The didn't actually technically rule biological males can't compete against women. They just ruled that Thomas had no standing to bring the case as Thomas wasn't an elite swimmer when Thomas filed the case.
A woman is something you have seen online. I have spoken to a couple before. They all scream and run away. Though that might be because I clearly spend my time arguing with you guys online.
You might as well ask a biologist or geneticist. The answer is, it's complicated. If you think that XY = man and XX = woman then I have news for you: the world is considerably more complicated than you imagine.
There are women walking around today who were identified at birth as women. They have lady bits. They have always assumed they are women and everyone around them assumes they are women. They look like women. They also have XY chromosomes. Read up on CAIS and then tell me that man/woman is a simple distinction.
You might as well ask a biologist or geneticist. The answer is, it's complicated. If you think that XY = man and XX = woman then I have news for you: the world is considerably more complicated than you imagine.
There are women walking around today who were identified at birth as women. They have lady bits. They have always assumed they are women and everyone around them assumes they are women. They look like women. They also have XY chromosomes. Read up on CAIS and then tell me that man/woman is a simple distinction.
An exception cannot exist without a rule. Otherwise it’s just a fact. You're simply pointing out the exception that reinforces the rule".
Never forget the beginnings of the Lia Thomas fiasco. The left was labeling and shaming anyone speaking out against Thomas. Now they act as if that never happened. Like I said, they will be reactive and not proactive, which means there will be collateral damage before this topic gets right.
There is a famous thought experiment where a runaway trolley is about to kill a large crowd of people on the tracks. You can intervene by pulling a switch to divert the trolley onto a side rail where it will instead kill a much smaller crowd. Is it more ethical to consciously make the decision to kill the smaller group (who would not have been harmed if you’d not intervened) in order to save the larger group?
You might as well ask a biologist or geneticist. The answer is, it's complicated. If you think that XY = man and XX = woman then I have news for you: the world is considerably more complicated than you imagine.
There are women walking around today who were identified at birth as women. They have lady bits. They have always assumed they are women and everyone around them assumes they are women. They look like women. They also have XY chromosomes. Read up on CAIS and then tell me that man/woman is a simple distinction.
An exception cannot exist without a rule. Otherwise it’s just a fact. You're simply pointing out the exception that reinforces the rule".
No, that’s silly and meaningless. An exception by definition breaks the rule.
as WOW as oh the irony as lernin tew spell be werk as werk bee hard as rojo sez him aint not bout too dew no stinkin werk as him aint gots no time two miss no stinkin naps as halleluha as him is happie bout leeoh timpsen as neerly fell offa dat their chare as this hear flore aint soft as no stinkin marshmellow as yew noes hoo elce aint gots time fer no stinkin spellin lernin - are unkel doobya that be hwo as ofa lon teh
You might as well ask a biologist or geneticist. The answer is, it's complicated. If you think that XY = man and XX = woman then I have news for you: the world is considerably more complicated than you imagine.
There are women walking around today who were identified at birth as women. They have lady bits. They have always assumed they are women and everyone around them assumes they are women. They look like women. They also have XY chromosomes. Read up on CAIS and then tell me that man/woman is a simple distinction.
An exception cannot exist without a rule. Otherwise it’s just a fact. You're simply pointing out the exception that reinforces the rule".
The phrase "exception that proves the rule" just means there is a rule, it doesn't mean the validity of the rule is unquestionable.
You can also interpret the phrase to mean prove = test, or improve. "The exception that tests the rule" i.e. if there's some small exceptions that means we should consider if we should revise the rule to make it better.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.