bronskibeat

I don't think this supports what you are saying. The link is talking about physical arousal to stimulation. It seems to be about rape victims who reached orgasm. The physical response to physical stimulation is not something controllable. I assume it is like when the prostate is used by doctors to force ejaculation, or whatever that technique is.  I think we are talking about arousal from seeing or thinking about certain things. Like you know looking at somebody bend over. If you are a female and you get sexually aroused by a female bending over then I think it's safe to think you are attracted to women. This would be different than somebody forcing your nerve ending to be stimulated and then thinking that has anything to do with attraction

Studies that actually test for attraction prove my theory that all women are attracted to other women. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-34744903

Honestly go on lezbian Twitter they all claim to fuck heterosexual women . Better yet gey a girlfriend and see if they are down for sex with another woman. 

It doesn't matter what you believe. The points how those in power many of whom are occultists thinks.

So to correctly understand your claim. You claim language has not changed in even a single artificial way that was top down as opposed to more naturally.

Your second claim here just to understand it is that it is these communities themselves changing how they are referred to, to spite white people? 

That reality is if whites called blackest African Americans 50 years ago that perhaps they would prefer to be called pizzas now or some other random word?

We are also going to ignore the fact that white people are on behalf of others telling them how they should feel about words like oriental or negro? 

So to disprove your claims it seems like  just need to find one instance of a top down manipulation of language..is this true?

I personally wouldn't tell you too much because I have been warned about sharing secrets with the uninitiated and a lot of it is pointless without foundational knowledge anyway. 

In this thread I pointed to the overgeneralization of words for the mot part to be more inclusive of people in the LGBT community.  The expansion of terms like queer or bisexuality to include more people.  I can tell you why this is done on one level anyway. 

The left is essentially saying "let's normalize being queer" you can only do that by creating 75 genders and dividing everybody among them and shrinking the definition of heterosexual. Everyone knows that gender and sex are a spectrum. We consider most of the spectrum or did to be heterosexual. They have expanded the definition of queer to include more of the spectrum and used the term cisgender as a type of pejorative. It's the one incorrect gender so now kids will furiously search for one of the 75 genders to describe themselves as. It's easy for females because a lot are tomboys but nearly every female has some sort of sexual attraction towards other women. 

The reason you would want to expand the definition from their perspective us because the more people who see themselves as LGBT the more accepting of Trans individuals or homosexuality the community will be as a whole. 

It should also be pointed out that culture kind of flows downstream you have these academics in their ivory towers and you can read their books on this exact process and why the expansion of the term is important and people will laugh and say it is just some Crack academics but the academics influence "thought leaders" who influences people who consume a lot of low brow content who then influence their friends and neighbors.

You think my opinions are born from personal experience and I think yours are from brainwashing that tells you that your grandparents and previous generations were all rabbit racists who lynched black people for the slightest infractions and didn't want to share pies with them. 

It's of no use to speculate where we each collected our biases. My envisioning of you and your envisioning of me are perhaps useful when communicating with each other but are very unlikely to reflect reality. We can schedule a zoom call if you want to see if our impressions of each h other are correct but I would prefer we just stick to facts and acknowledge that we both likely have biases that effect our thinking and one of the reasons we expose our thinking to criticism is to work through these biases. 

It looks like you took issue with me claiming the change of language was some sort of manipulation. You stated it happened naturally or as a response to marginalized communities taking ownership of the words that they are referred to as. 

I dont think you addressed what I said about the language seeming to change faster now than it did in the past which was one of my premises. 

My other premises are probably just not going to be extrapolated because I was into Satanism for so long as well s the occult and so I am kind of aware of what alterations in language can do and am kind of picking up on that. 

For example a lot of occultism would not say a phrase like "I am a fireman" when describing their occupation' they would say "I fight fires"

There I hundreds of things we do with language in plain site and I am willing to write a post on some of how occultism and word choice works but it is a hidden Premise I held which is potentially not fair to explain one of my reasoning. Not that I believe the language manipulation is from occultism only that they seem to intuitively recognize some occult principles around language and be using them, and I don't feel like the language alterations are natural. Even when the term "social media" came out is seem contrived and the term seemed pushed more by mainstream media than a bottom up approach to language that is more normal

No they can call me Irish or black or Japanese if they want. The question just annoys me. I know I am not Japanese and I have no problem with Japanese people so I don't mind being called it. I don't want to be asked though .

