What is a woman? plus Last Supper in Paris Olympics discussion.

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on August 23, 2023, 12:56:14 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on August 22, 2023, 03:25:18 PM

Except as already demonstrated, I'm not alone.
People are starting to recognise this sexism and call it out.
So which side of history do you want to be on?
That of the sexist pigs, try to defend sexism at all costs, throwing out all sorts of dishonest BS trying to vilify those who oppose you? Or the side of those fighting against sexism?

And I wouldn't call this an obsession.

Who? Where? Show me these people Jacky.

As to the world I want? One where everybody get’s a chance to shine and women can excel rather than being buried by mediocre men furious at them because they get plaudits for their achievements.

he's been told who he identifies with

and he was quick to define the differentiation that he does it because he's a robot, not because he hates women

pretty good listen

Who? Where? Show me these people Jacky.

Provided earlier in this thread.

As to the world I want? One where everybody get’s a chance to shine and women can excel rather than being buried by mediocre men furious at them because they get plaudits for their achievements.

No, that isn't the world you want.
You are advocating for a world divided based upon sexism.
Where only those you deem worthy enough get a chance to shine, and those not worthy get buried by others.

he's been told who he identifies with

You mean you have tried to vilify me by connecting me with people.

I guess you think anyone who agrees with Hitler on any topic, must be just as bad as Hitler.
So you think anyone who opposes animal cruelty is just as bad as Hitler.

and he was quick to define the differentiation that he does it because he's a robot, not because he hates women

And more vilification.
Again, it truly is quite simple.
It is because I am a decent human being, and decent human beings oppose things like sexism.
Maybe when you become a decent human being you can try it some day.
But given your history in this thread and others, you seem to fully support discrimination.
I'm sure the KKK would love someone like you.

Hey Jacky, there’s 28 pages of mostly your repetitive misogynist rambling, I missed this nugget, help me out please, who in the world is saying what you are saying because I have never come across them.

In fact, over all these pages has anyone here agreed with your position? Are you the only “decent human” here?
If so someone has surreptitiously redefined that word.

Quote from: Themightykabool on August 22, 2023, 06:25:54 PM

Whars this about now?

They approved testosterone and mastectomy for a young woman with 14 different mental health diagnoses. She can't read or write, either. I'm not sure how they decided that she was mentally capable of consenting to any of it.

But she had the soul of a man trapped in her female body!  If the soul and the body didn't become aligned she would be forever sad.

Even if she was capable of informed consent, this doesn't let any of the clinicians off the hook.  For example if a hospital diagnosed, say, sepsis and then recommend the patient's leg be amputated they would still have to obtain consent.  If it turned out that was a misdiagnosis and there was no sepsis and they'd cut off a healthy leg, they can't turn round and say "well, we did have consent".  It would actually be a massive scandal, medics could be struck off, huge compensation would be paid out to the victim.

It should not be any different for a misdiagnosis of "gender dysphoria".

I guess you think anyone who agrees with Hitler on any topic, must be just as bad as Hitler.
So you think anyone who opposes animal cruelty is just as bad as Hitler.

Quote from: Themightykabool on August 23, 2023, 11:16:57 AM

and he was quick to define the differentiation that he does it because he's a robot, not because he hates women

And more vilification.
Again, it truly is quite simple.
It is because I am a decent human being, and decent human beings oppose things like sexism.
Maybe when you become a decent human being you can try it some day.
But given your history in this thread and others, you seem to fully support discrimination.
I'm sure the KKK would love someone like you.

no pitification.
pitty that you can't put things in context.

not vilification

you're vilifying me by false equivocating the desire for equality vs equity as being sexist/ racist.

Alice Cooper came out as a TERF, Rolling Stone got the vapors. lol https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/08/24/alice-coopers-rocknroll-revolt-against-trans-ideology/

Alice Cooper came out as a TERF, Rolling Stone got the vapors. lol https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/08/24/alice-coopers-rocknroll-revolt-against-trans-ideology/

I only agree with celebs when they agree with me.

