Topic: About that guy who just won the women's swimming championship

+Anonymous A — 4.1 years ago #61,943

America is funny as fuck.

+👑 KING Kimble !!aAnZjs6Upl — 4.1 years ago, 4 minutes later[T] [B] #626,449

@OP

This thread may be considered offensive to members of the LGBTQI+ community.

+Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 20 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #626,451

About that swimmer guy who's genetics gave him an advantage at the Olympics?

·Anonymous A (OP) — 4.1 years ago, 23 minutes later, 47 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #626,452

@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
Next step: mixed heavyweight boxing! After all it's all just genetic luck innit?

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 9 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #626,453

@previous (A)
You realize I'm talking about the cisgendered Michael Phelps who had a genetic advantage and was allowed to compete anyways?

(Edited 15 seconds later.)

·Anonymous A (OP) — 4.1 years ago, 21 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #626,455

@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
What genetic advantage did he have?

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 48 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #626,456

@previous (A)
He's literally built different.
https://www.scienceabc.com/sports/michael-phelps-height-arms-torso-arm-span-feet-swimming.html

·Anonymous A (OP) — 4.1 years ago, 25 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #626,458

@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
Damn and despite his "genetic advantage" he STILL got beaten by 11 other swimmers, including some kid from Singapore. What a bum lol.

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 17 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #626,459

@previous (A)
During the Olympics?

(Edited 26 seconds later.)

·Anonymous A (OP) — 4.1 years ago, 41 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #626,460

@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
> During the Olympics?

Not very informed are you? Yes, his "genetic advantage" saw him beaten at the Olympics, most notably by some kid from Singapore:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/aug/13/michael-phelps-taught-a-lesson-for-once-by-singapores-joseph-schooling

And since his retirement his world records have been steadily erased by people who presumably did not have a "genetic advantage".

(Edited 1 minute later.)

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 14 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #626,461

@previous (A)
Was it in the event he didn't practice for?

Are you denying evolution?

·Anonymous A (OP) — 4.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #626,462

@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
> Was it in the event he didn't practice for?

It was in his specialist event of 100m butterfly. You're having a real nightmare in this thread lol.

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #626,463

@626,460 (A)
Also, how long since the records were set that they were broken? It seems reasonable that the human being, especially the athlete, strains to be better than the best and slowly the average encroaches on what was once considered above average

·Anonymous A (OP) — 4.1 years ago, 29 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #626,464

@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
> Also, how long since the records were set that they were broken?

Literally (and I do actually mean literally) within weeks of his retirement.

Your unwavering commitment to digging a deeper hole for yourself is impressive. Are you one of those genetically-advantaged retards?

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 29 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #626,465

@previous (A)
Depends, are you one of those sex=gender folk?

+Anonymous D — 4.1 years ago, 32 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[T] [B] #626,467

@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
> Depends, are you one of those sex=gender folk?

You know you were excited by his 9 inch swimmer's peen.

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 26 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[T] [B] #626,468

@previous (D)
Who are you even talking to?

+Anonymous E — 4.1 years ago, 21 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #626,516

im a male and my body sucks at sports

check mate

+Anonymous F — 4.1 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #626,520

@626,465 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
> are you one of those sex=gender folk?

Funny way of asking "are you a sane person who still uses language correctly?"

(Edited 13 seconds later.)

+The Detector !3yzc29zx8c — 4.1 years ago, 21 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #626,536

@previous (F)
Welcome back OP!

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 41 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #626,547

@626,520 (F)
It's only funny if you don't know the difference 😂

·Anonymous F — 4.1 years ago, 11 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #626,561

@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
What do you think the difference is? I ask in the context of the next member of the United States Supreme Court being, hilariously, unable to answer the question "What is a woman?". Not because she doesn't know the answer but because she's been nominated by the liberals and she knows retards all over the US will lose their shit if she states basic facts.

