D
Don Y
Guest
On 3/30/2022 6:46 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Words mean little/nothing. Just like the morons trying to give the
appearance (with their words) of \"protecting\" the poor female athletes
*forced* to compete with transgender females (yet likely not giving a
shit about how females, in general, are treated).
I\'m old enough that pronouns require conscious thought. E.g., I
grew up taught that you used \"he\" (now, \"she\") to describe the
reader or a third person, when writing. In English, we tend to think
of \"one\" as too formal/haughty to use in everyday speech so are left
with \"they\" -- which seems plural.
OTOH, I have no problem using \"she\" when referring to a \"guy in drag\"
(who clearly wants to be treated as a *she*).
It\'s more work, when approaching someone \"cold\", as you don\'t always
know what their preferences are. Just like approaching a \"fat\" woman
and not knowing if you should congratulate her on being pregnant! :>
We have a woman working at our local branch library who is clearly trans.
When I first saw her (in profile), I commented (to myself), \"God, she\'s
TALL!\" On closer inspection, its apparent that she is just a tall \"guy\"
but clearly wanting to be treated as a female. Thankfully, nametags
on employees make it easy to figure out how *she\'d* like to be addressed!
Sort of like the \"threat\" that long hair posed to old farts in the 60\'s:
\"let\'s vilify them hippies!\" (\"Mr. Smith, I\'d like you to meet the
cardiologist who\'ll be doing your surgery...\")
Must be tough to wake up each morning so terrified of how the world
isn\'t the same as it was in the 50\'s! (yet taking advantage of all
the other \"progress\" that has happened in the intervening decades!
I wonder how many of the \"feet firmly planted in the past\" types
would TRULY like to go back to the 50\'s -- if it meant they had
to live with ALL of that era\'s limitations??)
I am not claiming one is \"better\" than another. Rather, that there is an
unusual (\"statistically significant\"?) bias in the \"sex\" of folks in
positions of responsibility, higher wages, etc. From that observation
one would have to conclude bias (or sex-based incompetence).
I think it is just an easy way to remove a large section of the population
from \"the competition\". Another way for males who feel threatened to try
to cling to positions of power, higher wages, etc. If we can make them
appear unusual, we can ignore them (and convince others to ignore them,
as well).
[I don\'t see any men complaining about women-dressed-as-men standing next to
them at the urinal! But, a man-dressed-as-a-woman in the ladies toilet is
obviously lewd!]
Ditto with any other way a subpopulation can be easily identified as
\"different\".
[The nazis though hair/eye color was a good way to discriminate! That
experiment didn\'t end well, for them.]
Sad to see people so afraid that they close their minds to new/different
ideas. Gotta wonder how crippled their designs must be to reflect that sort
of closed mindset... (\"No, the drive wheels must be in the REAR cuz that\'s
how it has ALWAYS BEEN!\")
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
On 3/30/2022 4:53 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Absolutely first class summing up of the idiotic anomalies created by
mental pigmys who don\'t understand biology and go through life trying to
force everyone else to believe in a false reality which corresponds to
their own level of ignorance
Would you mind if I keep a copy and use it (with due credits) when
needed?
Skip the accreditation but feel free to paraphrase/quote as you like.
Thanks, it is too good to be allowed to lapse into oblivion.
Words mean little/nothing. Just like the morons trying to give the
appearance (with their words) of \"protecting\" the poor female athletes
*forced* to compete with transgender females (yet likely not giving a
shit about how females, in general, are treated).
I\'m old enough that pronouns require conscious thought. E.g., I
grew up taught that you used \"he\" (now, \"she\") to describe the
reader or a third person, when writing. In English, we tend to think
of \"one\" as too formal/haughty to use in everyday speech so are left
with \"they\" -- which seems plural.
OTOH, I have no problem using \"she\" when referring to a \"guy in drag\"
(who clearly wants to be treated as a *she*).
It\'s more work, when approaching someone \"cold\", as you don\'t always
know what their preferences are. Just like approaching a \"fat\" woman
and not knowing if you should congratulate her on being pregnant! :>
We have a woman working at our local branch library who is clearly trans.
When I first saw her (in profile), I commented (to myself), \"God, she\'s
TALL!\" On closer inspection, its apparent that she is just a tall \"guy\"
but clearly wanting to be treated as a female. Thankfully, nametags
on employees make it easy to figure out how *she\'d* like to be addressed!
Sort of like the \"threat\" that long hair posed to old farts in the 60\'s:
\"let\'s vilify them hippies!\" (\"Mr. Smith, I\'d like you to meet the
cardiologist who\'ll be doing your surgery...\")
Must be tough to wake up each morning so terrified of how the world
isn\'t the same as it was in the 50\'s! (yet taking advantage of all
the other \"progress\" that has happened in the intervening decades!
I wonder how many of the \"feet firmly planted in the past\" types
would TRULY like to go back to the 50\'s -- if it meant they had
to live with ALL of that era\'s limitations??)
I wonder how long before we hear these same \"champions of fairness
in women\'s sports\" ALSO championing EQUALITY of women in ALL things?
Equality of opportunity doesn\'t worry me; enforced equality of results
is much more worrying. All targetted positive discrimination is
widespread negative discrimination under another name.
I have worked for good and bad bosses, some were female and some were
male, there was no correlation.
I am not claiming one is \"better\" than another. Rather, that there is an
unusual (\"statistically significant\"?) bias in the \"sex\" of folks in
positions of responsibility, higher wages, etc. From that observation
one would have to conclude bias (or sex-based incompetence).
I was mainly taught by males (because
that\'s how things were in those days), but found I learned a lot more
easily from females. I have known excellent female engineers who were
denied the chance to excel because they were female - and really bad
male engineers who held down unsuitable jobs because they could throw
their weight around when challenged.
The whole male/female thing is a mess, mainly because of lazy thinking
and prejudice.
I think it is just an easy way to remove a large section of the population
from \"the competition\". Another way for males who feel threatened to try
to cling to positions of power, higher wages, etc. If we can make them
appear unusual, we can ignore them (and convince others to ignore them,
as well).
[I don\'t see any men complaining about women-dressed-as-men standing next to
them at the urinal! But, a man-dressed-as-a-woman in the ladies toilet is
obviously lewd!]
Ditto with any other way a subpopulation can be easily identified as
\"different\".
[The nazis though hair/eye color was a good way to discriminate! That
experiment didn\'t end well, for them.]
Sad to see people so afraid that they close their minds to new/different
ideas. Gotta wonder how crippled their designs must be to reflect that sort
of closed mindset... (\"No, the drive wheels must be in the REAR cuz that\'s
how it has ALWAYS BEEN!\")