Hey Jacky, there’s 28 pages of mostly your repetitive misogynist rambling

Where? I can't see any.
I can see myself being a decent human being and opposing blatant sexism.
Which is apparently so trigger for a bunch of sexist pigs that they need to repeatedly try to vilify me.

no pitification.

No, vilification. Where you are literally try to pretend I am a horrible person, by associating me with sexists and racists.

That is not pitification. That is vilification.

pitty that you can't put things in context.

I'm not the one repeatedly fleeing from context.
I'm not the one that needs to continually ignore questions because they expose your hypocrisy.

Again, do you agree that it is exclusion?
If not, WHY?
Your previous argument was that it isn't, because they have their own league.
But that would mean things like schools for white people only are not exclusion, as long as others have their own schools.

you're vilifying me by false equivocating the desire for equality vs equity as being sexist/ racist.

No, I'm not.
I'm pointing out what your argument actually implies.
I am showing you the logical consequences of your claim.

If your idea is that it isn't exclusion as long as people have access, even if it is different access, then schools divided based upon race is NOT exclusion.

You not liking the fact that your argument literally supports racist exclusion does not mean I am vilifying you.
It means I am showing you the logical consequences of your argument.

Incorrect
I INITIALLY villlified you.
Then when you clarfieod your pov, even though i disagree with your pov, i coreected my assesment that you are a robot based on your narrow uncontexted understanding of terms.
Hence my statmenet

and he was quick to define the differentiation that he does it because he's a robot, not because he hates women

I didnt ignore your question
I ignored your REPETITION.
My postion was clarified seceral tines using diffrent attmepts to describe it so that you could understand.
You refesus to accept my pov doesnt negate my pov.

Incorrect
I INITIALLY villlified you.
Then when you clarfieod your pov, even though i disagree with your pov, i coreected my assesment that you are a robot based on your narrow uncontexted understanding of terms.

So you switch from vilification to insults?

I'm not a robot.
I'm just not a sexist pig.

I do understand context.
That means I don't ignore aspects of context which are inconvenient to try to prop up sexism like you do.

In this case, context would be understanding what exclusion actually means.
And that means understanding that segregation is a form of exclusion.

Excluding a class of people from something, and then giving them their own division, doesn't negate the exclusion.

I didnt ignore your question
I ignored your REPETITION.
My postion was clarified seceral tines using diffrent attmepts to describe it so that you could understand.
You refesus to accept my pov doesnt negate my pov.

All of which ignored the issue.

Do you think it is exclusion? Yes or no?
If no, do you think a school for white people only is exclusion if there is another school black people can go to? (or classes for only white people, etc)?

Quote from: Crouton on August 20, 2023, 09:22:58 PM

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/18/1194593562/chess-transgender-fide-pushback

Why the hell is chess gender segregated?  Does upper body strength play a significant role in this sport?

I agree

Chess is gender segregated due to men being more dominate than women in events that are competitive in nature.

Elite high school boys beat elite females.
That is not the average male beating the elite females.
And no one asked about the average male vs the average female.

Because of blatant sexism that wants to exclude people based upon their sex rather than their ability?

The only way to justify females having their own category would be if well below average males beat all elite females.

How long before anyone recognizes Jack to be a female loser?

How long before anyone recognizes Jack to be a female loser?

If you are going to quote someone, do it right.
When are you going to get a brain and try to say something intelligent?

Quote from: Themightykabool on August 21, 2023, 03:08:26 AM

Quote from: Crouton on August 20, 2023, 09:22:58 PM

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/18/1194593562/chess-transgender-fide-pushback

Why the hell is chess gender segregated?  Does upper body strength play a significant role in this sport?

I agree

Chess is gender segregated due to men being more dominate than women in events that are competitive in nature.

If you think men are intellectually smarter than women... youd be incorrect

The "sexist segregation" is only to provide safe space l.
There ve been studies shown separating boys from girls in k-12 meant less goofing off.
Means focused learning to the level as girls hit it faster than boys.

And its also to safespace to develop apopulation that hasnt participated to the extent of the other half of the population.



But at high level chess?
I think its silly.
Get some lady balls.

Quote from: Themightykabool on August 24, 2023, 04:17:54 PM

Incorrect
I INITIALLY villlified you.
Then when you clarfieod your pov, even though i disagree with your pov, i coreected my assesment that you are a robot based on your narrow uncontexted understanding of terms.