Everyone acknowledges it. Its not acknowledging the struggles. The criticism is in the insincere patronization and in the efforts to use these communities as cannon fodder such as with the BLM riots. 

Yeah so... racism. Favoring your own race over another one is racism. Sorry.

Every study is imperfect but when asked if you are racist un the way it was done and answering that question yes, I'd pretty indicative you re racist.

I know they cited studies to see if wearing a hijab would decrease the likelihood of receiving help then the abstract explained that it did not reduce the likelihood of getting help but it just changed who was likely to help them. More women helped when the woman when she wore a head scarf. To me this would just be people scared to help because they maybe assume and correctly so that Islamic culture just accepts beating of women and the women don't want help. As somebody who read the Quran most of the time, I can assure you the assumption is well founded. 

I can tell you that there is inherently more risk in rescuing black people than non blacks, and perhaps that more risk is why it's not done as frequently

Let's say your typical white woman and man is in a car. Let's say they are parents and their baby is not breathing and they are pulled overbecause they are rushing to a hospital and the cop immediately takes the baby from the back of the car to save its life. You know because most ops have extensive training in first aid. The white couple is going to typically shut the fuck up and get out of the way so their child is saved. 

The black couple a lot of times is not. Now it doesn't mean every white couple will be calm or every black couple will be erratic and try to stop the cop from rescuing the baby. It does mean that the white couples are more likely to be calm and thus you are at less personal risk by helping them.

Yes I have.  Like I said I was the only white kid in my foster home and so I got control of the TV like once out of every 7 times and trust me I also picked black shows because it's just not fun to be the only one enjoying a show or a movie. You want somebody thereto watch it with you. At least for me watching television is a communal thing. 

I think representation is probably a chick thing and mostly white chick thing. I never once heard one of the black kids in foster care (all boys home) cry about not being represented. However I did hear fat white chick's crying when Amy Schumer decided not to play Barbie

It' s legitimately stupid. Let me be more accurate. When I say I am American, I am happy to be American but it's just a factual thing. Why would anyone be a proud New Yorker or Texan? 

You literally have no control over where your mother gave birth. It's dumb to be proud of it. 

Incorrect. education you are partially correct with though you probablybthink the solution is throwing more money at the problem and fail to realize that places like DC have the highest cost per student and spending moremoney doesn't stip them from being the worst. So the solution isnt throwing money at problems. However school should be year round to make up for the disproportionate academic decline.

Healthcare- um.no, disproportionate health outcomes are due to a cycle that is too nuanced to get into here as well s genetics. Lets hust say socializing medicine and having 2 year wait times like Canada is not going to help the fact that black people eat unhealthy

Housing- sure, you till havent put together that forcing banks to give mlre risky loans caused the banks to need billions to be bailed out in the early 2000s or noticedthat New york deciding to utilize rent control to help ith housing actually has the highest rents in the country. So you need some pattern recognition skills here.

Employment- correct but again not in the ways you suggest that make things worse. Clamp down on illegal immigration because black jobs are the firat to go. Stop the minimum wage hikes that are proven to increase unemployment of african americans but have zero impact on whute comunities. We also need to spread the "ban the box" initiative to every state because there is no reason that a felon is struggling tonfind employment as a dishwasher.

I disagree that, that sort of ownership of language matters. Maybe that is because I speak 4 languages f and I just automatically accept whatever the people in those languages call me. 

I see these groups that engage in that sort of thing as either misguided or victims of leftists. Especially ially groups like Hispanic who are called Latinx because white people don't understand gendered languages and how they work. 

I really empathize with marginalized communities, and I see most of this nonsense as intentional divisiveness meant to create hostilities between groups because leftists can sense that these catholic Hispanics and socially conservative religious African Americans have different values than they do and so they exploit them through divisive language. 

