That's because it's not social justice, it's social "justice" based on the Oppression Olympics, a victimhood mentality, and identity politics. It's not based in facts or true justice.
Hillary may be part of the establishment, but Trump is a textbook example of the type of people the establishment works for.
Absolutely true, something even Trump admits. But he's the only candidate willing to be politically incorrect, not kowtow to Black Lives Matter, and recognize the threat that Islam is to the West.
It scares the crap out of me that here on Slashdot, a site with presumably smart people like engineers and programmers, so many people are defending and rooting for Donald Trump.
Maybe because they're tired of politically correct bullshit like Black Lives Matter and open borders.
Either Slashdot is not as intelligent as I thought, or it is more right-wing than I thought, which of course is not exclusive.
Are you going to defend Clinton? Because the choice is between a corrupt, establishment politician vs a corrupt businessman. The only reason I'm leaning Trump is because he's willing to be politically incorrect.
A good analogy is that you responded to my proof that horses exist with a request for delivery of a very special pony.
No, that's a really dumb analogy. As I've already told you twice, I never asked for an old bug, as I knew they existed. I asked for a current bug. That this basic point eludes you this far into the thread means you are hopeless dumb or willfully ignorant.
As is Microsoft Windows, OS X and nearly everything else.
And they all suck when it comes to security exploits, because they are monolithic. Try reading the paper you linked and actually understand it.
Anyways, you're a waste of time. You've already embarrassed yourself enough with your hypocrisy and foolishness. No more replies from me.
I can't help noticing that instead of addressing the examples I gave you decided to attack me instead.
I already responded to your examples. I can't help it if you're daft or willingly ignorant.
Says a lot doesn't it?
Says that you act angry, make a fool and hypocrite out of yourself, and then act like I instigated your nonsense.
Using a VM adds a new class of vunerability instead of security.
It also adds a new layer of security. If somebody exploits a zero-day in an app, they then have to exploit a zero-day in the VM it's running in. It also prevents a huge swath of attacks from malware that abuse typical permissions found in garden variety desktop setups.
If you want something for security use something designed for it instead of a totally different tool. You are suggesting something akin to hammering in a nail with a drinking glass - WRONG TOOL FOR THE JOB.
Uh huh. That's why you can't demonstrate an exploit that is working today. Every security solution has had security bugs, even your "right" tools. I'm willing to bet none of the ones you mentioned (like jails, for example) live up to the ideals given in the PDF you linked. Linux and BSD are both plagued with monolithic kernels.
In the meantime, I'll keep on using VMs for security, and you can keep on gnashing your teeth.
Can you do anything other than whine and get things wrong?
That projection is still going strong. You say this after embarrassing yourself, accusing me of what you actually did, showing yourself the fool and the hypocrite.
All it took for me to find those examples you pretended could not possibly exist was a google search
Yes, I figured it was just a Google search, since you clearly demonstrated you didn't know of an open hole that exists today, despite claiming that a VM is not security. I know there have been VM security bugs in the past. I didn't need you to search that for me.
My point is that they have been fixed because VMs are being used for security. What I said: "virtual machines are used for security and violations that break that security are bugs" (bold added). All you did was confirm what I wrote.
I'm perfectly fine to acknowledge that the security of VMs could be designed better and are not bulletproof. I even thanked you for the PDF link (showing how angry I was, right?).
So says the guy who marked someone a "foe" to the person who did not do the same to to person calling him a liar.
Projection sure is a bitch, isn't it? Turns you into a complete hypocrite and fool. Your handle was familiar, but I only remembered our previous entanglement later on. You marked me a foe (check your list) a long time ago, not the other way around. You called me a liar, not the other way around.
You're the angry one. All because I challenged your position.
I didn't click the second link, but yes, though for all I know it's shooped. Anyways, this debate seems to have veered off into the mud. I don't deny that there are women with masculine features. That doesn't mean I'm going to accept Bradley Manning as a woman.
Now where did I say that? What's with the lies over something so trivial?
