Venandi

Got it: - "FU nobody forced ya; - "I was only quoting someone else;" and - This isn't a problem. Any other snippets of insightful wisdom I can pass on?

As promised I won't contest any of it but in summary: Herb says "FU nobody forced ya; and Flyer says "I was only quoting somebody else." How about you Mike... does "I don't care, not my problem" sound about right?

I'm not going to insert a bunch of Ha Ha Ha's, LOLs, Duhs or anything else here... nor am I going to pursue the subject further. But, and it's a big butt... because of my hobbies I'm aquatinted with a number of very talented and athletic young ladies who previously supported the idea of trans women inclusiveness with slogans like "it's a toilet like." They don't anymore... I previously and routinely warned them of the possibility of unintended consequences and they laughed whilst gently labeling me a boomer conspiracy theorist. Now what I warned them about is here... and they acknowledge it. Although the madness hasn't affected most of them directly (some it has BTW), they are now aghast at where this has gone and the effect on women's sports it has had. I would invite you, Micheal, Herb and a few others here to offer them a word of advice because they feel duped by the whole thing and now regret the support they previously freely offered. I'll listen but won't argue my position further as I consider it a dead issue.

And I'd say that you manufactured the challenges, turned a blind eye to the people you disadvantages as a result of it and blamed people like me for not creating solutions to those manufactured problems. There ya go, it looks like you did understand the point I was making. Well let's stand it on its head then. In order for your argument in favour to prevail with me you would have to make a credible argument that allowing men to compete in women's sports doesn't unfairly (and unreasonably) disadvantage women. I'd submit that so far you haven't done that and "reasonable people" don't see a venue for you to accomplish it... especially in the presence of results like the picture you assert is nothing more than a moment in time. That's a problem in and of itself that doesn't bode well for rational discourse. If you want to approach it from a rights based perspective then I think you would have to justify why the rights of men to compete in women's sports should trump the rights of women to compete fairly with their biological peers. Until you can make either of those cases I won't steer in circles around this particular buoy any further.

It isn't a complicated argument. In the absence of proof that the information I posted is factually incorrect, the picture illustrates the outcome achieved. If you aren't going to consider unintended consequences in advance, and then refuse to judge regulatory action by outcomes and effects later, any pretence that argument stands aa a potential remedy or that the issue should be "considered complex" simply falls flat with sensible people. The only credible argument you can make here is one that shows this doesn't adversely and unfairly impact women in general and female sports in particular. I would certainly agree with the notion that your attempt at arguing in its favour is "complicated" though and so far you haven't made one that qualifies as compelling.

If you think it's funny you missed the point entirely.

I'm guessing your friend isn't a powerlifter. Here's a stock photo of the current women's bench press record holder for Alberta. It was a lift of 370 lbs in March of 2023 and apparently it still stands today. Here's the why of it... It will be interesting to see where the apex of buffoonery is to be found... in the mean time I'll keep supporting and encouraging the chickens as they navigate evolving fluidity issues and live their best lives. They still struggle a bit with racist comments about being a subspecies of Red Junglefowl but we're working through it and making progress. I'll keep you updated Herb... . Cheers

Then how do I talk the hens into identifying as roosters and fertilizing eggs? If you have no solution I'l be forced to revert back to conservative thinking and conclude that identity and gender selection has reasonable limitations. Now look what you've done, imagine all of the progressive farmers that will be shattered by that revelation... Look Herb, I can do it too.

That's simply not true and I think you know it. They don't care who you sleep with, how you dress, which of the 54 genders you identify with or what flag is at the end of your driveway. They just don't want you mowing down young ladies on the soccer pitch, setting powerlifting records that will stand in perpetuity in the women's division, and then showering with their granddaughters after the game. Ya I know, those populists sound "ridiculous" don't they? Now... back to my rooster problem if you please.

You've been advising my roosters haven't you? That's what they think too.

Thanks... What do I do about the damn roosters though?

It seems we're in agreement then and only the definition of profound ridiculousness is left to be considered, I doubt we'll manage to resolve it though. While I used the example of a fit older person identifying as a 25 year old it was somewhat tongue in cheek even though the concept itself seems more credible and even measurable (by objective performance testing) than the spontaneous conversion of male to female by virtue of wishing it to be so, To date, my roosters have been curiously uncooperative with egg production despite being repeatedly debriefed on their new identities. How's that for ridiculous? IMO though, it's not far removed from what you seem to be supporting yourself whilst claiming parallel lines of ridiculous logic to be, well.... ridiculous.

I don't want to put words in your mouth but: ... you seem to be suggesting that a 60 something man who spends hours everyday training and can physically out preform the majority of 25-30 year olds currently serving rises to the spectre of a truck or dinosaur the moment he seeks to be identified as a capable contender for service after mandatory retirement age. .... on the other hand, you suggest that a man can morph into a women (and vice versa) simply because he/she feels like it. If so, I think you have your dinosaur analogy exactly backwards and if you hope to gain support for you theory of "POOF" a man is a women" then you are going to have to expand the definition of identity outward to include identities (or even equivalencies) that can actually be certified with objective and scientifically backed performance standards.

