Democrat Tulsi Gabbard Introduces Bill That Would Ban Biological Males From Women’s Sports

[Patented Phil 823]

1 hour ago, Engorgeous George said:

Back in the 80's and 90's I have little doubt the average five guys shooting buckets on the weekend in the high school and college gyms could not have destroyed any womens college team and beaten any women's pro team.  Foget the physical advantages, the women back then outside of one or two exceptions truly lacked skills. 

In early 80’s I was on the Freshman basketball team.  My English teacher, Ms. Rogers, was the Coach of the girls basketball team, and they were really good.  One day in class I said something a little chauvinistic.  Ms. Rogers responded by challenging us to a game.

We thought it was going to be a blowout, and it was.  The girls demolished us, and they loved every second of it. The only thing I loved was having to guard one of the hottest girls in the school.

[Patented Phil 823]

1 hour ago, Reality said:

Need more of this.

 

Good Lord she is hot.

[jerryskids 5,199]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

I have no issue with objecting to trans women competing in womens sports, but is the intentional usage of “he” really necessary?

in before “yes it is, he has a mental illness”

Necessary?  No.  Deserved?  That's perhaps a question of where you find this situation on the spectrum of reality.

At one extreme, we have say a true trans woman who wants to be referred to as "she/her."  I see no reason not to, out of personal respect and dignity for the person.

At another extreme, take a convicted rapist in CA who suddenly identifies as a woman to go to a woman's prison.  Fock him.

This is somewhere in the middle.  IMO it is closer to the rapist scenario: the trans person is clearly selfish to compete, I don't think there is any logical argument about that.  Is the person really a woman inside, or doing it for the winning?  I can't say.  But more importantly IMO, to call the swimmer "she" is to propagate the very fallacy the poster is arguing about.  In other words, if the poster says "she shouldn't compete," the obvious response is "why not, she is a woman?"   

[BuckSwope 654]

2 hours ago, TimHauck said:

I have no issue with objecting to trans women competing in womens sports, but is the intentional usage of “he” really necessary?

in before “yes it is, he has a mental illness”

Necessary, of course not, but I understand the frustration.  Isn't that the swimmer Lia beat out in meets? I could be wrong there.  

It's also Twitter, so of course that gets more outrage/clicks/attention as well.  

[TimHauck 1,799]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

Necessary?  No.  Deserved?  That's perhaps a question of where you find this situation on the spectrum of reality.

At one extreme, we have say a true trans woman who wants to be referred to as "she/her."  I see no reason not to, out of personal respect and dignity for the person.

At another extreme, take a convicted rapist in CA who suddenly identifies as a woman to go to a woman's prison.  Fock him.

Kinda like when a lunatic killed 5 people in a Colorado nightclub and the GC ridiculed him for pretending to identify as non-binary?  Oh wait…

[jerryskids 5,199]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

Kinda like when a lunatic killed 5 people in a Colorado nightclub and the GC ridiculed him for pretending to identify as non-binary?  Oh wait…

I don't have this situation etched into my brain, can you explain this? 

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

A women loses to a man, in a women's sporting event... and Tim "The Resident White Knight", is virtue signaling because said woman called said man, a man.  Gotta love it.

[TimHauck 1,799]

On 11/22/2022 at 11:57 PM, Strike said:

So, according to their attorney, the CO shooter identifies as non-binary and uses the pronouns they/them.  So much for Rusty Ravens Fan and their MAGA trolling.

 

 

On 11/23/2022 at 11:56 AM, Tree of Knowledge said:

These alphabet people seem to be wired for violent behavior.  

 

On 11/23/2022 at 8:26 PM, KSB2424 said:

Five people died by the hands of a troubled person.  Because it was at a gay bar the mainstream media IMMEDIATELY went after anyone who thinks mutilating kids or giving them hormone therapy is a bad idea.  It was their fault this person did this, they said.   Then it comes out said troubled person is part of the LGBTQ+ community himself.  These people hame no shame. 

 

On 11/23/2022 at 8:32 PM, KSB2424 said:

I’m playing by your rules.  A person doesn’t have to “prove” their pronouns.  If they say it’s true then by GOD it’s true and everyone should accept it and use the “proper” pronouns.  Dems the rules.  

 

On 11/24/2022 at 9:25 AM, Voltaire said:

That Mx. Aldrich is a self-hating tranny demonstrates similarities to the gay mass-shooter in the Miami gay nightclub a few years ago.