I'm not lying. I'm drawing an inference from your statements:
"A VM is not security - idiots" "effectively zero if it exploits a bug in the VM"
If security was as bad as you make it out to be, then why can't you demonstrate a hole?
Read the paper to see how it should be and despair that the Virtual Machines we are talking about are nothing like how it should be.
Thanks for the link, and I will read the paper. But imperfectly designed security that actually achieves some security in practice is better than not using a VM at all. I'll keep on using VMs as another layer of security.
So you can guarantee being able to break out of the VM? I mean, you actually, personally, know that you could do this, and by what method, and could demonstrate it if called upon?
Security is a spectrum, not a binary situation, and layered solutions provide benefits. So yes, a virtual machine providers security benefits, especially because virtual machines are used for security and violations that break that security are bugs.
Yes, there are rare exceptions, especially if they transitioned at a young age, though they will never be able to bear children. Bradley Manning isn't one of them. Neither is a guy with a square jaw, giant Adam's apple, and broad shoulders, despite wearing lipstick and long hair, yet we're told we must participate in their delusions.
You can measure that the CO2 jar absorbs more heat
But the actual, direct warming from CO2 alone isn't what all the fuss is about. It's hypothesized that there will be a feedback effect where higher temps from CO2 lead to more water vapor and higher temps. But that really depends on how clouds form, as certain kinds of clouds have a net effect of trapping heat, while others have a net effect of reflecting it. This is still under scientific debate.
There's also the effects of man-made dust, the oceans, ice albedo, etc. It's all rather complicated with feedback loops, and the climate models have all been running hot compared to actual temps.
Now: to observe the actual effects on the world, is not so easy. One way is to look at photos, over decades, of glaciers that have receded.
Glaciers have been receding since we've been coming out of the last Ice Age around 10,000 years ago.
If you've been alive for 30+ years (or longer), you know damn well that even though we've had a couple of harsh winters, it's certainly not like it was when we were kids.
Seems true to me, but perhaps if you were alive for 200 years and kept studious track of weather you wouldn't consider ups and downs so unusual.
It's still not OUR problem. If someone else has a problem with it, how is it up to me to solve it?
You're the one who claimed it wasn't a problem in the first place. When confronted with the idiocy of your statement, you dodged and then moved the goalposts. You are a hypocrite.
As for cites, you crippled?
So you have no cites for your claim, and cannot explain why you are talking about Missoula when North Carolina is under discussion. You are a hypocrite.
Oh, right, you have this stereotype in your mind that we're all like the losers in that shitty show Transparent.
You're hilarious. A show I never watched (or even heard of), that you used as an example of men taking womens roles, but it's really just a show about a tranny that you call shitty. *golf clap*
The point is your ridiculous claims about me possibly having sex with a tranny unknowingly. Super-hint: If you've got male parts, it ain't gonna happen, even if you manage to pass and not have man-hands, man-shoulders, man-hips, man-hair, man-jaw, man-voice, or any other number of features that make passing difficult.
Also, we weren't the ones causing the problem with Target, so don't lay that on us.
Your crowd stirred up the drama. You claimed it was just good business and economic sense.
Charlotte, North Carolina, has already lost more than $20 million in business because they passed their bathroom bill
Are you trying to make my point for me? It's the city of Charlotte that started this with a pro trans bathroom bill, and the state that countered it. Charlotte started the drama for no good reason other than the "progressive" cause du jour after moving down the "oppressed" stack after gay marriage was passed.
Why don't you watch Transparent
Because I have zero interest in watching a show about trannies.
It's also not up to us to figure out how to determine if someone is non-functional, because it's not our problem - it's yours.
But you're the one who claimed it wasn't an issue in the first place because of those non-functioning parts. First you dodged the question, then you moved the goalposts. You're a hypocrite.
Also, the bathroom nonsense started a decade ago, in Missoulla, pushed by the local fundie churches.
I don't see a cite here, and regardless of what happened in Missoula, what does that have to do with North Carolina? This is misdirection on your part to avoid the fact that a city passed a pro-trans bathroom law, which prompted a reaction from the state.
