Michael Hardner

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20250122/117827/HHRG-119-JU01-20250122-SD003.pdf There you go. According to the study, posted on the Congressional website they pay "more than their share" and pay more in taxes than the top 1%. I expect you will now modify your position. You are welcome.

There's no costing provided in that article. How much tax is paid, what is the dollar value of the benefits...

Hahahaha .. his #2 VOTED for it 😄

I died many years ago but my wife maintains my bot so I will be sure to troll people for eternity... I was ill with TDS for awhile but better now

1. If you think that, then aren't you saying that indeed it IS a complicated question ? And how exactly did I turn a blind eye ? Not getting it. How did I blame people ? Please answer those before we proceed because I'm not going to continue entertaining your misstatements forever. 2. Ok, I never denied that the photo is real. My point was stated above, that a photo doesn't capture the wider discussion that this needs. 3. First of all - again - I'm not making that argument but I am saying that it's a reasonable POV held by many people in "the" public. I don't actually have an opinion on trans women taking part in weightlifting, mostly because I don't care enough to inform myself on the topic. So you won't find me arguing for/against this particular case. 4. That picture being a moment in time doesn't mean it's fake. Let's just ask: do you think any reasonable people disagree with you on this topic ? 5. Well if you want to discuss it with people who oppose your point of view, you probably need to agree to some terminology in order to take part in a "reasonable" discussion. Calling trans women "men" is probably a no-go to engage in reasonable discussion, just as having them openly calling you "bigot" in the discussion wouldn't be allowed. And, yes, I agree people would have to justify the trade-off in rights in such a discussion. 6. I suspect you don't think people who disagree with you are worth discussing with. For example, my questioning of your assumptions makes you see me as being "on the other side" when I'm not there at all. If you don't think pro-trans folks are reasonable then I recommend not discussing with them.

1. I'd say that if you can't produce a workable answer to the challenges easily and quickly, it's complicated. And here I'm talking about the overall issue of trans rights not the weightlifter one which itself is easier than other trans/sports questions. 2. A picture is a visual impression of a moment in time. It's not proof of anything, except perhaps that the observation occurred. The invisible questions/causes/themes behind it can't be shown in a picture. 3. Your assertion that 'sensible people' are on one side of this reveals a tendency to dismiss those who oppose you. Note that I am not doing that to either side myself. I'm looking at the public sphere. 4. I'm not arguing for or against trans rights - you keep missing that because I am showing how your argument would fail with those who unreservedly support trans rights. 5. Last time: I'm arguing for reasonable process on the question of rights. If you think I oppose you then you're mistaken.

BC ! I was just thinking about you the other day. Good to see you back, your provisions of context here are always welcome and timely 🙂

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that I used the term recently 😕

Ok, weird then. The point is that you can't articulate a complicated argument with a photo.

Lots of people who believe in gender fluidity think that there should be rules about competition. But, hey, why post a discussion about rights when a funny photo is out there to cut and paste...

1. I don't know it. A lot of the neo populists want to tell you what you can and can't say. 2. That's just an excuse. Look on this thread, people are gleeful that the number of trans people are going down. Down. Why do they care? According to you they don't. 3. They are ridiculous people I would say, because their principles are skewed. 4. Eat the rooster. Cut your losses.

Interesting information, no doubt. Here are some other takes: https://www.persuasion.community/p/transgender-identity-really-has-fallen https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/fact-check-no-there-is-not-a-new I think it's quite possibly true. We'll have to see if the trend continues.

There's a segment of new populists who want to rule peoples' lives. They complain about Democrats and Liberals who finger-wag but tell you who you can sleep with, how you can dress. Soe of them don't like it when I explain that I'm conservative even...

1. And as I said, it goes back to a numbers game. For years people were appalled that shops would open on Sunday right ? 2.The change is actually to make "gender" a social construct vs biological definition. It's not to change biological definitions. 3. Yeah, I get it. 4. Did I say I support it ? I don't think I did. I'm trying to help you navigate through the change, otherwise you might think everyone is insane. Imagine how hard it would be to live in a world like that. So, I'm helping you.

1. No, I was answering the general case - "What if a person insists on identifying as [X]" If people are challengeing ageist norms, then that indeed is something that has popular support.

1. I would say that there are boundries and norms. We don't have to accept that people are things that we all agree are ridiculous. 2. Like I said - 2 different issues.

1. Yes and I remember having a heated discussion with a high school teacher in the 70s over the same subject except it was use of the new word "MS.". I am old and understand resistance to change, believe me. 2. They're separate questions. Lots of people think that transgender is valid but question the sports thing. 3. All sides did that with gay marriage too. Waited until it was 51% supported then showed their progressiveness. It happened.

1. What does that mean "don't include you in it" ? 2. Yes, gender identification is universal. "Opportunities" is a different angle to approach the problem with. I would submit that genders each have "opportunities" and "challenges". 3. The sports question is a side issue IMO. I don't think you need to be bound to any sports rules just because you accept gender fluidity as a social construct. 4. For the same reason you can't identify as a giant, a truck, a dinosaur etc. However you CAN identify as a poet, an athlete or any number of social monikers that describe people. We are moving towards a society where "gender" is seens as a social construct more than a biological one.

Everything old is new again. I'll bet when you were young the old people about complained about guys with long hair. Am I right? Let's have a big meeting to figure it out in 20 years... When we're all gone.

1. Well why can't someone identify as an attack helicopter? That's the Ricky Gervais take. I guess no one really wants to do that, gender identity is something else entirely, So people are revising their idea of gender to allow for it. People aren't posing as women to get the ladies discount at the bar or what not. It's an actual identity issue for people, and so this is how we've worked it out. Most people don't really mind that some are gender fluid. My interest in navigating through this is that we have to use the public sphere In the way that it has worked for us in the past. So I try not to denigrate people who have trouble with this new social issue. And I appreciate it when people take it seriously.

It is spamming. You're posting the same event on different threads. There's probably dozens of threads you can post this on. Would that be okay? No, it wouldn't.

Didn't you already post this somewhere else? Stop spamming please.

I'm going to estimate the time you spent in school learning about genders is less than one minute. And what w we socialize our next generation into is only partially based on facts. We recited the Lord's Prayer, and then we stopped. Neither event had anything to do with facts, other than the fact that curriculum is an outcome of a sociopolitical scrum that determines what "the" public thinks is best. It's only going to be fought out in the public sphere, and with dialogue. Do you know that the proportion of Canadians who support trans girls and oppose trans girls in girls sports absolutely is about the same? My position is that this is a big change and that a lot of people are not on the same page. So we have to step carefully, with respect for all sides. I am not a culture Warrior. I don't think people should be vilified for not accepting trans folks. But it seems like over the long Time frame they will be accepted.

Stop it.

I'm starting to wonder if people realize that others would think poorly of them if they ever acted like this in public.