I'm profoundly disappointed in the provincial Conservatives here too given their support of the gun grab in CB. It's part of what's changed my overall view of conservatives across the board as the ground continues to shift under my feet. Never thought I would become a single issue voter but conservatives have become the liberals of old, the liberals the NDP of old, and the NDP the raving lunatics of California fame.

Me too, especially since most of them are unwilling to trust the folks they identify as potential "community based warriors" with a semi-automatic rifle and 5 round magazine. Too much Netflix IMO. That said, while I don't know the numbers there's certainly a lot of ex police, ex military and ex first responders of all stripes here that possess a "warrior mindset" (for lack of a better term). I'd put it within the recruiting zone of 7% of the population and expand it based on age beyond CRA which might push it to 12%. Those numbers probably exceed the Taliban by a significant amount too and I think the US would be running a prolonged and nasty COIN operation for a very long time as a result of it. Although the numbers might be small when compared with the overall population and may even run well below the 15% I mentioned, communities here would likely (and voluntarily) supply and support those opposing an occupation force to a much higher level and standard than might be expected right now. Or perhaps I'm just foolish enough to hope all of that would be the case... I hadn't thought about it much until just now and may end up eating my words after I do.

But you didn't answer the question though. I'll put it another way and agree with your premise above as a starting point. I'd say yes, be as gender fluid as you want but have the courtesy not to include me (or others) in it. On the other hand, if you're going to include me (and others) there should be an element of logic and fairness in any process that conveys rights (opportunities might be a better word) that a person not claiming the identity doesn't enjoy. If we, as a society, are going to convey very specific rights (opportunities) to people who make an assertion of "identity" then the concept itself should (at least) have the appearance of being universal and we should collectively acknowledge the unfairness of any process that isn't. If a biological man can compete, win, and set lasting national records in women's sports and then shower with the ladies after the event then I would submit that we are going beyond a simple expression of "identify" and entering the realm of legitimizing a "feeling" by giving it legal status, sharp teeth, and the capability to directly impact others What I'm suggesting here is that anyone willing to make that leap and argue vociferously in it's defence should logically extend the same identity rights to endeavours more easily defended than men becoming women because they feel like it. That's not to minimize legitimate gender dysmorphia but to acknowledge that it shouldn't convey specific rights and opportunities that would be unavailable in its absence without careful consideration and an element of universality that I would define as equity. If I'm in good shape, can easily do more pull-ups and pushups than the average 25 year old and still cut the medical why shouldn't I be able to identify as a 25 year old even though I'm clearly not in terms of my birth. See what I mean? I'd say that In my example (above) that I'm using a more easily defendable standard of men against men...in fact it's old men against young men. I don't mean to sound arrogant about my ability to hang with the 20 somethings BTW, I know the day is at hand when I can't... BUT IT"S NOT TODAY. So, I'll restate the question and anyone defending biological men competing in women's competitions should have an immediate answer to it: If I can cut the medical and hang with the 20 somethings in terms of selection criteria, why can't I identify as 25 years old and be afforded the opportunities I'm currently denied solely by virtue of birth?

Well it is a pretty repetitive subject, I do have a question for you though since I perceive that you support the concept of selective gender identity. If a man can be considered a women and shower with the ladies because he identifies as a women (something a man who didn't identify as such couldn't do), why shouldn't an older man be permitted to identify as a younger man and circumvent age restrictions he otherwise wouldn't be able to? In other words, if a man (who identifies as a women) can gain real and tangible benefits (in sporting events for example) as a result of identity, why shouldn't a person of any gender be able to identify as an other race or another age and gain a similar benefit? Let's assume for the sake of discussion that they are sincere and not deliberately gaming the system. Admittedly I have a bit of an agenda here, since I feel the same now as I did at 25 why shouldn't I be able to rejoin the military as a 25 year old even though I exceed compulsory retirement age (CRA)? Here's another identity request, since half of my extended family is actually native, why can't I identify as native and as a result of selecting that identity be allowed to hunt deer outside hunting season? I'm actually toying with the idea of seeking out a group of fit, like minded veterans who want to give this a go... would you support our bid to transition from 68 years of age to 25?

You step out of one and into the other... it's a "low skill" thing.

Does that mean you have no objection to me self identifying as a native woman and going fishing? Personally, I think that's more reasonable than mowing down young ladies on the soccer pitch and joining them in the change room for a shower after the game.