You made a clear statement, with no exceptions, and the when I pointed out it wasn't true, you tried to walk it back. Won't work.
It works in context. Sorry, no sale.
Also, I sure didn't have sex with the guys I rented out my spare bedroom to.
So you can't say you would have "passed" in that regard. And if you haven't had genital surgery, you know you wouldn't have passed in that regard.
Do you still call black people niggers?
That's a pretty dumb analogy. I don't believe men can become women, but what does that have to do with what you call black people? A more appropriate analogy would be considering if Rachel Dolezal is black because she made herself look black and "identifies" as black. I consider her white. Do you accept her as black? Do you think the black community should accept her as black?
That $20 million is to accommodate bigots.
As I said, businesses have to deal with irate customers, and it's costing them money, despite your claim that it was good business and economic sense.
First I will note that you completely skipped (for a second time) the question I put to you in response to your assertion: "You made an assertion about non-functionion male genitals. I'm asking how only those transsexuals with non-functioning male genitals will be allowed to use the women's bathroom."
You call me chicken shit (for not fully quoting you, though when pressed you give nothing that would have invalidated my reply), but here you are dodging a question based on your assertion.
I also did not see you admit that the North Carolina anti-trans state law was in response to a pro-trans city law, despite your earlier implication that it was conservatives against gay marriage going after a new target that started all this bathroom nonsense.
You originally said "It never happens."
That's twice now you fabricated a quote that I did not say. I gave a single case, "When men dress up as women in Hollywood movies, it's for a gag." I admitted there were other cases I missed, namely the "progressive" cause du jour of transsexuals.
It doesn't invalidate the context of the argument, which started with you talking about male actors in Shakespeare being accepted as women (turns out the law forbid women from acting at the time). The overwhelmingly vast majority of women's roles in Hollywood are taken by actual women. In fact, the only cases that you gave me were roles where the "women" were transsexual as specified by the role.
you'd get your ass sued
That's what passing trans laws has done, opening up new lawsuit threats. This happens every time the government creates a new "equality" law.
As for the "upset customers", first off, transsexuals and their allies (which are a significant portion of the consumer public) also have the right to be upset by not letting transsexuals pee in the safest place for them.
Everybody has a "right" to be pissed off or not.
They have all discovered that supporting the rights of transsexuals is just good business. It makes economic sense.
No, they all jumped in to the current climate of political correctness and the "progressive" cause du jour. Whether it makes economic sense or not is debatable, as they're really just afraid of the mainstream press targeting them and doing virtue signaling of their own to get positive press.
In response to all this drama, started by "progressives", Target is spending $20 million to install a single-use bathroom for any sex in all its stores.
so again, what are you really afraid of?
How many times do I have to answer this? I'm not afraid of anything, and I have very little interest in the bathroom drama, but you insist on dragging me into this argument, and I feel obliged to correct some of your bullshit and play devil's advocate.
It doesn't cost anything to use the new name and gender, so why do you have a stick up your ass on this issue?
Because I refuse to go along with the herd and participate in other people's delusions. We've already covered this.
And if you think you can tell, you're wrong. Twice last year I rented out my spare bedroom to men for 4 months each.
Congratulations. But there are plenty of cases where I could tell. And I'm guessing you didn't have sex with any of your roommates without them knowing.
No she didn't. Even the Clinton News Network denies that claim:
"This is certainly not a release of medical records by any means. This is very similar, in some ways, to what we got in July of last year," Gupta said.
No - I'm asking what you are afraid of. That's exactly what I asked. What credible threat is there? So far, it's been all noise, no facts in the bathroom debate.
I answered your question and asked you one in return. You made an assertion about non-functionion male genitals. I'm asking how only those transsexuals with non-functioning male genitals will be allowed to use the women's bathroom. I don't particularly care about the bathroom debate, but you brought it up and made some assertions, so it's only fair that you respond.
Mice way to avoid the question by not quoting the rest. That's pure chicken-shit.
