J.C.MacSwell

We wish. The problem is they cancel out too many of the good, too many of the indifferent, and much too many of the innocent. (not criticizing your point Dim, really just taking up your choice of words to make a different point)

"I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience," 73 year old Ronald Reagan in 1984 about 56 year old Walter Mondale

Kind of makes you think...God save Kamala Harris...with Biden well over the average age of life expectancy... OTOH it could get worse...Trump could get re-elected. (not that I think it will happen...but I reassured my sons it wouldn't happen in 2016...such was my trust in the American electorate at that time despite Hilary's obvious shortcomings and foot shooting tendencies...) Comforting to know Biden and Harris will probably outlast his short weeks or months as speaker...for a few seconds...then you remember there is no reasonable replacement that will get the votes to do so...

Usually if someone is unable to breath through their nose when asleep, somehow they are triggered to breath through their mouth. Apparently this case was exceptional to that normal occurrence.

Surely they could make one small exception...

You can of course, detect warmer than expected, even if contacting something cooler than the body. A recently sat on toilet seat being an example familiar to most.

You spelled complicit wrong!😀

Good post. There could well be a lag in any case, with many having symptoms developing pre-ULEZ and showing up after. Also good.

I am not aware of any. No. But I tend to believe that if something is bad for you then the less the better, though I do drive vehicles and contribute to pollution. The devil is in the details.

Finding no evidence doesn't prove that statement, even if it points in that direction. You have to examine the nature of the research and how it was done.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/05/world/ancient-human-population-collapse-scn/index.html Not sure how accepted this is, but seems interesting. Especially the 100,000+ years we may have balanced on the edge of the precipice.

It is about transgenders (in sports of course), not just gender alone...so yes it's certainly complicated but can't be gender alone as transgender means to have changed from your gender assumed from your biological sex (or that assumed at birth) ...and your biological sex, based on your chromosomes, surely aligns with the male advantage. You can argue that some transgender females may have never had this advantage...but you can't ignore that the ones we need to consider for elite sports all did. Laurel Hubbard, for example, surely had lifts that if female at the time would have been significant World Records (I'll look it up if you don't want to...I'm more than confident that's the case if that's not obvious to you as well)

Just making it clear what my context was in that post. The less than 1% I referred to are the intersex and the transgenders therefore almost exclusively included in the 99+%. Right. One way out of this is to start adding categories. Just keep in mind that at elite level many female sports are struggling to find the level of support they would like to have... ...yet nothing prohibits anyone that can find the means to sponsor any number of events for any number of categories...and write their own rules... Link?

No. It's quite probable that the fairness won't be agreed upon, and someone or committee will be left to make a decision. In fact his seems most common at this point in time. Particularly where it's fairly clear no compromise is currently available that would be acceptable to everyone, and nothing of the sort is on the horizon. Having said that, Zapatos mentioned a weight handicap that might work for weightlifting. So if you took the World Record (or 10 best lifts) lifts for XX athletes and compared them to the World Record for XY athletes then that would be a reasonable starting point as long as none used any performance enhancing drugs, and the elite level could be assumed to be comparable. Of course any use of drugs should only be approved by physician, be considered non performance enhancing (or non masking of same) or over the counter drugs not on the list of not allowed. So take the difference, or difference as a percentage...and that's the handicap. Would most transgender athletes consider that fair? I can't speak for Caitlyn Jenner, but I think she might. I also can't speak for any transgenders females currently wanting to compete in the female elite categories, but I suspect they would consider that not fair at all, given they believe themselves female. But if you want to compare humans being the best they can be (without performance enhancing intervention), how is that not fair? ...and this is a sport that lends itself to this type of handicap. Most would be much more difficult. Say for soccer, how much bigger a net would be required to allow an XY goaltender? If the teams were all XX vs all XY the XY net requiring the complete width of the field would not be enough, you would need to increase net height as well and/or reduce number of players allowed on the field for the all XY team. Or how many goals head start would the XX team require, given they will no doubt score none without the above or similar changes of unknown severity?