1. Bans on things that exploit the poor as if they are farm animals such as paid plasma donations, and surrogate pregnancy.

2. End things that harm th black family such as welfare policies that encourage single motherhood and ending the war on drugs so that way black fathers can be in their kid's lives more as well as dropping the stigma from being locked up that makes it so hard to get a job and support a family.

3. Taking measures so less African americans and poor babies are murdered in the womb.

It's not needed. Quite frankly if you need to see yourself represented on screen you're probably a racist. I didn't cry when I was in fostercare when the whole house watched Martin and listened to Tupac all day.

I am not speaking on anybody behalf who isn't a child. It would have to be an extremely rare circumstance where somebody is trying to rape them or something and I yell "leave him alone"

But if I speak on their behalf to save them and they say "it's mam" . I am likely to just say never mind and walk away. 

In fact I probably bitch more about the white stuff. The reason being is nobody ever asks me if I am black but they will start talking about what they are "I am Italian, hey frank what are you?" I am Irish and John is polish. What are you Wylted?" I usually get annoyed and say "I am American dumbass". 

It makes me so happy when I meet an immigrant and I befriend them and they become comfortable enough to start saying "I am American" the way I do. I am not Iriah or European or African or Mexican. I am American. That's all I am. 

I like Miles Morales better and before you bring up that he is still male one of my favorite characters. I probably identify more with him, though he is better than me so not by much

White people didn't invent story telling. There are centuries of stories, hell thousands of years of stories in africa, Mexico, Greece, China. Music that goes back as well. Whites just aren't that great. 

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2053168017753862#body-ref-bibr29-2053168017753862-1

here is a study that asks groups how much they hate other races essentially and whites were the least racist

https://www.ljzigerell.com/?p=9002

This statement is the one I take most issue with and is my biggest issue. It's the left thinking people should control how they are perceived.  

.it's none of your business how you are perceived.  It's none of my business how I am perceived.  

Let's go down the list where this is a pervasive leftist belief. 

Fat acceptance community- cries all day that people perceive fatness as unhealthy and unattractive.  Attention FA community.it is none of your business if people think you are unattractive or if they think being fat is unhealthy. How you feel about yourself and others is what matters not how they feel about you. Get over it.  

Trans people- pronouns are not what anybody is referred to. I don't walk up to somebody and say he or call them she. I call them by their name. Pronouns typically only happening when referring to somebody and usually they aren't around. It might be your business if you are called mam or sir or Mrs or Mr. But pronouns such as he or she that are never said in front of you, because it is rude to talk about somebody in their presence in that manner, is not your concern. Fuck you, you don't have a right to bend my reality to your will. If you see yourself as a male or female or an it that is your business it is none of my business. 

Nobody cares. I don't want to be represented in film. I don't want to watch a movie where a short fat guy is the main hero. I don't want somebody to represent me, I ant some sort of figure that represents the values I care about. Preferably somebody better than me so I can seek to emulate them. Not somebody who reflects back to me who I am. I already can look in the mirror and see that. I live my life I already know what it's like to be me, show me Batman Fuckers.

Representation is another thing where somebody is trying to force a perception. Fuck off. It's none of your business how I perceive you. Whats your business is how you perceive yourself and whether you act with integrity or not. 

 First of all. White people having institutional power is not dangerous. Every study shows that whites have less in group bias than non whites and when we break it down by politics than we see that whites who are conservative have less in group bias than any other race and that white liberals have an outgroup bias which does not exist in non whites. 

To me that eems like even with large amounts of power that whites having it will be more fair than groups who have larger in group biases. 

No it's fcking annoying either way. It's ficking annoying to hear stuff called "mid" or to hear somebody say "no cap" or whatever the hell else is going on with language. 

The bigger issue is intentionally changing terms for a political purpose. If we change terms to much than you can get misunderstandings of important things. For example the bill of rights. If our understanding of the word freedom differs from those who wrote the bill of rights than we can get into issues where courts think they can restrict speech more than the founders intended. Or we can read other old documents and really tarnish the legacy of those who came before us by misunderstanding their words to mean something other than intended. I don't want my words read 200 years from now and have my idiot great grand kids think I meant something other than what I meant when I wrote them.

