Alaskan boy participates in the girls state championship

[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.