What did I leave out that invalidates my reply? I quote for context, and trim replies to avoid an ever-growing wall of text.
How much money does it cost to let transsexuals use women's bathrooms? None.
You don't own a business and do not have to deal with legal fees or upset customers.
None. How much money does it cost to address transsexuals by their legal name? None.
There's a political and social cost to adjust 99+% of society. If there wasn't, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place, no city ordinances would have passed, and there wouldn't be a big deal being made in the press with liberals falling over themselves to declare how "brave and stunning" Bruce Jenner was for nominally turning himself into a woman instead of focusing on the person he killed with his car.
Again, more bullshit. You said IT NEVER HAPPENED, not that it doesn't happen in the average Hollywood movie. Move the goalposts much? Can't even admit you f*cked up when it's blatantly obvious?
I did admit I was wrong, and added in the other cases from the cause du jour. But there's still a reason why men/trans don't take women's roles in Hollywood in the vast majority of cases.
How do you know that?
The same way that I've spotted a lot of activist trannies championing for women issues before they were eventually confirmed. Most do not pass, or they pass at a glance but the inconsistencies add up. Even Blair White has the kermit the frog voice.
Yeah, sure, it's possible I know somebody who is trans, but I will say for a fact that I don't know anybody who transitioned.
you cannot say with certainty that you have never had sex with a transsexual.
Slashdot Mirror
That's because it's not social justice, it's social "justice" based on the Oppression Olympics, a victimhood mentality, and identity politics. It's not based in facts or true justice.
Hillary may be part of the establishment, but Trump is a textbook example of the type of people the establishment works for.
Absolutely true, something even Trump admits. But he's the only candidate willing to be politically incorrect, not kowtow to Black Lives Matter, and recognize the threat that Islam is to the West.
I'm guessing you're not a Muslim, Hispanic, black person, or resident of a Middle Eastern country.
I'm guessing you're a goony beardman from San Francisco.
It scares the crap out of me that here on Slashdot, a site with presumably smart people like engineers and programmers, so many people are defending and rooting for Donald Trump.
Maybe because they're tired of politically correct bullshit like Black Lives Matter and open borders.
Either Slashdot is not as intelligent as I thought, or it is more right-wing than I thought, which of course is not exclusive.
Are you going to defend Clinton? Because the choice is between a corrupt, establishment politician vs a corrupt businessman. The only reason I'm leaning Trump is because he's willing to be politically incorrect.
A good analogy is that you responded to my proof that horses exist with a request for delivery of a very special pony.
No, that's a really dumb analogy. As I've already told you twice, I never asked for an old bug, as I knew they existed. I asked for a current bug. That this basic point eludes you this far into the thread means you are hopeless dumb or willfully ignorant.
As is Microsoft Windows, OS X and nearly everything else.
And they all suck when it comes to security exploits, because they are monolithic. Try reading the paper you linked and actually understand it.
Anyways, you're a waste of time. You've already embarrassed yourself enough with your hypocrisy and foolishness. No more replies from me.
I can't help noticing that instead of addressing the examples I gave you decided to attack me instead.
I already responded to your examples. I can't help it if you're daft or willingly ignorant.
Says a lot doesn't it?
Says that you act angry, make a fool and hypocrite out of yourself, and then act like I instigated your nonsense.
Using a VM adds a new class of vunerability instead of security.
It also adds a new layer of security. If somebody exploits a zero-day in an app, they then have to exploit a zero-day in the VM it's running in. It also prevents a huge swath of attacks from malware that abuse typical permissions found in garden variety desktop setups.
If you want something for security use something designed for it instead of a totally different tool. You are suggesting something akin to hammering in a nail with a drinking glass - WRONG TOOL FOR THE JOB.
Uh huh. That's why you can't demonstrate an exploit that is working today. Every security solution has had security bugs, even your "right" tools. I'm willing to bet none of the ones you mentioned (like jails, for example) live up to the ideals given in the PDF you linked. Linux and BSD are both plagued with monolithic kernels.