It's not obvious and that is a stupid statement. I ill tart by saying I have been to Irish fest and German heritage fests and it is all dumb. These people are not Irish or German they are American and it's actually disrespectful to claim as somebody born in America "I am Irish".

I will say though that if black culture is Olay to celebrate than white culture is. If you don't require them to sub divide it into Ghana or south African or Egyptian culture than requiring whites to divide it up that way is dumb.

Dude there is this game the left is playing with the English language where they think by controlling definitions they can control mindset. 

Queer just meant gay male before. People used to refer to gays as "being funny" queer literally means funny (southern for different) . These people were not referring to people who were gender fluid or very fluid in their sexual orientation when they said it.  The left plays this game with language as a stupid trick to attempt to make senior citizens look bigoted. It's a fact. Here I som other examples

Negro- literally the Spanish word for black and clearly just means the same thing as African American. However if I said it on my way to work it would get me attacked on the bus

Oriental- just a way to say Asian many older Asians still refer to themselves as being Orientals.  The left wants to make 75 year old people look racist so thy randomly decide to change the term for whatever reason. 

Racism- hatred of or having a feeling of superiority over other races on the basis of racial qualities.

Now they know that maybe one in a million people are actually racist by that definition. So they have changed the definition to be the following

Racism- white people . Those with a higher social status in society and are white automatically have that status based on their skin color, oh and by the way since only oppressors can be racist any non white person who thinks they are superior to others based on their skin color are not racist. 

It's really a stupid game you guys play and it is recent. Greek words in 500bc meant the exact same thing in 500AD because nobody played those games with language. The left see it as a tool to make senior citizens look racist so they change definitions every 5 years. 

A lot of incels are getting itinto their heads that it's easier to find love as a woman. So they become trans in order to get laid and finally be in a long lasting and loving relationship. 

I don't know what to suggest in this regard. Thy are probably correct, it is the o ly way they can find love. 

Studies have found a large overlap with autism, so my theory is that autistic people struggle to get laid because they come across as autistic when hitting on women, but if they turn into women the awkwardness is chalked up to being quirky or some other spin. 

You don't understand that you're still Ad Homming.

The truth of an argument exists independent of who says it. If the "bias" or "political agenda" affects the truth of the argument, then it becomes a problem, but "bias" or "political agenda" are not issues in themselves. Hitler can say 'water is wet', and that's true regardless of how many Jews he killed.

No, no.

We're not arguing whether poverty can predict violent crime at all. We're arguing whether race is a better predictor of violent crime than poverty, seeing your comment here: "poverty is more of the greater indicator toward violent crime than race". A small % of black men ARE the most VIOLENT in American society (debateart.com) 

So, the study found that race was a much better predictor than poverty across 3 decades, beating various forms of poverty in most single regression models. Specifically, across these 9 models, race better predicted homicide than unemployment, poverty, and median income in 7/9 of the models, and also income inequality in 8/9 models mccall_1990_amer_j_soc_922.pdf (ncsu.edu) .

You need to contend with that argument, in order to defend your original argument.

Again, we're arguing about whether race is a better predictor of violent crime than poverty. We're not interested in tangential 'how poverty is experienced' arguments. You need to connect what you're saying to what we're arguing about.

Do you know what else isn't convincing?

Ad Hom.

Try addressing the data and arguments.

I got it by looking at his citations and not being a retard about how to interpret what he wrote. You are still claiming he is saying that that percentage of black males were criminals when anybody else who has a 3 digit IQ would know he Is saying half of all crime comes from that demographic. Those are 2 wildly different things.

It isnt just about me.

You want to make this about me? I am not gonna discuss my love or sex life nor specifics of where I am.

I do not idolise Tate, that would defy everything he teaches. Tate-stans are not living by Tate's philosophy. He is a strong man who knows what he wants and, until this cancelling, got what he wanted. I do think he has solid outlook on things.

