Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yeah, but isn't making starting quarterback an accomplishment that the son made, and not something foisted upon him at birth?

How did this turn into a thread about Payton and Eli Manning?

Monster Rain wrote:Yeah, but isn't making starting quarterback an accomplishment that the son made, and not something foisted upon him at birth?

I think Varsity Blues is the answer to your question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:How did this turn into a thread about Payton and Eli Manning?

Eli does look like James Van Der Beek.

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:About the kid who parents want people to guess his sex, what about when said child has to go into a public restroom?

Many people believe that sexually delineated restrooms are oppressive.

I remember when some woman thought she could just let other women use the men's room because the women's restroom smelt bad, stopped that real quick, mainly because I had to use the bathroom.

Ahtman wrote:How did this turn into a thread about Payton and Eli Manning?

No. There is another.

halonachos wrote:
I remember when some woman thought she could just let other women use the men's room because the women's restroom smelt bad, stopped that real quick, mainly because I had to use the bathroom.

Honestly I find it funny that very few people have no problem being seen going into a bathroom by members of the opposite sex, but very many of them have a problem being seen in a bathroom by members of the opposite sex.

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:
I remember when some woman thought she could just let other women use the men's room because the women's restroom smelt bad, stopped that real quick, mainly because I had to use the bathroom.

Honestly I find it funny that very few people have no problem being seen going into a bathroom by members of the opposite sex, but very many of them have a problem being seen in a bathroom by members of the opposite sex.

Because its icky down there, and quite frankly kind of disgusting. I believe that Carlos Mencia had a quote about that.

halonachos wrote:About the kid who parents want people to guess his sex, what about when said child has to go into a public restroom?

When you have children you will find that the choice of public restroom they go into depends on the sex of the parent who takes them there.

People who are particularly concerned about this issue can take their children into the disabled and/or parents' baby-changing room instead, since these venues are non-gendered.

halonachos wrote: I believe that Carlos Mencia had a quote about that.

He is still allowed to live?

dogma wrote:

Ketara wrote:
No. I gave some behaviours she has that might be considered not feminine. She has others that would be considered feminine. You're jumping to conclusions based on too little data. She is gender neutral.

By that criteria everyone is gender neutral because everyone exhibits traits that are both feminine and masculine. For example, I like to play sports, drink beer, look at attractive women, and work on cars; all masculine traits. However, I also like to go shopping, read poetry, watch Hollywood gossip television, read gossip blogs on which that television is based, and I own 17 pairs of shoes; all feminine traits.

*Shakes head sadly*

Alas, you once again base your conclusions on too little data. I never said the criteria for being gender neutral was solely exhibiting both feminine and masculine aspects. I was simply responding to the claim she was of the masculine gender, due to exhibiting some masculine aspects, which would be inaccurate.

Ketara wrote:
*Shakes head sadly*

Alas, you once again base your conclusions on too little data. I never said the criteria for being gender neutral was solely exhibiting both feminine and masculine aspects. I was simply responding to the claim she was of the masculine gender, due to exhibiting some masculine aspects, which would be inaccurate.

My point is that she doesn't seem to be gender neutral even by your criteria, as you do not refer to her as a non-gendered person except where behooved by circumstance. You called her a lad, and really haven't expressed her neutralness to us.

And anyway, it isn't possible to ne non-gendered, It is possible to not be neither female or male, but it is not possible to lack gender altogether.

dogma wrote:

Ketara wrote:
*Shakes head sadly*

Alas, you once again base your conclusions on too little data. I never said the criteria for being gender neutral was solely exhibiting both feminine and masculine aspects. I was simply responding to the claim she was of the masculine gender, due to exhibiting some masculine aspects, which would be inaccurate.

My point is that she doesn't seem to be gender neutral even by your criteria, as you do not refer to her as a non-gendered person except where behooved by circumstance. You called her a lad, and really haven't expressed her neutralness to us.

And anyway, it isn't possible to ne non-gendered, It is possible to not be neither female or male, but it is not possible to lack gender altogether.

And my point is that you're basing several steps of reasoning on incomplete data on a person you do not know, thus leading to flawed conclusions.

Just out of interest, if one is not a man or a woman, what gender are they?

Ketara wrote:
And my point is that you're basing several steps of reasoning on incomplete data on a person you do not know, thus leading to flawed conclusions.

No, I'm explaining a logical impossibility. If gender is a thing, and it isn't limited to sex, then it cannot be nonexistent in any member of any set in which gender can exist. Even calling someone "non-gendered" would gender them.

Ketara wrote:
Just out of interest, if one is not a man or a woman, what gender are they?

Whatever they want to call it. Transgender is a catchall that exists because most English speakers are afraid of sex, gender, and anything that has to do with genitalia.

Ach. Have to hurry off to work now. We'll have to do this another time, dear sir.