In the meantime, I'll keep on using VMs for security, and you can keep on gnashing your teeth.
You are bitching about all kinds of shit unrelated to the topic. What does that tell you?
That you're projecting again, because that's what you are doing. I'm just responding to your bitching, showing what a hypocrite and fool you are.
Idiocy, but not really yours
Yeah, it's yours. I'll use working and practical security even if it has design flaws. When pressed, you cannot demonstrate a working exploit today.
Can you do anything other than whine and get things wrong?
That projection is still going strong. You say this after embarrassing yourself, accusing me of what you actually did, showing yourself the fool and the hypocrite.
All it took for me to find those examples you pretended could not possibly exist was a google search
Yes, I figured it was just a Google search, since you clearly demonstrated you didn't know of an open hole that exists today, despite claiming that a VM is not security. I know there have been VM security bugs in the past. I didn't need you to search that for me.
My point is that they have been fixed because VMs are being used for security. What I said: "virtual machines are used for security and violations that break that security are bugs" (bold added). All you did was confirm what I wrote.
I'm perfectly fine to acknowledge that the security of VMs could be designed better and are not bulletproof. I even thanked you for the PDF link (showing how angry I was, right?).
Kids these days. Back in my day...
So says the guy who marked someone a "foe" to the person who did not do the same to to person calling him a liar.
Projection sure is a bitch, isn't it? Turns you into a complete hypocrite and fool. Your handle was familiar, but I only remembered our previous entanglement later on. You marked me a foe (check your list) a long time ago, not the other way around. You called me a liar, not the other way around.
You're the angry one. All because I challenged your position.
I didn't click the second link, but yes, though for all I know it's shooped. Anyways, this debate seems to have veered off into the mud. I don't deny that there are women with masculine features. That doesn't mean I'm going to accept Bradley Manning as a woman.
Now work on that temper.
projection
Ever see the Adam's apple on [nationalreport.net] Anne Coulter [newslo.com]? The man hands?
No and no. I do see her giraffe neck, weird eyes, and big cheekbones. Never found her attractive. Now this is an Adam's apple.
Now where did I say that? What's with the lies over something so trivial?
I'm not lying. I'm drawing an inference from your statements:
"A VM is not security - idiots"
"effectively zero if it exploits a bug in the VM"
If security was as bad as you make it out to be, then why can't you demonstrate a hole?
Read the paper to see how it should be and despair that the Virtual Machines we are talking about are nothing like how it should be.
Thanks for the link, and I will read the paper. But imperfectly designed security that actually achieves some security in practice is better than not using a VM at all. I'll keep on using VMs as another layer of security.
So you can guarantee being able to break out of the VM? I mean, you actually, personally, know that you could do this, and by what method, and could demonstrate it if called upon?
Security is a spectrum, not a binary situation, and layered solutions provide benefits. So yes, a virtual machine providers security benefits, especially because virtual machines are used for security and violations that break that security are bugs.
Yes, there are rare exceptions, especially if they transitioned at a young age, though they will never be able to bear children. Bradley Manning isn't one of them. Neither is a guy with a square jaw, giant Adam's apple, and broad shoulders, despite wearing lipstick and long hair, yet we're told we must participate in their delusions.
what amounted to a typographical error
If that's all you've got out of it, you're not worth talking to. I've looked into this in depth and have had this debate with others several times.
It's only a more recent trend that we decide the best and the brightest are wrong for reasons we can't comprehend, but we intrinsically know.
I lost the trust of the scientists with Climategate. Too much politics getting in the way of good science.
No, it is actually VERY VERY SIMPLE.
No, it really isn't.
You can measure that the CO2 jar absorbs more heat
But the actual, direct warming from CO2 alone isn't what all the fuss is about. It's hypothesized that there will be a feedback effect where higher temps from CO2 lead to more water vapor and higher temps. But that really depends on how clouds form, as certain kinds of clouds have a net effect of trapping heat, while others have a net effect of reflecting it. This is still under scientific debate.