So you switch from vilification to insults?

I'm not a robot.
I'm just not a sexist pig.

I do understand context.
That means I don't ignore aspects of context which are inconvenient to try to prop up sexism like you do.

In this case, context would be understanding what exclusion actually means.
And that means understanding that segregation is a form of exclusion.

Excluding a class of people from something, and then giving them their own division, doesn't negate the exclusion.

Quote from: Themightykabool on August 24, 2023, 04:17:54 PM

I didnt ignore your question
I ignored your REPETITION.
My postion was clarified seceral tines using diffrent attmepts to describe it so that you could understand.
You refesus to accept my pov doesnt negate my pov.

All of which ignored the issue.

Do you think it is exclusion? Yes or no?
If no, do you think a school for white people only is exclusion if there is another school black people can go to? (or classes for only white people, etc)?

Im always insulting


I did answrr
You didnt accept it.

You wont answer my question.
Bell curves and populations comparison?

He doesn’t answer, that’s why he fisks so much, so he can cut out the bits he can’t or doesn’t want to, play the victim, and the martyr, declare himself the decent one and liken us to the KKK!

Who are these people that agree with you Jacko?

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on August 25, 2023, 03:37:22 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on August 21, 2023, 03:08:26 AM

Quote from: Crouton on August 20, 2023, 09:22:58 PM

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/18/1194593562/chess-transgender-fide-pushback

Why the hell is chess gender segregated?  Does upper body strength play a significant role in this sport?

I agree

Chess is gender segregated due to men being more dominate than women in events that are competitive in nature.

If you think men are intellectually smarter than women... youd be incorrect

The "sexist segregation" is only to provide safe space l.
There ve been studies shown separating boys from girls in k-12 meant less goofing off.
Means focused learning to the level as girls hit it faster than boys.

And its also to safespace to develop apopulation that hasnt participated to the extent of the other half of the population.



But at high level chess?
I think its silly.
Get some lady balls.

Competitive events, STEM, chess, checkers...you name it, the men have it hands down. Women don't stand a chance when it comes to competing with men. Might win one game in a match of 12.

only because mostly young girls are nice and not agressive and don't get fed into competitive gaming where trash talking and being "mean by killing things" leads to a less competitive pool

it's an incubator to attract and develop the talent pool in a "safe space"

but once they escape that "safe space" they should be competing in general.

you believe the idiotic nonsense JordanP notion that moving bricks is the same as thinking and planning?




[/i]

What is a business incubator?
https://www.bdc.ca › ... › Glossary
A business incubator is a program that gives very early-stage companies access to mentorship, investors and other support to help them get established. Business ...

only because mostly young girls are nice and not agressive and don't get fed into competitive gaming where trash talking and being "mean by killing things" leads to a less competitive pool

it's an incubator to attract and develop the talent pool in a "safe space"

but once they escape that "safe space" they should be competing in general.

you believe the idiotic nonsense JordanP notion that moving bricks is the same as thinking and planning?




[/i]

What is a business incubator?
https://www.bdc.ca › ... › Glossary
A business incubator is a program that gives very early-stage companies access to mentorship, investors and other support to help them get established. Business ...

It doesn't matter why... I am not debating why.

so just "men win"

not "men are naturally better".

Men are more aggressive in competitions. Probably because of your balls.

Men are more aggressive in competitions. Probably because of your balls.

More so testosterone.

It is stored in the balls.

If you think men are intellectually smarter than women... youd be incorrect

Well as already shown, the "elite" men are smarter than the "elite" women.
But the dumb men are dumber than the dumb women.

Women have a slightly higher average and a much narrower distribution.

I did answrr
You didnt accept it.

Care to provide the quote where you allegedly answered?
Including dealing with the logical implications of it?
Where either both are exclusion or neither are.

You wont answer my question.
Bell curves and populations comparison?

You mean bell curves which show an overlap, showing plenty of men should be competing with plenty of women?

1
Men are better (intellecually) and bells overlap wehre males at the 0.00001% are more but female population in the 10% is more. (% exaggerated).

