 2022
    <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 20:00:51 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:23:51 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    Rickster <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    Mikek
    Biden explicitely stated that he would nominate a "black woman"
    but the woman in question doesn't know what he meant because she's
    not a biologist even though sex isn't determined by biology. I
    don't understand why you have trouble understanding that.


    Anyone in doubt of their own gender, can simply check their driver's
    license.

    Mine only shows 'sex', not 'gender'.

    Either you have a Y chromosone, or not.

    I don't know whether I have or not, I've never had a chromosome test.
    It would also depend on which organs they tested; some organs and body >parts can have different chromosomes from others (chimera).

    In any case, gender isn't determined by chromosomes.

    Anyone with a Y should not compete in girls' sports. Y makes serious
    physical differences.

    That's sex, not gender.


    --
    ~ Liz Tuddenham ~
    (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
    www.poppyrecords.co.uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Sat Mar 26 13:38:55 2022
    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 20:00:51 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:23:51 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    Rickster <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    Mikek
    Biden explicitely stated that he would nominate a "black woman" but the >> >> > woman in question doesn't know what he meant because she's not a
    biologist even though sex isn't determined by biology. I don't
    understand why you have trouble understanding that.


    Anyone in doubt of their own gender, can simply check their driver's
    license.

    Mine only shows 'sex', not 'gender'.

    Either you have a Y chromosone, or not.

    I don't know whether I have or not, I've never had a chromosome test.
    It would also depend on which organs they tested; some organs and body
    parts can have different chromosomes from others (chimera).

    In any case, gender isn't determined by chromosomes.

    Anyone with a Y should not compete in girls' sports. Y makes serious
    physical differences.

    The path to fame and fortune: call yourself a girl and set records.

    Good book:

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1250236061

    There is one case where a person is XY but has a genetic/enzyme defect
    that block the function of T. The person looks and acts and feels
    totally female, married to a guy, but is sterile.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Sat Mar 26 14:28:51 2022
    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 21:11:44 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 20:00:51 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:23:51 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    Rickster <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    Mikek
    Biden explicitely stated that he would nominate a "black woman"
    but the woman in question doesn't know what he meant because she's >> >> >> > not a biologist even though sex isn't determined by biology. I
    don't understand why you have trouble understanding that.


    Anyone in doubt of their own gender, can simply check their driver's >> >> >> license.

    Mine only shows 'sex', not 'gender'.

    Either you have a Y chromosone, or not.

    I don't know whether I have or not, I've never had a chromosome test.
    It would also depend on which organs they tested; some organs and body
    parts can have different chromosomes from others (chimera).

    In any case, gender isn't determined by chromosomes.

    Anyone with a Y should not compete in girls' sports. Y makes serious
    physical differences.

    That's sex, not gender.

    It's physiology. Bones, muscles, speed. Things that matter in sports.

    I think all the girls should just stay there and not move when the gun
    goes off. Let s/he take the victory lap.





    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Liz Tuddenham@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sat Mar 26 22:25:10 2022
    <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 21:11:44 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 20:00:51 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:23:51 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    Rickster <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >> >> >> > amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, >> >> >> > > distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    Mikek
    Biden explicitely stated that he would nominate a "black woman"
    but the woman in question doesn't know what he meant because she's >> >> >> > not a biologist even though sex isn't determined by biology. I
    don't understand why you have trouble understanding that.


    Anyone in doubt of their own gender, can simply check their driver's >> >> >> license.

    Mine only shows 'sex', not 'gender'.

    Either you have a Y chromosone, or not.

    I don't know whether I have or not, I've never had a chromosome test.
    It would also depend on which organs they tested; some organs and body
    parts can have different chromosomes from others (chimera).

    In any case, gender isn't determined by chromosomes.

    Anyone with a Y should not compete in girls' sports. Y makes serious
    physical differences.

    That's sex, not gender.

    It's physiology. Bones, muscles, speed. Things that matter in sports.

    I think all the girls should just stay there and not move when the gun
    goes off. Let s/he take the victory lap.

    I thought we were discussing gender, not sex.

    Sport is inherently unfair. The birth sex of the participants is just
    another example of that unfairness that happens to have been highlighted
    by the recent sudden interest in transpeople.


    --
    ~ Liz Tuddenham ~
    (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
    www.poppyrecords.co.uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Sat Mar 26 16:45:27 2022
    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 22:25:10 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 21:11:44 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 20:00:51 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:23:51 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >> >> >> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    Rickster <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >> >> >> >> > amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, >> >> >> >> > > distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) >> >> >> >> > > which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    Mikek
    Biden explicitely stated that he would nominate a "black woman" >> >> >> >> > but the woman in question doesn't know what he meant because she's
    not a biologist even though sex isn't determined by biology. I
    don't understand why you have trouble understanding that.


    Anyone in doubt of their own gender, can simply check their driver's
    license.

    Mine only shows 'sex', not 'gender'.

    Either you have a Y chromosone, or not.

    I don't know whether I have or not, I've never had a chromosome test.
    It would also depend on which organs they tested; some organs and body >> >> >parts can have different chromosomes from others (chimera).

    In any case, gender isn't determined by chromosomes.

    Anyone with a Y should not compete in girls' sports. Y makes serious
    physical differences.

    That's sex, not gender.

    It's physiology. Bones, muscles, speed. Things that matter in sports.

    I think all the girls should just stay there and not move when the gun
    goes off. Let s/he take the victory lap.

    I thought we were discussing gender, not sex.


    I was discussing chromosones.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Allison@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Sat Mar 26 17:00:07 2022
    Liz Tuddenham wrote:
    =================

    I thought we were discussing gender, not sex.

    Sport is inherently unfair.

    ** No, LIFE is inherently unfair.

    Competitive sports attempt to create analogies to life that ARE fair and can be seen to be so.
    Competitors follow sets of rules, officials ensure those rules are followed and the result clear.
    It all happens in public view too.

    Nothing like life.

    BTW you are one hell of a fake SJW.



    ..... Phil

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sat Mar 26 18:45:44 2022
    On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 10:45:43 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 22:25:10 +0000, l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    <jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 21:11:44 +0000, l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    <jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 20:00:51 +0000, l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >> >> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    <jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:23:51 +0000, l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    Rickster <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) >> >> >> >> > > which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    Mikek
    Biden explicitely stated that he would nominate a "black woman" >> >> >> >> > but the woman in question doesn't know what he meant because she's
    not a biologist even though sex isn't determined by biology. I >> >> >> >> > don't understand why you have trouble understanding that.


    Anyone in doubt of their own gender, can simply check their driver's
    license.

    Mine only shows 'sex', not 'gender'.

    Either you have a Y chromosone, or not.

    I don't know whether I have or not, I've never had a chromosome test. >> >> >It would also depend on which organs they tested; some organs and body >> >> >parts can have different chromosomes from others (chimera).

    In any case, gender isn't determined by chromosomes.

    Anyone with a Y should not compete in girls' sports. Y makes serious
    physical differences.

    That's sex, not gender.

    It's physiology. Bones, muscles, speed. Things that matter in sports.

    I think all the girls should just stay there and not move when the gun
    goes off. Let s/he take the victory lap.

    I thought we were discussing gender, not sex.

    I was discussing chromosones.

    That's a remarkable typo. If John Larkin had a clear idea of what a chromosome was, he'd probably be able to spell the word correctly.

    The Y chromosome is odd. It is sex-determining, which does create physical differences, but probably no the ones that John Doe and John Larkin are making such a fuss about.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosome

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Liz Tuddenham@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sun Mar 27 08:41:42 2022
    <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 22:25:10 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 21:11:44 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 20:00:51 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:23:51 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >> >> >> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    Rickster <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso
    wrote: > amdx wrote: > > From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford
    Languages" > >
    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.
    Woman > adjective > of or denoting the sex that can bear
    offspring or produce eggs, > distinguished biologically by
    the production of gametes (ova) > which can be fertilized by
    male gametes. > > Mikek Biden explicitely stated that he
    would nominate a "black woman" but the woman in question
    doesn't know what he meant because she's not a biologist
    even though sex isn't determined by biology. I don't
    understand why you have trouble understanding that.


    Anyone in doubt of their own gender, can simply check their
    driver's license.

    Mine only shows 'sex', not 'gender'.

    Either you have a Y chromosone, or not.

    I don't know whether I have or not, I've never had a chromosome test. >> >> >It would also depend on which organs they tested; some organs and body >> >> >parts can have different chromosomes from others (chimera).

    In any case, gender isn't determined by chromosomes.

    Anyone with a Y should not compete in girls' sports. Y makes serious
    physical differences.

    That's sex, not gender.

    It's physiology. Bones, muscles, speed. Things that matter in sports.

    I think all the girls should just stay there and not move when the gun
    goes off. Let s/he take the victory lap.

    I thought we were discussing gender, not sex.


    I was discussing chromosones.

    You brouight 'sex' into a discussion about 'gender'. Gender is not
    shown on any UK driving licence and the 'sex' which is shown, is not
    based on chromosomes because chromosomes aren't tested. A driving
    licence is not a reliable indicator of sex or gender.


    --
    ~ Liz Tuddenham ~
    (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
    www.poppyrecords.co.uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Allison@21:1/5 to Lizard Tuddenham on Sun Mar 27 02:26:17 2022
    Lizard Tuddenham wrote:
    =====================

    I thought we were discussing gender, not sex.


    I was discussing chromosones.

    You brouight 'sex' into a discussion about 'gender'.

    ** In a discussion about human beings, they are synomyms.

    Gender is not
    shown on any UK driving licence and the 'sex' which is shown,

    ** Synonyms.

    A driving licence is not a reliable indicator of sex or gender.

    ** Course it is.

    YOU are one steaming great, fucking PITA fake SJW idiot.



    ...... Phil

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sun Mar 27 10:25:25 2022
    On 26/03/22 14:56, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:23:51 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    Rickster <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    Mikek
    Biden explicitely stated that he would nominate a "black woman" but the >>>> woman in question doesn't know what he meant because she's not a
    biologist even though sex isn't determined by biology. I don't
    understand why you have trouble understanding that.


    Anyone in doubt of their own gender, can simply check their driver's license.

    Mine only shows 'sex', not 'gender'.

    Either you have a Y chromosone, or not.

    If only it was that simple.

    What should be classification for people with these
    syndromes, and why?
    XXXXX
    XXXX
    XXX
    XXXXY
    XXXY
    XXYY
    XXYY
    XYY
    XYYY

    I had no idea those existed!
    For excellent patient info, see https://rarechromo.org/disorder-guides/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to palli...@gmail.com on Sun Mar 27 03:24:17 2022
    On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 8:26:21 PM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
    Lizard Tuddenham wrote:
    =====================

    I thought we were discussing gender, not sex.


    I was discussing chromosomes.

    You brought 'sex' into a discussion about 'gender'.

    ** In a discussion about human beings, they are synonyms.

    They aren't.

    Gender is not shown on any UK driving licence and the 'sex' which is shown,

    ** Synonyms.

    Pig-ignorant error. Possibly ideologically driven, but an error.

    A driving licence is not a reliable indicator of sex or gender.

    ** Course it is.

    It's not based on genome sequencing, so an XY person with testosterone insensitivity - who will look female - will be identified as female on their driving license. It is rare, but it does happen,and that makes the indication unreliable in that
    particular case. There are others.

    YOU are one steaming great, fucking PITA fake SJW idiot.

    Actually, the steaming great pain in the behind idiot here is you, though John Doe subscribes to the same mistaken ideas.

    There's no social justice involved though you and John Doe might not be so quite so insistent on your mistaken ideas if you weren't intent on being unkind to people you don't approve of.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to amdx on Sun Mar 27 11:41:52 2022
    On 26/03/2022 02:40, amdx wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 5:07 PM, Rickster wrote:
    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 9:07:19 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
     From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

      How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

      Female
      Noun
    an adult female human being.

      Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    I suppose you think this definition is clear?  You do understand it
    requires you to define "male" first, right?  If you define "male" or
    "man" similarly, you end up saying it produces "gametes" which
    fertilize the female gametes.

    Seems rather circuitous.

    Not quite. Female is more usefully defined first and is the default
    development mode in parthenogenesis (which predates sexual reproduction)
    to create identical clones of the parent organism.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis

    There was a very rare stick insect made the news in the UK which was
    half male and half female down the line of symmetry recently.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-60375172

    Rare enough it is headed for a museum ... gynandromorph.

    It seems you are confused and don't know the difference between a man
    and a woman?
                              Mikek

    A better definition from the point of view of a biologist is the sex
    that provides the mitochondrial inheritance for any offspring.

    Incidentally female is the default development for any organism not
    under the influence of a Y chromosome (in the XY system) and there are
    plenty of insects that can do female virgin births to obtain fastest
    possible exponential growth when there is plenty of food about.

    Garden aphids being one such common example.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Sun Mar 27 11:24:13 2022
    Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    amdx wrote:
    Rickster wrote:
    amdx wrote:

    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman, adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which
    can be fertilized by male gametes.

    I suppose you think this definition is clear?  You do understand it
    requires you to define "male" first, right?  If you define "male" or
    "man" similarly, you end up saying it produces "gametes" which
    fertilize the female gametes.

    Seems rather circuitous.

    Not quite. Female is more usefully defined first and is the default development mode in parthenogenesis (which predates sexual reproduction)
    to create identical clones of the parent organism.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis

    There was a very rare stick insect made the news in the UK which was
    half male and half female down the line of symmetry recently.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-60375172

    Rare enough it is headed for a museum ... gynandromorph.

    It seems you are confused and don't know the difference between a man
    and a woman?

    A better definition from the point of view of a biologist is the sex
    that provides the mitochondrial inheritance for any offspring.

    I'm not a vet, but I know what a dog is.

    What is the primary purpose for a woman's breasts?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to Tom Gardner on Sun Mar 27 11:19:47 2022
    Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
    Rickster wrote:
    Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    amdx wrote:

    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman, adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    Biden explicitely stated that he would nominate a "black woman" but
    the woman in question doesn't know what he meant because she's not a >>>>> biologist even though sex isn't determined by biology. I don't
    understand why you have trouble understanding that.

    That's sarcasm, amdx.

    Anyone in doubt of their own gender, can simply check their driver's
    license.

    Mine only shows 'sex', not 'gender'.

    Either you have a Y chromosone, or not.

    If only it was that simple.

    What should be classification for people with these
    syndromes, and why?
    XXXXX
    XXXX
    XXX
    XXXXY
    XXXY
    XXYY
    XXYY
    XYY
    XYYY

    I had no idea those existed!
    For excellent patient info, see https://rarechromo.org/disorder-guides/

    That doesn't change the definition of "male" and "female".

    human, noun

    : a bipedal primate mammal

    Someone born without 2 feet is still a human.

    Rare cases do not change a definition.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Allison@21:1/5 to IEEE Bill the on Sun Mar 27 04:50:48 2022
    IEEE Bill the Bullshiter....@ieee.org wrote: ===================================

    ** In a discussion about human beings, they are synonyms.

    They aren't.

    ** Go tell the Oxford dictionary - you demented fuckhead.


    Gender is not shown on any UK driving licence and the 'sex' which is shown,

    ** Synonyms.

    Pig-ignorant error.

    ** Go tell the Oxford dictionary - you demented fuckhead.

    A driving licence is not a reliable indicator of sex or gender.

    ** Course it is.

    It's not based on genome sequencing,

    ** ROTFLMFAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Pure 100% FUCKING insanity !!!!!


    YOU are one steaming great, fucking PITA fake SJW idiot.

    Actually, the steaming great pain in the behind idiot here is

    ** IEEE Bill Sloman = a life long, insane lying CUNTHEAD





    ..... Phil

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From amdx@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Sun Mar 27 07:45:58 2022
    On 3/27/2022 5:24 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

    There's no social justice involved though you and John Doe might not be so quite so insistent on your mistaken ideas if you weren't intent on being unkind to people you don't approve of.

      If you want social justice you don't let a few a previous men compete against the many women that have worked their whole lives to compete.
    Why is it you don't hear about transsexuals that were a woman and
    transformed to a "man" now competing and taking medals from the men they
    are competing against?
    Because they grew up as women they don't have the same body
    characteristics and strengths as a man born as a man. Testosterone is
    not enough to give a woman the bone
    strength, muscle strength, etc to make her the equal of a man in
    competition. Just as if you grew up as a man and you take away
    testosterone, you still have most of those
    same characteristics that you were born with that allow you to run away
    (steal) the medals from the woman.
     It is a matter of being fair to the life long women.

      In my case it has nothing to do with not approving of transsexuals or
    being unkind, clearly they are uncomfortable in the body they have and
    I'm sure that is difficult,
    but that is not a reason to let them steal medals from young strong hard working women.
       An interesting and confounding case is Jazz, she was put on
    testosterone blockers at a very early age. Physically you don't see any
    male characteristics, she never developed
    the physical changes a male has at puberty. Because of the early
    testosterone blockers the vulvoplasty surgery had complications because
    of lack of  "material" to work with.
    I doubt very much that she would have any of the male characteristics to compete and win against women.

    Mikek


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From amdx@21:1/5 to Phil Allison on Sun Mar 27 07:47:12 2022
    On 3/27/2022 6:50 AM, Phil Allison wrote:
    IEEE Bill the Bullshiter....@ieee.org wrote: ===================================
    >
    ** In a discussion about human beings, they are synonyms.
    They aren't.
    ** Go tell the Oxford dictionary - you demented fuckhead.


    Gender is not shown on any UK driving licence and the 'sex' which is shown,
    ** Synonyms.
    Pig-ignorant error.
    ** Go tell the Oxford dictionary - you demented fuckhead.

    A driving licence is not a reliable indicator of sex or gender.
    ** Course it is.
    It's not based on genome sequencing,
    ** ROTFLMFAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Pure 100% FUCKING insanity !!!!!


    YOU are one steaming great, fucking PITA fake SJW idiot.
    Actually, the steaming great pain in the behind idiot here is
    ** IEEE Bill Sloman = a life long, insane lying CUNTHEAD





    ..... Phil
    That's the Phil we know and love!  LOL
                                    Mikek

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From amdx@21:1/5 to Tom Gardner on Sun Mar 27 07:50:23 2022
    On 3/27/2022 4:25 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
    On 26/03/22 14:56, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:23:51 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    Rickster <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    amdx wrote:
     From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    Mikek
    Biden explicitely stated that he would nominate a "black woman"
    but the
    woman in question doesn't know what he meant because she's not a
    biologist even though sex isn't determined by biology. I don't
    understand why you have trouble understanding that.


    Anyone in doubt of their own gender, can simply check their
    driver's license.

    Mine only shows 'sex', not 'gender'.

    Either you have a Y chromosone, or not.

    If only it was that simple.

    What should be classification for people with these
    syndromes, and why?
    XXXXX
    XXXX
    XXX
    XXXXY
    XXXY
    XXYY
    XXYY
    XYY
    XYYY

    I had no idea those existed!
    For excellent patient info, see https://rarechromo.org/disorder-guides/

      Yes, I wish a I had an answer that would create fairness to all.
    But, I'm at a loss.
                        Mikek

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From amdx@21:1/5 to John Doe on Sun Mar 27 07:52:58 2022
    On 3/27/2022 6:24 AM, John Doe wrote:
    Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    amdx wrote:
    Rickster wrote:
    amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman, adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which
    can be fertilized by male gametes.
    I suppose you think this definition is clear?  You do understand it
    requires you to define "male" first, right?  If you define "male" or
    "man" similarly, you end up saying it produces "gametes" which
    fertilize the female gametes.

    Seems rather circuitous.
    Not quite. Female is more usefully defined first and is the default
    development mode in parthenogenesis (which predates sexual reproduction)
    to create identical clones of the parent organism.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis

    There was a very rare stick insect made the news in the UK which was
    half male and half female down the line of symmetry recently.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-60375172

    Rare enough it is headed for a museum ... gynandromorph.

    It seems you are confused and don't know the difference between a man
    and a woman?
    A better definition from the point of view of a biologist is the sex
    that provides the mitochondrial inheritance for any offspring.
    I'm not a vet, but I know what a dog is.

    What is the primary purpose for a woman's breasts?
     Before or after a male hits puberty? :-)

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Doe on Sun Mar 27 07:06:14 2022
    On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 10:19:54 PM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:
    Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
    Rickster wrote:
    Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    amdx wrote:

    <snip>

    Either you have a Y chromosome, or not.

    If only it was that simple.

    What should be classification for people with these
    syndromes, and why?
    XXXXX
    XXXX
    XXX
    XXXXY
    XXXY
    XXYY
    XXYY
    XYY
    XYYY

    I had no idea those existed!
    For excellent patient info, see https://rarechromo.org/disorder-guides/

    That doesn't change the definition of "male" and "female".

    Not the one that John Doe wants to use.

    human, noun

    : a bipedal primate mammal

    Someone born without 2 feet is still a human.

    Rare cases do not change a definition.

    But John Doe is that rare case that doesn't understand the definition, and thinks his defective understanding is the only one one that anybody should rely on.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to palli...@gmail.com on Sun Mar 27 07:18:15 2022
    On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 10:50:52 PM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
    IEEE Bill the Bullshiter....@ieee.org wrote: ===================================

    ** In a discussion about human beings, they are synonyms.

    They aren't.
    ** Go tell the Oxford dictionary - you demented fuckhead.