There's also the effects of man-made dust, the oceans, ice albedo, etc. It's all rather complicated with feedback loops, and the climate models have all been running hot compared to actual temps.
Now: to observe the actual effects on the world, is not so easy. One way is to look at photos, over decades, of glaciers that have receded.
Glaciers have been receding since we've been coming out of the last Ice Age around 10,000 years ago.
If you've been alive for 30+ years (or longer), you know damn well that even though we've had a couple of harsh winters, it's certainly not like it was when we were kids.
Seems true to me, but perhaps if you were alive for 200 years and kept studious track of weather you wouldn't consider ups and downs so unusual.
It's still not OUR problem. If someone else has a problem with it, how is it up to me to solve it?
You're the one who claimed it wasn't a problem in the first place. When confronted with the idiocy of your statement, you dodged and then moved the goalposts. You are a hypocrite.
As for cites, you crippled?
So you have no cites for your claim, and cannot explain why you are talking about Missoula when North Carolina is under discussion. You are a hypocrite.
Oh, right, you have this stereotype in your mind that we're all like the losers in that shitty show Transparent.
You're hilarious. A show I never watched (or even heard of), that you used as an example of men taking womens roles, but it's really just a show about a tranny that you call shitty. *golf clap*
The point is your ridiculous claims about me possibly having sex with a tranny unknowingly. Super-hint: If you've got male parts, it ain't gonna happen, even if you manage to pass and not have man-hands, man-shoulders, man-hips, man-hair, man-jaw, man-voice, or any other number of features that make passing difficult.
Also, we weren't the ones causing the problem with Target, so don't lay that on us.
Your crowd stirred up the drama. You claimed it was just good business and economic sense.
Charlotte, North Carolina, has already lost more than $20 million in business because they passed their bathroom bill
Are you trying to make my point for me? It's the city of Charlotte that started this with a pro trans bathroom bill, and the state that countered it. Charlotte started the drama for no good reason other than the "progressive" cause du jour after moving down the "oppressed" stack after gay marriage was passed.
Why don't you watch Transparent
Because I have zero interest in watching a show about trannies.
It's also not up to us to figure out how to determine if someone is non-functional, because it's not our problem - it's yours.
But you're the one who claimed it wasn't an issue in the first place because of those non-functioning parts. First you dodged the question, then you moved the goalposts. You're a hypocrite.
Also, the bathroom nonsense started a decade ago, in Missoulla, pushed by the local fundie churches.
I don't see a cite here, and regardless of what happened in Missoula, what does that have to do with North Carolina? This is misdirection on your part to avoid the fact that a city passed a pro-trans bathroom law, which prompted a reaction from the state.
You made a clear statement, with no exceptions, and the when I pointed out it wasn't true, you tried to walk it back. Won't work.
It works in context. Sorry, no sale.
Also, I sure didn't have sex with the guys I rented out my spare bedroom to.
So you can't say you would have "passed" in that regard. And if you haven't had genital surgery, you know you wouldn't have passed in that regard.
Do you still call black people niggers?
That's a pretty dumb analogy. I don't believe men can become women, but what does that have to do with what you call black people? A more appropriate analogy would be considering if Rachel Dolezal is black because she made herself look black and "identifies" as black. I consider her white. Do you accept her as black? Do you think the black community should accept her as black?
That $20 million is to accommodate bigots.
As I said, businesses have to deal with irate customers, and it's costing them money, despite your claim that it was good business and economic sense.
First I will note that you completely skipped (for a second time) the question I put to you in response to your assertion: "You made an assertion about non-functionion male genitals. I'm asking how only those transsexuals with non-functioning male genitals will be allowed to use the women's bathroom."
You call me chicken shit (for not fully quoting you, though when pressed you give nothing that would have invalidated my reply), but here you are dodging a question based on your assertion.
I also did not see you admit that the North Carolina anti-trans state law was in response to a pro-trans city law, despite your earlier implication that it was conservatives against gay marriage going after a new target that started all this bathroom nonsense.