·Anonymous A (OP) — 4.1 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #626,562

"Female (symbol: ♀) is the sex of an organism that produces the large non-motile ova (egg cells), the type of gamete (sex cell) that fuses with the male gamete during sexual reproduction"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female

#CancelWikipedia

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #626,572

@626,561 (F)
@previous (A)
So you don't know the difference between sex and gender. Thanks

·Anonymous A (OP) — 4.1 years ago, 52 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #626,574

@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
Since you avoided answering this question:

@626,561 (F)
> What do you think the difference is?

I'll assume you also don't know. Thanks.

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 33 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #626,576

@previous (A)
The difference between sex and gender, is that sex is a scientificly defined concept, and gender is a societal construct that is derived from societal expectations associated with sex.

·Anonymous A (OP) — 4.1 years ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,577

@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
And what is a woman?

·moot !Ep8pui8Vw2 — 4.1 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,578

@previous (A)
something that will never have sex with you, lol

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,582

@previous (moot !Ep8pui8Vw2)

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,583

@626,577 (A)
> And what is a woman?

Someone who expresses or even someone who breaks the traditionally assumed roles associated with the female sex.

·Anonymous A (OP) — 4.1 years ago, 21 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,584

@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
> > And what is a woman?
>
> Someone who expresses or even someone who breaks the traditionally assumed roles associated with the female sex.

Nope. Pay attention now:

"A woman is an adult female human"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman

And female is:

@626,562 (A)
> "Female (symbol: ♀) is the sex of an organism that produces the large non-motile ova (egg cells), the type of gamete (sex cell) that fuses with the male gamete during sexual reproduction"
>
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female

So you see your problem is that the words you are using do not mean what you think they mean, with the result that you sound literally retarded.

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 35 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,586

@previous (A)
I mean, you want to cancel wikipedia and still use it as a source? Idk what your logic train is here bud

·Anonymous A (OP) — 4.1 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,587

@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
We get it, autists don't do irony.

Another question: if a man "breaks the traditionally assumed roles associated with the female sex" (your definition of a woman) and identifies as a woman, do you think 'she' should be allowed to compete in women's boxing and MMA championships? Or should it just be confined to swimming?

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,588

@previous (A)
Well, in regards to sports, you must be aware that for a transgender athlete to compete they have to meet specific criteria right? It's not like that southpark episode

·Anonymous A (OP) — 4.1 years ago, 12 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,589

@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
> Well, in regards to sports, you must be aware that for a transgender athlete to compete they have to meet specific criteria right?

Yes, I am aware. Now, to recall you to the question:

If a man "breaks the traditionally assumed roles associated with the female sex" (your definition of a woman) and identifies as a woman, do you think 'she' should be allowed to compete in women's boxing and MMA championships?

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 18 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,590

@previous (A)
If they meet the criteria held by the athletic institution, yes

·Anonymous A (OP) — 4.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,591

@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
See:
@OP
> America is funny as fuck.

Next question:

If a man "breaks the traditionally assumed roles associated with the female sex" (your definition of a woman) and identifies as a woman, do you think 'she' should be allowed to use women's changing rooms in gyms and swimming pools?

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 37 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,592

@previous (A)
What are you hoping to prove with this line of questioning? Allowing transfolk to use the bathroom of their preferred gender shouldn't be an issue unless you conflate transgender with sex offender, in which case, it's already illegal to assault people in bathrooms regardless of your gender.

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,593

@626,591 (A)
If a man who identifies as a man is a judge of a pagent for toddlers, should he be allowed to oogle them backstage?

·Anonymous A (OP) — 4.1 years ago, 15 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,594

@626,592 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
> What are you hoping to prove with this line of questioning? Allowing transfolk to use the bathroom of their preferred gender shouldn't be an issue unless you conflate transgender with sex offender, in which case, it's already illegal to assault people in bathrooms regardless of your gender.

Nice dodge. I did not say "bathrooms" and I certainly did not say anything about "assault". So let me repeat the question for you. Read it carefully this time please:

If a man "breaks the traditionally assumed roles associated with the female sex" (your definition of a woman) and identifies as a woman, do you think 'she' should be allowed to use women's changing rooms in gyms and swimming pools?

