The topic is males and females.  You know what I'm addressing, yet you refuse to address that we are not equal.

Are we to believe that male athletes are better, yet women are not better than men at anything?  That makes no sense to me.

WE ARE NOT EQUAL IN EVERYTHING!  Arguing this point is illogical and stupid.

Sorry, but I know how to read and I speak ENglish.   This was your topic:

Why is a Secret Service agent chosen because of tits or skin color?

You havent explained why someone with tits or dark skin is less equal than a white man at the job of secret service....and you really dont want to talk about that when it comes to president..   

So you're now running away from your topic that you cant defend so you can make some other point about femailes not being able to play linebacker in the NFL.   And score one for you !    And score minus 30 to anyone's IQ who bothered to open this thread.

Are you really arguing that size and strength should not enter into the qualifications?

Don't engage with stupid.  I had a low opinion of MAGA before I stumbled on this forum, I thought it was about AP play and Vegas deals. Now after interacting with the two local MAGA folks, oh my!

Side note, I walked into my local casino a bit ago, and the guy at the door said, "Welcome to paradise!"

I replied,"It's amazing! Better than I ever could have imagined!" We both chuckled.

Coming here has had the opposite effect on me about MAGA.

Wow, this thread deteriorated quickly.  

If you can't grasp my argument, I'll type slowly.  MEN AND WOMEN ARE NOT EQUAL, AND TO ARGUE OTHERWISE IS DUMB.  I proved my point with indisputable evidence of track and field.

We should hire the best Secret Service agents, regardless of tits.  TO ARGUE OTHERWISE IS DUMB.

I find this stuff fascinating. When females are held to the same physical standards as men, they have problems. Obviously. That's just reality.

For example, to cut to the chase, you might want to look up women attempting to be Navy SEALS the last decade or so. They were held to the same standards as males.

Now, as far as actually getting INTO the armed services, the entrance requirements are graded on a gender curve, so a trans woman could pass while as a man he would fail.

There is a problem in the field with having females-laden units versus all-male units. We don't read about the results of such comparisons...at all. When something isn't mentioned, there are usually reasons it's not mentioned.

I have a friend, an ex-Army guy, who was considering rejoining the service after a decade of Reserve duty, then a couple years off. He realized he could immediately pass the exams if he declared he was a woman. But he couldn't if he declared he was a man. It would take him months of training to pass the physical tests right now. Is that fair? Is that efficient?

Anyway, the point is, the Secret Service is much more like the military than, say, working at Starbucks.

Foil hat, I had to mention it.

LOL. Sorry, man, I've edited military reports as part of technical writing courses at Penn State. My one professor was from the Army War College, where he also taught. When something doesn't get mentioned in military reports, that's not a foil hat. That's a reason.

I get a kick out of you, Max. You don't address anything I actually said that was pertinent. You took a throwaway  line, attacked it, and are actually dead wrong. I once edited a report of a tank being driven into a swamp. It took me two pages to figure out what the hell was going on. No names in the report of course, all passive voice, and no direct explanations of who directed what to happen. That wasn't accidental. That wasn't me wearing a foil hat. That was someone writing a report where there would be consequences if the info made the light of day.

But you, Max, know better. Sure you do. You want to take a stab at addressing the lack of female Navy SEALS? Or the differential gender qualifying rules for military?

I argue that tit's shouldn't matter when hiring.  Libs believe that tit's should matter.   Enough said.