UCI world cyclocross championships under fire due to anti-trans laws in host state Arkansas

Rich_cb wrote:

If you look carefully you'll see the same simple question being avoided once more. Why could that be? Two people who are dedicated to binary gender divisions in our society but absolutely refuse to explain why... Why do we divide sports by gender? Why do we divide prisons by gender? What are we hoping to achieve by these divisions? Tune in next week for some more excuses.

You have been told on a number of occasions why your question is not only irrelevant, but disingenuous. No, questions like that really don't need to be dignified with an answer.  

I noticed your hypocrisy and pearl-clutching about brutality and assaults, whilst utterly (and I'm beginning to suspect willfully) ignoring the situation in prisons that these experiences are rife, and the suffering not limited by any level to or by any particular gender. But only when you think you can score some trivial points (cos there are no others you can score) do you pretend compassion and concern. 

Most people entering prisons are assaulted. Many are raped. Some are murdered. But your key takeaway to this vile situation is it offers you an opportunity to double down on a perverse wish to other some folk cos they are different.

Disingenuity, hypocrisy, transphobia

All in one thread. 

Roll up, roll up for some more avoidance.

Why do they refuse to answer a simple question?

We all know the real reason but let's sit back and enjoy the wide variety of excuses being desperately rolled out.

Why do we divide sports by gender?

Why do we divide prisons by gender?

Rich_cb wrote:

Roll up, roll up for some more avoidance. Why do they refuse to answer a simple question? We all know the real reason but let's sit back and enjoy the wide variety of excuses being desperately rolled out. Why do we divide sports by gender? Why do we divide prisons by gender?

I think that's the best you're able to contribute now - parrotting your own already answered questions.

I'll leave you to it. Have a great day

Excellent.

Any objective observer will wonder why you and Nosferatu point blank refused to answer a simple question.

Ridiculous deflections about Victorians etc can't disguise that fact.

Have a delightful day.

Stop lying, as any objective observer can see

Answers were given, you just didn't get the answer you wanted. Ironically, yiure now claiming "victory"

if you do actually give a damn about prison safety and the history of our Victorian prison system, which I doubt very much but hey, yiu never know, I suggest you actually have a look into their fascinating and pretty dark history. 
 

in case you're wondering why the "all seeing Eye" is such a chilling concept in LotR , you may wonder where Tolkien drew inspiration from ...

As you point out, your refusal to answer is there for everyone to see.

Rich_cb wrote:

As you point out, your refusal to answer is there for everyone to see.

aaaaaand back to the dialogue of the deaf

Answer the question and the discussion can move forward.

Keep refusing and we're pretty much stuck.

Everybody reading this knows that you can't answer and they also know why.

Keep up the pretence if it makes you feel better but repeatedly refusing to answer simple questions is always the sign of someone with something to hide.

Rich_cb wrote:

Answer the question and the discussion can move forward. Keep refusing and we're pretty much stuck. Everybody reading this knows that you can't answer and they also know why. Keep up the pretence if it makes you feel better but repeatedly refusing to answer simple questions is always the sign of someone with something to hide.

I'd highlight every single question you failed to even acknowledge, let alone answer, but you fail to reach the level where that would be worth my time. 

You have never argued in good faith, and have never been honest. Goodbye. 

The thread is there for all to see.

I've answered the pertinent questions.

You cannot say the same.

Rich_cb wrote:

The thread is there for all to see. I've answered the pertinent questions. You cannot say the same.

Captain Badger wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

Roll up, roll up for some more avoidance. Why do they refuse to answer a simple question? We all know the real reason but let's sit back and enjoy the wide variety of excuses being desperately rolled out. Why do we divide sports by gender? Why do we divide prisons by gender?

I think that's the best you're able to contribute now - parrotting your own already answered questions.

I'll leave you to it. Have a great day

Your ally in obfuscation agrees with you.

Quelle surprise.

Multiple posts full of unanswered questions from several posters would indicate otherwise wouldn't they?

You've failed to answer more questions from more posters than anyone here

but hypocrisy is the least of your issues. 

Well you still haven't apologised for your false accusations.