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,595

@previous (A)
It's not a dodge, it's more like you're telegraphing your fight moves

·Anonymous A (OP) — 4.1 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,596

@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
Still no answer to the question of whether you think a man who identifies as a woman should be allowed to use women's changing rooms in gyms and swimming pools? You seemed so confident in your answer when you were conveniently re-writing the premise, but now you seem to want to get away from this very specific question.

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,597

@previous (A)
Yes. Why or why not?

Also, the wording is biased towards transphobia, so the question itself is leading in a specific direction.

Try some good faith discussion and come back to me

·Anonymous A (OP) — 4.1 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,598

@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
> Yes.

So you think a person with, potentially, a penis and testicles should be allowed to use the changing rooms of biological women on the basis of their having "broken the traditionally assumed roles associated with the female sex". Thanks for finally answering.

> Also, the wording is biased towards transphobia

The wording is your own exact definition of a "woman". I've been very careful to quote it in full so you can see the literal insanity of what you've been saying.

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 49 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,599

@previous (A)
To take a page from your book, see@626,597 (Dead !Pool..v42s)

> Try some good faith discussion and come back to me

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,600

@626,598 (A)
And why not answer this question?
@626,593 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
> If a man who identifies as a man is a judge of a pagent for toddlers, should he be allowed to oogle them backstage?

Or this one?
@626,597 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
> Why or why not?

(Edited 22 seconds later.)

·Anonymous A (OP) — 4.1 years ago, 20 hours later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,615

@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
> And why not answer this question?

Because it's literally incoherent. Allow me to explain:

> > If a man who identifies as a man

You still don't understand how literally retarded you sound do you?

> is a judge of a pagent

This word, like "woman" and "man", does not mean what you think it means. The word you're looking for is "pageant".

> for toddlers, should he be allowed to oogle them backstage?

Like "woman" or "man", "oogle" does not mean what you think it means. The word you were looking for is "ogle".

> Or this one?
>
> > Why or why not?

Imagine you are a mother with 2 little girls and you decide to go to the swimming pool. You and your children are in the changing room, naked, when suddenly 10 people with penises and testicles who have (to use your definition of a woman) "broken the traditionally assumed roles associated with the female sex" walk in and strip off next to this mother and her 2 little girls.

I know that you personally don't see the problem here, because you are literally insane and this is only an intellectual exercise for you, not an actual situation you will face, but can you at least see how rational people would have a problem with it?

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 27 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,616

@previous (A)
You are smart enough to understand my question without answering it, and doubling down on a hypothetical that isn't based in reality.

·Anonymous A (OP) — 4.1 years ago, 26 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,617

@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
> doubling down on a hypothetical that isn't based in reality.

You LITERALLY said that this is a scenario that you would like to see in the world. That people with penises and testicles who have nonetheless "broken the traditionally assumed roles associated with the female sex" can share changing rooms with mothers and their daughters. Are you starting to see the massive difference between your ridiculous theoretical positions and actual reality?

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 11 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,618

@previous (A)
The reality, is that the amount of people who actually identify as transwomen and would participate as you described is so small, that the hypothetical isn't even relatable in any fashion, unless you already had an overwhelming fear of being exposed to male genetalia under the guise of it being some woke woman definition some random on the internet came up with.

(Edited 25 seconds later.)

·Anonymous A (OP) — 4.1 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,624

@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
> The reality, is that the amount of people who actually identify as transwomen and would participate as you described is so small, that the hypothetical isn't even relatable in any fashion, unless you already had an overwhelming fear of being exposed to male genetalia under the guise of it being some woke woman definition some random on the internet came up with.

The statistical number of pedophiles, rapists or murderers is also infinitesimally small, yet we make laws to safeguard against them. No executive legislature has ever said "the percentage of murderers is so low we don't need to base our laws around them".

And so therefore I will once again ask you: are you sure you support the right of people who have (your definition of a woman) "broken the traditionally assumed roles associated with the female sex" to use the same changing rooms as biological females and little girls?

+Anonymous H — 4.1 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,626

@626,453 (Dead !Pool..v42s)

Ok you queer

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 9 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,632

@626,624 (A)
Well once again; are you conflating something relating to ones gender with illegal activities?

