Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
It's not effectively a blanket ban, there's no ban at all.
Forcing people to compete with people they are unequal with is effectively a blanket ban.
Not being good enough to compete/qualify is not a ban.
Please read what I said. You're still not understanding what I am saying.
I understand just fine, you're trying to claim that only allowing males to compete against other males is somehow banning trans females.
That is not what I am saying. Hence your inability to understand.
Not being good enough to compete is not a ban of any kind. By that logic obese people are banned from Olympic sprinting.
You're just arguing against a strawman.
Are you calling yourself a strawman or your position?
Then you must not understand what a strawman is.
Here you go
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
You claimed I was arguing against a strawman, I still don't know if you're calling yourself or your argument a strawman.