 

Here’s the thread for you to peruse @jerryskids

 

 

[Strike 3,968]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

 

 

 

 

Here’s the thread for you to peruse @jerryskids

 

 

Hey dipsh*t, this is why I don't engage with you when you bring up old posts/threads like this.  The post Jerry responded to, and which you just quoted a bunch of us, was:

Quote

Kinda like when a lunatic killed 5 people in a Colorado nightclub and the GC ridiculed him for pretending to identify as non-binary?  Oh wait…

And you quoted me.  The only problem?  My post wasn't ridiculing the shooter for pretending/identifying as non-binary.  I was ridiculing trolls like RustyPimpDoosh.  You ALWAYS fail to include context when quoting people.  My personal favorite was when you included people's quotes from a thread REQUESTING conspiracy theories as PROOF that those people believed in the conspiracy theories they posted and weren't just having fun in a conspiracy thread.  What a tool you are.

[TimHauck 1,799]

9 minutes ago, Strike said:

Hey dipsh*t, this is why I don't engage with you when you bring up old posts/threads like this.  The post Jerry responded to, and which you just quoted a bunch of us, was:

And you quoted me.  The only problem?  My post wasn't ridiculing the shooter for pretending/identifying as non-binary.  I was ridiculing trolls like RustyPimpDoosh.  You ALWAYS fail to include context when quoting people.  My personal favorite was when you included people's quotes from a thread REQUESTING conspiracy theories as PROOF that those people believed in the conspiracy theories they posted and weren't just having fun in a conspiracy thread.  What a tool you are.

Hey dumbass.  My post that Jerry responded to was being sarcastic.  I was saying based on Jerry’s logic (which I’d agree with for the most part), the GC SHOULD HAVE ridiculed him for in all likelihood pretending to be non-binary.  Except the opposite happened and everyone actually believed his story.

I see you had no comment on the 5 other posts they weren’t from the Covid conspiracy theory thread?  Or are we calling 5 “not more than a few” now, on a forum with like 15 posters?

[Strike 3,968]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

 

I see you had no comment on the 5 other posts they weren’t from the Covid conspiracy theory thread?  Or are we calling 5 “not more than a few” now, on a forum with like 15 posters?

No.  As I told you then, I'm not going to try to figure out which posts are legit and which aren't.  I'm not going to to reread entire threads to ensure you're posting stuff fairly, completely, and in context.  You've done the opposite on too many occasions.  Whether you like me or my posts or not, the one thing you can always count on is that I will post quotes in good faith without trying for "gotcha" moments unless the post itself, with it's original meaning and in context, is a gotcha in and of itself.  Your habit of pulling up way old posts and using them out of context to try to "get" people is tiring. 

[jerryskids 5,199]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

 

 

 

 

Here’s the thread for you to peruse @jerryskids

 

 

Sorry, I still have no idea what this has to do with my post.  

23 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Hey dumbass.  My post that Jerry responded to was being sarcastic.  I was saying based on Jerry’s logic (which I’d agree with for the most part), the GC SHOULD HAVE ridiculed him for in all likelihood pretending to be non-binary.  Except the opposite happened and everyone actually believed his story.

I see you had no comment on the 5 other posts they weren’t from the Covid conspiracy theory thread?  Or are we calling 5 “not more than a few” now, on a forum with like 15 posters?

Oh, OK.  I still don't get it.  Is this humor?  Am I supposed to respond?  Whatever, carry on.   

[TimHauck 1,799]

32 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Sorry, I still have no idea what this has to do with my post.  

Oh, OK.  I still don't get it.  Is this humor?  Am I supposed to respond?  Whatever, carry on.   

You said “fock him” for when “a rapist suddenly identifies as a woman to go to a women’s prison.”

And yet, in all likelihood that situation basically happened with the Colorado shooter in order to avoid hate crime charges.  But the GC righties didn’t call that out and instead called him a “self-hating tranny”

[Strike 3,968]

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

You said “fock him” for when “a rapist suddenly identifies as a woman to go to a women’s prison.”

And yet, in all likelihood that situation basically happened with the Colorado shooter in order to avoid hate crime charges.  But the GC righties didn’t call that out and instead called him a “self-hating tranny”

I did none of the above, yet you chose to quote me out of context to "prove" your point.  No one should ever take anything you post seriously.  You're a serial liar.

[Mike Hunt 154]

Letting a man who thinks he is a woman compete against women is misogyny.  A war against biological women just as they are getting to compete on higher stages.

How many females who think they are a man compete against biological men in sports?