So youd SHOULD expect more females in the workforce at middle managemnet and intellectual workforces.
But you dont due to babies, balls, and whatever else patriarical society says they 'cant' do.



2.
Its there.
Ill see if i can muster the energy to find it.



3.
Men are better (phsyically) but they should also be able to participate where the female bells are SHIFTED LEFT and wiill only mean a higher Male population cimpeting against a much smaller female pop.



Cool logic between 1 and 3.
And you said it in the same brwath seaparated by 2.
Its almost loke 2 provided a 'dissonance' breakof some sort to your 'cognitive' function.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on June 08, 2023, 06:21:04 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on June 08, 2023, 05:16:31 AM

Again, this is the "equity" you are promoting:

That isn't equity. That is blatant sexism.

This is the funniest thing I've ever seen Jack post. It also explains a lot about the way he thinks of women.

Haha
Ask the ai artbot to draw it.




Also
Im noticing he raised the girl higher.
Instwad of mafching head heights.
Common problem with victim complex people is they never see equity/equalizers as eqqualizers.
They always see it as putting down their gorup.

Oh i got lucky and found it quick.

Somewhere in this time range.
But this kinda summed it up.

Men are better (intellecually) and bells overlap wehre males at the 0.00001% are more but female population in the 10% is more. (% exaggerated).

So youd SHOULD expect more females in the workforce at middle managemnet and intellectual workforces.
But you dont due to babies, balls, and whatever else patriarchal society says they 'cant' do.

We were discussing Chess, not middle management.
Would you expect more elite chess players to be male or female based upon these overlapping bell curves?

Men are better (phsyically) but they should also be able to participate where the female bells are SHIFTED LEFT and wiill only mean a higher Male population cimpeting against a much smaller female pop.

So what?
Why should those men be excluded just so women get their own separate division where those men, who are equal to them, can't compete?

Cool logic between 1 and 3.
And you said it in the same brwath seaparated by 2.
Its almost loke 2 provided a 'dissonance' breakof some sort to your 'cognitive' function.

Not in the slightest. Just pointing out hypocrisy.
You are happy with blatant sexism when it elevates women, but can't stand it if it puts women down.

Just look at your dissonance.
You abhor the idea of men and women competing together because there would be more men.
But then for management and the intellectual workforce, you say we should have more women.
Why shouldn't that be "equalised"?

Oh i got lucky and found it quick.

Somewhere in this time range.
But this kinda summed it up.

Yes, it does sum it up.
You are happy with blatant sexism, rather than focusing on the individual. And in doing so, you entirely miss the point.
Those "equalisers" don't equalise.

And yet, still no response to my question.

Again, you claim that men are not excluded by women only sports because men can compete in their own division.
Following this logic, a school for white people only does not exclude black people, because black people can go to other schools.
Do you accept this logic and accept that schools segregated based upon race are not excluding people?

Quote from: Themightykabool on August 26, 2023, 05:07:48 AM

Men are better (intellecually) and bells overlap wehre males at the 0.00001% are more but female population in the 10% is more. (% exaggerated).

So youd SHOULD expect more females in the workforce at middle managemnet and intellectual workforces.
But you dont due to babies, balls, and whatever else patriarchal society says they 'cant' do.

We were discussing Chess, not middle management.
Would you expect more elite chess players to be male or female based upon these overlapping bell curves?

Quote from: Themightykabool on August 26, 2023, 05:07:48 AM

Men are better (phsyically) but they should also be able to participate where the female bells are SHIFTED LEFT and wiill only mean a higher Male population cimpeting against a much smaller female pop.

So what?
Why should those men be excluded just so women get their own separate division where those men, who are equal to them, can't compete?

Quote from: Themightykabool on August 26, 2023, 05:07:48 AM

Cool logic between 1 and 3.
And you said it in the same brwath seaparated by 2.
Its almost loke 2 provided a 'dissonance' breakof some sort to your 'cognitive' function.

Not in the slightest. Just pointing out hypocrisy.
You are happy with blatant sexism when it elevates women, but can't stand it if it puts women down.

