Re: Riley Gaines advocates for women!

On 1/28/2025 7:31 AM, NoBody wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Jan 27, 2025 at 8:18:59 AM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On 1/27/2025 12:03 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

"moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On 1/26/2025 9:34 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

"moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On 1/26/2025 6:23 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

"moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On 1/26/2025 1:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

"Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Riley Gaines slams Democrats. Republicans take the moral high ground.
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kItskvsbizI

      
Love Riley. She speaks facts.

>
What law forces a declaration of gender at birth?

     
I'm not sure what video you watched, but this one was about a law
stopping grown men from sexually assaulting female athletes by exposing
themselves in women's private restrooms and changing rooms, and keeping
men from taking trophies, scholarships, and other benefits in sports by
pretending to be women.
     
This is not a law about forcing declarations of gender at birth.

>
Maybe I misunderstood.  I thought the issue came down to who's male and
who's female, with the debatable certainty of one or the other.

   
If you're a female athlete and there's a penis wagging in your face in the
women's locker room, it's pretty certain what the problem is there.

>
I'm not sure it *is* all that certain.

 
Of course you're not. What's brutally obvious to normal people continually
eludes you.
 

 E.g., *any* uninvited crotch in *anyone's* face is problematic.  Regardless,
 I think the particular social mores you want enforced would need you to define,
 in unambiguous legalese, who's male and who's female.  Imo, that won't be trivial.

>
Rather than resort to ad hominem, why not state the "brutally obvious"?

>
The man had his penis exposed in a women's locker room.

 
Goodness how WILL we tell the difference?
Laughter.

>
The difference between what?