 

[TimHauck 1,799]

6 minutes ago, Strike said:

I did none of the above, yet you chose to quote me out of context to "prove" your point.  No one should ever take anything you post seriously.  You're a serial liar.

I didn’t say you said that line specifically.  You of course added your copout of “according to the lawyer,” but did seem to believe he was non-binary

[KSB2424 3,083]

WTF is wrong with this Tim guy.  Focking weirdo.  

[jerryskids 5,199]

8 minutes ago, KSB2424 said:

WTF is wrong with this Tim guy.  Focking weirdo.  

He makes an obscure  "gotcha" comment from some thread back in November that he thinks everyone will get.  Which BTW after several explanations I think I've cracked the code:  Tim is saying that GC (with you front and center) didn't question the Colorado killer's sudden trans-ness because by accepting it we could all say that the (alleged) trans person has mental issues because we hate all trans people.  We all (and particularly myself, although I don't remember the thread) should have immediately said "fock him" to the killer and denounced his alleged trans-ity because it is similar to the extreme I used in this thread to justify calling him a him.

Why that wasn't clear in his original gotcha, I have no idea.   

But consider me gotcha'd, Tim.   

[Strike 3,968]

32 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I didn’t say you said that line specifically.  You of course added your copout of “according to the lawyer,” but did seem to believe he was non-binary

No, you focking idiot.  Here it is again:

Quote

So, according to their attorney, the CO shooter identifies as non-binary and uses the pronouns they/them.  So much for Rusty Ravens Fan and their MAGA trolling. 

Note the bolded.  This was my only post in that whole focking thread IIRC.  I was making fun of the trolling Rusty and others had been doing in that thread.  Go back and read the thread and the posts BEFORE mine.  That's why CONTEXT matters you focking retard.  Having a little fun at their expense was the ONLY reason I posted in that thread.  FFS.  I've said it before and I'll say it again.  SEEK HELP.  This obsession you have with me is unhealthy dude. 

[TimHauck 1,799]

2 hours ago, Strike said:

No, you focking idiot.  Here it is again:

Note the bolded.  This was my only post in that whole focking thread IIRC.  I was making fun of the trolling Rusty and others had been doing in that thread.  Go back and read the thread and the posts BEFORE mine.  That's why CONTEXT matters you focking retard.  Having a little fun at their expense was the ONLY reason I posted in that thread.  FFS.  I've said it before and I'll say it again.  SEEK HELP.  This obsession you have with me is unhealthy dude. 

Thanks for the spirited, intelligent discussion 

[TimHauck 1,799]

2 hours ago, jerryskids said:

He makes an obscure  "gotcha" comment from some thread back in November that he thinks everyone will get.  Which BTW after several explanations I think I've cracked the code:  Tim is saying that GC (with you front and center) didn't question the Colorado killer's sudden trans-ness because by accepting it we could all say that the (alleged) trans person has mental issues because we hate all trans people.  We all (and particularly myself, although I don't remember the thread) should have immediately said "fock him" to the killer and denounced his alleged trans-ity because it is similar to the extreme I used in this thread to justify calling him a him.

Why that wasn't clear in his original gotcha, I have no idea.   

But consider me gotcha'd, Tim.   

Yup, pretty much. Although I wasn’t gotcha’ing you, I was calling out the hypocrisy of those posters who all the sudden seemed to believe that the Colorado shooter wasn’t just pretending to be non-binary (which now appears to be nearly confirmed)

[Strike 3,968]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

Thanks for the spirited, intelligent discussion 

There's nothing to discuss when you quote my post and misrepresent what it says.  That just makes you either a retard or a liar. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,515]

3 minutes ago, Strike said:

There's nothing to discuss when you quote my post and misrepresent what it says.  That just makes you either a retard or a liar. 

I think he's a retarded liar.

[Strike 3,968]

Just now, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

I think he's a retarded liar.

That's a distinct possibility. 

[TimHauck 1,799]

11 hours ago, Strike said:

No, you focking idiot.  Here it is again:

Note the bolded.  This was my only post in that whole focking thread IIRC.  I was making fun of the trolling Rusty and others had been doing in that thread.  Go back and read the thread and the posts BEFORE mine.  That's why CONTEXT matters you focking retard.  Having a little fun at their expense was the ONLY reason I posted in that thread.  FFS.  I've said it before and I'll say it again.  SEEK HELP.  This obsession you have with me is unhealthy dude. 