    Which one the Compete, the Concise, the Shorter? There are others.

    Gender is not shown on any UK driving licence and the 'sex' which is shown,

    ** Synonyms.

    Pig-ignorant error.

    ** Go tell the Oxford dictionary - you demented fuckhead.

    A driving licence is not a reliable indicator of sex or gender.

    ** Course it is.

    It's not based on genome sequencing, so an XY person with testosterone insensitivity - who will look female - will be identified as female on their driving license. It is rare, but it does happen,and that makes the indication unreliable in that
    particular case. There are others.

    ** ROTFLMFAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    You started rolling around on the floor before you finished reading the sentence, and snipped the part you hadn't read.

    It may save time but it does make you look stupid.

    <snipped the rest of Phil being remarkably stupid., even for him>

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to amdx on Sun Mar 27 07:22:23 2022
    On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 11:46:06 PM UTC+11, amdx wrote:
    On 3/27/2022 5:24 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

    There's no social justice involved though you and John Doe might not be so quite so insistent on your mistaken ideas if you weren't intent on being unkind to people you don't approve of.

    If you want social justice you don't let a few a previous men compete
    against the many women that have worked their whole lives to compete.

    Very few women work their whole livest to compete in sporting events. Society does include athletes, but they are a rather restricted group, and social justice isn't well served by paying attention to just that group.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to amdx on Sun Mar 27 07:36:23 2022
    On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 11:53:05 PM UTC+11, amdx wrote:
    On 3/27/2022 6:24 AM, John Doe wrote:
    Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
    amdx wrote:
    Rickster wrote:
    amdx wrote:

    What is the primary purpose for a woman's breasts?

    They are an evolved feature. Every female of every mammalian species has them, and the general opinion is that they are useful for feeding infants. Asking what their "primary purpose" is asserts that the evolutionary process has a purpose, which is the
    sort of error that intelligent design enthusiasts go in for.

    So it was the kind of silly question you'd expect from John Doe.

    Before or after a male hits puberty? :-)

    And this is an even sillier response.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk on Sun Mar 27 07:54:58 2022
    On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 10:25:25 +0100, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 26/03/22 14:56, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:23:51 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    Rickster <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    Mikek
    Biden explicitely stated that he would nominate a "black woman" but the >>>>> woman in question doesn't know what he meant because she's not a
    biologist even though sex isn't determined by biology. I don't
    understand why you have trouble understanding that.


    Anyone in doubt of their own gender, can simply check their driver's license.

    Mine only shows 'sex', not 'gender'.

    Either you have a Y chromosone, or not.

    If only it was that simple.

    But my statement is.


    What should be classification for people with these
    syndromes, and why?
    XXXXX
    XXXX
    XXX
    XXXXY
    XXXY
    XXYY
    XXYY
    XYY
    XYYY

    I had no idea those existed!

    The term "intersex" is used if the obvious physical signs are
    ambiguous. There are also cases where an XY appears to be fully
    female.

    But girls sports will be destroyed if mature, big, muscular, mediocre
    XY atheletes can call themselves female and blow away all the records.

    One thing that impresses me is how critters with various genetic
    defects still survive. There is something extraordinarily adaptive
    about DNA-based life.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to amdx on Sun Mar 27 08:29:40 2022
    On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 07:45:58 -0500, amdx <amdx@knology.net> wrote:

    On 3/27/2022 5:24 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

    There's no social justice involved though you and John Doe might not be so quite so insistent on your mistaken ideas if you weren't intent on being unkind to people you don't approve of.

    If you want social justice you don't let a few a previous men compete
    against the many women that have worked their whole lives to compete.

    We have Special Olympics. We should have Trans Olympics.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to pallison49@gmail.com on Sun Mar 27 08:28:14 2022
    On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 02:26:17 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
    <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

    Lizard Tuddenham wrote:
    =====================

    I thought we were discussing gender, not sex.


    I was discussing chromosones.

    You brouight 'sex' into a discussion about 'gender'.

    ** In a discussion about human beings, they are synomyms.

    Gender is not
    shown on any UK driving licence and the 'sex' which is shown,

    ** Synonyms.

    Some people think that words change physical reality.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From amdx@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Sun Mar 27 11:06:19 2022
    On 3/27/2022 9:22 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 11:46:06 PM UTC+11, amdx wrote:
    On 3/27/2022 5:24 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    There's no social justice involved though you and John Doe might not be so quite so insistent on your mistaken ideas if you weren't intent on being unkind to people you don't approve of.

    If you want social justice you don't let a few a previous men compete
    against the many women that have worked their whole lives to compete.
    Very few women work their whole livest to compete in sporting events.

    Yes Billy, I knew when I wrote that,  it wasn't their /whole/ life, as
    does everyone else. I'm glad that was the best argument you had.
     I should have said substantial part of their lives, but at the time I couldn't come up with the proper wording even though I knew it needed
    something more exacting. I'm happy you had something to nitpick.

                                            Mikek

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From amdx@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Sun Mar 27 11:09:49 2022
    On 3/27/2022 9:36 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 11:53:05 PM UTC+11, amdx wrote:
    On 3/27/2022 6:24 AM, John Doe wrote:
    Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
    amdx wrote:
    Rickster wrote:
    amdx wrote:
    What is the primary purpose for a woman's breasts?
    They are an evolved feature. Every female of every mammalian species has them, and the general opinion is that they are useful for feeding infants. Asking what their "primary purpose" is asserts that the evolutionary process has a purpose, which is the
    sort of error that intelligent design enthusiasts go in for.

    So it was the kind of silly question you'd expect from John Doe.

    Before or after a male hits puberty? :-)
    And this is an even sillier response.

     Does that mean you got the humor or did just whoosh by your humorless personality?

                                         Mikek

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From amdx@21:1/5 to amdx on Sun Mar 27 11:17:21 2022
    On 3/27/2022 11:06 AM, amdx wrote:
    On 3/27/2022 9:22 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 11:46:06 PM UTC+11, amdx wrote:
    On 3/27/2022 5:24 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    There's no social justice involved though you and John Doe might
    not be so quite so insistent on your mistaken ideas if you weren't
    intent on being unkind to people you don't approve of.
    If you want social justice you don't let a few a previous men
    compete against the many women that have worked their whole lives
    to compete.
    Why is it you don't hear about transsexuals that were a woman and
    transformed to a "man" now competing and taking medals from the men
    they are competing against?
    Because they grew up as women they don't have the same body
    characteristics and strengths as a man born as a man. Testosterone
    is not enough to give a woman the bone
    strength, muscle strength, etc to make her the equal of a man in
    competition. Just as if you grew up as a man and you take away
    testosterone, you still have most of those
    same characteristics that you were born with that allow you to run
    away (steal) the medals from the woman.
     It is a matter of being fair to the life long women.

      In my case it has nothing to do with not approving of
    transsexuals or being unkind, clearly they are uncomfortable in the
    body they have and I'm sure that is difficult,
    but that is not a reason to let them steal medals from young strong
    hard working women.
       An interesting and confounding case is Jazz, she was put on
    testosterone blockers at a very early age. Physically you don't see
    any male characteristics, she never developed
    the physical changes a male has at puberty. Because of the early
    testosterone blockers the vulvoplasty surgery had complications
    because of lack of  "material" to work with.
    I doubt very much that she would have any of the male
    characteristics to compete and win against women.

    Mikek

    Very few women work their whole livest to compete in sporting events.



    I just went back and re-posted my whole post that you clipped.
    You seemed to have had a real failure in rebuttal, are you changing your opinion on this subject.
    Maybe we can come to an agreement to help these transsexuals without
    scarring our young women.

                                              Mikek


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Liz Tuddenham@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sun Mar 27 17:45:32 2022
    <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    One thing that impresses me is how critters with various genetic
    defects still survive. There is something extraordinarily adaptive
    about DNA-based life.

    The misunderstanding is because people try to put value judgements on
    genetic variations. They are just variation, not defects.

    If the orginism survives, they are neutral variations; if it does better
    or worse because of them, they are advantageous or disadvantageous
    variations. Which they are will depend on the circumstances and may be different in different environments.


    --
    ~ Liz Tuddenham ~
    (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
    www.poppyrecords.co.uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Liz Tuddenham@21:1/5 to amdx on Sun Mar 27 17:55:39 2022
    amdx <amdx@knology.net> wrote:

    On 3/27/2022 11:06 AM, amdx wrote:
    On 3/27/2022 9:22 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 11:46:06 PM UTC+11, amdx wrote:
    On 3/27/2022 5:24 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    There's no social justice involved though you and John Doe might
    not be so quite so insistent on your mistaken ideas if you weren't
    intent on being unkind to people you don't approve of.
    If you want social justice you don't let a few a previous men
    compete against the many women that have worked their whole lives
    to compete.
    Why is it you don't hear about transsexuals that were a woman and
    transformed to a "man" now competing and taking medals from the men
    they are competing against?
    Because they grew up as women they don't have the same body
    characteristics and strengths as a man born as a man. Testosterone
    is not enough to give a woman the bone
    strength, muscle strength, etc to make her the equal of a man in
    competition. Just as if you grew up as a man and you take away
    testosterone, you still have most of those
    same characteristics that you were born with that allow you to run
    away (steal) the medals from the woman.
     It is a matter of being fair to the life long women.

      In my case it has nothing to do with not approving of
    transsexuals or being unkind, clearly they are uncomfortable in the
    body they have and I'm sure that is difficult,
    but that is not a reason to let them steal medals from young strong
    hard working women.
       An interesting and confounding case is Jazz, she was put on
    testosterone blockers at a very early age. Physically you don't see
    any male characteristics, she never developed
    the physical changes a male has at puberty. Because of the early
    testosterone blockers the vulvoplasty surgery had complications
    because of lack of  "material" to work with.
    I doubt very much that she would have any of the male
    characteristics to compete and win against women.

    Mikek

    Very few women work their whole livest to compete in sporting events.



    I just went back and re-posted my whole post that you clipped.
    You seemed to have had a real failure in rebuttal, are you changing your opinion on this subject.
    Maybe we can come to an agreement to help these transsexuals without
    scarring our young women.


    Sport is inherently unfair, which is why some sort of 'evening-up' is
    needed to make competition work. Basing the categories on real
    parameters, such as weight, muscle percentage, bone length or whatever
    happens to be appropriate for the particular sport, would be a much
    fairer way than basing it on what the midwife saw when the baby was
    born.


    --
    ~ Liz Tuddenham ~
    (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
    www.poppyrecords.co.uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From amdx@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Sun Mar 27 13:09:25 2022
    On 3/27/2022 11:55 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
    amdx <amdx@knology.net> wrote:

    On 3/27/2022 11:06 AM, amdx wrote:
    On 3/27/2022 9:22 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 11:46:06 PM UTC+11, amdx wrote:
    On 3/27/2022 5:24 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    There's no social justice involved though you and John Doe might
    not be so quite so insistent on your mistaken ideas if you weren't >>>>>> intent on being unkind to people you don't approve of.
    If you want social justice you don't let a few a previous men
    compete against the many women that have worked their whole lives
    to compete.
    Why is it you don't hear about transsexuals that were a woman and
    transformed to a "man" now competing and taking medals from the men >>>>>> they are competing against?
    Because they grew up as women they don't have the same body
    characteristics and strengths as a man born as a man. Testosterone >>>>>> is not enough to give a woman the bone
    strength, muscle strength, etc to make her the equal of a man in
    competition. Just as if you grew up as a man and you take away
    testosterone, you still have most of those
    same characteristics that you were born with that allow you to run >>>>>> away (steal) the medals from the woman.
     It is a matter of being fair to the life long women.

      In my case it has nothing to do with not approving of
    transsexuals or being unkind, clearly they are uncomfortable in the >>>>>> body they have and I'm sure that is difficult,
    but that is not a reason to let them steal medals from young strong >>>>>> hard working women.
       An interesting and confounding case is Jazz, she was put on >>>>>> testosterone blockers at a very early age. Physically you don't see >>>>>> any male characteristics, she never developed
    the physical changes a male has at puberty. Because of the early
    testosterone blockers the vulvoplasty surgery had complications
    because of lack of  "material" to work with.
    I doubt very much that she would have any of the male
    characteristics to compete and win against women.

    Mikek
    Very few women work their whole livest to compete in sporting events.

    I just went back and re-posted my whole post that you clipped.
    You seemed to have had a real failure in rebuttal, are you changing your
    opinion on this subject.
    Maybe we can come to an agreement to help these transsexuals without
    scarring our young women.

    Sport is inherently unfair, which is why some sort of 'evening-up' is
    needed to make competition work. Basing the categories on real
    parameters, such as weight, muscle percentage, bone length or whatever happens to be appropriate for the particular sport, would be a much
    fairer way than basing it on what the midwife saw when the baby was
    born.


     I'm not sure I really follow that, you go to a high school and join
    the football team, you play if you're good enough. You go to a university
    and you getting close to the cream of human abilities, there is no
    evening up.
     Where is the evening up it Professional sports, if you don't excel,
    you don't play.


    Basing the categories on real parameters, such as weight, muscle percentage, bone length or whatever
    happens to be appropriate for the particular sport,<<

    Yes, and the heavier, longer bone, or whatever happens to be appropriate for the particular sport,
    are, the previous men parading as women and stealing medals and glory from females.

    Mikek





    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Liz Tuddenham@21:1/5 to amdx on Sun Mar 27 20:37:04 2022
    amdx <amdx@knology.net> wrote:

    On 3/27/2022 11:55 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
    amdx <amdx@knology.net> wrote:

    On 3/27/2022 11:06 AM, amdx wrote:
    On 3/27/2022 9:22 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 11:46:06 PM UTC+11, amdx wrote:
    On 3/27/2022 5:24 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    There's no social justice involved though you and John Doe might >>>>>> not be so quite so insistent on your mistaken ideas if you weren't >>>>>> intent on being unkind to people you don't approve of.
    If you want social justice you don't let a few a previous men
    compete against the many women that have worked their whole lives >>>>>> to compete.
    Why is it you don't hear about transsexuals that were a woman and >>>>>> transformed to a "man" now competing and taking medals from the men >>>>>> they are competing against?
    Because they grew up as women they don't have the same body
    characteristics and strengths as a man born as a man. Testosterone >>>>>> is not enough to give a woman the bone
    strength, muscle strength, etc to make her the equal of a man in >>>>>> competition. Just as if you grew up as a man and you take away
    testosterone, you still have most of those
    same characteristics that you were born with that allow you to run >>>>>> away (steal) the medals from the woman.
     It is a matter of being fair to the life long women.

      In my case it has nothing to do with not approving of
    transsexuals or being unkind, clearly they are uncomfortable in the >>>>>> body they have and I'm sure that is difficult,
    but that is not a reason to let them steal medals from young strong >>>>>> hard working women.
       An interesting and confounding case is Jazz, she was put on >>>>>> testosterone blockers at a very early age. Physically you don't see >>>>>> any male characteristics, she never developed
    the physical changes a male has at puberty. Because of the early >>>>>> testosterone blockers the vulvoplasty surgery had complications
    because of lack of  "material" to work with.
    I doubt very much that she would have any of the male
    characteristics to compete and win against women.

    Mikek
    Very few women work their whole livest to compete in sporting events. >>>
    I just went back and re-posted my whole post that you clipped.
    You seemed to have had a real failure in rebuttal, are you changing your >> opinion on this subject.
    Maybe we can come to an agreement to help these transsexuals without
    scarring our young women.

    Sport is inherently unfair, which is why some sort of 'evening-up' is needed to make competition work. Basing the categories on real
    parameters, such as weight, muscle percentage, bone length or whatever happens to be appropriate for the particular sport, would be a much
    fairer way than basing it on what the midwife saw when the baby was
    born.


     I'm not sure I really follow that, you go to a high school and join
    the football team, you play if you're good enough. You go to a university
    and you getting close to the cream of human abilities, there is no
    evening up.
     Where is the evening up it Professional sports, if you don't excel,
    you don't play.

    In some sports there are categories of players, otherwise accident of
    physical development would make it not worth competing for most players.


    Basing the categories on real parameters, such as weight, muscle percentage, bone length or whatever happens to be appropriate for the particular sport,<<

    Yes, and the heavier, longer bone, or whatever happens to be appropriate
    for the particular sport, are, the previous men parading as women and stealing medals and glory from females.


    Male/Female is an inaccurate substitute for the real cause of the
    unfairness, which is physical development. By categorising players by
    the actual characteristics that are most appropriate to the sport, you
    would get a much fairer system. It is done in horse racing and some
    other sports, so it isn't exactly a revolutionary idea.


    --
    ~ Liz Tuddenham ~
    (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
    www.poppyrecords.co.uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From amdx@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Sun Mar 27 15:23:13 2022
    On 3/27/2022 2:37 PM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
    amdx <amdx@knology.net> wrote:

    On 3/27/2022 11:55 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
    amdx <amdx@knology.net> wrote:

    On 3/27/2022 11:06 AM, amdx wrote:
    On 3/27/2022 9:22 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 11:46:06 PM UTC+11, amdx wrote:
    On 3/27/2022 5:24 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    There's no social justice involved though you and John Doe might >>>>>>>> not be so quite so insistent on your mistaken ideas if you weren't >>>>>>>> intent on being unkind to people you don't approve of.
    If you want social justice you don't let a few a previous men
    compete against the many women that have worked their whole lives >>>>>>>> to compete.
    Why is it you don't hear about transsexuals that were a woman and >>>>>>>> transformed to a "man" now competing and taking medals from the men >>>>>>>> they are competing against?
    Because they grew up as women they don't have the same body
    characteristics and strengths as a man born as a man. Testosterone >>>>>>>> is not enough to give a woman the bone
    strength, muscle strength, etc to make her the equal of a man in >>>>>>>> competition. Just as if you grew up as a man and you take away >>>>>>>> testosterone, you still have most of those
    same characteristics that you were born with that allow you to run >>>>>>>> away (steal) the medals from the woman.
     It is a matter of being fair to the life long women.

      In my case it has nothing to do with not approving of >>>>>>>> transsexuals or being unkind, clearly they are uncomfortable in the >>>>>>>> body they have and I'm sure that is difficult,
    but that is not a reason to let them steal medals from young strong >>>>>>>> hard working women.
       An interesting and confounding case is Jazz, she was put on
    testosterone blockers at a very early age. Physically you don't see >>>>>>>> any male characteristics, she never developed
    the physical changes a male has at puberty. Because of the early >>>>>>>> testosterone blockers the vulvoplasty surgery had complications >>>>>>>> because of lack of  "material" to work with.
    I doubt very much that she would have any of the male
    characteristics to compete and win against women.

    Mikek
    Very few women work their whole livest to compete in sporting events. >>>> I just went back and re-posted my whole post that you clipped.
    You seemed to have had a real failure in rebuttal, are you changing your >>>> opinion on this subject.
    Maybe we can come to an agreement to help these transsexuals without
    scarring our young women.
    Sport is inherently unfair, which is why some sort of 'evening-up' is
    needed to make competition work. Basing the categories on real
    parameters, such as weight, muscle percentage, bone length or whatever
    happens to be appropriate for the particular sport, would be a much
    fairer way than basing it on what the midwife saw when the baby was
    born.


     I'm not sure I really follow that, you go to a high school and join
    the football team, you play if you're good enough. You go to a university
    and you getting close to the cream of human abilities, there is no
    evening up.
     Where is the evening up it Professional sports, if you don't excel,
    you don't play.
    In some sports there are categories of players, otherwise accident of physical development would make it not worth competing for most players.

     Ah yes, like weightlifting they do take body weight into consideration.
    So does that mean you want a 150 lb woman to compete against a 150 lb man?
    I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or making an argument against.
    As you know when a male enters puberty, testosterone enhances bone
    strength, muscle strength
    along with assertiveness. That's why men and women don't compete against
    each other in most sports,
    and I can't think of any that do at elite levels.
    Previous males have an unfair advantage because of bone strength, muscle strength and a more male physique when competing against life long women.

                                   Mikek



    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Allison@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Sun Mar 27 14:48:33 2022
    Liz Tuddenham wrote:
    ==================


    Sport is inherently unfair,

    ** Massive lie - LIFE is inherently unfair.

    OTOH competitive sports attempt to create analogies to life that ARE fair and can be seen to be so.
    Competitors follow sets of rules, officials ensure those rules are followed and the result clear.
    It all happens in public view too. Nothing like life.

    In sport, the fittest, the strongest the most able win.
    The *whole idea* is to find such people - aka champions.

    BTW you are one evil, fake SJW.


    ..... Phil

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Sun Mar 27 23:02:04 2022
    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 20:00:51 -0000, Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:23:51 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    Rickster <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    Mikek
    Biden explicitely stated that he would nominate a "black woman" but the >> >> > woman in question doesn't know what he meant because she's not a
    biologist even though sex isn't determined by biology. I don't
    understand why you have trouble understanding that.


    Anyone in doubt of their own gender, can simply check their driver's
    license.

    Mine only shows 'sex', not 'gender'.

    Either you have a Y chromosone, or not.

    I don't know whether I have or not, I've never had a chromosome test.
    It would also depend on which organs they tested; some organs and body
    parts can have different chromosomes from others (chimera).

    In any case, gender isn't determined by chromosomes.