You preach all this stuff and in your profile you list as female so let me ask you honestly, why are you pushing this on me and my personal life?

Are you in denial that you have power over your looks, especially in 2022? All sorts of stylists, fashion designers, makeup experts, fitness experts and in worst case scenario, plastic surgeons exist. You can find me disgusting for what I just said but I find it more disgusting to deny genetically ugly women the right to compete by hard work and determination. Why did i say 'ugly' because not that I am insensitive but that I would not ever disrespect the agony of women who are unfairly born visually offputting by using a cleaner term that would not signify the severe suffering they experience. The one advantage that ugly women have is that they know for sure that their friends and lovers either enjoy their personality or at least genuinely enjoy(ed) their company. That is something I am sure many hotties envy, lowkey.

Being low value is not a reason to hate yourself, it is a reason to push yourself and get the lovelife and genetically blessed offspring (by the partner you reproduce with) that you will be proud of.

I have no reason to sugarcoat anything here. I am not a misogynist and I think us humans are too proud to enjoy our animalistic aspects and meaning of life so much so we reach depression and agony trying to find a meaning beyond the lust, emotions, fulfillment from defeating rivals and raw animalistic thrill of life.

I was a depressed nobody that was bitter and blamed everyone else. You want me to get personal, I will leave it at that. I was more misogynistic before, when I blamed women for rejecting me, blamed them for leading me on and breaking my heart. Blame, blame blame, then I woke up and took the red pill and asked myself... dude, why would high value women desire the loser you were or are? Would you, as a woman, actively want to date you, fuck your skinny ass and enjoy your petty arrogance?

And you know what I realised? The answer wasnt just no, rather it was a hmm I would if he just toned this down or accentuated this etc.

So I stayed bitter and channeled it to myself. Every day I try to live my life as I want and blame nobody for what comes of it. If I choose to spend my time debating online, less women will dig that answer to hobbies esp if I refuse to tell them the RM account that is my passionate hobby so ofc they find me blander. No shit.

I learned how to get other hobbies, how to be interesting way beyond any one thing (I learned that before this website though, it was a metaphor). Do you think women will get wet around a man who does not feel like he has a handle on his life and emotions? No woman, no matter what, enjoys a crybaby. They empathise and slowly they sympathise and then suddenly you're their burden and not their alpha or sigma strong man.

I have seen it in couples I know/knew. It is up to me to be a strong man and a disciplined man because if I fail to be it, I sure as hell will fail to be a good and strong father to my children and that is an unacceptable failure, one they will pay the price for.

You think Tate is this and Tate is that ? I do not care. Cancelling him just proves what a sensitive bitchfest this modern generation is becoming, yes the 'men' too.

Being a man is about more than being a boy aged X years, a man needs to define himself, strengthen himself and aspire to be great or he can choose to wither. I withered repeatedly, gaming is fun, porn is fun and I like some Netflix and Spotify. The question isnt zero pleasure, it is can I prioritise and build myself or not.

Change the porn addiction to a passion for seeking women.

Change the gaming addiction to a passion for poker and other games that garner money, perhaps stocks and shares.

Change the spotify and netflix to a small reward. It isnt easy. None of it is.

Being disciplined means having the courage to love yourself enough to pity and resent the wretched loser you currently were and/or are.

That is the core message Tate taught and for that reason he got that massive following. His cancellation is just proof what a joke our current generation is.

You are misinterpreting what this means. By 3% he means 50% of the 6% of the population black males represent. I believe he is specifically talking about a demographic of 18 to 25 year old males. He isn't saying that all 18-25 year olds commit the crimes only that those crimes predominantly come from that demographic. 

This is not true at all.

Land, McCall and Cohen (1990) found race to be the strongest predictor of crime across several decades (beating poverty) Structural Covariates of Homicide Rates: Are There Any Invariances Across Time and Social Space? | American Journal of Sociology: Vol 95, No 4 (uchicago.edu) 

Unz (2013) found that '%black' was the best predictor of crime throughout many American cities (again, beating poverty) Race and Crime in America, by Ron Unz - The Unz Review 

"The Color of Crime" analysis also found violent crimes correlated with 'black' at 0.81, and only 0.36 with poverty Color-Of-Crime-2016.pdf (amren.com) 

The list goes on...