You originally said "It never happens."
That's twice now you fabricated a quote that I did not say. I gave a single case, "When men dress up as women in Hollywood movies, it's for a gag." I admitted there were other cases I missed, namely the "progressive" cause du jour of transsexuals.
It doesn't invalidate the context of the argument, which started with you talking about male actors in Shakespeare being accepted as women (turns out the law forbid women from acting at the time). The overwhelmingly vast majority of women's roles in Hollywood are taken by actual women. In fact, the only cases that you gave me were roles where the "women" were transsexual as specified by the role.
you'd get your ass sued
That's what passing trans laws has done, opening up new lawsuit threats. This happens every time the government creates a new "equality" law.
As for the "upset customers", first off, transsexuals and their allies (which are a significant portion of the consumer public) also have the right to be upset by not letting transsexuals pee in the safest place for them.
Everybody has a "right" to be pissed off or not.
They have all discovered that supporting the rights of transsexuals is just good business. It makes economic sense.
No, they all jumped in to the current climate of political correctness and the "progressive" cause du jour. Whether it makes economic sense or not is debatable, as they're really just afraid of the mainstream press targeting them and doing virtue signaling of their own to get positive press.
In response to all this drama, started by "progressives", Target is spending $20 million to install a single-use bathroom for any sex in all its stores.
so again, what are you really afraid of?
How many times do I have to answer this? I'm not afraid of anything, and I have very little interest in the bathroom drama, but you insist on dragging me into this argument, and I feel obliged to correct some of your bullshit and play devil's advocate.
It doesn't cost anything to use the new name and gender, so why do you have a stick up your ass on this issue?
Because I refuse to go along with the herd and participate in other people's delusions. We've already covered this.
And if you think you can tell, you're wrong. Twice last year I rented out my spare bedroom to men for 4 months each.
Congratulations. But there are plenty of cases where I could tell. And I'm guessing you didn't have sex with any of your roommates without them knowing.
Clinton released her medical records
No she didn't. Even the Clinton News Network denies that claim:
"This is certainly not a release of medical records by any means. This is very similar, in some ways, to what we got in July of last year," Gupta said.
No - I'm asking what you are afraid of. That's exactly what I asked. What credible threat is there? So far, it's been all noise, no facts in the bathroom debate.
I answered your question and asked you one in return. You made an assertion about non-functionion male genitals. I'm asking how only those transsexuals with non-functioning male genitals will be allowed to use the women's bathroom. I don't particularly care about the bathroom debate, but you brought it up and made some assertions, so it's only fair that you respond.
Mice way to avoid the question by not quoting the rest. That's pure chicken-shit.
What did I leave out that invalidates my reply? I quote for context, and trim replies to avoid an ever-growing wall of text.
How much money does it cost to let transsexuals use women's bathrooms? None.
You don't own a business and do not have to deal with legal fees or upset customers.
None. How much money does it cost to address transsexuals by their legal name? None.
There's a political and social cost to adjust 99+% of society. If there wasn't, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place, no city ordinances would have passed, and there wouldn't be a big deal being made in the press with liberals falling over themselves to declare how "brave and stunning" Bruce Jenner was for nominally turning himself into a woman instead of focusing on the person he killed with his car.
Again, more bullshit. You said IT NEVER HAPPENED, not that it doesn't happen in the average Hollywood movie. Move the goalposts much? Can't even admit you f*cked up when it's blatantly obvious?
I did admit I was wrong, and added in the other cases from the cause du jour. But there's still a reason why men/trans don't take women's roles in Hollywood in the vast majority of cases.
How do you know that?
The same way that I've spotted a lot of activist trannies championing for women issues before they were eventually confirmed. Most do not pass, or they pass at a glance but the inconsistencies add up. Even Blair White has the kermit the frog voice.
Yeah, sure, it's possible I know somebody who is trans, but I will say for a fact that I don't know anybody who transitioned.
you cannot say with certainty that you have never had sex with a transsexual.
*snort* Ok.