    We're not interested in your new age shit. Sex/gender is male or female. Easy enough to tell if you strip off. Your desire can be all sorts of things, some of which our antiquated legal system frowns upon, but that doesn't affect what you are. A
    poofter is still a man.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sun Mar 27 23:02:48 2022
    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 20:38:55 -0000, <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 20:00:51 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:23:51 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    Rickster <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    Mikek
    Biden explicitely stated that he would nominate a "black woman" but the
    woman in question doesn't know what he meant because she's not a
    biologist even though sex isn't determined by biology. I don't
    understand why you have trouble understanding that.


    Anyone in doubt of their own gender, can simply check their driver's
    license.

    Mine only shows 'sex', not 'gender'.

    Either you have a Y chromosone, or not.

    I don't know whether I have or not, I've never had a chromosome test.
    It would also depend on which organs they tested; some organs and body
    parts can have different chromosomes from others (chimera).

    In any case, gender isn't determined by chromosomes.

    Anyone with a Y should not compete in girls' sports. Y makes serious
    physical differences.

    No no no, lesbians.... er feminists state quite clearly that women are equal, therefore every human should compete in sports together, preferably naked.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to CK1@nospam.com on Sun Mar 27 15:41:01 2022
    On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 23:02:04 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
    <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 20:00:51 -0000, Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:23:51 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    Rickster <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    Mikek
    Biden explicitely stated that he would nominate a "black woman" but the
    woman in question doesn't know what he meant because she's not a
    biologist even though sex isn't determined by biology. I don't
    understand why you have trouble understanding that.


    Anyone in doubt of their own gender, can simply check their driver's
    license.

    Mine only shows 'sex', not 'gender'.

    Either you have a Y chromosone, or not.

    I don't know whether I have or not, I've never had a chromosome test.
    It would also depend on which organs they tested; some organs and body
    parts can have different chromosomes from others (chimera).

    In any case, gender isn't determined by chromosomes.

    We're not interested in your new age shit. Sex/gender is male or female. Easy enough to tell if you strip off. Your desire can be all sorts of things, some of which our antiquated legal system frowns upon, but that doesn't affect what you are. A
    poofter is still a man.

    Some people are genetically intersex, and some people are very
    uncomfortable playing their expected gender roles. I think we should
    be kind and tolerant to them, but don't let giant males call
    themselves women and destroy girls' sports.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sun Mar 27 23:44:58 2022
    On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 23:41:01 +0100, <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 23:02:04 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
    <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 20:00:51 -0000, Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:23:51 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    Rickster <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >>>> >> > amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, >>>> >> > > distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    Mikek
    Biden explicitely stated that he would nominate a "black woman" but the
    woman in question doesn't know what he meant because she's not a
    biologist even though sex isn't determined by biology. I don't
    understand why you have trouble understanding that.


    Anyone in doubt of their own gender, can simply check their driver's >>>> >> license.

    Mine only shows 'sex', not 'gender'.

    Either you have a Y chromosone, or not.

    I don't know whether I have or not, I've never had a chromosome test.
    It would also depend on which organs they tested; some organs and body
    parts can have different chromosomes from others (chimera).

    In any case, gender isn't determined by chromosomes.

    We're not interested in your new age shit. Sex/gender is male or female. Easy enough to tell if you strip off. Your desire can be all sorts of things, some of which our antiquated legal system frowns upon, but that doesn't affect what you are. A
    poofter is still a man.

    Some people are genetically intersex,

    They have a cock or a vagina. They're one or the other.

    and some people are very uncomfortable playing their expected gender roles.

    That doesn't change what sex they are. If someone with a cock fancies men, or wants to behave like a woman, that does not make him a woman.

    I think we should be kind and tolerant to them, but don't let giant males call
    themselves women and destroy girls' sports.

    Sports should allow anyone of any sex or persuasion. Just let humans compete against humans. Women are equal aren't they? Remember, they're not the weaker sex, or so they keep telling us. Let's see them put their money where their mouth is.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From amdx@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sun Mar 27 20:28:46 2022
    On 3/27/2022 5:41 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 23:02:04 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
    <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 20:00:51 -0000, Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:23:51 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    Rickster <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >>>>>>> amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, >>>>>>>> distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    Mikek
    Biden explicitely stated that he would nominate a "black woman" but the >>>>>>> woman in question doesn't know what he meant because she's not a >>>>>>> biologist even though sex isn't determined by biology. I don't
    understand why you have trouble understanding that.

    Anyone in doubt of their own gender, can simply check their driver's >>>>>> license.
    Mine only shows 'sex', not 'gender'.
    Either you have a Y chromosone, or not.
    I don't know whether I have or not, I've never had a chromosome test.
    It would also depend on which organs they tested; some organs and body
    parts can have different chromosomes from others (chimera).

    In any case, gender isn't determined by chromosomes.
    We're not interested in your new age shit. Sex/gender is male or female. Easy enough to tell if you strip off. Your desire can be all sorts of things, some of which our antiquated legal system frowns upon, but that doesn't affect what you are. A
    poofter is still a man.
    Some people are genetically intersex, and some people are very
    uncomfortable playing their expected gender roles. I think we should
    be kind and tolerant to them, but don't let giant males call
    themselves women and destroy girls' sports.



     Here, Here!

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to amdx on Sun Mar 27 20:23:31 2022
    On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 3:09:56 AM UTC+11, amdx wrote:
    On 3/27/2022 9:36 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 11:53:05 PM UTC+11, amdx wrote:
    On 3/27/2022 6:24 AM, John Doe wrote:
    Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
    amdx wrote:
    Rickster wrote:
    amdx wrote:
    What is the primary purpose for a woman's breasts?

    They are an evolved feature. Every female of every mammalian species has them, and the general opinion is that they are useful for feeding infants. Asking what their "primary purpose" is asserts that the evolutionary process has a purpose, which is
    the sort of error that intelligent design enthusiasts go in for.

    So it was the kind of silly question you'd expect from John Doe.

    Before or after a male hits puberty? :-)

    And this is an even sillier response.

    Does that mean you got the humor or did just whoosh by your humorless personality?

    Not exactly. I do have a sense of humour. You don't - if you had you might not have made quite such a silly assertion.

    Your thinking that what you posted was any kind of joke does illustrate this point rather clearly.

    If you have posted something like. "Pre- and post-pubescent males have different ideas about the significance of the female breast" you might have been making a joke, but "significance:' isn't "purpose". Nothing evolved has a "purpose". Evolution doesn't
    work that way.

    There may be a joke to be made about John Doe's deluded idea that a woman's breast could have a "purpose", but I couldn't find one. I clearly need a better sense of humour. The one I've got is okay, but Rowan Atkinson clearly got a better one - he could
    do well enough out of it to give up on electronic engineering. His M.Sc thesis, published in 1978, considered the application of self-tuning control, and he did start on a Ph.D. but his theatrical career took off at the that point. I did get a couple of
    revue scripts performed at that stage in my career, but they didn't go down well enough to generate any job offers.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to amdx on Sun Mar 27 20:39:08 2022
    On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 5:09:33 AM UTC+11, amdx wrote:
    On 3/27/2022 11:55 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
    amdx <am...@knology.net> wrote:

    On 3/27/2022 11:06 AM, amdx wrote:
    On 3/27/2022 9:22 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 11:46:06 PM UTC+11, amdx wrote:
    On 3/27/2022 5:24 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    Sport is inherently unfair, which is why some sort of 'evening-up' is needed to make competition work. Basing the categories on real
    parameters, such as weight, muscle percentage, bone length or whatever happens to be appropriate for the particular sport, would be a much
    fairer way than basing it on what the midwife saw when the baby was
    born.

    I'm not sure I really follow that, you go to a high school and join
    the football team, you play if you're good enough. You go to a university and you getting close to the cream of human abilities, there is no
    evening up.

    Where is the evening up it Professional sports, if you don't excel, you don't play.

    Boxing, judo, wrestling and weightlifting are all divided into weight classes, Fly-weights don't compete against heavy-weights.

    Basing the categories on real parameters, such as weight, muscle percentage, bone length or whatever
    happens to be appropriate for the particular sport.
    Yes, and the heavier, longer bone, or whatever happens to be appropriate for the particular sport,
    are, the previous men parading as women and stealing medals and glory from females.

    They aren't previous men because they wanted to do well in women's sport. Gender dysphoria is a mental conditions, and the best - and pretty much the only - treatment that works, involves changing the body of the sufferer into one that looks like the
    body of the preferred sex. Taking part in sport as a member of the preferred sex is one of the activities that reinforces the desired mental state.

    Getting upset by the occasional sporting success of one of these people is messing about with their therapy. Competitors in all sports hate losing, but encouraging them to be unpleasant about it is the sort of vile behavior we can expects from creeps
    like John Doe. You wan to be another creep like him? Your choice.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Commander Kinsey on Sun Mar 27 20:52:15 2022
    On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 9:45:06 AM UTC+11, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 23:41:01 +0100, <jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
    On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 23:02:04 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <C...@nospam.com> wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 20:00:51 -0000, Liz Tuddenham <l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
    <jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:23:51 +0000, l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
    Rickster <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >>>> >> > amdx wrote:

    <snip>

    Sports should allow anyone of any sex or persuasion. Just let humans compete against humans. Women are equal aren't they? Remember, they're not the weaker sex, or so they keep telling us. Let's see them put their money where their mouth is.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-49284389

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to amdx on Sun Mar 27 20:50:10 2022
    On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 7:23:21 AM UTC+11, amdx wrote:
    On 3/27/2022 2:37 PM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
    amdx <am...@knology.net> wrote:
    On 3/27/2022 11:55 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
    amdx <am...@knology.net> wrote:
    On 3/27/2022 11:06 AM, amdx wrote:
    On 3/27/2022 9:22 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 11:46:06 PM UTC+11, amdx wrote:
    On 3/27/2022 5:24 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

    As you know when a male enters puberty, testosterone enhances bone strength, muscle strength along with assertiveness.

    This has been asserted. The claim about assertiveness does seem to be correct. The claims about bone strength and muscle strength don't seem to be correct - the change in assertiveness encourages males to work at being stronger in a way that females
    mostly don't bother with.

    Biological female with naturally high testosterone levels were barred from competing as females for a while, but more careful research revealed that this wasn't justifiable.

    That's why men and women don't compete against each other in most sports, and I can't think of any that do at elite levels.

    Endurance events do seem to be an exception. Google threw this up immediately.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-49284389

    Previous males have an unfair advantage because of bone strength, muscle strength and a more male physique when competing against life long women.

    That's not what the most recent research says.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Sun Mar 27 22:42:43 2022
    On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:23:56 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 8:23:35 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 3:09:56 AM UTC+11, amdx wrote:
    On 3/27/2022 9:36 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 11:53:05 PM UTC+11, amdx wrote:
    On 3/27/2022 6:24 AM, John Doe wrote:
    Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
    amdx wrote:
    Rickster wrote:
    amdx wrote:
    What is the primary purpose for a woman's breasts?

    They are an evolved feature. Every female of every mammalian species has them, and the general opinion is that they are useful for feeding infants. Asking what their "primary purpose" is asserts that the evolutionary process has a purpose, which
    is the sort of error that intelligent design enthusiasts go in for.

    So it was the kind of silly question you'd expect from John Doe.

    Before or after a male hits puberty? :-)

    And this is an even sillier response.

    Does that mean you got the humor or did just whoosh by your humorless personality?
    Not exactly. I do have a sense of humour. You don't - if you had you might not have made quite such a silly assertion.

    Your thinking that what you posted was any kind of joke does illustrate this point rather clearly.

    If you have posted something like. "Pre- and post-pubescent males have different ideas about the significance of the female breast" you might have been making a joke, but "significance:' isn't "purpose". Nothing evolved has a "purpose". Evolution
    doesn't work that way.

    There may be a joke to be made about John Doe's deluded idea that a woman's breast could have a "purpose", but I couldn't find one. I clearly need a better sense of humour. The one I've got is okay, but Rowan Atkinson clearly got a better one - he
    could do well enough out of it to give up on electronic engineering. His M.Sc thesis, published in 1978, considered the application of self-tuning control, and he did start on a Ph.D. but his theatrical career took off at the that point. I did get a
    couple of revue scripts performed at that stage in my career, but they didn't go down well enough to generate any job offers.

    Hey Sloman you obviously don't have any kids, at least naturally conceived ones, because you would KNOW what the purpose of women's breasts is if you did.

    "Asking what the "primary purpose" of a woman's breast is, is asserting that the evolutionary process has a purpose, which is the sort of error that intelligent design enthusiasts go in for. "

    I did post "They are an evolved feature. Every female of every mammalian species has them, and the general opinion is that they are useful for feeding infants" which is still present in your post, so I clearly did know what you claim I needed to learn. I
    even know that not every mother can produce enough milk to satisfy her kid, which does complicate the issue.

    You could just be stupid, so that point may have escaped your attention, but that would take heroic stupidity.
    You do seem to be incapable of reading the posts you respond to, let alone understanding them.
    It is difficult to convincingly explain your posts on any basis other than that you are suffering from advanced senile dementia.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Sun Mar 27 22:23:52 2022
    On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 8:23:35 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 3:09:56 AM UTC+11, amdx wrote:
    On 3/27/2022 9:36 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 11:53:05 PM UTC+11, amdx wrote:
    On 3/27/2022 6:24 AM, John Doe wrote:
    Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
    amdx wrote:
    Rickster wrote:
    amdx wrote:
    What is the primary purpose for a woman's breasts?

    They are an evolved feature. Every female of every mammalian species has them, and the general opinion is that they are useful for feeding infants. Asking what their "primary purpose" is asserts that the evolutionary process has a purpose, which is
    the sort of error that intelligent design enthusiasts go in for.

    So it was the kind of silly question you'd expect from John Doe.

    Before or after a male hits puberty? :-)

    And this is an even sillier response.

    Does that mean you got the humor or did just whoosh by your humorless personality?
    Not exactly. I do have a sense of humour. You don't - if you had you might not have made quite such a silly assertion.

    Your thinking that what you posted was any kind of joke does illustrate this point rather clearly.

    If you have posted something like. "Pre- and post-pubescent males have different ideas about the significance of the female breast" you might have been making a joke, but "significance:' isn't "purpose". Nothing evolved has a "purpose". Evolution doesn'
    t work that way.

    There may be a joke to be made about John Doe's deluded idea that a woman's breast could have a "purpose", but I couldn't find one. I clearly need a better sense of humour. The one I've got is okay, but Rowan Atkinson clearly got a better one - he
    could do well enough out of it to give up on electronic engineering. His M.Sc thesis, published in 1978, considered the application of self-tuning control, and he did start on a Ph.D. but his theatrical career took off at the that point. I did get a
    couple of revue scripts performed at that stage in my career, but they didn't go down well enough to generate any job offers.

    --
    SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

    Hey SNIPPERMAN, you obviously don't have any kids, at least naturally conceived ones, because you would KNOW what the purpose of women's breasts is if you did.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Allison@21:1/5 to All on Sun Mar 27 23:23:25 2022
    FUCKWIT IEEE Bill puked more bullshit:

    ==================================

    Gender dysphoria is a mental conditions, and the best - and pretty much the only - treatment that works,
    involves changing the body of the sufferer into one that looks like the body of the preferred sex.

    ** Only IF that make them hard to distinguish from real women.
    A very rare feat indeed.

    Taking part in sport as a member of the preferred sex is one of the activities that reinforces the desired mental state.

    ** ONLY if the female athletes accept them as one of them.

    Which is totally unheard of.

    FYI to all:

    NOTHING the demented IEEE Bill fuckwit posts has ANY relationship to reality.

    Cos his ASD fucked brain has no such connection whatsoever !!!!!!




    ..... Phil

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to palli...@gmail.com on Mon Mar 28 00:54:03 2022
    On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 5:23:30 PM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
    FUCKWIT IEEE Bill puked more bullshit:

    ==================================

    Gender dysphoria is a mental conditions, and the best - and pretty much the only - treatment that works,
    involves changing the body of the sufferer into one that looks like the body of the preferred sex.
    ** Only IF that make them hard to distinguish from real women.

    A very rare feat indeed.

    Phil is presumably claiming to be good at making the distinction. One has to wonder where he put in the practice to become so expert.

    Taking part in sport as a member of the preferred sex is one of the activities that reinforces the desired mental state.
    ** ONLY if the female athletes accept them as one of them.

    Which is totally unheard of.

    Or Phil hasn't heard of it.

    FYI to all:

    NOTHING the demented IEEE Bill fuckwit posts has ANY relationship to reality.

    I've got much the same impression of Phil's output.

    Cos his ASD fucked brain has no such connection whatsoever !!!!!!

    Phil's idea that I'm on the autism spectrum isn't one that any of pyschologists I hang around with seems to share, and at least a few of them know a great deal more about autism than I do or Phil does. He does seems to regard the word as just one more
    term of abuse.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Liz Tuddenham@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Mon Mar 28 09:28:55 2022
    Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:


    They aren't previous men because they wanted to do well in women's sport.
    Gender dysphoria is a mental conditions, and the best - and pretty much
    the only - treatment that works, involves changing the body of the
    sufferer into one that looks like the body of the preferred sex. Taking
    part in sport as a member of the preferred sex is one of the activities
    that reinforces the desired mental state.

    Absolutely correct., although in my case I was subjected to so much
    bullying in school at so-called sport that I spent most of my time
    trying hard to avoid it.


    --
    ~ Liz Tuddenham ~
    (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
    www.poppyrecords.co.uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Liz Tuddenham@21:1/5 to Commander Kinsey on Mon Mar 28 09:28:56 2022
    Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 20:00:51 -0000, Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:23:51 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    Rickster <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    Mikek Biden explicitely stated that he would nominate a "black
    woman" but the woman in question doesn't know what he meant
    because she's not a biologist even though sex isn't determined by
    biology. I don't understand why you have trouble understanding
    that.


    Anyone in doubt of their own gender, can simply check their driver's
    license.

    Mine only shows 'sex', not 'gender'.

    Either you have a Y chromosone, or not.

    I don't know whether I have or not, I've never had a chromosome test.
    It would also depend on which organs they tested; some organs and body parts can have different chromosomes from others (chimera).

    In any case, gender isn't determined by chromosomes.

    We're not interested in your new age shit. Sex/gender is male or female.
    Easy enough to tell if you strip off. Your desire can be all sorts of >things, some of which our antiquated legal system frowns upon, but that >doesn't affect what you are. A poofter is still a man.

    That's an infant-school level of explanation. If you had studied
    biology to even 'entry level' you would know it was completely wrong.


    --
    ~ Liz Tuddenham ~
    (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
    www.poppyrecords.co.uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Mon Mar 28 11:53:14 2022
    On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 04:52:15 +0100, Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

    On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 9:45:06 AM UTC+11, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 23:41:01 +0100, <jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
    On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 23:02:04 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <C...@nospam.com> wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 20:00:51 -0000, Liz Tuddenham <l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
    <jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:23:51 +0000, l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
    Rickster <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >> >>>> >> > amdx wrote:

    <snip>

    Sports should allow anyone of any sex or persuasion. Just let humans compete against humans. Women are equal aren't they? Remember, they're not the weaker sex, or so they keep telling us. Let's see them put their money where their mouth is.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-49284389

    In ALL sports.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Allison@21:1/5 to Lizard Tuddenham on Mon Mar 28 03:40:55 2022
    Lizard Tuddenham wrote:

    ==========================

    Absolutely correct.

    * No, it is utter total CRAP.

    although in my case I was subjected to so much
    bullying in school at so-called sport

    ** Really ??

    So fat, un-cordinated, totally stupid as well as autistic.
    Lucky you were not beaten up daily.



    ...... Phil

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Mon Mar 28 11:53:54 2022
    On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 09:28:56 +0100, Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:

    Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 20:00:51 -0000, Liz Tuddenham
    <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:23:51 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    Rickster <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    Mikek Biden explicitely stated that he would nominate a "black
    woman" but the woman in question doesn't know what he meant
    because she's not a biologist even though sex isn't determined by
    biology. I don't understand why you have trouble understanding
    that.


    Anyone in doubt of their own gender, can simply check their driver's >> >> >> license.

    Mine only shows 'sex', not 'gender'.

    Either you have a Y chromosone, or not.

    I don't know whether I have or not, I've never had a chromosome test.
    It would also depend on which organs they tested; some organs and body
    parts can have different chromosomes from others (chimera).

    In any case, gender isn't determined by chromosomes.

    We're not interested in your new age shit. Sex/gender is male or female.
    Easy enough to tell if you strip off. Your desire can be all sorts of
    things, some of which our antiquated legal system frowns upon, but that
    doesn't affect what you are. A poofter is still a man.

    That's an infant-school level of explanation. If you had studied
    biology to even 'entry level' you would know it was completely wrong.

    ROTFPMSL! Yeah ok.... Can you get pregnant or can you make someone pregnant?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Mon Mar 28 15:02:37 2022
    On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 14:54:53 +0100, Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

    On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 9:53:23 PM UTC+11, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 04:52:15 +0100, Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

    On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 9:45:06 AM UTC+11, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 23:41:01 +0100, <jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
    On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 23:02:04 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <C...@nospam.com> wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 20:00:51 -0000, Liz Tuddenham <l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
    <jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:23:51 +0000, l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
    Rickster <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    amdx wrote:

    <snip>

    Sports should allow anyone of any sex or persuasion. Just let humans compete against humans. Women are equal aren't they? Remember, they're not the weaker sex, or so they keep telling us. Let's see them put their money where their mouth is.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-49284389

    In ALL sports.

