Alaskan boy participates in the girls state championship

[BmorePat87]

Apparently gender tests have a long history in the Olympics. So she was born a girl but has internal testes instead of ovaries, causing her to produce testosterone. It seems most fair for her to compete as a girl.

[Rotobeast]

(08-17-2016, 08:46 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Apparently gender tests have a long history in the Olympics. So she was born a girl but has internal testes instead of ovaries, causing her to produce testosterone. It seems most fair for her to compete as a girl.

Meh.... seems ok to me, in that scenario.

[BFritz21]

(06-07-2016, 10:02 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I am as liberal as anyone here, but I don't think trans females should be allowed to compete in sports against genetic females.

I support the rights of transgender people to live as the sex they identify, but allowing trans females to compete in sports against genetic females just is not fair.

Gender may be a "social construct", but the physical advantage trans females have over genetic females is not.

This is why you're a hypocrite.

You can't have it both ways, and that's what I've been arguing since all of these issues started popping up.

Everyone who argued for the bathroom would say "she is a girl," but then now she's not?

(06-07-2016, 12:35 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: He'll explain how Lucy was using his own definition of "win" and how we're all wrong for using the actual definition of the word.

It sounds like she qualified for the finals, and she had to win something to even make it to state.

Also, so she didn't win, but she still beat some girls and took the place of a girl that had the right to be there.  

Furthermore, she could be robbing girls of things like college scholarships or even just having an amazing experience of high school sports because she has an unfair advantage.

[fredtoast]

(08-17-2016, 10:23 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: This is why you're a hypocrite.

You can't have it both ways, and that's what I've been arguing since all of these issues started popping up.

Everyone who argued for the bathroom would say "she is a girl," but then now she's not?

I am not a hypocrite.  I just have a nuanced opinion that looks at the issue logically instead of just "black and white".

I am in favor of people having a much freedom as possible.  I believe that the only time a persons freedom should be limited is when it imposes on another persons freedom.  A transgender woman using the women's restroom does not take any freedoms away from anyone else, but a transgender woman using a women's locker room does.

Making strict "black and white" rules makes no sense.  Instead each issue should be considered and weighed on its own merits.  That is not being hypocritical.  It is actually being more consistent.

For example.  there are lots of jobs that handicapped people can not do.  But I don't think that means no company should ever hire a handicapped person.  Instead they should look at each situation individually.  Sometimes it is okay to hire a handicapped person and some times it is not.  There should be no blanket rule against hiring handicapped people.

[BFritz21]

(08-17-2016, 11:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am not a hypocrite.  I just have a nuanced opinion that looks at the issue logically instead of just "black and white".

I am in favor of people having a much freedom as possible.  I believe that the only time a persons freedom should be limited is when it imposes on another persons freedom.  A transgender woman using the women's restroom does not take any freedoms away from anyone else, but a transgender woman using a women's locker room does.

Making strict "black and white" rules makes no sense.  Instead each issue should be considered and weighed on its own merits.  That is not being hypocritical.  It is actually being more consistent.

For example.  there are lots of jobs that handicapped people can not do.  But I don't think that means no company should ever hire a handicapped person.  Instead they should look at each situation individually.  Sometimes it is okay to hire a handicapped person and some times it is not.  There should be no blanket rule against hiring handicapped people.

Hiring handicapped people is a completely different scenario and has nothing to do with this issue, but color me surprised that you try to compare the two 

Your stance is that a person's individuals rights are what's important and that a person should be able to use the bathroom of their choice because they identify as female, therefore they are female, which you even acknowledge time after time again by referring to boys who are transgender as "girls," but you can't have it both ways.

You can't say "oh, he's a boy now but a girl every other time."

So, yes, you are a hypocrite, and that's where everyone who argues this type of thing comes up short in debates.

[fredtoast]

(08-17-2016, 11:44 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Hiring handicapped people is a completely different scenario and has nothing to do with this issue, but color me surprised that you try to compare the two 

Your stance is that a person's individuals rights are what's important and that a person should be able to use the bathroom of their choice because they identify as female, therefore they are female, which you even acknowledge time after time again by referring to boys who are transgender as "girls," but you can't have it both ways.

You can't say "oh, he's a boy now but a girl every other time."

So, yes, you are a hypocrite, and that's where everyone who argues this type of thing comes up short in debates.

I am not a hypocrite.  I am consistent in my positions.

Hiring handicapped is not difference from any other issue.  You can't just have one set answer that fits every situation.  Would you call someone a hypocrite if they said they would not hire a handicapped person for one job, but would hire a handicapped person for another job?  Would you agrue that there has to be one set rule where you either hire handicapped people or not hire them?

I look at every individual situation and use the SAME judgement in every case i.e. we should only limit a persons freedom when it interferes with another person's freedom.  Since I am 100% consistent you can not call me a hypocrite.

