Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

But we've no need to worry because it was all biting satire.

Yeah, right.

It's actually quite shocking that you could believe otherwise; but as I noted earlier with your damnation of a school in order to defend a sixth-former breaking school rules related to safeguarding, you chose to go down the hard-bitten cynicism path rather than follow the truth.

 

[Deleted member 159]

but it is over the top to invoke Mengele.

It's directly comparable. To chemically castrate is most vile and evil.

Anyone who advocates any of this butchery, should be first in the queue to be experimented on.

 

[Pale Rider]

It's actually quite shocking that you could believe otherwise; but as I noted earlier with your damnation of a school in order to defend a sixth-former breaking school rules related to safeguarding, you chose to go down the hard-bitten cynicism path rather than follow the truth.

If you think anyone, let alone me, can be bothered to carefully read all the thousands of words you've posted in this thread you are mistaken.

Every extra paragraph and post merely serves to dilute and obscure the overall meaning.

I don't mean the stuff that delays puberty

I wouldn't be quite so dismissive about that.

Giving any medication to little Jack just because he says he wants to be known as Jill is uber dodgy in my view.

 

[monkers]

It's directly comparable. To chemically castrate is most vile and evil.

Anyone who advocates any of this butchery, should be first in the queue to be experimented on.

Ahem, I said I was taking the piss out of a troll. You've just used Self-ID. How funny.

 

[theclaud]

the guys who think your clothes make you female

Literally no one thinks that. Unkers does think that lesbianism (and sex for pleasure) is a sin, though, and whoever the fark CRXAndy is thinks that women aren't proper women if they don't bear children, icowden thinks that women are 'there to be impregnated', and Paley thinks... well, you don't want to go there.

 

[monkers]

If you think anyone, let alone me, can be bothered to carefully read all the thousands of words you've posted in this thread you are mistaken.

Every extra paragraph and post merely serves to dilute and obscure the overall meaning.

The quote and the helpful little upward arrow to the post I was replying to was all you needed to read.

Your embarrassment is all too palpable, but I forgive you for mistakes are easy to make.

 

[Deleted member 159]

"ex-professionals"

I ride with an ex-professional, Andy. You are out of your depth here, son.

"much more serious event".

Nope. As far as i can tell it's the same event, or series of same events, and it's still to all intents a sportive. Anyone can enter. AFAIK no affiliation to anything.

But then, like you, I'd not heard of it until today.

Tell that to those who compete. It's just like tour of Cambridge, it has sportive and UCi qualification event on the same course.

Doesn't mean it's a not a big deal. For high ranking ex professional riders to enter shows it's held in high esteem.

I've known about it for several years I follow a US gravel racer who enters these and many other events in the US

 

[Deleted member 159]

Literally no one thinks that. Unkers does think that lesbianism (and sex for pleasure) is a sin, though, and whoever the fark CRXAndy is thinks that women aren't proper women if they don't bear children, icowden thinks that women are 'there to be impregnated', and Paley thinks... well, you don't want to go there.

A proper woman has the natural ability to bear children.

Cocks in frocks are just ideologues .

 

[Bromptonaut]

A proper woman has the natural ability to bear children.

Cocks in frocks are just ideologues .

Either debate seriously or lave the stage to those who want to.

PLease..

 

[Bromptonaut]

I wouldn't be quite so dismissive about that.

Giving any medication to little Jack just because he says he wants to be known as Jill is uber dodgy in my view.

How big/old should Jack (or Jill going in the other direction) be before they're taken seriously about being non-congruent?

 

[Deleted member 159]

Either debate seriously or lave the stage to those who want to.

PLease..

I'm here to take the piss out of you ideologues

 

[monkers]

I'm here to take the piss out of you ideologues

As I had said - an obvious troll. Thank you for confirming though, the clarification maybe useful to those who hadn't worked it out.

 

[multitool]

I'm here to take the piss out of you ideologues

You don't realise it yet, but the only person you are taking the piss out of is yourself

 

[multitool]

As I had said - an obvious troll. Thank you for confirming though, the clarification maybe useful for those who hadn't worked it out.

We'd all realised. But, this particular troll hasn't realised he is being trolled back.

 

[AuroraSaab]

When people dope with performance enhancing drugs it is in order to increase performance - this is INTENT to cheat.

The intent is irrelevant. Accidental or unintentional unfair advantage is still unfair advantage.

When people take medications with performance reducing drugs it is not to increase performance - this is INTENT to live an authentic life. The difference could hardly be clearer.

Lowering testosterone with drugs does not fully mitigate the advantages a male body gives. The intention is irrelevant for the purposes of judging fairness. Lots of men taking performance lowering drugs for their health or mental well being. It doesn't entitle them to compete in the female category.