    It probably wouldn't be a popular idea in all sports. When you have weight classes in sports like boxing, weight-lifting and wrestling, even our sillier right-wing posters should be able work out that it isn't going to be universally popular.

    Why not have the same weight of woman against the same weight of man?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to palli...@gmail.com on Mon Mar 28 06:48:22 2022
    On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 9:40:59 PM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
    Lizard Tuddenham wrote:

    ==========================

    Absolutely correct.

    * No, it is utter total CRAP.

    Phil does make this claim, in pretty much this form, on a regular basis. He's mostly wrong.

    He doesn't seem to have a clue how he might check whether his own opinion is correct, or how he might find (and post) evidence to show that his opinion is shared by slightly saner other individuals.

    although in my case I was subjected to so much
    bullying in school at so-called sport

    ** Really ??

    Phil is fond of expressing incredulity about subjects he knows nothing about.

    So fat, un-cordinated, totally stupid as well as autistic.

    The likeliest adjective would be small. Phil does like to improvise. I was plump as a kid, and of pretty much average size.. Not exactly fat, and there was some muscle in there as well, which meant that nobody tried to bully me twice.

    Lucky you were not beaten up daily.

    School teachers are supposed to stop that happening. The ones I had weren't all that good at it, and the kids I grew up with did work out some defensive alliances that worked rather more effectively.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Commander Kinsey on Mon Mar 28 06:54:53 2022
    On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 9:53:23 PM UTC+11, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 04:52:15 +0100, Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

    On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 9:45:06 AM UTC+11, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 23:41:01 +0100, <jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
    On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 23:02:04 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <C...@nospam.com> wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 20:00:51 -0000, Liz Tuddenham <l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
    <jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:23:51 +0000, l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
    Rickster <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    amdx wrote:

    <snip>

    Sports should allow anyone of any sex or persuasion. Just let humans compete against humans. Women are equal aren't they? Remember, they're not the weaker sex, or so they keep telling us. Let's see them put their money where their mouth is.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-49284389

    In ALL sports.

    It probably wouldn't be a popular idea in all sports. When you have weight classes in sports like boxing, weight-lifting and wrestling, even our sillier right-wing posters should be able work out that it isn't going to be universally popular.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Mon Mar 28 15:50:59 2022
    On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 15:41:19 +0100, Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

    On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 1:02:45 AM UTC+11, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 14:54:53 +0100, Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

    On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 9:53:23 PM UTC+11, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 04:52:15 +0100, Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

    On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 9:45:06 AM UTC+11, Commander Kinsey wrote: >> >> >> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 23:41:01 +0100, <jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
    On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 23:02:04 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <C...@nospam.com> wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 20:00:51 -0000, Liz Tuddenham <l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
    <jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:23:51 +0000, l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
    Rickster <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    amdx wrote:

    <snip>

    Sports should allow anyone of any sex or persuasion. Just let humans compete against humans. Women are equal aren't they? Remember, they're not the weaker sex, or so they keep telling us. Let's see them put their money where their mouth is.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-49284389

    In ALL sports.

    It probably wouldn't be a popular idea in all sports. When you have weight classes in sports like boxing, weight-lifting and wrestling, even our sillier right-wing posters should be able work out that it isn't going to be universally popular.

    Why not have the same weight of woman against the same weight of man?

    It's impractical. Weight isn't all that stable. More to the point, weight isn't an advantage in a lot of sports. Weight classes for sprinters and longer distance runners wouldn't make a lot of sense. This won't worry our sillier right-wing posters, who
    essentially post daft proposals to get noticed, but it is a waste4 of bandwidth.

    Quite why you associate left/right wing politics with sports decisions I don't know.

    If I made the rules, there would be no groups at all, no men/women, no weights, no heights, no nothing. Just who is the best at wrestling, weightlifting, running x metres, etc. Anyone can enter. What's the point in letting in those who are rubbish at
    the sport and giving them an excuse?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Commander Kinsey on Mon Mar 28 07:41:19 2022
    On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 1:02:45 AM UTC+11, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 14:54:53 +0100, Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

    On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 9:53:23 PM UTC+11, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 04:52:15 +0100, Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

    On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 9:45:06 AM UTC+11, Commander Kinsey wrote: >> >> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 23:41:01 +0100, <jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
    On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 23:02:04 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <C...@nospam.com> wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 20:00:51 -0000, Liz Tuddenham <l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
    <jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:23:51 +0000, l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
    Rickster <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    amdx wrote:

    <snip>

    Sports should allow anyone of any sex or persuasion. Just let humans compete against humans. Women are equal aren't they? Remember, they're not the weaker sex, or so they keep telling us. Let's see them put their money where their mouth is.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-49284389

    In ALL sports.

    It probably wouldn't be a popular idea in all sports. When you have weight classes in sports like boxing, weight-lifting and wrestling, even our sillier right-wing posters should be able work out that it isn't going to be universally popular.

    Why not have the same weight of woman against the same weight of man?

    It's impractical. Weight isn't all that stable. More to the point, weight isn't an advantage in a lot of sports. Weight classes for sprinters and longer distance runners wouldn't make a lot of sense. This won't worry our sillier right-wing posters, who
    essentially post daft proposals to get noticed, but it is a waste4 of bandwidth.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Mon Mar 28 08:04:05 2022
    On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 09:28:55 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:


    They aren't previous men because they wanted to do well in women's sport. >>Gender dysphoria is a mental conditions, and the best - and pretty much
    the only - treatment that works, involves changing the body of the
    sufferer into one that looks like the body of the preferred sex. Taking >>part in sport as a member of the preferred sex is one of the activities >>that reinforces the desired mental state.

    Absolutely correct., although in my case I was subjected to so much
    bullying in school at so-called sport that I spent most of my time
    trying hard to avoid it.

    But surely some of the cases of transgenderism are faked, mediocre
    male atheletes that call themselves female and become world-famous.
    The #50 male player in many sports can be #1 against females.

    We have guys here in California prisons who declare themselves female
    to get transferred to womens' prisons, with some predictable results.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Liz Tuddenham@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Mon Mar 28 17:01:43 2022
    <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 09:28:55 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:


    They aren't previous men because they wanted to do well in women's sport. >>Gender dysphoria is a mental conditions, and the best - and pretty much >>the only - treatment that works, involves changing the body of the >>sufferer into one that looks like the body of the preferred sex. Taking >>part in sport as a member of the preferred sex is one of the activities >>that reinforces the desired mental state.

    Absolutely correct., although in my case I was subjected to so much >bullying in school at so-called sport that I spent most of my time
    trying hard to avoid it.

    But surely some of the cases of transgenderism are faked,

    Very very few indeed. That is no reason for penalising the thousands of genuine transgender people who are faced with a choice between
    transitioning and suicide.

    It would have to be a very strange person indeed who was willing to go
    through what transgender people suffer in order to score a few points or
    gain a few moments of access to women's spaces. They should be fairly
    easily spotted by anyone with a bit of specialised knowledge.


    --
    ~ Liz Tuddenham ~
    (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
    www.poppyrecords.co.uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Mon Mar 28 09:21:14 2022
    On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 17:01:43 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 09:28:55 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:


    They aren't previous men because they wanted to do well in women's sport. >> >>Gender dysphoria is a mental conditions, and the best - and pretty much
    the only - treatment that works, involves changing the body of the
    sufferer into one that looks like the body of the preferred sex. Taking
    part in sport as a member of the preferred sex is one of the activities
    that reinforces the desired mental state.

    Absolutely correct., although in my case I was subjected to so much
    bullying in school at so-called sport that I spent most of my time
    trying hard to avoid it.

    But surely some of the cases of transgenderism are faked,

    Very very few indeed. That is no reason for penalising the thousands of >genuine transgender people who are faced with a choice between
    transitioning and suicide.

    They don't need to play girls sports to prevent suicide.


    It would have to be a very strange person indeed who was willing to go >through what transgender people suffer in order to score a few points or
    gain a few moments of access to women's spaces. They should be fairly
    easily spotted by anyone with a bit of specialised knowledge.

    Exactly. Scams.

    Some people cheat.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Allison@21:1/5 to LIAR on Mon Mar 28 16:33:52 2022
    Liz Tuddenham = LIAR wrote:

    =========================

    Absolutely correct., although in my case I was subjected to so much >bullying in school at so-called sport that I spent most of my time
    trying hard to avoid it.


    ** So Lizard is a sports HATER !!

    Don't it half fucking show !!!!


    But surely some of the cases of transgenderism are faked,

    Very very few indeed.

    ** All the male athletes who have taken wins off women recently are FAKES.
    Sporting bodies ( like the IOC ) have made up stupid rules re * gender" and they chose to EXPLOIT them.
    You have to really HATE women to do that.

    FYI:

    Possibly the most famous trans in women's sport was "Renee Richards," a tennis player.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9e_Richards

    Made a full transition at age 43, then took legal action to *force* world tennis to accept "her".
    She now believes she did bad thing and dos not approve of the present rules. Renee admits that IF she had transitioned when say 24, she would have dominated women's tennis for years.
    And ruined the sport.



    ...... Phil

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Allison@21:1/5 to Phil Allison on Mon Mar 28 16:51:47 2022
    Phil Allison wrote:
    ==============

    ** All the male athletes who have taken wins off women recently are FAKES. Sporting bodies ( like the IOC ) have made up stupid rules re * gender" and they chose to EXPLOIT them.
    You have to really HATE women to do that.

    FYI:

    Possibly the most famous trans in women's sport was "Renee Richards," a tennis player.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9e_Richards

    Made a full transition at age 43, then took legal action to *force* world tennis to accept "her".
    She now believes she did bad thing and dos not approve of the present rules. Renee admits that IF she had transitioned when say 24, she would have dominated women's tennis for years.
    And ruined the sport.


    ** See Martina Navratilova speaking on this exact topic.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsl73twV1ZM

    She knows ALL about dominating women's tennis.




    ....... Phil

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Mon Mar 28 18:01:34 2022
    On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 3:21:26 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 17:01:43 +0100, l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
    <jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
    On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 09:28:55 +0100, l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
    Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

    They aren't previous men because they wanted to do well in women's sport.
    Gender dysphoria is a mental conditions, and the best - and pretty much >> >>the only - treatment that works, involves changing the body of the
    sufferer into one that looks like the body of the preferred sex. Taking >> >>part in sport as a member of the preferred sex is one of the activities >> >>that reinforces the desired mental state.

    Absolutely correct., although in my case I was subjected to so much
    bullying in school at so-called sport that I spent most of my time
    trying hard to avoid it.

    But surely some of the cases of transgenderism are faked,

    Very very few indeed. That is no reason for penalising the thousands of >genuine transgender people who are faced with a choice between >transitioning and suicide.

    They don't need to play girls sports to prevent suicide.

    It's part of the process of getting them to fit in as girls. The frivolous objections of creeps like John Doe and Phil Allison shouldn't really be allowed to get in the way of an effective therapy.

    It would have to be a very strange person indeed who was willing to go >through what transgender people suffer in order to score a few points or >gain a few moments of access to women's spaces. They should be fairly >easily spotted by anyone with a bit of specialised knowledge.

    Exactly. Scams.

    If they actually existed. John Doe has a habit of inventing implausible straw men (and in this case implausible straw transgender athletes) then carrying on about how evil his delusive creations would be if they actually existed.

    Some people cheat.

    Going through irreversible surgical procedures isn't the sort of cheating that happens often, if at all.

    John Larkin hasn't thought through what he has posted - he rarely does.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Allison@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Mon Mar 28 18:53:38 2022
    FUCKWIT IEE Bill puked again bill....@ieee.org wrote:

    ===========================================

    **JL scribed:

    They don't need to play girls sports to prevent suicide.

    It's part of the process of getting them to fit in as girls.

    ** By making every other competitor HATE their guts and ruing a whole sport
    How very intelligent.


    The frivolous objections of creeps like John Doe and Phil Allison

    ** How fucking amusing.

    Hysterical how " IEEE Bill " actually LIKES having his own stinking urine spray back all over him.


    Going through irreversible surgical procedures isn't the sort of cheating that happens often, if at all.

    ** Renee Richards did it.

    Few others have though - there are SOME things a fake trans will just not do.


    ...... Phil

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to palli...@gmail.com on Mon Mar 28 21:13:31 2022
    On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 12:53:42 PM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
    FUCKWIT IEE Bill puked again bill....@ieee.org wrote:

    ===========================================

    **JL scribed:

    They don't need to play girls sports to prevent suicide.

    It's part of the process of getting them to fit in as girls.

    ** By making every other competitor HATE their guts and ruining a whole sport.

    It's you and John Doe who tell us that every other competitor hates their guts. Neither of you seems to be any kind of reliable witness. "Ruining the whole sport" seems to be the same kind of hysterical invention. You really shouldn't expect us to take
    your hysterical inventions seriously.

    How very intelligent.

    It doesn't take much intelligence to realise that your and John Doe go in for hysterical exaggeration. If you had any, you'd realise that we aren't going to take you seriously.

    The frivolous objections of creeps like John Doe and Phil Allison.

    ** How fucking amusing.

    Your idea that we are going to take you seriously is pretty comical. You both seem to be suckers for the twaddle Fox News serves up to appeal to right-wing lunatics, but you should have enough sense to realise that the rest of the world is less
    susceptible to that kind of catnip.

    Cursitor Doom has the same kind of problem. He's addicted to his right-wing nonsense, and seems to have missed the point that it is all invented nonsense, designed to titillate a particular kind of rather dim customer

    Hysterical how " IEEE Bill " actually LIKES having his own stinking urine spray back all over him.

    A bizarre idea. Fox News isn't actually pissing on their audience - "golden showers" sell into a different market - but what they do deliver is aimed at people with peculiar tastes.

    Going through irreversible surgical procedures isn't the sort of cheating that happens often, if at all.

    ** Renee Richards did it.

    But did he do it with the sole intention of dominating women's tennis? He should have had a pretty good idea that it wouldn't work.

    Few others have though - there are SOME things a fake trans will just not do.

    Where does the "fake" come from? That kind of surgery isn't something you can fake convincingly.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Allison@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Mon Mar 28 22:05:11 2022
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    ====================================

    If you want social justice you don't let a few a previous men compete against the many women that have worked their whole lives to compete.

    We have Special Olympics. We should have Trans Olympics.


    ** Never work.

    Fake Trans athletes only want to steal awards off women whom they deeply despise.
    Cos that is like taking candy from babies.


    ...... Phil

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to palli...@gmail.com on Mon Mar 28 22:16:56 2022
    On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 4:05:15 PM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    ====================================

    If you want social justice you don't let a few a previous men compete against the many women that have worked their whole lives to compete.

    We have Special Olympics. We should have Trans Olympics.

    ** Never work.

    Fake Trans athletes only want to steal awards off women whom they deeply despise.
    Cos that is like taking candy from babies.

    Phil does have an odd enthusiasm for reminding us that he has some very silly ideas.

    Maybe he could list the fake trans athletes whose motivations he knows so much about. My suspicion is that every last one of them exists only in his fertile imagination, but maybe he will prove me wrong. And pigs might fly.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Del Rosso@21:1/5 to bitrex on Tue Mar 29 03:11:19 2022
    bitrex wrote:
    On 3/26/2022 7:10 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 6:23 PM, bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 6:09 PM, Rickster wrote:
    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:28:42 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso
    wrote:
    bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 11:22 AM, John Doe wrote:

    We will see. Let's see if women in fact don't do anything about >>>>>>>> transgender bullies beating up on girls in sports. That is a
    huge question.

    Definitely an issue that really connects with the real-world
    problems of the regular American. Lol
    That's interesting, if you mean that it isn't important because
    it doesn't involve most people. Slavery and Jim Crow didn't
    involve most people.

    I like the way you ask him a question, then answer it for him.
    Excellent technique.


    I like that it does save time and it was a dumb analogy, anyway.

    Every time Tucker Carlson gets a time out on Twitter it's BASICALLY
    the same as the Holocaust

    Jim Crow, the Holocaust, and wokeness all warp the definition of
    humanity. If eugenics had critics 50 years earlier when it was only a
    harmless theory you would have said it doesn't connect with the real
    world problems of the average person.


    The Nazis would've put transsexuals to death, and the Moral Majority
    in 2022 would like to put them and all "degenerates" to death, a
    direct lineage of right-wing fascist philosophy. Nothing changed...

    Nothing real. Just what you imagine about the right.

    And Hitler was on the left, only to the right of Stalin. To believe
    otherwise you have to believe that all of us are in the middle of the
    two.

    --
    Defund the Thought Police

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Tom Del Rosso on Tue Mar 29 00:45:23 2022
    On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 6:24:39 PM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    bitrex wrote:
    On 3/26/2022 7:02 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 6:09 PM, Rickster wrote:
    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:28:42 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >>>>> bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 11:22 AM, John Doe wrote:

    We will see. Let's see if women in fact don't do anything about >>>>>>> transgender bullies beating up on girls in sports. That is a
    huge question.

    Definitely an issue that really connects with the real-world
    problems of the regular American. Lol
    That's interesting, if you mean that it isn't important because it >>>>> doesn't involve most people. Slavery and Jim Crow didn't involve
    most people.

    I like the way you ask him a question, then answer it for him.
    Excellent technique.

    I like that it does save time and it was a dumb analogy, anyway.

    It wasn't an analogy. It was a critique of this logic: "If it doesn't
    connect with the real-world problems of the regular American" then it
    doesn't need to be considered.

    With respect to slavery I'd say the Civil War was certainly a big
    problem for most everyone at the time and a long while after. Some
    seem to still be fighting it

    The Civil War wasn't an issue 10 or 100 or 200 years earlier when people should have thought slavery was an issue.

    But it wasn't on their minds when it should have been, or the Civil War
    would not have happened.

    Which was my original point. Just because it isn't currently affecting
    most people does not mean they shouldn't be concerned about it.

    The Left wants to use civil rights as a cudgel against every opposing position. It's not possible to believe a judge has bad judgement wthout
    being racist. You have to be demented to believe that but many people do
    a convincing impression. And yet while they use civil rights as a
    buzzword, they don't give a wit about civil society, which they destroy
    with censoring, cancelling, and redefining the most basic elements of
    society to suit themselves.

    Or that's what the lunatic right would like us to believe.

    "Transgender bullies beating up on girls in sports" is something that John Doe thinks is happening or wants us to think is happening.

    It's just one more of his imaginary problems, like cannibal leftists, and the deep state, which is so deeply hidden that only hos imagination can detect it.

    -
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Del Rosso@21:1/5 to bitrex on Tue Mar 29 03:24:45 2022
    bitrex wrote:
    On 3/26/2022 7:02 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 6:09 PM, Rickster wrote:
    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:28:42 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 11:22 AM, John Doe wrote:

    We will see. Let's see if women in fact don't do anything about
    transgender bullies beating up on girls in sports. That is a
    huge question.

    Definitely an issue that really connects with the real-world
    problems of the regular American. Lol
    That's interesting, if you mean that it isn't important because it
    doesn't involve most people. Slavery and Jim Crow didn't involve
    most people.

    I like the way you ask him a question, then answer it for him.
    Excellent technique.

    I like that it does save time and it was a dumb analogy, anyway.

    It wasn't an analogy. It was a critique of this logic: "If it doesn't
    connect with the real-world problems of the regular American" then it
    doesn't need to be considered.



    With respect to slavery I'd say the Civil War was certainly a big
    problem for most everyone at the time and a long while after. Some
    seem to still be fighting it

    The Civil War wasn't an issue 10 or 100 or 200 years earlier when people
    should have thought slavery was an issue.

    But it wasn't on their minds when it should have been, or the Civil War
    would not have happened.

    Which was my original point. Just because it isn't currently affecting
    most people does not mean they shouldn't be concerned about it.

    The Left wants to use civil rights as a cudgel against every opposing
    position. It's not possible to believe a judge has bad judgement wthout
    being racist. You have to be demented to believe that but many people do
    a convincing impression. And yet while they use civil rights as a
    buzzword, they don't give a wit about civil society, which they destroy
    with censoring, cancelling, and redefining the most basic elements of
    society to suit themselves.

    --
    Defund the Thought Police

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From amdx@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Tue Mar 29 07:37:54 2022
    On 3/28/2022 8:01 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 3:21:26 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 17:01:43 +0100, l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
    <jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
    On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 09:28:55 +0100, l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
    Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

    They aren't previous men because they wanted to do well in women's sport.
    Gender dysphoria is a mental conditions, and the best - and pretty much >>>>>> the only - treatment that works, involves changing the body of the >>>>>> sufferer into one that looks like the body of the preferred sex. Taking >>>>>> part in sport as a member of the preferred sex is one of the activities >>>>>> that reinforces the desired mental state.
    Absolutely correct., although in my case I was subjected to so much
    bullying in school at so-called sport that I spent most of my time
    trying hard to avoid it.
    But surely some of the cases of transgenderism are faked,
    Very very few indeed. That is no reason for penalising the thousands of
    genuine transgender people who are faced with a choice between
    transitioning and suicide.
    They don't need to play girls sports to prevent suicide.
    It's part of the process of getting them to fit in as girls. The frivolous objections of creeps like John Doe and Phil Allison shouldn't really be allowed to get in the way of an effective therapy.