So if you were making fun of the trolling Rusty and others were doing, do/did you believe that the shooter was actually non-binary?  That is the only context needed to prove that Jerry’s assumption was wrong as it pertains to GC righties.  He thought people would denounce someone for pretending to be trans in order to commit a crime (or in this case try to reduce the penalties for committing one).  But just the opposite happened and people actually believed this nutcase was actually non-binary.

[jerryskids 5,199]

3 hours ago, TimHauck said:

So if you were making fun of the trolling Rusty and others were doing, do/did you believe that the shooter was actually non-binary?  That is the only context needed to prove that Jerry’s assumption was wrong as it pertains to GC righties.  He thought people would denounce someone for pretending to be trans in order to commit a crime (or in this case try to reduce the penalties for committing one).  But just the opposite happened and people actually believed this nutcase was actually non-binary.

I have no idea what quixotic chase you are on this time, but (1) I specifically used the example of a convicted rapist THEN finding their inner trans womanism to get into a prison with a bunch of captive potential victims, and (2) I said nothing about the GC, you did.

Please stop putting words in my mouth and leave me out of whatever point you are flailing around trying to prove.

[TimHauck 1,799]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

I have no idea what quixotic chase you are on this time, but (1) I specifically used the example of a convicted rapist THEN finding their inner trans womanism to get into a prison with a bunch of captive potential victims, and (2) I said nothing about the GC, you did.

Please stop putting words in my mouth and leave me out of whatever point you are flailing around trying to prove.

Yeah, the Colorado Springs shooter only identified as non-binary after the attack.  It's a pretty similar situation.

Sorry, you did not predict what other people might say, but I said I agreed your take of "fock him" was reasonable and I would've thought others would agree.  Apparently they did not based on their responses in the Colorado shooting thread.

[Strike 3,968]

4 hours ago, TimHauck said:

So if you were making fun of the trolling Rusty and others were doing, do/did you believe that the shooter was actually non-binary?  That is the only context needed to prove that Jerry’s assumption was wrong as it pertains to GC righties.  He thought people would denounce someone for pretending to be trans in order to commit a crime (or in this case try to reduce the penalties for committing one).  But just the opposite happened and people actually believed this nutcase was actually non-binary.

I have nothing to do with your and Jerry's discussion, dumbass.  Just don't quote me out of context to prove whatever point you're trying to prove.  Are you really this retarded? 

[Strike 3,968]

12 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Yeah, the Colorado Springs shooter only identified as non-binary after the attack.  It's a pretty similar situation.

Sorry, you did not predict what other people might say, but I said I agreed your take of "fock him" was reasonable and I would've thought others would agree.  Apparently they did not based on their responses in the Colorado shooting thread.

Well, at least in my case, you misrepresented the content of my post 100%.  No one should believe you EVER when you try to speak for others.  You've shown a complete inability to properly quote/represent what others post. 

[TimHauck 1,799]

2 minutes ago, Strike said:

Well, at least in my case, you misrepresented the content of my post 100%.  No one should believe you EVER when you try to speak for others.  You've shown a complete inability to properly quote/represent what others post. 

I did misrepresent @jerryskids point, I apologize Jerry.

I quoted your entire post, I didn’t misrepresent it.  Can you please answer this question:  did/do you believe the Colorado Springs shooter was non-binary?

[Strike 3,968]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I did misrepresent @jerryskids point, I apologize Jerry.

I quoted your entire post, I didn’t misrepresent it.  Can you please answer this question:  did/do you believe the Colorado Springs shooter was non-binary?

Ugh.  Can't believe I'm doing this.  You quoted my post in the context of a post where you quoted a bunch of people to support the following point of yours:

Quote

Kinda like when a lunatic killed 5 people in a Colorado nightclub and the GC ridiculed him for pretending to identify as non-binary

I NEVER ridiculed this person for pretending to identify as non-binary.  Unfortunately, apparently my theory that you're retarded is correct because you fail to see how you're misrepresenting my post.  So be it.  I'm done with this one. 

[TimHauck 1,799]

12 minutes ago, Strike said:

Ugh.  Can't believe I'm doing this.  You quoted my post in the context of a post where you quoted a bunch of people to support the following point of yours:

I NEVER ridiculed this person for pretending to identify as non-binary.  Unfortunately, apparently my theory that you're retarded is correct because you fail to see how you're misrepresenting my post.  So be it.  I'm done with this one. 

JFC.  The point was that you SHOULD HAVE ridiculed the person for pretending to be non-binary.  Instead, your quote made it appear that you actually believed he was non-binary (and the other posters were not nearly as wishy-washy as you).