[Rotobeast]

(08-18-2016, 12:33 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I look at every individual situation and use the SAME judgement in every case i.e. we should only limit a persons freedom when it interferes with another person's freedom.  Since I am 100% consistent you can not call me a hypocrite.

Can we call you a Libertarian, yet ?




Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[BFritz21]

(08-18-2016, 12:33 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I am not a hypocrite.  I am consistent in my positions.

Hiring handicapped is not difference from any other issue.  You can't just have one set answer that fits every situation.  Would you call someone a hypocrite if they said they would not hire a handicapped person for one job, but would hire a handicapped person for another job?  Would you agrue that there has to be one set rule where you either hire handicapped people or not hire them?

I look at every individual situation and use the SAME judgement in every case i.e. we should only limit a persons freedom when it interferes with another person's freedom.  Since I am 100% consistent you can not call me a hypocrite.

You're a hypocrite.

Banning someone from a locker room or changing rooms because of their personal identity is hindering their freedom, according to you, because that person is the gender they identify with, yet you say it shouldn't be that way in all circumstances.

Hiring a handicapped person is a completely different issue because it has to do with physical abilities, not appearance or gender.

Hiring a handicapped person isn't even in the same ballpark, and I'm pretty sure that you just brought that up because you figured I'd have a soft spot for that type of argument.

You even said that it's about being able to do the job.

[fredtoast]

(08-18-2016, 12:48 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Banning someone from a locker room or changing rooms because of their personal identity is hindering their freedom, according to you, because that person is the gender they identify with, yet you say it shouldn't be that way in all circumstances.

That is exactly right.  A person should have as much freedom as possible as long as it does not interfere with another persons freedom.  That is a very consistent position and there is nothing hypocritical about it.

Refusing to hire a person because he is handicapped is hindering his freedom, yet it shouldn't be that way in all circumstances.  I think we all agree that a person with no legs should NOT be banned from all jobs, yet we also agree that a person with no legs should not be allowed to be a fireman.  So is everyone who agrees with me that it is okay to limit a person with no legs freedom to be a fireman, but not limit his freedom in every job a hypocrite?  Or are they smart enough to look at each individual situation and make their judgement based on the different circumstances?

[fredtoast]

(08-18-2016, 12:48 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Hiring a handicapped person is a completely different issue because it has to do with physical abilities, not appearance or gender.

So you feel it is okay to deny a persons individual freedoms based on appearance or gender?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-18-2016, 12:48 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: You're a hypocrite.

Fred certainly has his faults, in this instance he is correct and consistent.  Allowing someone to live as the gender they desire to be causes no harm to anyone.  It is not to anyone's detriment.  Allowing a genetic male to compete in a physical competition with genetic females, in a female only competition, is unfair to the females.  Men are genetically and thus inherently stronger physically than women.  In this instance allowing a genetic male to "live" as a female is to the detriment of others and, in this type of instance, should not be allowed.


No please respond with nonsensical blather.  I need to be entertained.  Thank you.

[*bfine32*]

(08-17-2016, 11:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am not a hypocrite.  I just have a nuanced opinion that looks at the issue logically instead of just "black and white".

I am in favor of people having a much freedom as possible.  I believe that the only time a persons freedom should be limited is when it imposes on another persons freedom.  A transgender woman using the women's restroom does not take any freedoms away from anyone else, but a transgender woman using a women's locker room does.

Making strict "black and white" rules makes no sense.  Instead each issue should be considered and weighed on its own merits.  That is not being hypocritical.  It is actually being more consistent.

For example.  there are lots of jobs that handicapped people can not do.  But I don't think that means no company should ever hire a handicapped person.  Instead they should look at each situation individually.  Sometimes it is okay to hire a handicapped person and some times it is not.  There should be no blanket rule against hiring handicapped people.

Logical stance and one that I can appreciate. I would be curious as to your stance on affirmitive action.

[BFritz21]

(08-18-2016, 10:18 AM)fredtoast Wrote: That is exactly right.  A person should have as much freedom as possible as long as it does not interfere with another persons freedom.  That is a very consistent position and there is nothing hypocritical about it.

You're a hypocrite.

You're saying treat on a person-by-person basis, but you're also saying someone can be a male when they want to be a male and a female when they want to be a female, and that they can be classified as both ways.

Quote:Refusing to hire a person because he is handicapped is hindering his freedom, yet it shouldn't be that way in all circumstances.  I think we all agree that a person with no legs should NOT be banned from all jobs, yet we also agree that a person with no legs should not be allowed to be a fireman.  So is everyone who agrees with me that it is okay to limit a person with no legs freedom to be a fireman, but not limit his freedom in every job a hypocrite?  Or are they smart enough to look at each individual situation and make their judgement based on the different circumstances?

I can't believe you're still arguing this.