       Again, their therapy should not be to the detriment of all the women
    that have worked hard to compete and then have to compete against a
    former man's body.
    Where are the women to men trans in men's sports? They aren't because
    they were former women and don't have the male body characteristics to win.


     Are women to men having as tough of a time feeling as they don't fit
    in  as men to women?
    Mikek


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to amdx on Tue Mar 29 06:43:27 2022
    On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 11:38:02 PM UTC+11, amdx wrote:
    On 3/28/2022 8:01 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 3:21:26 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 17:01:43 +0100, l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
    <jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
    On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 09:28:55 +0100, l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
    Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

    They aren't previous men because they wanted to do well in women's sport.
    Gender dysphoria is a mental conditions, and the best - and pretty much
    the only - treatment that works, involves changing the body of the >>>>>> sufferer into one that looks like the body of the preferred sex. Taking
    part in sport as a member of the preferred sex is one of the activities
    that reinforces the desired mental state.
    Absolutely correct., although in my case I was subjected to so much >>>>> bullying in school at so-called sport that I spent most of my time >>>>> trying hard to avoid it.
    But surely some of the cases of transgenderism are faked,
    Very very few indeed. That is no reason for penalising the thousands of >>> genuine transgender people who are faced with a choice between
    transitioning and suicide.
    They don't need to play girls sports to prevent suicide.

    It's part of the process of getting them to fit in as girls. The frivolous objections of creeps like John Doe and Phil Allison shouldn't really be allowed to get in the way of an effective therapy.

    Again, their therapy should not be to the detriment of all the women
    that have worked hard to compete and then have to compete against a
    former man's body.

    They have to compete against all kinds of different bodies anyway. A "former man's body" isn't guaranteed to win despite John Doe's delusions on the subject, and races do only have one winner, so most of the competitors are always going to lose.

    Where are the women to men trans in men's sports? They aren't because they were former women and don't have the male body characteristics to win.

    Some of them might. A woman recently won an ultra-marathon bike race against men - women do do well in endurance sports >

    Are women to men having as tough of a time feeling as they don't fit in as men to women?

    Don't know.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Liz Tuddenham@21:1/5 to amdx on Tue Mar 29 14:21:25 2022
    amdx <amdx@knology.net> wrote:


     Are women to men having as tough of a time feeling as they don't fit
    in  as men to women?

    Very much so. They don't have the same problem as Mtf transgender
    people, who are seen as 'dangerous men' (minus their penis, testicles
    and testosterone) masquerading as women, but they do have to cope with
    their family's reaction to losing a 'daughter' who was expected to bear children.

    The pressures on MtF are different, but they are responbsible for
    causing a lot of mental illness, self-harm and suicides.


    --
    ~ Liz Tuddenham ~
    (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
    www.poppyrecords.co.uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to amdx on Tue Mar 29 09:06:23 2022
    On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 07:37:54 -0500, amdx <amdx@knology.net> wrote:

    On 3/28/2022 8:01 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 3:21:26 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 17:01:43 +0100, l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
    <jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
    On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 09:28:55 +0100, l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
    Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

    They aren't previous men because they wanted to do well in women's sport.
    Gender dysphoria is a mental conditions, and the best - and pretty much >>>>>>> the only - treatment that works, involves changing the body of the >>>>>>> sufferer into one that looks like the body of the preferred sex. Taking >>>>>>> part in sport as a member of the preferred sex is one of the activities >>>>>>> that reinforces the desired mental state.
    Absolutely correct., although in my case I was subjected to so much >>>>>> bullying in school at so-called sport that I spent most of my time >>>>>> trying hard to avoid it.
    But surely some of the cases of transgenderism are faked,
    Very very few indeed. That is no reason for penalising the thousands of >>>> genuine transgender people who are faced with a choice between
    transitioning and suicide.
    They don't need to play girls sports to prevent suicide.
    It's part of the process of getting them to fit in as girls. The frivolous objections of creeps like John Doe and Phil Allison shouldn't really be allowed to get in the way of an effective therapy.

    Again, their therapy should not be to the detriment of all the women
    that have worked hard to compete and then have to compete against a
    former man's body.

    My younger daughter was a baseball fan practically from birth. She
    tried to play in the boys baseball leagues, but she wasn't strong
    enough to hit homers, and the boys wouldn't accept her, even though
    she is a great fielder.

    So she cut over to girls softball and thrived. She was shortstop and
    team captain at Cornell and is still in touch with her teammates.

    I tell people that she dual-majored in softball and beer pong.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-dom on Tue Mar 29 08:58:40 2022
    On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 03:24:45 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:

    bitrex wrote:
    On 3/26/2022 7:02 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 6:09 PM, Rickster wrote:
    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:28:42 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >>>>>> bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 11:22 AM, John Doe wrote:

    We will see. Let's see if women in fact don't do anything about >>>>>>>> transgender bullies beating up on girls in sports. That is a
    huge question.

    Definitely an issue that really connects with the real-world
    problems of the regular American. Lol
    That's interesting, if you mean that it isn't important because it >>>>>> doesn't involve most people. Slavery and Jim Crow didn't involve
    most people.

    I like the way you ask him a question, then answer it for him.
    Excellent technique.

    I like that it does save time and it was a dumb analogy, anyway.

    It wasn't an analogy. It was a critique of this logic: "If it doesn't
    connect with the real-world problems of the regular American" then it
    doesn't need to be considered.



    With respect to slavery I'd say the Civil War was certainly a big
    problem for most everyone at the time and a long while after. Some
    seem to still be fighting it

    The Civil War wasn't an issue 10 or 100 or 200 years earlier when people >should have thought slavery was an issue.

    But it wasn't on their minds when it should have been, or the Civil War
    would not have happened.

    Which was my original point. Just because it isn't currently affecting
    most people does not mean they shouldn't be concerned about it.

    The Left wants to use civil rights as a cudgel against every opposing >position. It's not possible to believe a judge has bad judgement wthout
    being racist. You have to be demented to believe that but many people do
    a convincing impression. And yet while they use civil rights as a
    buzzword, they don't give a wit about civil society, which they destroy
    with censoring, cancelling, and redefining the most basic elements of
    society to suit themselves.

    Turning everything into racism probably makes the population more
    racist. Almost certainly.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to bitrex on Tue Mar 29 08:55:54 2022
    On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:56:11 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    On 3/26/2022 7:10 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 6:23 PM, bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 6:09 PM, Rickster wrote:
    On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:28:42 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >>>>>> bitrex wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 11:22 AM, John Doe wrote:

    We will see. Let's see if women in fact don't do anything about >>>>>>>> transgender bullies beating up on girls in sports. That is a huge >>>>>>>> question.

    Definitely an issue that really connects with the real-world
    problems of the regular American. Lol
    That's interesting, if you mean that it isn't important because it >>>>>> doesn't involve most people. Slavery and Jim Crow didn't involve
    most people.

    I like the way you ask him a question, then answer it for him.
    Excellent technique.


    I like that it does save time and it was a dumb analogy, anyway.

    Every time Tucker Carlson gets a time out on Twitter it's BASICALLY
    the same as the Holocaust

    Jim Crow, the Holocaust, and wokeness all warp the definition of
    humanity. If eugenics had critics 50 years earlier when it was only a
    harmless theory you would have said it doesn't connect with the real
    world problems of the average person.


    The Nazis would've put transsexuals to death, and the Moral Majority in
    2022 would like to put them and all "degenerates" to death,

    Got a reference for that?



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to Tom Del Rosso on Tue Mar 29 16:10:36 2022
    "Tom Del Rosso" wrote:

    bitrex wrote:

    The Nazis would've put transsexuals to death, and the Moral Majority
    in 2022 would like to put them and all "degenerates" to death, a
    direct lineage of right-wing fascist philosophy. Nothing changed...

    Nothing real. Just what you imagine about the right.

    And Hitler was on the left, only to the right of Stalin. To believe
    otherwise you have to believe that all of us are in the middle of the
    two.

    +3

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to pallison49@gmail.com on Tue Mar 29 09:08:34 2022
    On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 22:05:11 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
    <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    ====================================

    If you want social justice you don't let a few a previous men compete
    against the many women that have worked their whole lives to compete.

    We have Special Olympics. We should have Trans Olympics.


    ** Never work.


    But imagine the adorable uniforms.

    Every team would need a makeup manager.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Liz Tuddenham@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Mar 29 19:10:39 2022
    <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 22:05:11 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
    <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    ====================================

    If you want social justice you don't let a few a previous men compete >> > against the many women that have worked their whole lives to compete.

    We have Special Olympics. We should have Trans Olympics.


    ** Never work.


    But imagine the adorable uniforms.

    Every team would need a makeup manager.

    You have some very curious and outdated ideas about transpeople. Most
    of us are trying to fit in and be unobtrusive; very few ciswomen would
    wear makeup whilst playing sport, so neither would transwomen.


    --
    ~ Liz Tuddenham ~
    (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
    www.poppyrecords.co.uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From amdx@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Tue Mar 29 16:00:46 2022
    On 3/29/2022 12:16 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 4:05:15 PM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    ====================================
    If you want social justice you don't let a few a previous men compete
    against the many women that have worked their whole lives to compete.
    We have Special Olympics. We should have Trans Olympics.
    ** Never work.

    Fake Trans athletes only want to steal awards off women whom they deeply despise.
    Cos that is like taking candy from babies.
    Phil does have an odd enthusiasm for reminding us that he has some very silly ideas.

    Maybe he could list the fake trans athletes whose motivations he knows so much about. My suspicion is that every last one of them exists only in his fertile imagination, but maybe he will prove me wrong. And pigs might fly.

     I have no concern about fake trans, my concern are the real trans
    competing against women.
                                  Mikek

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Allison@21:1/5 to Lizard Tuddenham on Tue Mar 29 17:04:30 2022
    Lizard Tuddenham wrote:
    ==========================
    <jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    If you want social justice you don't let a few a previous men compete >> > against the many women that have worked their whole lives to compete. >>
    We have Special Olympics. We should have Trans Olympics.


    ** Never work.


    Every team would need a makeup manager.

    You have some very curious and outdated ideas about transpeople.

    ** It was a joke Joyce.

    Most of us are trying to fit in and be unobtrusive;

    ** fFat chance.

    very few ciswomen would wear makeup

    ** That is a horrible, derogatory term that women all hate.

    would wear makeup

    ** One or two female sprinters famously did.

    whilst playing sport, so neither would transwomen.

    ** Logical fallacy.


    ...... Phil

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Allison@21:1/5 to amdx on Tue Mar 29 17:09:12 2022
    amdx wrote:
    ===========

    We have Special Olympics. We should have Trans Olympics.

    ** Never work.

    Fake Trans athletes only want to steal awards off women whom they deeply despise.
    Cos that is like taking candy from babies.

    I have no concern about fake trans, my concern are the real trans
    competing against women.


    ** There aren't any.

    No proof of being "trans" is needed for a male to enter many women's events. The ones we see now in swimming and athletics etc are opportunistic fakes.



    ..... Phil

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to palli...@gmail.com on Tue Mar 29 17:31:20 2022
    On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 11:09:15 AM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
    amdx wrote:
    ===========

    We have Special Olympics. We should have Trans Olympics.

    ** Never work.

    Fake Trans athletes only want to steal awards off women whom they deeply despise.
    Cos that is like taking candy from babies.

    I have no concern about fake trans, my concern are the real trans
    competing against women.

    ** There aren't any.

    No proof of being "trans" is needed for a male to enter many women's events. The ones we see now in swimming and athletics etc are opportunistic fakes.

    And your evidence for this bizarre claim is? Tucker Carlson sounding off on Fox News isn't evidence.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Allison@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Mar 29 17:32:02 2022
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    ===================================

    My younger daughter was a baseball fan practically from birth. She
    tried to play in the boys baseball leagues, but she wasn't strong
    enough to hit homers, and the boys wouldn't accept her, even though
    she is a great fielder.

    So she cut over to girls softball and thrived. She was shortstop and
    team captain at Cornell and is still in touch with her teammates.


    ** Women's sports are different from men's, plenty of skill on display but played in much fairer spirit.
    I enjoy watching Golf and Tennis on TV, but lean strongly towards women's events.
    Australia's world no 1 tennis player ( Ash Barty) retired a few days ago a the peak of her career - bugger.

    If even ONE good male player entered women's Golf or Tennis, he would win every match and title on offer.
    I sure hope the relevant bodies never let it happen.

    FYI:

    Women players are welcome to enter male Golf tournaments - they are literally "open" to all comers subject to a qualifying standard.
    This was common years ago, until the women's tour was established.
    Those who attempted it lately finished way down the list.
    Men hit their tee shots so much further than women.


    ..... Phil

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to amdx on Tue Mar 29 19:15:23 2022
    On 3/25/2022 6:07 AM, amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    Dictionaries constantly evolve.

    You should, instead, ask what role you expect this "qualification"
    to play.

    Are you using it to determine the types of medical afflictions
    the Pt is likely to experience?

    Are you using it to determine how much you can afford NOT to pay
    the job applicant? (oops!)

    Or, to determine suitability to holding positions of power/authority, advancement opportunities? (oops!)

    Are you using it to determine whether or not you can exert control
    over that entity's body? (oops!)

    Are you using it to determine the suitability for that party to
    perform a particular task? (spatial reasoning, digital dexterity)

    Are you using it to gauge their body shape? (petite vs. large)

    If, instead, you are using it to convince yourself that there is
    (and should be!) some difference between "women" and "men" -- in
    much the same way that you think there should be a substantive
    difference between "blacks" and "whites", "jews" and "gentiles",
    "blonds" and "brunettes", etc.) then I suspect you are just letting
    your own, personal insecurities manifest.

    I know "men" who are "weaklings" and "women" that you'd never want
    to engage in a bar fight! I know "men" who are chefs and "women"
    who are engineers. (I know men with larger "mammaries" than many
    women! Should I call them "girls" and the flatter-chested women
    "boys"?)

    I suspect most "women" would be more appreciative of your efforts to
    ensure them equal pay, equal respect, equal promotion opportunities,
    etc. than to come to the defense of women competing (at a disadvantage?)
    with transwomen. (yet, I don't see any impassioned posts about "equal rights"...)

    Does your employer have different standards for female job applicants
    than men? Perhaps we should divide society along those lines and
    split the opportunities, responsibilities, etc. based on percentage representation in the population?

    Maybe women soldiers should wear pink uniforms so the opposing forces
    can ensure only *their* women soldiers fire on YOUR women soldiers?
    We can make that determination prior to issuing your uniform (at
    short-arm inspection)...

    Have HALF of your bosses been women? Half of your colleagues? Half
    of your CEOs (just from your PERSONAL observations, not expecting you
    to be able to know about the population as a whole)? Politicians?
    Doctors? Lawyers? Auto-mechanics? Plumbers? Do you really think
    there haven't been an equal number of "females" qualified for those roles?

    [Personally, I've never had a female boss. Nor employer. And, only
    *once* had a boss that was an engineer -- so the "male-STEM-bias" can't
    explain away that (I've known several female engineers). OTOH, every
    "HR" person I've encountered has been female, save one.]

    If sports wanted to be "fair", they would assess the ATHLETIC
    qualities of the participants and qualify the competitions accordingly.

    You don't see "welter-weights" boxing "heavy-weights"! Why not?
    Shouldn't the *bigger* boxer be ALLOWED to clean the little guy's
    clock? ("Oh, but that wouldn't be *sporting*!")

    Do we sort *jockeys* based on length of penis?? Or, amount of leg hair?

    How does "sex/gender" *meaningfully* act to sort competitors? (in ANY competition -- sports or otherwise)

    Entities/individuals exist in an N-dimensional space. "Sex", "hair color", "religious belief", "ethnicity", "BMI", "height", "weight", ... can each
    be used to subdivide that space. Only a fool resorts to simple subdivisions.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to palli...@gmail.com on Tue Mar 29 19:30:01 2022
    On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 11:32:06 AM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    ===================================

    My younger daughter was a baseball fan practically from birth. She
    tried to play in the boys baseball leagues, but she wasn't strong
    enough to hit homers, and the boys wouldn't accept her, even though
    she is a great fielder.

    So she cut over to girls softball and thrived. She was shortstop and
    team captain at Cornell and is still in touch with her teammates.

    ** Women's sports are different from men's, plenty of skill on display but played in much fairer spirit.
    I enjoy watching Golf and Tennis on TV, but lean strongly towards women's events.
    Australia's world no 1 tennis player ( Ash Barty) retired a few days ago a the peak of her career - bugger.

    If even ONE good male player entered women's Golf or Tennis, he would win every match and title on offer.

    Idiot assertion.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)

    Billy Jean King wiped the floor with Bobby Riggs. He'd earlier in the same year won against Margaret Court, who had had her first child by then, and was past her peak.

    I sure hope the relevant bodies never let it happen.

    They did.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)

    FYI:

    Women players are welcome to enter male Golf tournaments - they are literally "open" to all comers subject to a qualifying standard.
    This was common years ago, until the women's tour was established.
    Those who attempted it lately finished way down the list.
    Men hit their tee shots so much further than women.

    Most men hit their tee shots further than most women, but it's overlapping bell curves. Dimbos like Phil and John Doe do like to simpllfy this down to the sort pf binary distinction they can process.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Allison@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Tue Mar 29 19:54:52 2022
    IEEE Bill needs to be committed bill....@ieee.org wrote: ============================================

    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: ===================================

    My younger daughter was a baseball fan practically from birth. She
    tried to play in the boys baseball leagues, but she wasn't strong
    enough to hit homers, and the boys wouldn't accept her, even though
    she is a great fielder.

    So she cut over to girls softball and thrived. She was shortstop and
    team captain at Cornell and is still in touch with her teammates.

    ** Women's sports are different from men's, plenty of skill on display but played in much fairer spirit.
    I enjoy watching Golf and Tennis on TV, but lean strongly towards women's events.
    Australia's world no 1 tennis player ( Ash Barty) retired a few days ago a the peak of her career - bugger.

    If even ONE good male player entered women's Golf or Tennis, he would win every match and title on offer.

    Idiot assertion.

    ** Totally CORRECT statement of fact.
    ------------------------------------------------------------

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)

    Billy Jean King wiped the floor with Bobby Riggs.

    ** ROTFLMAO !!

    Totally FUCKING IRRELEVANT !!!!!
    Did Bill even READ the damn Wiki ?

    Women players are welcome to enter male Golf tournaments - they are literally "open" to all comers subject to a qualifying standard.
    This was common years ago, until the women's tour was established.
    Those who attempted it lately finished way down the list.
    Men hit their tee shots so much further than women.

    Most men...

    ** Wrong topic - you demented POS fuckhead.



    ..... Phil

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to pallison49@gmail.com on Tue Mar 29 20:35:01 2022
    On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 17:04:30 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
    <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

    Lizard Tuddenham wrote:
    ==========================
    <jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    If you want social justice you don't let a few a previous men compete >> > >> > against the many women that have worked their whole lives to compete. >> > >>
    We have Special Olympics. We should have Trans Olympics.


    ** Never work.


    Every team would need a makeup manager.

    You have some very curious and outdated ideas about transpeople.

    ** It was a joke Joyce.

    Most of us are trying to fit in and be unobtrusive;

    ** fFat chance.

    very few ciswomen would wear makeup

    ** That is a horrible, derogatory term that women all hate.

    As they say in Texas, call me anything you like just don't call me
    late for dinner.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to palli...@gmail.com on Tue Mar 29 20:55:35 2022
    On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 1:54:55 PM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
    IEEE Bill needs to be committed bill....@ieee.org wrote: ============================================

    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: ===================================

    My younger daughter was a baseball fan practically from birth. She tried to play in the boys baseball leagues, but she wasn't strong enough to hit homers, and the boys wouldn't accept her, even though she is a great fielder.

    So she cut over to girls softball and thrived. She was shortstop and team captain at Cornell and is still in touch with her teammates.

    ** Women's sports are different from men's, plenty of skill on display but played in much fairer spirit.
    I enjoy watching Golf and Tennis on TV, but lean strongly towards women's events.
    Australia's world no 1 tennis player ( Ash Barty) retired a few days ago a the peak of her career - bugger.

    If even ONE good male player entered women's Golf or Tennis, he would win every match and title on offer.

    Idiot assertion.

    ** Totally CORRECT statement of fact.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)

    Billy Jean King wiped the floor with Bobby Riggs.

    ** ROTFLMAO !!

    Totally FUCKING IRRELEVANT !!!!!
    Did Bill even READ the damn Wiki ?

    You snipped the bit where I did point out that Bobby Riggs had beaten Margaret Court earlier in the same year, which I did get from the Wiki. If you spent more time reading, and less time rolling around on the floor laughing, you might look less like a
    half-wit.

    Your reading comprehension seems to be in the same self-serving state as Flyguy's. You can't notice anything that makes you look like the idiot you are.

    Women players are welcome to enter male Golf tournaments - they are literally "open" to all comers subject to a qualifying standard.
    This was common years ago, until the women's tour was established.
    Those who attempted it lately finished way down the list.
    Men hit their tee shots so much further than women.
    Most men...