Women have these as factors:

• How hot they are
  
• How healthy they are
  
• How emotionally intelligent they are
  
• How loyal they are reputed to be
  
• Being popular
  

Men have all kinds of factors, this is both an advantage and a disadvantage because if they lack in the looks department and even in EQ on top of that, they can compensate well. Loyalty is actually much less a factor for men, it's nearly nonexistent as a competing factor, it just matters they're honest if they are poly much more so than that they're known to be sexually loyal.

• How 'achieved' they feel while interacting with them (cocky vibes without overt arrogance)
  
• How difficult it feels to impress them (they should be difficult to impress, not impossible)
  
• How interesting and intelligent they are when conducting conversation (men have to lead conversations, they need both good questions and good answers to hold a woman's intrigue)
  
• How reliable they seem, financally, emotionally and physically. This is why a man needs a decent job and body, it's about reliability, if he seems weak and flimsy in any way it turns the women off quite rapidly, depending which form of reliability the woman wants more. He should also be competent at staying calm and reliable emotionally but also not seem 'dead' emotionally, it's a complex mix.
  
• Also being attractive
  
• Also being emotionally intelligent
  
• Also being healthy
  
• Loyalty less important, being totally honest about urges and desires more important. Women would ultimately rather an honest playboy over a shady guy who's overall known for 'loyalty', though their preference there differs per woman in severity.
  
• Having an aura that 'turns heads' even if it comes with being hated. Women need to be likable to be attractive, men need to be noticable and can cope with being disliked and maintianing value quite easily with a jaded antihero vibe. 
  

Tate has never been against the idea of high value women following his advice. The difference is that if you are a woman, you can focus primarily on being attractive, healthy, emotionally intelligent and loyal and you already spiral in value. In constrast, men who have focused on that have only become medium value at best, you can deny it or face reality, a man has to focus on more variables to be high value. 

So cancel it rather than debate it because your side are a bunch of cowards. Sure.

I am not sure what the fuck has happened to people today to say it is 'misogyny' to know what being a masculine man and feminine woman is and saying 'I like to live my life this way, I will preach it and help others.'

FACT: A little less than half of the 6% black male population (3%) commit over 50% of the entire nation's #murders and non-negligent manslaughters. Not #whites. Not #Hispanics. #Blackmales. 

FACT: Black males murder more whites than vice versa. The rate of murders by blacks with white victims is staggering and flies in the face of the left's and MSM assertion otherwise. 

FACT: The only race second to blacks who commit the most mass shootings are #Asians. Not whites. Not Hispanics. But the #MSM and leftist #whiteguilt #liberals, along with braindead #democrats, will protest endlessly that white people are the problem and none other, thereby #denying the well documented fact-based truth is that proportionally, black males are the true mass murderers in this country, not whites. 

Comparing the BLM riots, theft and billions in property damages along with the overt acts of violence to the sophomoric outbursts and minor property destruction of sports fans is a false equivalency fallacy. 

BLM is a terrorist organisation. They literally riot and steal, under the label of fighting for black people. Funnily, most blm chants consists of white people. 

The latter lose and are outperformed, always, 100% of the time. You will never get a Laurel Hubbard of the reverse trans kind outperforming peak cis male athletes at pretty much any sport other than perhaps gymnastics.

Find me an exception, this has been allowed especially in something like Marathons (a trans man officially competed as a male).

Sure but you have yet to convey that in this scenario. A trans woman as a goalie compared to a cis woman still holds a superior pelvic structure which allows them to jump further, kick further, etc.

I think you misunderstood my point but ig I could have been more clear. Ofc they’re going to hire people less than 6’0 lol. But my point was they’re more likely to hire a 6’0 than a 5’6 person because of the advantage conferred. My point is that a 5’6 trans women still holds advantages that even a 6’0 male doesn’t have. It’s like having a 5’6 cis male from the NBA participate in WNBA against a 6’0 cis woman. The male wins everytime because wot the body structure which allows for dunks and hard lay ups, etc. A trans woman still brings this advantage conferred in men to a cis woman sport.