Let's start there shall we?

I answered all the pertinent questions put to me. You did not.

Rich_cb wrote:

Well you still haven't apologised for your false accusations. Let's start there shall we? I answered all the pertinent questions put to me. You did not.

Bye bye. 

Can't even own up to a blatant false accusation.

What a guy.

Toodles.

Rich_cb wrote:

Can't even own up to a blatant false accusation. What a guy. Toodles.

im sorry that you wrote something so crazy that the best interpretation was that you were being a TERF. 
wont even answer questions such as - why do you only "care" about prison violence commited by people who identify as trans? And other such gems. 
you can deman all you like. Sadly, your privilege doesn't extend everywhere. 
bye bye! 

Back to shouting out playground insults.

That question is blatantly designed to distract, like all your other desperate attempts to avoid answering the questions put to you.

Caring about one type of violence doesn't stop you caring about other types so the answer to that risible question is 'I don't only care about one type of violence'.

If you had provided any evidence whatsoever that housing trans women in women's jails led to a reduced level of violence overall then it would have been a valid question. You couldn't provide such evidence, or any evidence at all for your position, so I ignored your pathetic attempts to save face and distract the discussion.

You've made a complete fool out of yourself on this thread.

It's hardly "desperate" to avoid answering a crass, meaningless question. 
not sure many playgrounds understand the term TERF. But sure 

Enjoy your "seperate but equal " world. Thankfully, a view that is mostly disappearing, mostly through natural attrition.  

You use the term "separate but equal" repeatedly but fail to see how that is directly relevant to a question about how we treat men and women in our society.

So it is indeed desperate to avoid the question.

Rich_cb wrote:

You use the term "separate but equal" repeatedly but fail to see how that is directly relevant to a question about how we treat men and women in our society. So it is indeed desperate to avoid the question.

I understand it, entirely. Your question remains crass. See how this works? It's almost like your privilege to demand soemthing doesn't actually mean I have to do it.  
 

you managed to entirely avoid all the pertinent questions about how our prison system is organised, and only focussed in on trans people. Wonder why. 

Are men and women not 'separate but equal' in our society?

They have legally equal status but have separate prisons, separate facilities and, mostly, separate sports.

That's what my question boiled down to.

You knew that which is why you desperately avoided answering it.

You didn't ask any pertinent questions about the prison system, you tried to distract the discussion repeatedly to avoid answering the questions that undermine your entire position.

If you have any pertinent questions I'm happy to answer them.

Me laughing at your continued attempts to demand answers to a question you know is a deliberate red herring, trying to force a complex world into your simple 2d version, is hardly "desperate"

you remain irrelevant. 😊

Nice try.

If you're going to use the phrase 'separate but equal' I think the onus is on you to clarify what you mean.

The more you avoid straightforward questions the more dishonest you look.

There's only 1 question I want you to answer. 

Do you think trans women should compete directly against non trans women?

No use pointing at other people not answering questions when you continue to dodge the one above. But, of course, I lack nuance or the ability to understand.

I wonder which bit of this comment you'll copy and paste in an I'm-rubber-you're-glue way. 

sparrowlegs wrote:

There's only 1 question I want you to answer. 

Do you think trans women should compete directly against non trans women?

No use pointing at other people not answering questions when you continue to dodge the one above. But, of course, I lack nuance or the ability to understand.

I wonder which bit of this comment you'll copy and paste in an I'm-rubber-you're-glue way. 

I want you to answer the questions put to you, and maybe for you to apologise for your gross idea that you can reduce an entire gender down to the presence or otherwise of specific genitals.  
but you're an ignorant hypocrite, so that's never going to happen, is it. 
 

at no point will I answer questions from someone proven to be arguing in bad faith, and certainly not as moronic a question as you keep posting. You're irrelevant. Your question is irrelevant. 

Captain Badger wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

Roll up, roll up for some more avoidance. Why do they refuse to answer a simple question? We all know the real reason but let's sit back and enjoy the wide variety of excuses being desperately rolled out. Why do we divide sports by gender? Why do we divide prisons by gender?