    ** Wrong topic - you demented POS fuckhead.

    And why would you think that? It may make you feel good, but it does seem to be a self-serving delusion, which does make you look like a right twit.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Allison@21:1/5 to IEEE Bill needs to be committed on Tue Mar 29 22:43:13 2022
    IEEE Bill needs to be committed bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    ============================================

    If even ONE good male player entered women's Golf or Tennis, he would win every match and title on offer.

    Idiot assertion.

    ** Totally CORRECT statement of fact.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)

    ** A staged joke of an event.

    You snipped the bit where I did point out that Bobby Riggs had beaten Margaret Court earlier in the same year,

    ** So even a 55 year old * has been* can beat a top female on a good day.
    Imagine what a top, 25 year old male pro can do.


    Women players are welcome to enter male Golf tournaments - they are literally "open" to all comers subject to a qualifying standard.
    This was common years ago, until the women's tour was established. Those who attempted it lately finished way down the list.
    Men hit their tee shots so much further than women.

    Most men...

    ** Wrong topic - you demented POS fuckhead.

    And why would you think that

    ** Cos "most men" are not top level pro golfers you

    - you ASD FUCKED MORON



    ...... Phil

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Hernandez@21:1/5 to All on Wed Mar 30 10:56:33 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

    The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

    And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

    The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
    breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
    CLUELESS...

    And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has continued to post incorrectly formatted USENET articles that are devoid of content (latest example on
    Wed, 30 Mar 2022 10:37:09 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <t21bsk$a6s$1@dont-email.me>).

    NOBODY likes the John Doe troll's contentless spam.

    Further, Troll Doe stated the following in message-id <svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000
    (UTC):

    Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
    except insults to this group.

    Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe's post ratio
    to USENET has been 54.1% of its posts contributing "nothing except
    insults" to USENET.

    This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
    readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
    follow the rules it uses to troll other posters.

    SwwaBHeYvuiT

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to Don Y on Wed Mar 30 10:37:09 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    A very long, insane rant...

    --
    Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

    Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
    From: Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
    Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
    Subject: Re: What is a women?
    Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 19:15:23 -0700
    Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
    Lines: 92
    Message-ID: <t20egb$kdd$1@dont-email.me>
    References: <t1keq0$tv7$1@dont-email.me>
    Mime-Version: 1.0
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    Injection-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 02:15:39 -0000 (UTC)
    Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5fdf629b4855e2cfedbffb1d324efcdd"; logging-data="20909"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/xlv2G+NJDniDXFSaVNsUu"
    User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1
    Cancel-Lock: sha1:lKij1nUZHIXFUjnbpLXAZb8HdCE=
    In-Reply-To: <t1keq0$tv7$1@dont-email.me>
    Content-Language: en-US
    Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:664547

    On 3/25/2022 6:07 AM, amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    Dictionaries constantly evolve.

    You should, instead, ask what role you expect this "qualification"
    to play.

    Are you using it to determine the types of medical afflictions
    the Pt is likely to experience?

    Are you using it to determine how much you can afford NOT to pay
    the job applicant? (oops!)

    Or, to determine suitability to holding positions of power/authority, advancement opportunities? (oops!)

    Are you using it to determine whether or not you can exert control
    over that entity's body? (oops!)

    Are you using it to determine the suitability for that party to
    perform a particular task? (spatial reasoning, digital dexterity)

    Are you using it to gauge their body shape? (petite vs. large)

    If, instead, you are using it to convince yourself that there is
    (and should be!) some difference between "women" and "men" -- in
    much the same way that you think there should be a substantive
    difference between "blacks" and "whites", "jews" and "gentiles",
    "blonds" and "brunettes", etc.) then I suspect you are just letting
    your own, personal insecurities manifest.

    I know "men" who are "weaklings" and "women" that you'd never want
    to engage in a bar fight! I know "men" who are chefs and "women"
    who are engineers. (I know men with larger "mammaries" than many
    women! Should I call them "girls" and the flatter-chested women
    "boys"?)

    I suspect most "women" would be more appreciative of your efforts to
    ensure them equal pay, equal respect, equal promotion opportunities,
    etc. than to come to the defense of women competing (at a disadvantage?)
    with transwomen. (yet, I don't see any impassioned posts about "equal rights"...)

    Does your employer have different standards for female job applicants
    than men? Perhaps we should divide society along those lines and
    split the opportunities, responsibilities, etc. based on percentage representation in the population?

    Maybe women soldiers should wear pink uniforms so the opposing forces
    can ensure only *their* women soldiers fire on YOUR women soldiers?
    We can make that determination prior to issuing your uniform (at
    short-arm inspection)...

    Have HALF of your bosses been women? Half of your colleagues? Half
    of your CEOs (just from your PERSONAL observations, not expecting you
    to be able to know about the population as a whole)? Politicians?
    Doctors? Lawyers? Auto-mechanics? Plumbers? Do you really think
    there haven't been an equal number of "females" qualified for those roles?

    [Personally, I've never had a female boss. Nor employer. And, only
    *once* had a boss that was an engineer -- so the "male-STEM-bias" can't explain away that (I've known several female engineers). OTOH, every
    "HR" person I've encountered has been female, save one.]

    If sports wanted to be "fair", they would assess the ATHLETIC
    qualities of the participants and qualify the competitions accordingly.

    You don't see "welter-weights" boxing "heavy-weights"! Why not?
    Shouldn't the *bigger* boxer be ALLOWED to clean the little guy's
    clock? ("Oh, but that wouldn't be *sporting*!")

    Do we sort *jockeys* based on length of penis?? Or, amount of leg hair?

    How does "sex/gender" *meaningfully* act to sort competitors? (in ANY competition -- sports or otherwise)

    Entities/individuals exist in an N-dimensional space. "Sex", "hair color", "religious belief", "ethnicity", "BMI", "height", "weight", ... can each
    be used to subdivide that space. Only a fool resorts to simple subdivisions.



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Liz Tuddenham@21:1/5 to Don Y on Wed Mar 30 12:53:23 2022
    Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

    On 3/25/2022 6:07 AM, amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

    How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

    Female
    Noun
    an adult female human being.

    Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

    Dictionaries constantly evolve.

    You should, instead, ask what role you expect this "qualification"
    to play.

    Are you using it to determine the types of medical afflictions
    the Pt is likely to experience?

    Are you using it to determine how much you can afford NOT to pay
    the job applicant? (oops!)

    Or, to determine suitability to holding positions of power/authority, advancement opportunities? (oops!)

    Are you using it to determine whether or not you can exert control
    over that entity's body? (oops!)

    Are you using it to determine the suitability for that party to
    perform a particular task? (spatial reasoning, digital dexterity)

    Are you using it to gauge their body shape? (petite vs. large)

    If, instead, you are using it to convince yourself that there is
    (and should be!) some difference between "women" and "men" -- in
    much the same way that you think there should be a substantive
    difference between "blacks" and "whites", "jews" and "gentiles",
    "blonds" and "brunettes", etc.) then I suspect you are just letting
    your own, personal insecurities manifest.

    I know "men" who are "weaklings" and "women" that you'd never want
    to engage in a bar fight! I know "men" who are chefs and "women"
    who are engineers. (I know men with larger "mammaries" than many
    women! Should I call them "girls" and the flatter-chested women
    "boys"?)

    I suspect most "women" would be more appreciative of your efforts to
    ensure them equal pay, equal respect, equal promotion opportunities,
    etc. than to come to the defense of women competing (at a disadvantage?)
    with transwomen. (yet, I don't see any impassioned posts about "equal rights"...)

    Does your employer have different standards for female job applicants
    than men? Perhaps we should divide society along those lines and
    split the opportunities, responsibilities, etc. based on percentage representation in the population?

    Maybe women soldiers should wear pink uniforms so the opposing forces
    can ensure only *their* women soldiers fire on YOUR women soldiers?
    We can make that determination prior to issuing your uniform (at
    short-arm inspection)...

    Have HALF of your bosses been women? Half of your colleagues? Half
    of your CEOs (just from your PERSONAL observations, not expecting you
    to be able to know about the population as a whole)? Politicians?
    Doctors? Lawyers? Auto-mechanics? Plumbers? Do you really think
    there haven't been an equal number of "females" qualified for those roles?

    [Personally, I've never had a female boss. Nor employer. And, only
    *once* had a boss that was an engineer -- so the "male-STEM-bias" can't explain away that (I've known several female engineers). OTOH, every
    "HR" person I've encountered has been female, save one.]

    If sports wanted to be "fair", they would assess the ATHLETIC
    qualities of the participants and qualify the competitions accordingly.

    You don't see "welter-weights" boxing "heavy-weights"! Why not?
    Shouldn't the *bigger* boxer be ALLOWED to clean the little guy's
    clock? ("Oh, but that wouldn't be *sporting*!")

    Do we sort *jockeys* based on length of penis?? Or, amount of leg hair?

    How does "sex/gender" *meaningfully* act to sort competitors? (in ANY competition -- sports or otherwise)

    Entities/individuals exist in an N-dimensional space. "Sex", "hair color", "religious belief", "ethnicity", "BMI", "height", "weight", ... can each
    be used to subdivide that space. Only a fool resorts to simple subdivisions.

    Absolutely first class summing up of the idiotic anomalies created by
    mental pigmys who don't understand biology and go through life trying to
    force everyone else to believe in a false reality which corresponds to
    their own level of ignorance

    Would you mind if I keep a copy and use it (with due credits) when
    needed?


    --
    ~ Liz Tuddenham ~
    (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
    www.poppyrecords.co.uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Wed Mar 30 05:18:01 2022
    On 3/30/2022 4:53 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
    Absolutely first class summing up of the idiotic anomalies created by
    mental pigmys who don't understand biology and go through life trying to force everyone else to believe in a false reality which corresponds to
    their own level of ignorance

    Would you mind if I keep a copy and use it (with due credits) when
    needed?

    Skip the accreditation but feel free to paraphrase/quote as you like.

    I wonder how long before we hear these same "champions of fairness
    in women's sports" ALSO championing EQUALITY of women in ALL things?

    [Gotta wonder what life is going to be like for men coming of age, now.
    Given that so many FEWER of them are pursuing an education. Will the
    female doctors/lawyers/engineers/PROFESSIONALS be willing to "settle"
    for a "truck driver" as a mate? How will *he* look his friends in the
    eye when they all implicitly know SHE is the breadwinner?]

    (sigh) Gotta be tough living in perpetual fear of a life that
    is changing around you and you're desperately clinging to YOUR past.
    Better buy a gun! That will make you feel "potent", eh?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Doe on Wed Mar 30 05:37:51 2022
    On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 9:37:16 PM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:
    Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote:
    On 3/25/2022 6:07 AM, amdx wrote:

    <snip>

    How does "sex/gender" *meaningfully* act to sort competitors? (in ANY competition -- sports or otherwise)

    Entities/individuals exist in an N-dimensional space. "Sex", "hair color", "religious belief", "ethnicity", "BMI", "height", "weight", ... can each
    be used to subdivide that space. Only a fool resorts to simple subdivisions.

    A very long, insane rant...

    It was quite long, but perfectly sane (if a little tedious).

    John Doe isn't remotely sane, and he does have a lunatic enthusiasm for telling us about his favourite delusions.
    If he lived in a glass house, he'd long since have broken all the windows.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to palli...@gmail.com on Wed Mar 30 05:32:01 2022
    On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 4:43:17 PM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
    IEEE Bill needs to be committed bill....@ieee.org wrote: ============================================

    If even ONE good male player entered women's Golf or Tennis, he would win every match and title on offer.

    Idiot assertion.

    ** Totally CORRECT statement of fact.

    Not really.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)
    ** A staged joke of an event.
    You snipped the bit where I did point out that Bobby Riggs had beaten Margaret Court earlier in the same year,
    ** So even a 55 year old * has been* can beat a top female on a good day.

    Sure, but your assertion was that "even if ONE Good male player entered women's Golf or Tennis, he would win every match and title on offer."

    Bobby Riggs wasn't the best male player around, but he was pretty good, and he didn't beat Billy Jean King.

    Imagine what a top, 25 year old male pro can do.

    The same link lists a number of such matches. No need for imagination.

    Women players are welcome to enter male Golf tournaments - they are literally "open" to all comers subject to a qualifying standard.
    This was common years ago, until the women's tour was established. Those who attempted it lately finished way down the list.
    Men hit their tee shots so much further than women.

    Most men...

    ** Wrong topic - you demented POS fuckhead.

    And why would you think that

    ** Cos "most men" are not top level pro golfers you - you ASD FUCKED MORON.

    This is also true most women. There's going to be a distribution of how far the tee shot goes for each sex, and you were making an assertion about all men, not just top level pro golfers. If you had thought about what you were claiming when you
    constructed your post, you might have qualified the claim at the time you made it. which makes you the moron.

    I won't speculate about your particular mental problems - a tendency to fly off the handle when even minimally provoked is probably symptomatic of something, but it would be a waste time to try to pick a technical sounding name for it.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to Edward Hernandez on Wed Mar 30 12:41:40 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    Poor liddle Eddie got spanked and just can't get over it.

    Unless Eddie is nym-shifting, it has never posted anything NORMAL
    except when it got a severe spanking...

    https://groups.google.com/g/sci.electronics.repair/c/MesPLcGU4BE

    Is the stalker a nym-shifting troll, or a newbie netcop wannabe?

    See also...
    Peter Weiner <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
    Edward H. <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
    Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com>

    Eddie is an example for all newbies. Don't get spanked!

    Spanked Eddie...

    --
    Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com> wrote:

    Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.freedyn.de!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx14.ams4.POSTED!
    not-for-mail
    From: Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: What is a women?
    Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,free.spam
    References: <t1keq0$tv7$1@dont-email.me> <t20egb$kdd$1@dont-email.me> <t21bsk$a6s$1@dont-email.me>
    Lines: 36
    Message-ID: <BHW0K.91452$I_K3.86154@usenetxs.com>
    X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
    NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 10:56:33 UTC
    Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 10:56:33 GMT
    X-Received-Bytes: 1855
    Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:664582 free.spam:17827

    The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

    The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

    And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

    The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
    breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
    CLUELESS...

    And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has continued to post incorrectly formatted USENET articles that are devoid of content (latest example on
    Wed, 30 Mar 2022 10:37:09 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <t21bsk$a6s$1@dont-email.me>).

    NOBODY likes the John Doe troll's contentless spam.

    Further, Troll Doe stated the following in message-id <svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000
    (UTC):

    Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
    except insults to this group.

    Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe's post ratio
    to USENET has been 54.1% of its posts contributing "nothing except
    insults" to USENET.

    This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
    readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even follow the rules it uses to troll other posters.

    SwwaBHeYvuiT



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Hernandez@21:1/5 to All on Wed Mar 30 13:15:15 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

    The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

    And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

    The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
    breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
    CLUELESS...

    And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
    incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Wed, 30 Mar 2022 12:41:40 -0000
    (UTC) in message-id <t21j64$3ke$2@dont-email.me>.

    This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
    readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
    follow the rules it uses to troll other posters.

    5z6oPPep7IPi

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Doe on Wed Mar 30 06:01:13 2022
    On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 11:40:35 PM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:
    Bill doesn't know what a woman is.

    John Doe has some strange delusions. I did first year biology back in 1960. That spelled out the biological differences that were known about at the time.

    We know a bit more now, but you wouldn't run into much of the new knowledge in first year biology today. A few years later I married one and I'm still married to her, so I have a certain practical familiarity with at least one woman ( and I've worked -
    more or less closely - with quite a few more). Female hardware engineers are thin on the ground, but there have been quite a few female software engineers, pretty much all of them pretty good.

    Then there was my mixed hockey team in the Netherlands ... the female traffic engineer got late onset multiple sclerosis, which wasn't great.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Wed Mar 30 12:40:28 2022
    Bozo doesn't know what a woman is.


    Bozo Bill Sloman, the most frequent troll in this group, is an attention-craving chronic liar who cannot be reasoned with...

    "the Mueller investigation was about Trump only because Trump made it so"
    (Bozo paraphrased)

    "the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions"
    (Bill Sloman)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Don Y on Wed Mar 30 15:24:40 2022
    On 30/03/2022 14:18, Don Y wrote:
    On 3/30/2022 4:53 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
    Absolutely first class summing up of the idiotic anomalies created by
    mental pigmys who don't understand biology and go through life trying to
    force everyone else to believe in a false reality which corresponds to
    their own level of ignorance

      Would you mind if I keep a copy and use it (with due credits) when
    needed?

    Skip the accreditation but feel free to paraphrase/quote as you like.

    I wonder how long before we hear these same "champions of fairness
    in women's sports" ALSO championing EQUALITY of women in ALL things?

    For those in this group, it will never happen. They are old, bitter,
    bigoted and ignorant, and that won't change. They will probably deny
    being misogynist (and racist, homophobic, and allergic to pretty much
    anyone that doesn't conform to their personal image) and try to cover it
    up, but it's usually quite obvious. They'll tell you that they even
    employee a female/black/gay/Muslim engineer and that they do quite a
    good job for a girl/black/whatever - thinking that "proves" they are not bigoted.

    They absolutely /love/ the myth that women's sport is being taken over
    and spoiled by transgenders. In many places it's getting too hard to
    boost your feeble self-image by beating down on women as women's rights
    and equality have improved, but non-binary people are an easy target
    that have become more visible in recent years. And you can rail against
    them while claiming to be protecting women - it's the ideal situation
    for them.

    So no, they won't change - we just have to wait for them to die off.
    Somebody in another thread quoted "science progresses one funeral at a
    time" - sometimes the same applies to social justice.


    [Gotta wonder what life is going to be like for men coming of age, now.
    Given that so many FEWER of them are pursuing an education.  Will the
    female doctors/lawyers/engineers/PROFESSIONALS be willing to "settle"
    for a "truck driver" as a mate?  How will *he* look his friends in the
    eye when they all implicitly know SHE is the breadwinner?]

    My mother earned twice as much as my father. It never bothered them.

    Men will get on fine in an equal society, even a truck driver married to
    a female doctor, as long as they don't expect special treatment just
    because they are male. A truck driver who wants to live in the 1950's
    and expects his doctor wife to provide him with dinner and a beer in
    front of the tele is not going to get on well. But people to who see
    life with a partner as an equal, honest and fair partnership will do
    fine, regardless of combinations of male, female, non-binary, truck
    driver and doctor.


    (sigh)  Gotta be tough living in perpetual fear of a life that
    is changing around you and you're desperately clinging to YOUR past.
    Better buy a gun!  That will make you feel "potent", eh?

    I am glad to live in a country where the only question that is answered
    "better buy a gun" is "How do I tale up elk-hunting as a hobby?".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Liz Tuddenham@21:1/5 to Don Y on Wed Mar 30 14:46:39 2022
    Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

    On 3/30/2022 4:53 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
    Absolutely first class summing up of the idiotic anomalies created by mental pigmys who don't understand biology and go through life trying to force everyone else to believe in a false reality which corresponds to their own level of ignorance

    Would you mind if I keep a copy and use it (with due credits) when needed?

    Skip the accreditation but feel free to paraphrase/quote as you like.

    Thanks, it is too good to be allowed to lapse into oblivion.


    I wonder how long before we hear these same "champions of fairness
    in women's sports" ALSO championing EQUALITY of women in ALL things?

    Equality of opportunity doesn't worry me; enforced equality of results
    is much more worrying. All targetted positive discrimination is
    widespread negative discrimination under another name.

    I have worked for good and bad bosses, some were female and some were
    male, there was no correlation. I was mainly taught by males (because
    that's how things were in those days), but found I learned a lot more
    easily from females. I have known excellent female engineers who were
    denied the chance to excel because they were female - and really bad
    male engineers who held down unsuitable jobs because they could throw
    their weight around when challenged.

    The whole male/female thing is a mess, mainly because of lazy thinking
    and prejudice.

    --
    ~ Liz Tuddenham ~
    (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
    www.poppyrecords.co.uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to blockedofcourse@foo.invalid on Wed Mar 30 08:21:07 2022
    On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 19:15:23 -0700, Don Y
    <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:


    [Personally, I've never had a female boss. Nor employer. And, only
    *once* had a boss that was an engineer -- so the "male-STEM-bias" can't >explain away that (I've known several female engineers). OTOH, every
    "HR" person I've encountered has been female, save one.]

    My boss is female. She manages immense detail so I can design one
    thing at a time. I hate to task switch.


    If sports wanted to be "fair", they would assess the ATHLETIC
    qualities of the participants and qualify the competitions accordingly.

    You don't see "welter-weights" boxing "heavy-weights"! Why not?
    Shouldn't the *bigger* boxer be ALLOWED to clean the little guy's
    clock? ("Oh, but that wouldn't be *sporting*!")

    Do we sort *jockeys* based on length of penis?? Or, amount of leg hair?

    How does "sex/gender" *meaningfully* act to sort competitors? (in ANY >competition -- sports or otherwise)

    Entities/individuals exist in an N-dimensional space. "Sex", "hair color", >"religious belief", "ethnicity", "BMI", "height", "weight", ... can each
    be used to subdivide that space. Only a fool resorts to simple subdivisions.

    No. Many clever people do it for power and profit.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dimiter_Popoff@21:1/5 to Don Y on Wed Mar 30 18:52:16 2022
    On 3/30/2022 5:15, Don Y wrote:
    ....
    If sports wanted to be "fair", they would assess the ATHLETIC
    qualities of the participants and qualify the competitions accordingly.