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 35 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,634

@626,626 (H)

·wade — 4.1 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,638

Wade is a queer ass.

·Anonymous A (OP) — 4.1 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,653

@626,632 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
> Well once again; are you conflating something relating to ones gender with illegal activities?

You have just totally destroyed your own point.

How is people who have "broken the traditionally assumed roles associated with the female sex" sharing a changing room with "women" and children an "illegal activity"?

Is this you formally accepting you've been talking utter shit this whole time?

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 25 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,654

@previous (A)
If there's nothing illegal involved, why would there need be any debate on letting people use the changing room?

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,655

@626,624 (A)
Are the ten transwomen In the room with you right now? Are they hurting you?

·Anonymous A (OP) — 4.1 years ago, 17 hours later, 4 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,696

@626,654 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
> If there's nothing illegal involved, why would there need be any debate on letting people use the changing room?

You misunderstood. It is ALREADY illegal for people with penises and testicles to walk into a women's changing room and strip off. And the only way this will stop being illegal is if we change the definition of "woman" to your literally meaningless definition of "anyone who has broken the traditionally assumed roles associated with the female sex".

So now that I've relieved you of your misguided belief that there is "nothing illegal involved" in people with penises and testicles using women's changing rooms I would like to again recall you to the question:

> Imagine you are a mother with 2 little girls and you decide to go to the swimming pool. You and your children are in the changing room, naked, when suddenly 10 people with penises and testicles who have (to use your definition of a woman) "broken the traditionally assumed roles associated with the female sex" walk in and strip off next to this mother and her 2 little girls.
>
> I know that you personally don't see the problem here, because you are literally insane and this is only an intellectual exercise for you, not an actual situation you will face, but can you at least see how and why that mother would have a problem with it?

·Anonymous A (OP) — 4.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,697

@626,655 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
> Are the ten transwomen In the room with you right now? Are they hurting you?

"Officer, I was in the changing room naked with my 2 little girls and suddenly a group of people with penises and testicles walked in and stripped naked"

"So? Did they physically hurt you?"

You really don't see the problem of what you're saying do you?

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 8 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,698

@626,696 (A)
@previous (A)
So you're presuming the transwomen would flaunt their genitals Infront of strangers? I figure even if a cisgendered woman walked in and stripped naked Infront of a child in a changing room she wouldn't be waving her genitals around for everyone to see

·Anonymous A (OP) — 4.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,699

@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
I made no such presumption. I simply said "stripped off". You'll realize the madness of your position sooner if you stop this habit you have of conveniently changing what is said (the same way you switched out "bathrooms" for "changing rooms").

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 42 seconds later, 4 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,700

@626,697 (A)
I see a parent who is afraid of having a discussion with their children about sex and gender, but what is the problem that you are seeing?

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,701

@626,699 (A)
That's why I made sure to specifically state a changing room, since you were so anal about me referencing bathrooms in regards to your original statement which used the word changing room.

So no, I would not have a problem with people using the changing room they were comfortable using, as long as they weren't doing something illegal.

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,702

For the record, I also don't have a problem with a mother of father bring a child of the opposite gender into a changing room with them as long as they also were not doing anything illegal.

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,703

Show me some literal laws that dictate that a man or woman legally can not walk into a bathroom of the other designation, and then we can have some discussion in good faith.

·Anonymous A (OP) — 4.1 years ago, 37 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,704

@626,700 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
> I see a parent who is afraid of having a discussion with their children about sex and gender, but what is the problem that you are seeing?

Ahh the old "anyone who thinks differently to me is afraid of having frank discussions!" line. I'm surprised it's taken you this long. 'Frank discussions' here of course means "any discussion that arrives at the conclusion I agree with". Anything shy of that and the person is a neurotic prude.

