Michael Hardner

Well except for the taxonomy it seems we agree

Only answer to prevent what happened with Biden is to put in oversight but that would impose itself on Trump as well

I'd it's a private club, and they have trans clientele, for example, they could notify people that washrooms would be mixed if they so choose. That's one I can think of.

55 Posts on this thread... 🤔 We had two senile old men running for president in 2024.

Here: You pressed me to a yes/no answer on a general idea that trans women could share spaces with women. Since I had to pick a side, I picked yes... then you come back with an example that I would not be in favour of in all cases. I'm trying to say that there's nuance here, and when I brought up the case of women that look very much like men you say "it's on them" meaning I assume that they're not allowed in their own sex's bathroom either. It's not as cut and dried as you keep saying it is.

User: "Stop being specific ! Are you ok with men in women's spaces ?" Me: "I guess by your definition sure..." User: "So therefore you want little girls to be forced to look at penises !" Me: "Uh... no?" This the essence of the discussion... and accusing me of being dishonest and refusing to stop doing so is itself dishonest. The truth of the matter is that no person who would construct a long post like that about nothing, dodging, using word play, would have any interest or acknowledgement that some things are not objective facts but subjective and political matters. And that could only grow out of a big personal problem with trans people. That's not obfuscation, that is a fact... If anyone wants to discuss political issues I'm here...

1. Because you read things into my responses that are not correct. 2. Ok so the law would be "if you are not a lady or you don't look like a conventional woman" you can't use the bathroom. That seems to be what you're saying it would have to be, to be a common sense type law. 3. Calling them 'tactics' means you say I'm doing it on purpose. I'm Not. So you're insulting me and defying the rule that said we wouldn't get personal. 4. Ok I see now... school policy. 5. Fine then let's just admit this is all based on you being weirded out by trans people and not being comfortable with them. That's what is driving this, and unfortunately all of the logical decorations you hang on your hangup don't fly. I'll leave the rest of my response until you acknowledge that you don't like trans people and the tactic of saying otherwise is dishonest. If not, prove it - name the trans people who you like and respect, and prove otherwise. Because clearly there's something at play here beyond your snug logial games that really bugs you about trans people, and causes you to obfuscate the issue into word games. I'll await your response.

1. What does that mean "it's on them" ? What do you mean by 'extreme example' ? I see lots of extreme examples cited in support of policy, by Republicans. This includes random assaults and crimes of violence that happen everywhere. Why do we want to eliminate extreme examples sometimes and not others ? Oh, I know... because of politics. Because it helps people rally the unknowing to their cause. I can't see any other reason. 2. To my mind, policy is the implementation of laws. I just want to check if that's what you mean also. 3. If you accuse me of obfuscating then you're saying that I'm INTENTIONALLY making something unclear. If you think I'm using dirty tricks in this conversation, then stop talking to me. I'm not spending my lunch hour replying to this because I'm intellectually dishonest. if you think I am, then it only makes sense to walk away. 4. I don't get why you're LOLing at this but ok, you seem satisfied. 5. The conversation warrants being specific, I would say. If you don't want specific answers, how does that help clarify anything ? You ask general questions and expect me to answer. 6. By your definition, it seems that yes I do sometimes. 7. OMG... seems like now you're getting specific ! I didn't say any of those specific things are ok. Please note I'm not accusing you of being dishonest (which is what you're doing to me) but being unclear. There are lots of types of change rooms... I don't think that every change room should demand both-sex nudity but you never asked that. 8. Yeah, I trust you're being honest here which is why I'm talking to you. If you continue to accuse me of obfuscating, lyring and being dishonest though then the rules change and I'll assume you are trolling. 9. Yes I'm fine with males and females competing in other competitions, context being primary here. Specifics matter. Are you going to ban women from auto racing ? Darts ? Be specific. 10. It's your problem because you decide that you're part of the discussion. As such, you should have an idea of what to do about it. Deny bathroom status ? "Who shall bell the cat" ? 11. I agree with that, but we do allow self-expression so you have to deal with it. I don't feel "safe" with biker dudes around my kid, so it seems using your precepts I can demand that they be excluded from the YMCA change room I guess. 12. Oh, now I get it ... you think questions are obfuscation. Simple: just answer them. 13. Yes, that's true 14. Reality is objective but identity is subjective. I can't declare abortion to be murder, either, because it's not regarded as objectively being murder by our institutions (and public) The definition of gender, which I looked up, seems to allow for it to change even if you don't personally believe that. I respect your choices though... 15. "Trans madness" is obfuscation. Not answering questions is obfuscation. If one accepts some trans accommodations are they "mad" ? You yourself accept some right ? 16. Oh, too bad. I wish we were. This conversation is only about clarifying terms so far and as such is not interesting to me or probably anyone else. Can we just agree to disagree ? 17. I think I accepted your claim that you don't have a problem with trans folks, so we're done on that front. We only need you to accept that I'm not trying to obfuscate the argument. Why would I ? We're not going to come to any conclusion... 18. Yes, I would say that I moved beyond my assessment of your rationale by now. But politics is necessary somewhat 'personal' since we are human beings with our own experiences and preferences. I'm not going to call you names, though, assuming you stop accusing me of lying/obfuscating... 19. Some things aren't factual, which is why politics exist. Values, attitudes and perspectives all have an emotional basis and we have politics to grease the wheels of social function, that's it. Ok... can't we agree to disagree on this now ? We're not going to convince each other.