    You don't see "welter-weights" boxing "heavy-weights"!  Why not?
    Shouldn't the *bigger* boxer be ALLOWED to clean the little guy's
    clock?  ("Oh, but that wouldn't be *sporting*!")

    Do we sort *jockeys* based on length of penis??  Or, amount of leg hair?

    How does "sex/gender" *meaningfully* act to sort competitors?  (in ANY competition -- sports or otherwise)

    Don, of course nothing can be 100% fair when many people are involved.
    And of course it is everyone's own busyness what the do with their
    genitalia.
    That is, until they make it other people's busyness.
    In sport, a mediocre male athlete suddenly has his dick chopped off
    and there we are, he is a champion - among women. Clearly unfair.
    They ban athletes for life for much less, like using drugs etc.

    Is it not practical to divide women/men by chromosome count or
    something? That would be fair enough I suppose (but I don't know
    much if anything about biology).

    (about to email you on another topic but saw this first)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to All on Wed Mar 30 09:31:16 2022
    On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 18:52:16 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
    wrote:

    On 3/30/2022 5:15, Don Y wrote:
    ....
    If sports wanted to be "fair", they would assess the ATHLETIC
    qualities of the participants and qualify the competitions accordingly.

    You don't see "welter-weights" boxing "heavy-weights"! Why not?
    Shouldn't the *bigger* boxer be ALLOWED to clean the little guy's
    clock? ("Oh, but that wouldn't be *sporting*!")

    Do we sort *jockeys* based on length of penis?? Or, amount of leg hair?

    How does "sex/gender" *meaningfully* act to sort competitors? (in ANY
    competition -- sports or otherwise)

    Don, of course nothing can be 100% fair when many people are involved.
    And of course it is everyone's own busyness what the do with their
    genitalia.
    That is, until they make it other people's busyness.
    In sport, a mediocre male athlete suddenly has his dick chopped off
    and there we are, he is a champion - among women. Clearly unfair.
    They ban athletes for life for much less, like using drugs etc.

    Is it not practical to divide women/men by chromosome count or
    something? That would be fair enough I suppose (but I don't know
    much if anything about biology).

    Read this:

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1250236061

    Lots of cool stuff.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From amdx@21:1/5 to Don Y on Wed Mar 30 12:05:55 2022
    On 3/30/2022 7:18 AM, Don Y wrote:
    On 3/30/2022 4:53 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
    Absolutely first class summing up of the idiotic anomalies created by
    mental pigmys who don't understand biology and go through life trying to
    force everyone else to believe in a false reality which corresponds to
    their own level of ignorance

      Would you mind if I keep a copy and use it (with due credits) when
    needed?

    Skip the accreditation but feel free to paraphrase/quote as you like.

    I wonder how long before we hear these same "champions of fairness
    in women's sports" ALSO championing EQUALITY of women in ALL things?

    [Gotta wonder what life is going to be like for men coming of age, now.
    Given that so many FEWER of them are pursuing an education.  Will the
    female doctors/lawyers/engineers/PROFESSIONALS be willing to "settle"
    for a "truck driver" as a mate?  How will *he* look his friends in the
    eye when they all implicitly know SHE is the breadwinner?]

     This is already an issue, especially in the black community.
    I enjoy watching Kevin Samuels although sometimes he is a bit harsh,
    but he is giving tough love. He's trying to fix the 30% marriage rate of
    Black women.
    This particular video doesn't cover highly educated women picking men,
    but many of his videos do,
    and they often think they are going to marry a man the earns $200k to
    $400k a year.
    Kevin points out that that is less then 5% of men and those aren't
    looking for the
    30 year olds, they want the 22 year olds.
    This video is a women building her business and delaying marriage.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwbPUZXek60

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wGaAGcLlig

                            Mikek

    PS, Kevin doesn't think a women should weigh more than a man.



    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to All on Wed Mar 30 10:40:55 2022
    On 3/30/2022 8:52 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
    Don, of course nothing can be 100% fair when many people are involved.
    And of course it is everyone's own busyness what the do with their
    genitalia.
    That is, until they make it other people's busyness.
    In sport, a mediocre male athlete suddenly has his dick chopped off
    and there we are, he is a champion - among women. Clearly unfair.
    They ban athletes for life for much less, like using drugs etc.

    But that's because some idiot decided that male-female categories
    make some sort of sense -- instead of more clearly sorting
    contestants into similar capabilities (relying on genitalia as
    the sole criteria).

    As I said, you wouldn't want to watch a heavy-weight boxing a welter-weight because it would be "no contest". You'd *expect* the heavy weight to win.

    EVEN IF BOTH WERE (cis)FEMALE (or cismale)

    You don't race a stock car against a rail on a dragstrip -- because you
    KNOW the rail will win, hands down.

    Instead, you try to match competitors as closely as possible to "make it sporting".

    Is it fair for a man with an artificial foot ("blade runner") to race
    men with natural appendages? Can you demonstrate that the "blade"
    doesn't give him an *advantage* (despite the thinking that he is, in
    effect, "handicapped")?

    How exciting is it to watch Jeopardy, Wheel of Fortune, etc. when one contestant is clearly MUCH better than the others? Wanna bet their
    viewership would fall if this was the case EVERY time?

    [Why do the Japanese love *ties*?]

    Is it not practical to divide women/men by chromosome count or
    something? That would be fair enough I suppose (but I don't know
    much if anything about biology).

    I contend it is a silly distinction, in the 21st century.

    Why not allow "doping"? And, the body that can better tolerate
    (and respond to) the drugs should DESERVE to win, right? Clearly,
    the other competitors can take the same drugs so the playing field
    wouldn't be biased by one competitor having access to them while
    another doesn't?

    (about to email you on another topic but saw this first)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Wed Mar 30 11:05:44 2022
    On 3/30/2022 6:46 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
    Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

    On 3/30/2022 4:53 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
    Absolutely first class summing up of the idiotic anomalies created by
    mental pigmys who don't understand biology and go through life trying to >>> force everyone else to believe in a false reality which corresponds to
    their own level of ignorance

    Would you mind if I keep a copy and use it (with due credits) when
    needed?

    Skip the accreditation but feel free to paraphrase/quote as you like.

    Thanks, it is too good to be allowed to lapse into oblivion.

    Words mean little/nothing. Just like the morons trying to give the
    appearance (with their words) of "protecting" the poor female athletes
    *forced* to compete with transgender females (yet likely not giving a
    shit about how females, in general, are treated).

    I'm old enough that pronouns require conscious thought. E.g., I
    grew up taught that you used "he" (now, "she") to describe the
    reader or a third person, when writing. In English, we tend to think
    of "one" as too formal/haughty to use in everyday speech so are left
    with "they" -- which seems plural.

    OTOH, I have no problem using "she" when referring to a "guy in drag"
    (who clearly wants to be treated as a *she*).

    It's more work, when approaching someone "cold", as you don't always
    know what their preferences are. Just like approaching a "fat" woman
    and not knowing if you should congratulate her on being pregnant! :>

    We have a woman working at our local branch library who is clearly trans.
    When I first saw her (in profile), I commented (to myself), "God, she's
    TALL!" On closer inspection, its apparent that she is just a tall "guy"
    but clearly wanting to be treated as a female. Thankfully, nametags
    on employees make it easy to figure out how *she'd* like to be addressed!

    Sort of like the "threat" that long hair posed to old farts in the 60's:
    "let's vilify them hippies!" ("Mr. Smith, I'd like you to meet the cardiologist who'll be doing your surgery...")

    Must be tough to wake up each morning so terrified of how the world
    isn't the same as it was in the 50's! (yet taking advantage of all
    the other "progress" that has happened in the intervening decades!
    I wonder how many of the "feet firmly planted in the past" types
    would TRULY like to go back to the 50's -- if it meant they had
    to live with ALL of that era's limitations??)

    I wonder how long before we hear these same "champions of fairness
    in women's sports" ALSO championing EQUALITY of women in ALL things?

    Equality of opportunity doesn't worry me; enforced equality of results
    is much more worrying. All targetted positive discrimination is
    widespread negative discrimination under another name.

    I have worked for good and bad bosses, some were female and some were
    male, there was no correlation.

    I am not claiming one is "better" than another. Rather, that there is an unusual ("statistically significant"?) bias in the "sex" of folks in
    positions of responsibility, higher wages, etc. From that observation
    one would have to conclude bias (or sex-based incompetence).

    I was mainly taught by males (because
    that's how things were in those days), but found I learned a lot more
    easily from females. I have known excellent female engineers who were
    denied the chance to excel because they were female - and really bad
    male engineers who held down unsuitable jobs because they could throw
    their weight around when challenged.

    The whole male/female thing is a mess, mainly because of lazy thinking
    and prejudice.

    I think it is just an easy way to remove a large section of the population
    from "the competition". Another way for males who feel threatened to try
    to cling to positions of power, higher wages, etc. If we can make them
    appear unusual, we can ignore them (and convince others to ignore them,
    as well).

    [I don't see any men complaining about women-dressed-as-men standing next to them at the urinal! But, a man-dressed-as-a-woman in the ladies toilet is obviously lewd!]

    Ditto with any other way a subpopulation can be easily identified as "different".

    [The nazis though hair/eye color was a good way to discriminate! That experiment didn't end well, for them.]

    Sad to see people so afraid that they close their minds to new/different
    ideas. Gotta wonder how crippled their designs must be to reflect that sort
    of closed mindset... ("No, the drive wheels must be in the REAR cuz that's
    how it has ALWAYS BEEN!")

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dimiter_Popoff@21:1/5 to Don Y on Wed Mar 30 21:27:22 2022
    On 3/30/2022 20:40, Don Y wrote:
    .....
    Is it not practical to divide women/men by chromosome count or
    something? That would be fair enough I suppose (but I don't know
    much if anything about biology).

    I contend it is a silly distinction, in the 21st century.

    Well if you don't make it you sentence women to always be much further
    down the table than men. Just look at the weight lifting records, the
    sprint, marathon, swim, you name it records.
    The distinction - when it is about physical abilities - is given by
    design, nothing we can do about it. Or something, when males enter
    competitions for women and collect the money - which is outright
    cheating. Haven't heard of a female-> male transgender being very
    successful in sport.
    Sport is part of the entertainment industry and having no women
    at the top would make things worse for both sides - viewers and
    actors.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to All on Wed Mar 30 12:03:21 2022
    On 3/30/2022 11:27 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
    On 3/30/2022 20:40, Don Y wrote:
    .....
    Is it not practical to divide women/men by chromosome count or
    something? That would be fair enough I suppose (but I don't know
    much if anything about biology).

    I contend it is a silly distinction, in the 21st century.

    Well if you don't make it you sentence women to always be much further
    down the table than men. Just look at the weight lifting records, the
    sprint, marathon, swim, you name it records.

    No, you just make distinctions based on some other criteria than *sex*!

    Why can't you use body mass? Or muscle density? Or, performance in
    past competitions?

    We had some "landscape boulders" delivered many years ago. Basically,
    just large rocks that make the yard more "interesting".

    The delivery was made by a woman. The boulder weighed somewhere between
    300 and 500 pounds (based on a volume estimate of 2-3 cu ft for granite).
    Her initial placement (using a wheeled dolly) was "off". I told her where
    I wanted it and bent over to help her move it into the desired position.
    She just wrapped her arms around it and hefted it into place -- no need
    for the customer to get involved! (I know *I* wouldn't have been able to
    move it -- by myself -- as easily as she had!)

    Would it be fair for her to compete with a man in a strength-based arena?
    Would it be fair for her to compete with 100 pound FEMALE "petites"?

    Or, should any such competition group her with others of roughly similar abilities -- regardless of sex, hair color, number of toes, etc.?

    When grouped with people of similar capabilities (using "capabilities"
    as the sort criteria), then there is no need for a "women's class" and
    a "man's class" -- to artificially guarantee a "best woman" and "best man". Instead, it's "best welterweight", "best heavyweight", etc.

    And, that "best" (theoretically) has an equal chance of being male *or*
    female! Trans or cis!

    The distinction - when it is about physical abilities - is given by
    design, nothing we can do about it. Or something, when males enter competitions for women and collect the money - which is outright
    cheating. Haven't heard of a female-> male transgender being very
    successful in sport.

    There have been cisfemales who were better than cismales -- in a given sport. Ooops! Gotta be embarassing when a *woman* beats you, eh? :>

    <https://www.huffpost.com/entry/king-vs-riggs-battle-of-the-sexes-led-to-significant_b_59ad5b58e4b0c50640cd60c3>

    Should they have been better matched by *age*? Or, some other measure of ABILITY (to make for a more "sporting"/unpredictable outcome)?

    Sport is part of the entertainment industry and having no women
    at the top would make things worse for both sides - viewers and
    actors.

    See above. Note that, historically, women have been excluded from many professions -- yet the people at the time didn't feel like they were
    *missing* anything!

    The US constitution didn't even give women the right to *vote*, hold office, etc. And, folks of that day thought this was The Norm.

    If we want to be "fair" to women, shouldn't 50% of all positions be set-aside for females, given that they represent 50% of the population? By your above reasoning, wouldn't anything less "make things worse for both sides"?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to pallison49@gmail.com on Wed Mar 30 12:31:05 2022
    On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 17:32:02 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
    <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    ===================================

    My younger daughter was a baseball fan practically from birth. She
    tried to play in the boys baseball leagues, but she wasn't strong
    enough to hit homers, and the boys wouldn't accept her, even though
    she is a great fielder.

    So she cut over to girls softball and thrived. She was shortstop and
    team captain at Cornell and is still in touch with her teammates.


    ** Women's sports are different from men's, plenty of skill on display but played in much fairer spirit.

    Yes. The softball ladies (they called themselves that) were much more
    collegial than testosterone-saturated male teams.

    --

    If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
    but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties. Francis Bacon

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dimiter_Popoff@21:1/5 to Don Y on Wed Mar 30 22:57:34 2022
    On 3/30/2022 22:03, Don Y wrote:
    ...

    The US constitution didn't even give women the right to *vote*, hold
    office,
    etc.  And, folks of that day thought this was The Norm.

    I know, one of the few areas Bulgaria has been ahead of much of the
    West is that - the first constitution after the Turks were no longer
    in charge here, accepted in 1879, guaranteed women equal rights.
    Not that significant given the millennia until that point but still :-).


    If we want to be "fair" to women, shouldn't 50% of all positions be
    set-aside
    for females, given that they represent 50% of the population?  By your
    above
    reasoning, wouldn't anything less "make things worse for both sides"?

    I was quite explicit what I was saying was about sport.
    Like I said, everyone's genitalia are their own business - unless they
    make it other than that, like cheating in sports or whatever.
    Some day we may have other, better criteria than gender like you
    suggest but for now we just don't have them.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to All on Wed Mar 30 15:32:36 2022
    On 3/30/2022 12:57 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
    On 3/30/2022 22:03, Don Y wrote:
    ...

    The US constitution didn't even give women the right to *vote*, hold office, >> etc. And, folks of that day thought this was The Norm.

    I know, one of the few areas Bulgaria has been ahead of much of the
    West is that - the first constitution after the Turks were no longer
    in charge here, accepted in 1879, guaranteed women equal rights.
    Not that significant given the millennia until that point but still :-).

    The "save the poor, oppressed women athletes" crowd could be equally
    vocal about rallying legislative support for the equal rights ammendment.
    But, that would make women their *peers*, legally, and thus "diminish"
    their standing!

    If we want to be "fair" to women, shouldn't 50% of all positions be set-aside
    for females, given that they represent 50% of the population? By your above >> reasoning, wouldn't anything less "make things worse for both sides"?

    I was quite explicit what I was saying was about sport.

    What makes "sport" so different/special? Why don't we treat men and women differently across society? Why do we need a "best female" and "best male"
    in sport X -- but not in every other facet of life?

    Folks would be bullshit angry if we set aside positions for women "just because they were women". But, (allegedly) eager to protect those women in sport?

    Like I said, everyone's genitalia are their own business - unless they
    make it other than that, like cheating in sports or whatever.

    Where is the cheating? Does some guy put on a woman's bathing suit, compete, win -- and *then* go back to dressing and acting like a man? Can you point to documented cases where this has happened? Or, do you think men are so "weak" competing against their "inferiors"? And, that the folks who know them will eagerly congratulate them -- as MEN -- once they've reassumed their "real" (male) identity?

    I would think most people that knew such persons would shun them for such a stunt. Perhaps even draw enough outrage for them to be publicly humiliated
    in the press, etc.

    If you want such (bad!) "attention", there are probably many more ways you
    can get it (rob a bank, donate your life savings, run across traffic naked, etc.)

    Some day we may have other, better criteria than gender like you
    suggest but for now we just don't have them.

    We've simply CHOSEN not to have them. Let transgender folks compete and
    pretty soon there will be a demand for new criteria:
    "all the "best" women athletes are transgender... we've got to change
    how we sort competitors to make things "fairer!"" (for some definition
    of "fair")

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dimiter_Popoff@21:1/5 to Don Y on Thu Mar 31 02:17:44 2022
    On 3/31/2022 1:32, Don Y wrote:
    ...
    Like I said, everyone's genitalia are their own business - unless they
    make it other than that, like cheating in sports or whatever.

    Where is the cheating?  Does some guy put on a woman's bathing suit, compete,
    win -- and *then* go back to dressing and acting like a man?  Can you
    point to
    documented cases where this has happened?  Or, do you think men are so "weak"
    competing against their "inferiors"?  And, that the folks who know them
    will
    eagerly congratulate them -- as MEN -- once they've reassumed their "real" (male) identity?

    Obviously the cheating is in the acquired physical superiority
    while having been man. It can be way bigger than a woman can
    achieve using any drugs - and drugs are not allowed...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Wed Mar 30 23:41:09 2022
    John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 17:32:02 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
    <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>===================================

    My younger daughter was a baseball fan practically from birth. She
    tried to play in the boys baseball leagues, but she wasn't strong
    enough to hit homers, and the boys wouldn't accept her, even though
    she is a great fielder.

    So she cut over to girls softball and thrived. She was shortstop and
    team captain at Cornell and is still in touch with her teammates.


    ** Women's sports are different from men's, plenty of skill on display
    but played in much fairer spirit.

    Yes. The softball ladies (they called themselves that) were much more collegial than testosterone-saturated male teams.

    At the risk of sending Phil into deep space orbit...

    BWAAAHAHAHAAA!!!

    Apparently you guys haven't seen women's soccer...

    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=women%27s+soccer+fights

    I'm not complaining... lol

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to All on Wed Mar 30 16:39:00 2022
    On 3/30/2022 4:17 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
    On 3/31/2022 1:32, Don Y wrote:
    ...
    Like I said, everyone's genitalia are their own business - unless they
    make it other than that, like cheating in sports or whatever.

    Where is the cheating? Does some guy put on a woman's bathing suit, compete,
    win -- and *then* go back to dressing and acting like a man? Can you point to
    documented cases where this has happened? Or, do you think men are so "weak"
    competing against their "inferiors"? And, that the folks who know them will >> eagerly congratulate them -- as MEN -- once they've reassumed their "real" >> (male) identity?

    Obviously the cheating is in the acquired physical superiority
    while having been man. It can be way bigger than a woman can
    achieve using any drugs - and drugs are not allowed...

    But where are the INSTANCES of the cheating? Are there "penis police"
    checking all competitors? Do they research the lifestyle you've adopted
    in the N months prior to registering as a competitor? Do they followup
    for M months after to revoke your award(s) if you return to your cis-role?

    Or, is it faux-outrage over something that isn't really happening?

    Again, think about it from a practical standpoint: such "cheating"
    would require *Bob* to suddenly claim to be *Roberta* for the purposes
    of a sporting competition. Then, to resume his cis-role as *Bob*
    after the competition -- EVEN IF HE LOSES!

    All the while, KNOWING that his friends and family will KNOW he competed
    AS A WOMAN. And, if not truly "trans", will know he did this AS A CHEAT.
    How does that afford you any sort of recognition that you'd WANT?

    Why not get roaring drunk and stand in the middle of a roadway screaming profanities until arrested for disturbing the peace? That has the benefit
    of giving you an EXCUSE for your aberrant behavior... along with your 15 minutes of fame! (or, do something TRULY benevolently noteworthy so folks
    WANT to remember your accomplishment!)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Thu Mar 31 00:09:45 2022
    and...

    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=women%27s+basketball+fights

    Make of it what you will...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dimiter_Popoff@21:1/5 to Don Y on Thu Mar 31 03:29:11 2022
    On 3/31/2022 2:39, Don Y wrote:
    On 3/30/2022 4:17 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
    On 3/31/2022 1:32, Don Y wrote:
    ...
    Like I said, everyone's genitalia are their own business - unless they >>>> make it other than that, like cheating in sports or whatever.

    Where is the cheating?  Does some guy put on a woman's bathing suit,
    compete,
    win -- and *then* go back to dressing and acting like a man?  Can you
    point to
    documented cases where this has happened?  Or, do you think men are
    so "weak"
    competing against their "inferiors"?  And, that the folks who know
    them will
    eagerly congratulate them -- as MEN -- once they've reassumed their
    "real"
    (male) identity?

    Obviously the cheating is in the acquired physical superiority
    while having been man. It can be way bigger than a woman can
    achieve using any drugs - and drugs are not allowed...

