jerryskids

Fine, so we can agree and move on?

Again, no data. @Fnord has posted that this has occurred at his company, where he is a HR manager. If, as you assert, it is the equivalent of being struck by lightning... what is the objection to making a national policy?

Wow, thanks for posting this new info! Wait, it's already been discussed for several pages. Did you even bother to read them? Never mind...

With whom exactly, center right guy? He hasn't posted a substantiated fact yet.

Non responsive. I'll say again: you think your feelz are facts, yet they aren't, unless you substantiate them. You put nobody in their place. Sorry, I can't take you seriously.

I'm not saying they are women. I'm saying that, by having their male junk removed, they've shown a seriousness about their conviction. See my response to HT above for more.

Again, how do you legislate this? You are talking about a person with no boy junk who looks like she might be a guy. Do you disallow any women with extra testosterone from women's bathrooms?

And I'm being honest and real with you. You honestly and really never support your assertions with data. And then you double down by accusing people who provide data of feelz, while maintaining that your feelz are facts. If you want to have adult discussions, you should change this pattern.

Show us a single post you've made in this thread that you've supported with data. This should end this conversation quickly. Yet I suspect it won't.

What is your concern about a biological male who had his junk removed? And how would you differentiate this from a testosterone heavy woman, from a practical perspective?

I think we're in agreement: if shlong, no safe spaces. I'm not clear on what "biologically completed" means. He either has his junk or she doesn't. Edited to say "she doesnt". If a man reaches a point where he removes his boy parts, I think society can call that person a she for safe spaces. Still a no on sports, as those biological advantages were attained in puberty. Agreed?

Good on the sports. So you think that women should just get used to a much larger biological male in a locker room with his shlong dangling? We had a thread recently about whether a woman would rather meet a bear or a strange man in the woods.

Dubai does as well. That explains why I got the stink eye from a bunch of locals when my wife and I hopped on a subway. Luckily we only went two stops, so I didn't need to go John Wick on their asses.

I'll go Kelly. Markle is younger and I'd think has a harder body, but she seems like a prude who would check her hair in the mirror during sex. I've listened to Kelly enough to think that she might get her kink on.

Thoughts on my response to you?

Well, this is certainly a different take on my concern about Marxism and moral relativism...

I'm late to this topic so here goes: I agree with MDC, Gutter, and others that a college commencement is neither the time nor place for these types of comments. I agree with Gutter that the optimum situation is for women to have the choice to work or not. But... ... I agree with RLLD about the feminism side discussion. My wife is an engineer; we met at our first job out of college. When we had kids my career was in a position where she could first work part time, then stay at home for years. She received a LOT of negative feedback from some women -- female engineers were somewhat unicorns back in the 90s, and there was a lot of feminism pressure for her to stay at work. Interestingly, several of the most successful female engineers/managers made the same choice. We always believed that they, like my wife, wanted to excel at one job vs. be mediocre at two. Of course, situations vary, white privilege, class privilege, yada yada yada. I am not surprised that the pseud BeachGuy disparages people who believe in God. He can't get a CPA, but he knows the answers to deep metaphysical questions. The next time BeachGuy posts a fact will be the first. There may be more...

Yeah, but it also subconsciously ties him to the trials, possibly giving the perception that he is behind them.

Also, why the insistence on network moderators? I presume it is because Team Biden will have them in their back pocket, get the questions in advance, do some more 2 on 1 debating like last time, etc.

Also, Zal as 70th in SG Off The Tee. Hideki is 40th, and Burns (who I took instead of Zal) is 28th. Zal's overall SG summaries are not good this year, which in the end was probably the biggest factor in me passing on him. So again, congrats on the

Trump was willing to do the debates as organized, which is how they've been done for decades.

Biden is the one rejecting the current setup, reducing the number, and insisting on turning the mic off, which is a step AWAY from debate and TOWARD reading prepared statements, which is clearly the goal of Team Biden. They want no interchange, no actual debate. For obvious reasons.

I was hoping that one of those last three picks would drop to me to pair with Clark. The fact that none did caused my "coffee" delay (along with taking a dump). I'm banking on Hideki backing (pardon the pun) out of Wells Fargo as mostly precaution. It's an injury he's been playing with for some time, and playing well when he plays, so I'm hoping he'll just work through it like he has been. Zal has pedigree but in addition to the possible injury, his recent performance hasn't been good, and he isn't a long hitter. Which probably means championship

Alts: English Kitayama

I passed on Zal because I didn't want an all-injury team, plus like you said, he hasn't played well. I felt like getting Clark at the 1/2 turn was good value, but he fell because of recent performance. Niemann is the highest ranked LIV player, but is he really that much (if at all) better than guys like Homa or Fleetwood picked later in the second?