But ok, let's play along. Let's say the mother has the frank discussion with her little girls and they all decide they are still uncomfortable being naked around groups of strange people with penises and testicles. What now? In your absolutely relentless inability to ever see issues from someone else's perspective (aka being a liberal) and to dismiss them as too afraid to have beliefs that align with yours, what do you propose next for this mother and her children? Since you obviously feel nakedness is no big deal except to reactionary prudes who are unmoved by questions of "sex and gender" (this is the part you're not getting), should we do away with mixed changing rooms in schools and have teenaged boys get changed alongside teenaged girls? So long as nobody is waving their dick around or committing illegal acts?

·Anonymous A (OP) — 4.1 years ago, 6 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,705

@626,702 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
> For the record, I also don't have a problem with a mother of father bring a child of the opposite gender into a changing room with them as long as they also were not doing anything illegal.

Good for you. So nakedness and the human body is of such little importance that people with penises and testicles should be able to use the women's changing room and anyone who has a problem with it should get over themselves...but nakedness and the human body are simultaneously of such enormous importance that these people with penises and testicles cannot simply use the changing room for people with penises and testicles.

For the 300th time: I wish you people could hear yourselves. I wish you could glimpse even 10% of how literally insane you are.

·Anonymous A (OP) — 4.1 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,706

@626,702 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
"I don't feel comfortable being naked in a room with people with whom I do not identify!" - liberals

"Any cisgendered person who has a problem being naked in a room with people with whom they don't identify are reactionary prudes who need to get over themselves!" - the exact same liberals.

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 42 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,707

@626,704 (A)
@626,705 (A)
@previous (A)
Is there a law being broken in your hypothetical? Do you believe there should be a law where that hypothetical would be illegal?

·Anonymous A (OP) — 4.1 years ago, 18 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,708

@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
> Is there a law being broken in your hypothetical?

In pretty much every country of the world that isn't currently in the process of losing its mind because of you liberals, yes. But concerning America, the reason you and I are having this conversation now is because it is more and more becoming a pressing legal issue. There are countless examples of people "testing the rules" on these trans issues (I remember the story of one guy in Seattle who stripped off in the women's changing room to test the new trans rule and oh, guess what, it kicked off a shitload of hasty legislation because it turned out it had opened a massive can of worms). I have been trying to understand WHY you have no problem with it. You have explained your position, so thank you for that. I still think you are literally insane and your explanation is a monument to enormous logical gaps, hypocrisy, and contradiction.

> Do you believe there should be a law where that hypothetical would be illegal?

Yes, and I have been trying to explain why. If the entire world must accommodate a TINY percentage of the population on the basis of "I don't feel comfortable changing with people with whom I do not identify!" then the reason given for why the rest of us must accommodate them needs to be something less hilariously hypocritical and contradictory than "oh get over yourselves, it's just a naked body, who cares if you don't identify with them?!"

But, again, I know you cannot understand this because the defining feature of neo-liberalism is to never attempt to see things from another person's perspective. YOUR feelings are the ones that must be accommodated. Everyone else needs to get over theirs.

This was fun though, but I'm gonna leave it there. I got what I wanted from you and made my points. Peace.

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,709

@previous (A)
So you can claim that there are laws with that explicit statement, but not provide the actual evidence? I forgot you are just the person that nitpicks the wording of every post and attack the sanity or lack thereof of the poster, instead of having rational discussion and keeping hypotheticals within the realm of possibility.

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,710

@626,708 (A)
Wait. "One guy" ?

Lmao

+Anonymous I — 4.1 years ago, 25 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,711

@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
> Wait. "One guy" ?
>
> Lmao

What he wrote -

@626,708 (A)
> There are countless examples of people "testing the rules" on these trans issues (I remember the story of one guy...

He's right, you should stop twisting stuff if you want to be taken seriously in calling for "good faith debate".

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 7 hours later, 4 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,737

@previous (I)
Hi @op, I was referring to the hypothetical of 10 people stripping down and offending a mother of two

·Anonymous H — 4.1 years ago, 1 day later, 6 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,770

@626,698 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
Thanks for telling us you've never been in a crowded gym locker room
without telling us you've never been in a crowded gym locker room.

(Edited 3 minutes later.)

·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.1 years ago, 39 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[T] [B] #626,772

@previous (H)
I'm sorry for having some semblance of a civilized locker room experience

Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.

TinyChan