I think that's the best you're able to contribute now - parrotting your own already answered questions.

I'll leave you to it. Have a great day

I now have an image of rich as a parrot, squaking away "answer the question, answer the question" in Paxmans voice, not realising that the owner left half an hour ago.  

Well... I've no idea how we got here, so far away from squirrel memes, traffic lights and puns but I'm not sure rich_cb is "blithely ignoring or spitefully revelling in" this.  (I stand to be corrected if you've data on rich_bc on this issue - a chart or graph maybe!).

rich_bc asked a particular question related to a particular current statistic (10x greater risk etc.).  You can say "bogus!" to the numbers, question the statistical significance of this (which I did), point out that overall this might represent harm reduction (which I did - depending on the rate of harm of trans women in mens prisons - I don't have the numbers) OR indeed say (as several have) "I think this tells you that jails need to be safer or brings into question a lot about that system" (agreed). I guess you could say we're part-way through fixing several injustices and the realities of how we practically apply principles mean this takes time.

In reality even the current pretty terrible system categorises prisoners beyond just "male" and "female".  These categories are partly based on the history of the prisoner.  Different rules / accommodation may be the result, ostensibly with the idea of mitigating specific risks.  So the idea that this might be something to consider isn't of itself outrageous.

I don't think simply saying "bad faith, you don't care" is correct.  I often disagree with rich_cb.  And rich_cb has a particular style (people in general don't like being on the receiving end of a socratic). I hoped I might learn something - even if it was just a better view of apparently irreconcilable positions.  For just a couple of posts there were suggestions of what people thought might change and how which is more interesting than "you're wrong".

Of course, if we're all just on here for a knockabout / reinforce our positions then send me some flames, bring on the Garages and have at it!

chrisonatrike wrote:

Well... I've no idea how we got here, so far away from squirrel memes, traffic lights and puns but I'm not sure rich_cb is "blithely ignoring or spitefully revelling in" this.  (I stand to be corrected if you've data on rich_bc on this issue - a chart or graph maybe!).

rich_bc asked a particular question related to a particular current statistic (10x greater risk etc.).  You can say "bogus!" to the numbers, question the statistical significance of this (which I did), point out that overall this might represent harm reduction (which I did - depending on the rate of harm of trans women in mens prisons - I don't have the numbers) OR indeed say (as several have) "I think this tells you that jails need to be safer or brings into question a lot about that system" (agreed). I guess you could say we're part-way through fixing several injustices and the realities of how we practically apply principles mean this takes time.

In reality even the current pretty terrible system categorises prisoners beyond just "male" and "female".  These categories are partly based on the history of the prisoner.  Different rules / accommodation may be the result, ostensibly with the idea of mitigating specific risks.  So the idea that this might be something to consider isn't of itself outrageous.

I don't think simply saying "bad faith, you don't care" is correct.  I often disagree with rich_cb.  And rich_cb has a particular style (people in general don't like being on the receiving end of a socratic). I hoped I might learn something - even if it was just a better view of apparently irreconcilable positions.  For just a couple of posts there were suggestions of what people thought might change and how which is more interesting than "you're wrong".

Of course, if we're all just on here for a knockabout / reinforce our positions then send me some flames, bring on the Garages and have at it!

Part of my issue with Rich is reductionism to the point of irrelevance. And yes some questions don't qualify for an answer.

As to why we segregate again this was clearly answered - we always (since the Victorians at least as policy) have, and it was nothing at all to do with safety.

In addition, hectoring on about what we do in prisons bears no relevance on whether folk can participate in a voluntary cultural event as themselves. I remember similar arguments about allowing gay people in the armed services "In a war situation, do you really want some bloke looking at your arse.... " kinda thing.

Rich does on occasion come out with some valid points - however here they have displayed patronisation, hectoring, and actually brought little of substance, except "will no one think of the prisoners???".

Their conflation of someone wanting to participate in sport, with someone intent on commiting serious assaults in prison is really quite distasteful.

I also wasn't quite sure how we'd got to prisons from cyclocross races but I assumed it was something to do with being in either involved misery...