What does not hiring someone because they're handicapped have to do with trying to be something you're genetically not?  Not everyone can be a firefighter or other physical jobs, so they wouldn't be hired, just as someone with a disability wouldn't be hired because they can't complete the job.  It has nothing to do with hindering any kind of freedom.

(08-18-2016, 10:21 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So you feel it is okay to deny a persons individual freedoms based on appearance or gender?

A person's individual freedoms stop when with another person's personal freedoms, which is what a person using a bathroom that doesn't match their sex does.

You say individual people should have the freedom to go with what fits their identity, but then you say that they shouldn't be allowed in showers and changing rooms, which is why you're a hypocrite.  You can't have it both ways.

(08-18-2016, 11:07 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Fred certainly has his faults, in this instance he is correct and consistent.  Allowing someone to live as the gender they desire to be causes no harm to anyone.  It is not to anyone's detriment.  Allowing a genetic male to compete in a physical competition with genetic females, in a female only competition, is unfair to the females.  Men are genetically and thus inherently stronger physically than women.  In this instance allowing a genetic male to "live" as a female is to the detriment of others and, in this type of instance, should not be allowed.


No please respond with nonsensical blather.  I need to be entertained.  Thank you.

You want it both ways, too.

Someone can't be a male sometimes and a female other times, which Fred has made clear and other people have made clear by calling biological males that identify as females "male".

Allowing a genetic male in a bathroom with females makes some women uncomfortable, which is a detriment to others, which should not be allowed, per your own words.

[GMDino]

[BmorePat87]

(08-18-2016, 05:19 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Allowing a genetic male in a bathroom with females makes some women uncomfortable, which is a detriment to others, which should not be allowed, per your own words.

A lot of things about some people make other people uncomfortable, but that doesn't mean it is infringing upon any of their rights. 

[BFritz21]

(08-18-2016, 06:38 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: A lot of things about some people make other people uncomfortable, but that doesn't mean it is infringing upon any of their rights. 

A person doesn't have a right to feel comfortable in the bathroom that matches their gender?

Some may feel threatened, they don't have a right to be free from that?

A grown man, hairy and fat, might go into a bathroom that has a bunch of little girls, and you're saying they don't have a right to be traumatized with something that could scar them forever?

[BmorePat87]

(08-18-2016, 07:53 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: A person doesn't have a right to feel comfortable in the bathroom that matches their gender?

Some may feel threatened, they don't have a right to be free from that?

No, you do not have the right to be sheltered while in public from things you find uncomfortable or threatening (if they are not threatening), especially not at the expense of another person's rights. 

Quote:A grown man, hairy and fat, might go into a bathroom that has a bunch of little girls, and you're saying they don't have a right to be traumatized with something that could scar them forever?

I think you mean they don't have  a right to NOT be traumatized, but no, there's nothing inherently traumatizing about a hairy and fat trans person being present in a bathroom. It's not like they're watching them use the bathroom. Even if it was traumatizing, people have no right to bar anything they might find traumatizing from public. 

Gay guys can kiss each other in public, even if it makes others uncomfortable. A black man can walk down a street at night, even if it makes someone feel threatened. A gun owner can open carry in places even if others feel threatened. A hairy and fat woman can wear a bikini at the beach, even if it traumatizes me. 

[fredtoast]

(08-18-2016, 05:19 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You're a hypocrite.

You're saying treat on a person-by-person basis, but you're also saying someone can be a male when they want to be a male and a female when they want to be a female, and that they can be classified as both ways.

I can't believe you're still arguing this.

I can't believe you still don't get what I am saying.

I am not saying that their identity changes.  They always identify as the same gender.  I am saying that their rights are different in different situations because of the the different ways they effect the rights of other people.

Just like I am not saying that a person with no legs is not handicapped when he qualifies for a desk job, but is handicapped when he does not qualify for a fireman job.  His handicap never changes, but his rights change because of the way they effect other peoples rights.  No one is harmed when a person with no legs does a desk job, but other people could be harmed if he was a fireman.

No one is harmed by using the same restroom with a person of the opposite sex, but genetic females are put at a disadvantage when competing in sports against transgender women.

[fredtoast]

(08-18-2016, 05:19 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: What does not hiring someone because they're handicapped have to do with trying to be something you're genetically not?  Not everyone can be a firefighter or other physical jobs, so they wouldn't be hired, just as someone with a disability wouldn't be hired because they can't complete the job.  It has nothing to do with hindering any kind of freedom.

Being denied a job directly effects your freedom.  You are not free to be a fireman.  

[fredtoast]

(08-18-2016, 05:19 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Allowing a genetic male in a bathroom with females makes some women uncomfortable, which is a detriment to others, which should not be allowed, per your own words.

There is no right to be "comfortable"

What if someone feels uncomfortable around a person in a wheelchair that has a creepy voice coming out of a machine?  Does that mean you should not be allowed to be in the same room with that person.

No one is harmed by using the same bathroom with a person of the other sex.