Forcier - No, it's not relevant at all. I'm not playing word games with this one. If you're worried that your ideas can be made to look absurd by giving a straight answer to a question like; "do female chickens lay eggs?" the problem lies with your ideas. Not the question or even the questioner.

I'd bet a million bitcoin that you haven't seen the film, so you don't get to talk about "the context of the film." But if you're wiling to open your mind even a tiny bit, you can click on the link I've helpfully included in the article and watch the clip for yourself. It's astonishing how confidently people will argue about things they know nothing about.

Bowers - Asking a doctor who performs irreversible surgery on the genitals and breasts of children, whether she is concerned about the possibility that what those children say about themselves is wrong, is not a "gotcha" question. It could be very easily rephrased as. Are you concerned that what you're doing violates the Hippocratic oath. The answer, for any doctor, should always be "yes."

That concern doesn't mean they won't ever perform those surgeries. But to be totally unconcerned by the nature of what they're doing, especially given the notorious lack of follow-up with trans patients post-surgery, or the fact that more and more people, mainly teenage girls are detransitioning and regretting, is blatantly unethical.

Also, the question doesn't even involve hormones so I'm not sure why you're bringing them up. Or rather, I am. It's because you're making your arguments up as you go along. Once again, I refer you to the clip I helpfully linked in the article.

Grzanka - Actually, the very first question Walsh asks is whether sex and gender are different. Grazanka gets ample opportunity to explain those differences, supposedly his field of expertise, and ends up with "they are and they aren't."

Similarly, Grzanka seems genuinely blindsided when it's pointed out to him that his definition of "woman is uselessly circular. It's as if he's managed to go thorough his entire career and never had a person question the fact that he's defining a word with the word. This is the problem with echo chambers. They make you stupid.

The interviewer did entertain a discussion. Again, you are arguing with your imagination. I refer you to...well, you get the idea by now.

So no. I'm not arguing in bad faith. I'm arguing about something I've seen with somebody who hasn't seen it. And who is apparently incapable of distinguishing their projections about what might have been happening with the reality of what was. Because you're not interested in the truth. You're interested only in finding a way to justify the stupid, irresponsible and unethical behaviour of the people in the film.

And no. I didn't misrepresent Lia's rankings. They were taken from this article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/02/03/lia-thomas-penn-swimming-teammates/), which I linked in the original article. The claim that Lia's ranking jumped from 462nd to 1st comes directly from Lia's teammates. You're welcome to argue with them.