Everyone knows the reason why trans women choose to compete in cis women sports is cause it’s easier. Gender identity is only a ridiculous justification for it. And as RM mentioned, a disgrace to every aspect of women’s rights and sports.

No. I left out the part where even after you lose muscle it’s easy to gain back because of muscle memory. Transwomen already have an inherent advantage. It’s simply unfair to the cis woman who has been practicing her entire life for this only to be defeated by a trans woman who is physiologically superior.

I disagree. They’re inherent in virtually every sport that requires any form of strength.

Trans women have more stamina contributed by their larger heart and placement of diaphragm muscles. The way you characterize it, there’s no measurable way you could make that a rule even if you wanted too. In my opinion a 5’6 trans women wouldn’t even play in the WNBA because they’re that short - a physical attribute which is unchangeable.

I disagree. Your analogy lacks merit. A 5’6 transwomen would never play in the WNBA in the first place because they’re short which is a physical attribute. Your what if scenario doesn’t work lol.

Being short is an inherent disqualifier in terms of basketball regardless of your sex at birth lol

You're deciding upon whether a person can compete or not depending upon any advantages they might have or not have. Before they've run at all, if it were running, for example.

It's very silly. It's the outcomes of performances or competitions being decided by a committee. 

Your compromise sounds like match fixing. Make what you like of that, but it's silly.

Wrong, don't lie about me.

I will call a trans or nonbinary person by their preferred pronouns always.

I actually personally know of a trans person IRL.

I am disgusted singularly by the sympathy card bding abused in thr case of allowing male-sex athletes to ruin and rob females of their female-only section and its protection to allow female athletes to achieve just as well as male athletes for the same effort.

I am further disgusted that teens are having their puberty ruined, absolutely destroyed, in order to respect the sudden frenzied cry of the adolescent that they want to never become a man or woman.

We don't let them vote (below 18) so we shouldn't let them remotely decide something like that until then. Some late bloomers only finish puberty at around 20-21 (yes, seriously, the clue is often in the facial structure and stuff) so I wouldn't want theirs interrupted.

Puberty is a natural thing all humans are biologically designed from benefitting having gone through at the end. A boy doesn't grow into a woman because you've ruined his body's development as a man.

Here’s a great Q&A with Alison Heather, Professor of Physiology at Otago University, who co-authored a report published in the BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics. I’ll give a brief summary here and you can read the rest.

What are the physiological differences between the male and female athlete?

Many, particularly in the musculoskeletal system and the cardiorespiratory system which underpin underpin athletic performance.

The musculoskeletal system is made up of our muscles and our bones. Males have larger and stronger bones than females. This is predetermined in utero because the male embryo produces testosterone, and emerges during puberty where boys grow taller and stronger. The stronger bones of males allows them to resist more trauma.

As well as length and strength, males can have different shaped bones to females. For example, the pelvis is wider in the females and narrower in males. This creates a different angle at the hip to which the leg bones attach, which changes the amount of force that can be generated by the knee when lifting, jumping, kicking or cycling. The narrower angle in a male allows for more force. The wider hips of females also means that the elbow joint angle is larger so the hands can swing without hit the hips.

Research shows that increased testosterone leads to increased muscle mass and associated power. However, males also have a higher percentage of type II muscle fibres, the explosive muscle type. This benefits males for such sports as powerlifting, jumping and sprinting. Females have more type I fibres, and coupled with increased fat mass, have a strong endurance capability for long-distance events (eg. ultramarathons).

The bone structure of the diaphragm differs between males and females. In females, this is placed higher to allow for pregnancy, and so females inherently have a smaller lung region.

In addition to this, early life testosterone exposure in males increases the number of alveoli (little sacs in the lungs that take oxygen from the air and put it in our blood to take to the tissues of our body) and so males have a greater capacity for oxygen uptake.

Oxygen is very important for active skeletal muscle. The more oxygen, the faster and longer one can go. So males can take up more oxygen into their blood because of male physiology that was determined around birth.