Just look at your dissonance.
You abhor the idea of men and women competing together because there would be more men.
But then for management and the intellectual workforce, you say we should have more women.
Why shouldn't that be "equalised"?

Quote from: Themightykabool on August 26, 2023, 05:12:52 AM

Oh i got lucky and found it quick.

Somewhere in this time range.
But this kinda summed it up.

Yes, it does sum it up.
You are happy with blatant sexism, rather than focusing on the individual. And in doing so, you entirely miss the point.
Those "equalisers" don't equalise.

And yet, still no response to my question.

Again, you claim that men are not excluded by women only sports because men can compete in their own division.
Following this logic, a school for white people only does not exclude black people, because black people can go to other schools.
Do you accept this logic and accept that schools segregated based upon race are not excluding people?

yes we were discussing chess.
you ref studies show there are more men at top
but more women in middle.

so i bring it back to why, if women are better in the middle, are more men in middle?
and if the same reasons for more men in middle, does that mean there're similar reasons why more men at top?


the same studies done 1960s 1980s 2000s show the narrowing gap from 10x population gap down to 4x population gap.







equity vs equalty
equal effort vs equal ability-to-do-sports-thing-good?
so once again you don't accept the position.
cool
reppetitive - ignored




dissonance on 1 vs 3?

hardly
you just pointing out you believe men are naturally better.
the top women will never match the top %males.
then in the same breath cry that men can't compete physically against "equal" women.
understanding that men have an inherent +15% advantage?
how is that a fair competition worhty of my ticket fee or ad sponsorhip?
why is the worst F1 racer not competing against the Best Nascar?

round adn round we go.
repeptive nonsense if you can't figure out how to say something new.

I don't know how you manage to even use the internet. lol

The evidence to support gender affirming care has been found to be of low and very low quality in the systematic reviews conducted in the UK, Finland, Sweden, and I think Norway.

It is not possible to literally change sex, so that doesn't even make sense.
There is no evidence it reduces suicide.
If you don't understand this time, idk what to tell you.

A systematic review is considered the gold standard for evaluating medical research. Medical research (scientific papers), is what lobby groups, like the AAP, base their guidelines on.

From the internet - A systematic review is a summary of the medical literature that uses explicit and reproducible methods to systematically search, critically appraise, and synthesize on a specific issue.


I'm not going to answer you again until you have sobered up enough to read.

(you should read this https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(23)00141-2/fulltext )

i haven't read your things
but
my peoples think this lady is a liar

Who are your peoples? And who do they think is a liar? Emma Vigeland is reading an email from a viewer. Which has about as much weight as a post on the FES.

I will assume your peoples are "The Majority Report" and "this lady" is Jamie Reed.

The person they are referring to with OCD didn't have gender dysphoria. He threatened to "self-harm" his genitals after he masturbated. He was sent to the gender clinic and prescribed hormones to reduce his libido and sexual arousal. You'd think Emma would have read the affidavit before calling Jesse Singal a transphobe for having the opinion that maybe this person shouldn't be treated at a gender clinic. ALSO, the person who sent the email hasn't got a clue how OCD is treated. The patient should never be encouraged to focus on their obsession. (yes, I saw clips of the video a few days ago on Twitter).

Perhaps the NYT are also your peoples?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/23/health/transgender-youth-st-louis-jamie-reed.html

https://archive.li/2023.08.23-101453/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/23/health/transgender-youth-st-louis-jamie-reed.html

The reality was more complex than what was portrayed by either side of the political battle, according to interviews with dozens of patients, parents, former employees and local health providers, as well as more than 300 pages of documents shared by Ms. Reed.

Some of Ms. Reed’s claims could not be confirmed, and at least one included factual inaccuracies. But others were corroborated, offering a rare glimpse into one of the 100 or so clinics in the United States that have been at the center of an intensifying fight over transgender rights.

They investigated her claims.

I find the effort to smear Jamie Reed as a transphobe terribly funny. She identifies as "queer" and is married to a transman. I will never understand why people who pretend to be trans allies aren't upset that trans people (especially teenagers) are not receiving proper care. Anyone who doubts affirmation only treatment is immediately called a far right fascist. It's the weirdest thing since the Satanic Panic.