Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Riley Gaines advocates for women!
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2025 07:32:39 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <2ijhpj1h48rri29m2r7r9g1ptgrqsfj7p1@4ax.com>
References: <vn4irf$3fstj$1@dont-email.me> <vn704s$cj14$1@dont-email.me> <vn743p$i53s$1@dont-email.me> <vn8blk$11j61$1@dont-email.me> <vn8n2r$163m1$2@dont-email.me> <vn8nr7$15mfk$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2025 13:32:41 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f3291267d1073605f17852013e17cb85";
	logging-data="1926178"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19zLPGgcRy12zpni8MLymJA9B/mhCA2RQY="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DnhrWxoXyy8juDrtaTKAEDHIc/s=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 3.3/32.846
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 250128-4, 1/28/2025), Outbound message
Bytes: 4107

On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 14:46:46 -0500, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>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...
>

Imagine, you attempting to make the obvious confusing....