Oxygenated blood is pumped around the body to active skeletal muscles by the heart. The heart is bigger in average males to average females, and this stays true even allowing for males being bigger on average than females.  So the male heart can literally pump more blood per beat and get that oxygenated blood to skeletal muscles faster and more efficiently.

This is the crux of the argument: “All of these male physiology components are regulated, at least in part, by the male sex hormone, testosterone. However, what is largely misunderstood or ignored by current debate, is it is not just current, circulating levels of testosterone that drive many of these components, but a life-long exposure to testosterone that started in utero, continued in early infancy, and then was cemented during the pubertal years.”

Trans women have had a lifetime of these innate advantages because of their chromosomes that puts them at an inherent physical advantage compared to cis-women.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/114327152/even-before-birth-genetic-building-blocks-are-giving-athletes-born-male-a-massive-advantage-over-females

• Pelvis size
  
• Lung capacity
  
• Size of heart
  

Yeah yeah, sure sure live in your fucking fantasy.

It's true that if they destroy a boy,  a man during his puberty being too afraid to be called transphobic and pump him full of oestrogen and damaging sterilising substances, he can then fail to develop as a man.

That's a tragedy and I'm sick of being told that to be left-wing I need to support this shit to people too young to make informed decisions that permanently damage them.

But higher than cis females, you know Laurel still has her testicles or am I incorrect on this?

Regarding bone density being higher in males and almost permanently so post-puberty. Plenty, I linked to two that both admit it. It's a well known fact in all mammals.

You’re not considering bone structures that are different for men and women. No amount of hormones can change your birth bone structures without affecting the rest of your body. The pelvis is the biggest of these bone structures which inherently gives males advantages in most sports.

Wait actually this is hilarious, you're denying basic science rn so all I have to do is give sources stating the blatant right?

Okay.

I'll give one each.

Pain - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00895-3

Explanation of non-testosterone raw vody structure advantage males have over females in almost all sports: https://www.livestrong.com/article/509536-muscular-strength-in-women-compared-to-men/

A battle between women and men (it ties them in results but concedes a huge amount of irrefutable physical advantage to males, this is a psychology article so it's more than just raw strength in what's discussed):

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/hide-and-seek/201207/the-battle-the-sexes

You can't accuse a single ine of corrupt agenda, each concedes blatant facts 

First things first, I don't promote any unhealthy eating habits described in this post. I believe being overweight is not a good thing (as I was once overweight in my life and hated it), but I am only here to promote a double standard females set for themselves while contrasting it to other men

Body positivity is something that has been floating around with females and how you should feel comfortable in your own skin. The message itself was started by third of fourth wave feminism which I actually think is a good message. Being happy with yourself and your own skin makes you succeed more in life, as various studies conducted by experts in mental health have proven this. The message they created is a great message, but the problem then becomes the double standard.

When I was a male, I struggled with the same love for myself that women do, hating my weight and myself for it. I decided to lose weight so I could love myself again. This standard of body positivity could be applied to men as well (men who don't have toned abs, dark hair or blonde hair, etc.), but modern feminists yet again demean men for their weight while trying to hold us to the standard they want without holding themselves accountable as well. 

The lack of holding themselves to the same standards they want for others goes to prove that modern feminism is nothing more than the defamation of men so that women can be superior to their male counterparts, only proving that the ideas shared of this feminism are extremely dangerous, and how the ideas they share are double standards for themselves, but hey, since the Democrats run everything, you might as well just push the nonsensical bullshit legislation going on. 

As a "fan" of Billie Eilish, I find it completely ironic at her criticism of "All lives matter", as she says "Stop making everything about you".

Black people are making the movement about themselves, or it at least appears so, because "Black lives matter" as the title does not include other minorities. Changing one word isn't that hard.

Stop making everything about you, Black people. We never said you don't matter when we said All lives matter. You are lives, you matter. There are other groups of people that need help just like you, the LGBT, the Muslim immigrants... Black lives matter isn't enough. All lives matter. All of them. Change the slogan. This isn't just about black people.