Here's my objection to the program and based on experience, I think there is more to this than meets the eye: https://www.blogto.com/city/2024/10/ontario-companies-charging-foreign-workers-tens-thousands-jobs/ It has nothing to do with high skill / low skill... it's about employers eliminating / ignoring Canadian workers to save money and /or receiving kickbacks. Before I left the industry, it got to the point that I would send a copy of the helicopter job ad plus my covering letter and resume to the Minister of Labour with each application... to no avail BTW. Take it for what it's worth...I'm still not going to trade insults with those who enjoy doing that or try to justify why flying helicopters under IFR conditions isn't a low skill job.

I foolishly started typing out a list... then I deleted it. I'm not going to argue and trade insults with you, figure it out yourself or enjoy the ride.

Accepting the notion that it's a "low skill job" is exactly what's lowered standards and wages across the board and created an environment where high profile accidents (under patently ridiculous conditions BTW) become front page news. As I said in another thread, this is why I want you to stay the course and feel the burn... there is no other route through this. I'm not going to waste time unpacking your nonsense or comparing it to other affected industries like seasonal aviation. Since you flippantly assert that I think it's all nothing but a liberal scam, I'll just leave you to ferment in the sun.

The problem with trucking is bigger than (TFW) drivers seeing snow for the first time in their lives from the cab of a big rig in Canada or northern Maine. This is all IMO but as I see it there are a number of competing aspects here like training kickbacks, preferred hiring, overstating shortages, safety issues etc and each could be a separate thread. That discussion wouldn't matter though as liberals will defend it anyway and scream racist at the top of their lungs. It's not just trucking either, seasonal helicopter work was hugely problematic for Canadian helicopter pilots back in the day too, it's why I left the industry and that's another 50 page thread. Here's an aspect of the problem (link below) that liberals might have a harder time defending and it's the abuses faced by foreign drivers in Canada. I only mention it because (IMO again) it actually does qualify as a form of racism and I'd like to see the resident liberals scramble to defend the shady operators at the heart of it. At this level you can't have it both ways, if you insist on creating something that begs to be abused, blaming abusers rings a bit hollow... it's a what did you think was going to happen scenario. I think the driver shortage is a bit like the pilot shortage was... there wasn't a shortage of Canadian pilots, there was a shortage of Canadian pilots willing to be abused whilst working for scab wages and paying for their own training / PPCs. Here's a small sip of the juice (there are other flavours that taste worse IMO) but this one is the easiest problem to fix.... and it won't be: https://www.truckstopcanada.com/news/tem-foreign-worker-tfw-trucking-40228/ I know this thread is about trucking in the US and while I can't speak to it directly, it looks to me that California has reached a stratospheric level of buffoonery with little room for further altitude gains. They make Canadian liberals look like rank amateurs even though they're pros by any metric.

That's exactly what I see as well, likely on a smaller scale because of a smaller town but your words ring true and match my own experience and observations. I sometimes wonder if that sentiment comes as a surprise to the Herbs of the world who see racists under every woodpile and can't (or won't) take the time to consider that some of the demographic objections people articulate here have more to do with the importation of cultures and religions than are fundamentally incompatible with secular democracy than they do with ethnicity. Without exception, all of the people I've met who share Herbs outlook have never been to the countries of origin that they are repeatedly urged to be cautious about... yet they mindlessly ridicule the concerns of those who have and refuse to invest in the efforts it would take to make the assimilation of these folks viable.

Maybe I'll regret asking but I can't help but wonder If you and others here who are quick with personal insults actually talk to people IRL the way ya'll do on an anonymous forum that has no immediate consequences? The reason I ask is because I see this lack of immediate consequences as part of the reason that we are where we are politically. I don't think people usually (or in some cases ever) anticipate the long term unintended consequences of aggressive political discourse or the effect it can have on others who are (I'll say) easily lead, influenced or induced to react in an inappropriate manner that they might otherwise not if their passions hadn't been inflamed. That's not to suggest that you are responsible for the actions of others, only that the effects are cumulative and currently in abundant supply. I'm guessing that you don't because I could introduce you to any number of people who stand as examples of why that's not a good idea and why I recommend against it. Granted, there is always the statistical likelihood that nothing comes of it but then again, statistics only work to the point that sooner or later they don't work at a particular time and on a particular day. I tend to throw direct Robo quotes back at him in an (admittedly) weak attempt to illustrate that point and it clearly it fails to resonate... I won't bother pursuing that particular shtick any further as a result of it. Guess I'm really asking for a friend (without his knowledge) that you probably should avoid talking to. Close association with numerous (kind but potentially combative) folks like this over the years has convinced me that nothing good ever comes of it in the long run and that venues such as this (and too much Netflix) do little but reinforce a false sense of invulnerability that may transfer seamlessly into real life... even in the absence of alcohol. In the presence of alcohol, I've seen some pretty stunning examples of immediate karma and I'm beginning to think there is a pervasive intoxication with political polarization that serves none of the participants well... even though they seem to enjoy it in the moment. I'm not picking on you BTW, I just thought I might get a more thoughtful answer than asking Herb.