newtboy says... I had to quit discussing things like this in private thanks to bob (and his sock puppets). I refuse now because he likes to be a completely different person in private, admitting things he would never admit in public conversation, admitting he’s lying, that Trump is an awful human being, etc. he ruined it. Sorry…replying publicly. If you can’t/won’t answer one simple question, there’s no point. I’m sick of answering all of yours and having you dodge mine….especially sick of it since you refuse to even acknowledge my answers and pretend I didn’t give you a straight answer. I refused to answer one red herring, biased, loaded, off topic question because I disagreed wholeheartedly with its premise, but answered every other you asked. I feel like you’re wasting my time here.. I must point out, the question you continue to ignore trumps every question you asked….how can you deny the rights of legal women to compete in publicly funded contests as women? It’s their constitutional right to not be discriminated against based on gender. Case closed. Nothing overrides that legality. I answered your question 3 times now. If you can’t understand, why keep trying? One last time, but I’m out. I’m not going to answer you without the same consideration. There is no evidence that xx vs xy denotes one automatically has an advantage based on just chromosomal arrangements. None. Women CAN be stronger, faster, better than men in most arenas, and vice versa. Genetic gender may indicate a likelihood random men will be stronger than random women, it alone does not dictate biological differences that can/will be advantageous in athletics. Hormone levels, hormone therapy, supplements, mental fortitude, training, environment, opportunities, dna, rna, diet, HGH, etc can all go into creating (or erasing) those possible physical “advantages” you reference, not just chromosomal arrangements. Since that’s true, discrimination based on chromosomal arrangements is not just wrong and illegal, it’s ignorant and evil. I’ve been over that 3 times, now 4. I’ve given specific examples. What’s the issue in comprehension? Are you even reading? What?! I’m bored of this. We won’t get anywhere with this one sided discussion where only one of us answers questions or pays attention to the answers. Fuggetaboutit. This isn’t a discussion Have a nice day. Bye. bcglorf said: Gonna try and continue this in private, public comment sections have enough anti-trans toxicity and the pages of projected/anticipated hatred you’re trying attribute to me doesn’t seem helpful for anyone else to read. Can we start from trying to understand each others positions, definitions and assumptions before concluding a dozen other anticipated conditions on top? For my part, I honestly do want to try to understand where the disconnect in thought process here exists. For instance, one of my first inquiries was if you agreed or not that biological sex(XX,XY) dictates biological differences that can be advantageous in athletics? I am not attempting to project anything further, but instead to understand if even that observation is common ground or if it’s a point where our world views already diverge.