Re: Riley Gaines advocates for women!

On 1/27/2025 2:33 PM, BTR1701 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:

  On Jan 26, 2025 at 7:56:12 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

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

    On Jan 26, 2025 at 3:53:51 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
   

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

      On Jan 26, 2025 at 3:01:51 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
     

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

        On Jan 25, 2025 at 9:57:03 PM PST, ""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.

And that runs afoul of what (proposed?) statute?  E.g., what about a *woman* who exposes her (new) penis in a women's locker room?
Point being that it's not enough merely to say something disgusts you...