Seriously ? It's been five days... I thought this was done... Ok I will respond when i can then...

Can you think of a reason Trump might favour them?

1. Ok I read it again and you're right it does read that way. No, that's not the reason I'm opposed to bathroom bans but what DO you say to the problem I posed ? How do you decide if 'dude looks like a lady' ? 2. What's the difference ? 3. No. Obfuscating ? I mean, it *could* be my main argument I suppose and that wouldn't be obfuscating would it ? 4. Yes or no ? Why so simple ? It's a broad question and I don't have one take on every woman's space out there. Generally I'm ok with the idea, yes. 5. Yes 6. I don't watch women's sports and I don't care about the sports stuff. If they ban trans women from women's boxing it's ok with me. 7. Ok. But you want a say in that right ? You're part of the community who decides if it's ok so you are involved as part of the public I guess. 8. Which 'women spaces' ? Bathrooms ? No... there were both-sexes bathrooms in a high school I went to (obviously many many years ago) and nobody cared. It's a culture thing. 9. I say your assertion is wrong that you can't declare a gender. So is this part of the discussion done yet ? I sure hope so. 10. No it's not. So NOW are we done ? 11. You already said you're not upset, so now your PERSONAL opinions and judgements are the personal part. Such as explaining why you think gender can't change and convincing me of your argument. So far you just said that people can't change gender and that's a fact. Not much of an argument IMO.

Well yes they should have given a date, even if the rationale is that we're in turbulent times blah blah blah blah blah.

It's true... Dynamics have changed quite a bit. Europe, Mexico and Canada were previously partners and close allies. In the last term North Korea and Russia ascended and in this term it's Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and now Syria . Interesting times indeed.

1. Ok, I mentioned that as a potential flaw in setting up a policy. I'm still again barring them regardless but curious as to how you would deal with that? You can't make a "dude looks like a lady" rule as it's subjective and a potential loophole. 2. Okay, so if I say yes you can, what is your response? Is it no you can't? 3. If you say so. It's still politics, and if a group of people are okay with it in their community, they can make it happen. This is assuming we're talking about issues Beyond discrimination, which is a separate matter. 4. It is personal, it's about how we personally deal with behavior we don't agree with. Since both of us don't have a problem with it, it's about community guidelines. So if you're not upset with it... Do you care? Seems like there's some thin line between caring enough to talk about it and being bothered. Pretty thin line. 5. Yes I'm interested in the larger question. I'm not bothered by the sports question in particular enough to engage in it to any level of depth. I'm mostly interested in the public sphere and how we discuss policy, in this case related to morality.

1. Ok, I don't support schools enforcing bathroom bans. You'll get people who look like the dude in the picture in the girls' room. They may have the legal rights to do so if course. 2. It's a semantic argument and an opinion. There's no response to your statement other than "yes you can". So some people will want to do it, and now you are in the realm of politics to solve the disagreement. 3. Well then, if it's not a problem you can accept that sometimes people want to do things that contradict science and leave the question out of policy. 4. It's about me too. 5. Well,ok, but I don't really care. I'm pretty sure they can work this out without me getting involved. Women don't want me weighing in on abortion so I'm glad to leave it to them...

I said that the school should decide. No, lots of people change gender and lots of people are ok with it. It's a problem for some, including you. I get that you're upset but I don't see any reason for me to be. I do believe that this is being politicized because some people get super upset over it. I'm not one of those.

1. I don't know how you could decide that conclusively. Or what you do with that idea. 2. Mental issues is a different topic. I don't agree with dangerous people coming into private spaces.

I think that the school should separate student bathrooms from teachers, and teachers go in for emergency only. Otherwise it's gender based.

And the big question is do you think this is smart?

Costco has more similarities to GUM, the Soviet store than Target. In a society where the middle class must be eliminated, Costco provides the solution to The problem of subsistence. I worked, as a contractor, with HBC. They were a ridiculous company.... Near the end they were still managing like it was the '70s. Lots of institutions are failing now. .

1. Foxes are indeed wiley but they can't do basic arithmetic. 2. The Carney question is separate. Whether he has the ability to succeed is an open question. 3. We have no choice.

"executive branch employees are subject to an important set of ethics rules contained in the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch. Underlying these rules is a principle that employees must avoid even the appearance of impropriety. The impartiality rule breathes life into this principle." US office of government ethics https://www.oge.gov/web/oge.nsf/Resources/A+Refresher+on+the+Impartiality+Rule

I don't think I would use Carney as a source for his own achievements. Like... The economy is going to grow next year because Carney says... That's not a good cite.

Remember this? https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.nbcnews.com/video/trump-touts-job-creation-at-foxconn-groundbreaking-in-wisconsin-1266276931894&ved=2ahUKEwiL8czQvqGNAxUJCnkGHV7yEUAQwqsBegQIAhAF&usg=AOvVaw36lp25bDaSlF1w6kk55CpD The 13000+ jobs he touted ended up being less than 1200. His problem is that he doesn't know what he's doing and doesn't listen to others. Just more hype.

"Trump says..."