    But where are the INSTANCES of the cheating?  Are there "penis police" checking all competitors?  Do they research the lifestyle you've adopted
    in the N months prior to registering as a competitor?  Do they followup
    for M months after to revoke your award(s) if you return to your cis-role?

    Or, is it faux-outrage over something that isn't really happening?

    Again, think about it from a practical standpoint:  such "cheating"
    would require *Bob* to suddenly claim to be *Roberta* for the purposes
    of a sporting competition.  Then, to resume his cis-role as *Bob*
    after the competition -- EVEN IF HE LOSES!

    All the while, KNOWING that his friends and family will KNOW he competed
    AS A WOMAN.  And, if not truly "trans", will know he did this AS A CHEAT. How does that afford you any sort of recognition that you'd WANT?

    Why not get roaring drunk and stand in the middle of a roadway screaming profanities until arrested for disturbing the peace?  That has the benefit of giving you an EXCUSE for your aberrant behavior... along with your 15 minutes of fame!  (or, do something TRULY benevolently noteworthy so folks WANT to remember your accomplishment!)

    I think there are. Not many but I think recently some story of that kind
    hit me over some medium, some former man had won something for women
    and there was an outcry. But I am not following this really, I never
    knew personally people of changed gender etc. so my interest is very superficial.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Dimiter Popoff on Wed Mar 30 19:02:22 2022
    On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 2:52:25 AM UTC+11, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
    On 3/30/2022 5:15, Don Y wrote:
    ....
    If sports wanted to be "fair", they would assess the ATHLETIC
    qualities of the participants and qualify the competitions accordingly.

    You don't see "welter-weights" boxing "heavy-weights"! Why not?
    Shouldn't the *bigger* boxer be ALLOWED to clean the little guy's
    clock? ("Oh, but that wouldn't be *sporting*!")

    Do we sort *jockeys* based on length of penis?? Or, amount of leg hair?

    How does "sex/gender" *meaningfully* act to sort competitors? (in ANY competition -- sports or otherwise)
    Don, of course nothing can be 100% fair when many people are involved.
    And of course it is everyone's own busyness what the do with their
    genitalia.
    That is, until they make it other people's busyness.

    In sport, a mediocre male athlete suddenly has his dick chopped off
    and there we are, he is a champion - among women. Clearly unfair.
    They ban athletes for life for much less, like using drugs etc.

    Except that he wouldn't have had his dick chopped (along with his testicles) in order to compete as a woman.

    The motivation for that depends on a a mental problem - gender dysphoria - which happens to respond well to that kind of drastic approach, and doesn't seem to respond to any other approach.

    Competing as a woman is a way of persuading his - now her - brain, that he/she is now recognised as woman by his/her social environment, which does seem to be what makes this therapy work.

    It is a truly inelegant solution, but ti does work.

    Is it not practical to divide women/men by chromosome count or
    something? That would be fair enough I suppose (but I don't know
    much if anything about biology).

    It's trivial to look at the sex chromosome, but gender dysphoria happens in the brain, and we don't know why.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to All on Wed Mar 30 18:51:24 2022
    On 3/30/2022 5:29 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
    Again, think about it from a practical standpoint: such "cheating"
    would require *Bob* to suddenly claim to be *Roberta* for the purposes
    of a sporting competition. Then, to resume his cis-role as *Bob*
    after the competition -- EVEN IF HE LOSES!

    All the while, KNOWING that his friends and family will KNOW he competed
    AS A WOMAN. And, if not truly "trans", will know he did this AS A CHEAT.
    How does that afford you any sort of recognition that you'd WANT?

    I think there are. Not many but I think recently some story of that kind
    hit me over some medium, some former man had won something for women
    and there was an outcry. But I am not following this really, I never
    knew personally people of changed gender etc. so my interest is very superficial.

    I think that there is fake outrage from people who THINK this is happening. But, AFAICT, no one has followed up to see if these "cheaters" have
    "reverted" to a cis life.

    The fact that they may only NOW feel comfortable "coming out" (so to speak)
    may just be coincidental with their deciding to exercise that newfound
    freedom in ways they'd never dreamed, before.

    [I.e., you don't think folks FAKE being LGBTQ just for special attention?
    Or, because they get 10% off on their next purchase for being so? :-/ ]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Thu Mar 31 03:52:10 2022
    Bozo doesn't know what a woman is.


    Bozo Bill Sloman, the most frequent troll in this group, is an attention-craving chronic liar who cannot be reasoned with...

    "the Mueller investigation was about Trump only because Trump made it so"
    (Bozo paraphrased)

    "the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions"
    (Bill Sloman)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Eather@21:1/5 to amdx on Thu Mar 31 15:13:19 2022
    On 25/03/2022 11:07 pm, amdx wrote:
    From Google, "Definitions fro Oxford Languages"

     How long before Googles deletes these definitions?

     Female
     Noun
    an adult female human being.

     Woman
    adjective
    of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
    distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)
    which can be fertilized by male gametes.

                               Mikek



    A woman: A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, who looks smoking hot in lingerie.

    or as Sigmund Freud said "after studding them for thirty years, I find
    myself asking 'what is it that they really want'?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Doe on Wed Mar 30 22:19:25 2022
    On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 2:52:16 PM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:
    Bill doesn't know what a woman is.

    John Doe has a remarkable collection of lunatic delusions. This is a particularly lunatic example.

    <snipped the rest of the deluded nonsense>

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dimiter_Popoff@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Thu Mar 31 09:11:01 2022
    On 3/31/2022 5:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 2:52:25 AM UTC+11, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
    On 3/30/2022 5:15, Don Y wrote:
    ....
    If sports wanted to be "fair", they would assess the ATHLETIC
    qualities of the participants and qualify the competitions accordingly.

    You don't see "welter-weights" boxing "heavy-weights"! Why not?
    Shouldn't the *bigger* boxer be ALLOWED to clean the little guy's
    clock? ("Oh, but that wouldn't be *sporting*!")

    Do we sort *jockeys* based on length of penis?? Or, amount of leg hair? >>>
    How does "sex/gender" *meaningfully* act to sort competitors? (in ANY
    competition -- sports or otherwise)
    Don, of course nothing can be 100% fair when many people are involved.
    And of course it is everyone's own busyness what the do with their
    genitalia.
    That is, until they make it other people's busyness.

    In sport, a mediocre male athlete suddenly has his dick chopped off
    and there we are, he is a champion - among women. Clearly unfair.
    They ban athletes for life for much less, like using drugs etc.

    Except that he wouldn't have had his dick chopped (along with his testicles) in order to compete as a woman.

    The motivation for that depends on a a mental problem - gender dysphoria - which happens to respond well to that kind of drastic approach, and doesn't seem to respond to any other approach.

    Competing as a woman is a way of persuading his - now her - brain, that he/she is now recognised as woman by his/her social environment, which does seem to be what makes this therapy work.

    Well I can see how society should be open to help these people
    but in sport that would not be on society but on the girl runner
    up who would have collected the top prize. I don't know how
    widespread a practice this is, I posted a link to the only
    case I have heard of in my previous post to Don, and it seems
    it has been dealt with fairly (i.e. the girl runner up has
    been declared champion but the transgender athlete has been
    allowed to compete, I think - I did not read the entire thing).

    It is a truly inelegant solution, but ti does work.

    Is it not practical to divide women/men by chromosome count or
    something? That would be fair enough I suppose (but I don't know
    much if anything about biology).

    It's trivial to look at the sex chromosome, but gender dysphoria happens in the brain, and we don't know why.


    Well if it is trivial for sport purposes it should be enough.
    Not more humiliating than looking at their genitalia anyway.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dimiter_Popoff@21:1/5 to Don Y on Thu Mar 31 09:01:43 2022
    On 3/31/2022 4:51, Don Y wrote:
    On 3/30/2022 5:29 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
    Again, think about it from a practical standpoint:  such "cheating"
    would require *Bob* to suddenly claim to be *Roberta* for the purposes
    of a sporting competition.  Then, to resume his cis-role as *Bob*
    after the competition -- EVEN IF HE LOSES!

    All the while, KNOWING that his friends and family will KNOW he competed >>> AS A WOMAN.  And, if not truly "trans", will know he did this AS A
    CHEAT.
    How does that afford you any sort of recognition that you'd WANT?

    I think there are. Not many but I think recently some story of that kind
    hit me over some medium, some former man had won something for women
    and there was an outcry. But I am not following this really, I never
    knew personally people of changed gender etc. so my interest is very
    superficial.

    I think that there is fake outrage from people who THINK this is happening. But, AFAICT, no one has followed up to see if these "cheaters" have "reverted" to a cis life.

    The fact that they may only NOW feel comfortable "coming out" (so to speak) may just be coincidental with their deciding to exercise that newfound freedom in ways they'd never dreamed, before.

    [I.e., you don't think folks FAKE being LGBTQ just for special attention?
    Or, because they get 10% off on their next purchase for being so?  :-/ ]

    Well of course I don't know their motivation. But the money in
    in sport can be good.
    Sportsmen get punished for accidentally getting exposed to some drug
    and being caught so the intention is irrelevant.
    I located what had hit me a few days ago (did not read much past
    the title, my search was "Florida governor transgender sport", that's
    what I remembered...... but it worked):

    https://www.bbc.com/sport/swimming/60842863

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to All on Wed Mar 30 23:26:03 2022
    On 3/30/2022 11:01 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
    On 3/31/2022 4:51, Don Y wrote:
    On 3/30/2022 5:29 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
    Again, think about it from a practical standpoint: such "cheating"
    would require *Bob* to suddenly claim to be *Roberta* for the purposes >>>> of a sporting competition. Then, to resume his cis-role as *Bob*
    after the competition -- EVEN IF HE LOSES!

    All the while, KNOWING that his friends and family will KNOW he competed >>>> AS A WOMAN. And, if not truly "trans", will know he did this AS A CHEAT. >>>> How does that afford you any sort of recognition that you'd WANT?

    I think there are. Not many but I think recently some story of that kind >>> hit me over some medium, some former man had won something for women
    and there was an outcry. But I am not following this really, I never
    knew personally people of changed gender etc. so my interest is very
    superficial.

    I think that there is fake outrage from people who THINK this is happening. >> But, AFAICT, no one has followed up to see if these "cheaters" have
    "reverted" to a cis life.

    The fact that they may only NOW feel comfortable "coming out" (so to speak) >> may just be coincidental with their deciding to exercise that newfound
    freedom in ways they'd never dreamed, before.

    [I.e., you don't think folks FAKE being LGBTQ just for special attention?
    Or, because they get 10% off on their next purchase for being so? :-/ ]

    Well of course I don't know their motivation. But the money in
    in sport can be good.
    Sportsmen get punished for accidentally getting exposed to some drug
    and being caught so the intention is irrelevant.

    Cheating is all about intent. You don't ACCIDENTALLY claim to be a woman...

    I located what had hit me a few days ago (did not read much past
    the title, my search was "Florida governor transgender sport", that's
    what I remembered...... but it worked):

    https://www.bbc.com/sport/swimming/60842863

    DeSantis is another Trump wannabe. He's stoking the culture wars
    (when you don't have any governing policies, play the "culture"
    card).

    One wonders if DeSantis was on the operating table and a transgender
    doctor was hovering over him with a scalpel if he would defer the
    (life saving) surgery until a cis surgeon could be located. I.e.,
    beyond the theatrics of appealing to your perceived base, just
    how deep do your convictions go, governor?

    (Wanna bet Tucker Carlson was vaccinated -- as often as it was
    offered and probably jumped the line in each case? Despite
    badmouthing the whole effort -- maybe he didn't trust "Trump's
    Vaccine" -- which, notably, the orange one was quick to accept!)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Don Y on Thu Mar 31 10:59:18 2022
    On 31/03/2022 01:39, Don Y wrote:
    On 3/30/2022 4:17 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
    On 3/31/2022 1:32, Don Y wrote:
    ...
    Like I said, everyone's genitalia are their own business - unless they >>>> make it other than that, like cheating in sports or whatever.

    Where is the cheating?  Does some guy put on a woman's bathing suit,
    compete,
    win -- and *then* go back to dressing and acting like a man?  Can you
    point to
    documented cases where this has happened?  Or, do you think men are
    so "weak"
    competing against their "inferiors"?  And, that the folks who know
    them will
    eagerly congratulate them -- as MEN -- once they've reassumed their
    "real"
    (male) identity?

    Obviously the cheating is in the acquired physical superiority
    while having been man. It can be way bigger than a woman can
    achieve using any drugs - and drugs are not allowed...

    But where are the INSTANCES of the cheating?  Are there "penis police" checking all competitors?  Do they research the lifestyle you've adopted
    in the N months prior to registering as a competitor?  Do they followup
    for M months after to revoke your award(s) if you return to your cis-role?

    Maybe we should follow the ancient Greeks - sports should be conducted
    naked, and be male-only (with a easy-to-check definition of "male" !).
    That would perhaps shut the bigots up for a bit. (The rule of competing
    naked was introduced after a woman, disguised as a man, won an important
    race.)


    Or, is it faux-outrage over something that isn't really happening?


    That's it, yes.

    There is /always/ going to be a bit of cheating. It doesn't matter what
    rules you set, how fair you try to make it - a small proportion of
    people will try to cheat, and spoil things for others. Heathy people
    fake handicaps (especially mental handicaps) to compete in the
    Paraolympics, and surely there will be /some/ men willing to fake being
    women just so that they can win a trophy or medal. But it is going to
    be a tiny number, especially if it means surgery, irreversible hormone treatment, and that sort of thing. And of those that might be willing
    to go through this, only a tiny number have a chance in many high-level competitions. Top-level female athletes will out-run, out-jump and
    out-throw most men.

    It seems some people here think an average man can put on a skirt, have
    a close shave, and win an Olympic medal in a women's event. This is
    totally unrealistic.

    What /has/ happened, is that some people born with male physical characteristics and female psychological gender, have been confirmed as
    women, and then entered sporting competitions with some success. It has
    been very rare, and it has only occurred in a few sports -
    weight-lifting is, I believe, the prime case. It is not cheating, but
    it is arguably unfair (and also arguably fair - arguments go both ways).
    It will probably result in some rules here, such as requiring people to
    have had their legal and official gender for a certain number of years
    before competing.

    But really, it is not a problem of any significance - compared to drug
    abuse, sabotage, bribery, corruption, abuse by trainers and all the
    other things that go wrong in sport, it is an irrelevance.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Liz Tuddenham@21:1/5 to dp@tgi-sci.com on Thu Mar 31 12:48:28 2022
    Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote:

    ... I never
    knew personally people of changed gender etc. so my interest is very superficial.

    You might have met some and never known. The idea most people have of a stubbly-faced giant in a frock wearing badly-applied makeup is
    completely wrong. There are many thousands of transpeople going about
    their business in the normal way, so unless you are a recluse you are
    almost certain to have met some of them.

    The 'obvious' transwomen are those going through "pink mist": an early
    phase of post-transition life. This is equivalent to early teenage in
    girls, where they want to try all the fashions and makeup, irrespective
    of whether they are appropriate They soon get over this and then
    settle down to dressing and looking the same as any other women of their
    age.

    At my age I can only aspire to be identified as an ugly old bat, so I
    don't try to pretend to be anything else.


    --
    ~ Liz Tuddenham ~
    (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
    www.poppyrecords.co.uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Thu Mar 31 05:40:32 2022
    On 3/31/2022 4:48 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
    The 'obvious' transwomen are those going through "pink mist": an early
    phase of post-transition life. This is equivalent to early teenage in
    girls, where they want to try all the fashions and makeup, irrespective
    of whether they are appropriate They soon get over this and then
    settle down to dressing and looking the same as any other women of their
    age.

    I notice a tendency towards dark, "unusual" shades of nail polish -- dark green, blue, etc. Hands seem to be a reasonably good indicator of birth sex (though I wouldn't rely on it).

    I'm concerned as to supporting surgical remedies at too young an age,
    though.

    A local group paid for a dual mastectomy for a young girl. She would be high school to ~21 age group (I am not familiar with the specifics). I am *hoping* that there was some counseling involved before the procedure...

    [I simply can't relate to not knowing who/what you are, sexual preferences, etc. I can't imagine what it is like to be black, handicapped, female, etc.
    in anything other than an "intellectual" understanding. I just don't have
    the skillset to imagine those sorts of mindsets, having always known who I
    was, what I wanted to do with my life, etc.]

    Too many young people seem to experiment with their appearance, "essence",
    etc. Blue or green hair is one thing -- it will grow out. Tattoos can
    be removed and/or will naturally fade (all colors except black, apparently). Names/handles can be "restored" (I knew a girl who called herself "Lara" pronounced in an overly dramatic manner. When I asked her to spell it -- to
    be sure I heard her correctly -- she replied "L-A-U-R-A".

    "Oh, *Laura*!"
    <frown> "No, LARA!"
    <shrug>

    But, radical surgical alterations tend to be for life!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Allison@21:1/5 to David Brown on Thu Mar 31 06:54:22 2022
    David Brown wrote:
    =================

    Heathy people
    fake handicaps (especially mental handicaps) to compete in the
    Paraolympics, and surely there will be /some/ men willing to fake being
    women just so that they can win a trophy or medal.
    But it is going to be a tiny number,

    ** As is the number of winners and record holders - you fucking imbecile.

    especially if it means surgery, irreversible hormone treatment,

    ** FFS have you understood anything ??

    No such drastic steps are required under current IOC or similar rules at all. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

    Top-level female athletes will out-run, out-jump and
    out-throw most men.

    ** Not one tiny bit relevant to the topic.

    It seems some people here think an average man can put on a skirt, have
    a close shave, and win an Olympic medal in a women's event.

    ** Fucking bullshit, no one thinks that.

    But really, it is not a problem of any significance

    ** Unchecked it would become a MASSIVE problem.
    Easily destroying all interest in competition level women's sports.

    YOU have to be one of the MOST autistic, retarded POS posting here.
    And that is saying something.


    ...... Phil

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Phil Allison on Thu Mar 31 16:17:21 2022
    On 31/03/2022 15:54, Phil Allison wrote:
    David Brown wrote:

    <snip>


    ...... Phil



    There - I've fixed your post by cutting out the putrid, irrational, unjustified, hateful, bigoted, antisocial, potty-mouthed drivel in your
    post. I've left the bits that can tolerate the light of day.

    You really do represent all the worst of Internet discussions, don't
    you? Does your mother know you are using the computer?

    In some parts of the world, women need permission from a male family
    member - father, husband, brother or even son - before doing anything
    outside the house. For cases like you, you should require permission
    from a female family member before communicating outside the house. You
    are an embarrassment to yourself.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Allison@21:1/5 to All on Thu Mar 31 07:37:52 2022
    David Brown is a raving Psychopath -----------------------------------------------------


    There - I've fixed your post by cutting out the putrid, irrational, unjustified, hateful, bigoted, antisocial, potty-mouthed drivel in your
    post. I've left the bits that can tolerate the light of day.

    ** ROTFL - the raving nut case Brown fuckwit deleted the lot.

    Every word I posted was very clear, logical and well justified.
    Brown is vile, retarded, autistic cunt of the worst kind
    Right up there with demented IEEE Bill.


    You really do represent all the worst of Internet discussions, don't
    you? Does your mother know you are using the computer?

    ** LOL - that is so fucking absurd.

    At least the Brown fuckwit realises when his puerile bullshitting has been exposed and stops.
    (Rest of his asinine verbal diarrhoea snipped for public sanity. )

    BTW:

    Get cancer and die you POS fucking asshole. ====================================



    ...... Phil

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to All on Thu Mar 31 23:32:59 2022
    On 31/03/2022 16:37, Phil Allison wrote:
    <snip>

    Do you ever wonder why people don't seem to like you?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to palli...@gmail.com on Thu Mar 31 19:24:35 2022
    On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 1:37:57 AM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
    David Brown

    <snip>

    There - I've fixed your post by cutting out the putrid, irrational, unjustified, hateful, bigoted, antisocial, potty-mouthed drivel in your post. I've left the bits that can tolerate the light of day.

    ** ROTFL -Brown deleted the lot.

    As one would. That was the message, even if you missed it.

    Every word I posted was very clear, logical and well justified.

    In your own demented opinion.

    Brown is right up there with IEEE Bill.

    I'm flattered.

    You really do represent all the worst of Internet discussions, don't you? Does your mother know you are using the computer?

    ** LOL - that is so fucking absurd.

    It was intended to be.

    <snip - I've also snipped quite a bit of Phil's output from the stuff I have posted. In theory I ought to have marked all the snips, but Phil rarely does, and the effect is to make him look more rational than he actually is>

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 1 15:19:34 2022
    Bozo the Clown doesn't even know what a woman is.


    Bozo Bill Sloman, the most frequent troll in this group, is an attention-craving chronic liar who cannot be reasoned with...

    "the Mueller investigation was about Trump only because Trump made it so"
    (Bozo paraphrased)

    "the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions"
    (Bill Sloman)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Doe on Sun Apr 3 21:00:07 2022
    On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 2:19:41 AM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:
    Bozo the Clown doesn't even know what a woman is.

    Bozo the Clown is a cartoon character. They don't have any real existence, any more than creeps like John Doe.

    John Doe is silly enough to think he can identify me with such a character, but he's an anonymous troll, with remarkably poor judgement.

    <snipped the usual repeated idiocies - he can't get anything right>

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)