One of them is a statue of a gold person with wings that they hand out to brain dead glamorous people and the other is a statue of a gold person of a sword that they hand out to brain dead glamorous people. :D

Emmy's are less competitive. There's a smaller number of people in the running for one every year. Hence why so many people win multiple Emmys compared with the number than win multiple Oscars.

And whereas it's possible to star in multiple films in a year, it's rare for somebody to star in multiple TV shows in a given year.

'Smoking kills more people than Obama' poster appears in Moscow.
Russia’s only Liberal MP says poster, which has no attribution, is ‘disgusting and embarrassing’

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/17/moscow-anti-smoking-campaign-uses-obamas-image

Could someone explain why all 4 of my previous posts in this thread are "low rated"? In particular, explain what is wrong with those posts that hinders the discussion, because I don't see anything wrong with them.

Also, why is the first post of this topic "low rated" anyway?

Indian firm launches £5 smartphone, thought to be world's cheapest .

At just over Rs500, handset sold by Ringing Bells is evidence of domestic companies competing strongly with Chinese imports.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/17/india-cheapest-smartphone-worlds-ringing-bells

Breaking Wind

Of course, South Dakota has passed this rather disgusting (and likely unconstitutional) bill:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/south-dakota-passes-bill-bathrooms-transgender-students/

Isn't that more or less the status quo? And I'm not sure how it's unconstitutional you go into the restroom based upon genitals, so it applies to everybody equally.

Now, whether or not that should be the case or is even necessary is a completely different matter. This isn't like same-sex marriage where there were other rights and privileges associated with it.

Actually, the status quo is that trans people (especially those who pass) actually use the bathroom that fits their gender identity and no one notices.

You claim that it applies to everyone equally. Well, back in the day they used to separate bathrooms based of skin color: those with white skin get one bathroom, and those with black skin get a different one. In 1954, the US supreme court ruled that "separate but equal" was not actually equal, in the Brown v. Board of Education.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal

The first three of those posts have nothing to do with non-white transgender people. In fact, the majority of my posts in general are about other topics. (Check my posts on the Wizardry subforum, for example.)

The fourth one happens to actually be relevant to the conversation, so I see no reason to avoid the topic there.

Maybe I'm missing something, but this Separate But Equal reference appears to be a total non-sequitur.

I don't see how "Separate but Equal", as a principle, is wrong (sort of like Communism, in theory, works well). In practice, it was eventually struck down because the separate facilities were routinely and manifestly NOT equal. I don't see why that is relevant evidence about the bathroom discussion, in either direction, unless you are somehow claiming that either men's or women's restrooms are routinely dirtier.

And if the lady restrooms have it worse than some of the guy's restrooms I've seen, then they have my sympathy.

No need to defend yourself. You asked a Question, I gave you an answer.

I just did a little test to show you what I mean... I threw your name into forum search, opened the top 10 results (excluding the Gamergate thread), hit ctrl+f (search) in my browser and typed "gender". 6 out of those 10 threads had a post of you containing the word "gender". Another thread had a post of tinyE containing this word. His post quoted a post of you, were you were talking about abusive dads and single or lesbian mothers. I didn't read what you wrote in the remaining 3 threads.

http://www.gog.com/forum/general/the_bitch_about_life_in_general_thread/post8422 (find post #8422)
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/what_made_you_happy_today/post2670
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/lets_play_corrupt_a_wish/post2656
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/what_does_the_avatar_of_the_person_above_you_remind_you_of/post5366
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/i_wish_more_people_played_classic_crpgs/post20
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/lands_of_lore_clue_book_pdf_is_gog_interested/post18
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/happy_fathers_day/post4

Again: No need to justify any of these postings. I just wanted to let you know that there's at least one person on this forum, who thinks of you as "a something that doesn't stop to create gender issues out of everything". Maybe there are more users like me and maybe they love to hit this minus button - and having a very short look at the Gamergate downvote fest, I think this isn't too far off...

One thing to consider:

A search will generally favor the most popular topics. In particular, it will ignore less popular topics.

Also, I typically post many times in the same thread. Therefore, even if I mention gender in a majority of threads, that does *not"* mean I talk about it in the majority of posts.

I think you need fancier methodology to really check this claim.
If it's the user I'm thinking of, that user has targeted me with personal attacks most of the time, and IMO should have been punished for doing so. This forum needs some moderation to deal with the worst cases. (There's a difference between disagreement over an issue and personal attacks; the former is generally OK, but the latter is not.)

Also, many of the responses to the posts where I mentioned things relating to gender seem to indicate that the topic does need to be discussed, and that people were interested in discussing it. (If nobody were interested in discussing the topic, my posts about it wouldn't get any replies, but they do.)