No one is suggesting that everyone in each of the predominate categories are identical. Of course not. Despite men being taller than average, many women are taller than the average man. Not sure why you feel the need to point this out, given that everyone here understands that it is the top performances of each group that needs to be considered and for many sports there is such a persistent gap that World records are significantly different. The less than 1% refers to the intersex, most of whom do not transgender. Less than 1% of humanity is intersex. Most transgenders, the vast majority, have natural biologies that the science of biology can readily categorize as male or female. Most make up part of the 99+%, and the more athletic ones could dominate some female sports if not burdened by any medical interventions. When I say burdened I am referring to their potential for sports performance...it could be advantageous (or not in some cases) for their well being, depending on the competence of their medical care providers and fit of their medical treatments. These would of course be tailored to the individual and protocols would differ...making any group comparisons fairly useless for accurately assessing effect on sports performance for the purpose of any handicapping individuals for inclusion in a different group. We are talking about biological sex with regard to the significant gap in sports potentials of the top biological males vs biological females. No similar gap is known to persist in the same manner for genders. Bruce Jenner could have become Caitlyn Jenner back in 1976. This would not have changed his/her potential in the decathlon without medical intervention. Obviously this potential could readily be changed by medical intervention, positively or negatively.

FFS I've told you many times. Others have explained it as well. Stop gaslighting the thread and try explaining how you think transgender inclusion can work successfully in elite competitively fair and healthy female sports...if you can think of any practical way it can be done. So far no one has for most sports.

Exactly. The science of biology isn't quite as useless and some have implied here. Biologists reading the thread might want to take heart and drag their degrees back out of the waste basket. Creationists reading it and rubbing their hands with glee while reading some of the arguments for transgender inclusion should not get as emboldened as the arguments might suggest. The science of biology is sufficient to divide 99+% of humanity into biologically male or female and the existence of the less than 1% remaining does not change that. ...nor does any "spectrum", of secondary sex characteristics that includes the 99+%.

Maybe you need to slap your head and try reading that again...

Regardless of what may be motivating it, with regard to transgenders they certainly have: https://www.skysports.com/more-sports/athletics/news/29175/12840994/world-athletics-excludes-transgender-women-from-womens-competition-lord-coe-confirms

...But only because they won't be making the rules for elite sports based on inclusion over competitive fairness and there is a strong trend toward more fully protecting athlete health also. Since this thread started International sports bodies have certainly moved in the direction of my position. It's a shame their position on the intersex has been swept toward less inclusion and/or less health protection but it will be interesting to see what happens as Semenya's case is further resolved.

Why the negative? Don't shoot the messenger. Do you really believe this won't happen at all if (hopefully as) transgenders are better accepted over time? If so Russian and French figure skating judges have some "beautiful" "waterfront" land they would like to sell you... Note that Mistermack is not claiming true transgenders will do this. Paraphrasing INow "Easy to cheap shots, hard to do the real work" (and no I'm not suggesting INow gave the negative) Of course if this was allowed to happen (it won't be) without sound rule changes the money in female sports would sadly shrink. Shouts of "equal pay" would be drowned out by "where's the gate receipts". But it won't happen because the hard work on the rules (and probably at least as much the financial considerations...greed for some) will prevent it or nip it in the bud. Hint to Democrats: voters will accept the greed over the threat of the collapse of elite female sports. Am I overstating the concern? Yes, but only because the extremes won't get to make the rules... cue Dim to reply with that youtube again... (probably a few pages early for Vat to again add his astute observation on this thread)

Or simply female camaraderie. One of the regrettable things about exclusion I think would be missing out on that. I don't think it's anything close to enough to tip the scales for trans inclusion at elite levels, but at recreational level I think it does.

...unless there is some inherent link to potential sports performance. Swansont has suggested there may be. In that case it may be on topic, though obviously nothing sports organizations need consider at this time.

None of this required answers for any sports inclusions or exclusions. For lesbian or gay pride sports or events I think you are just accepted, but that is more recreational level. You both asked, yet I have no idea why. Lesbian athletes are over represented in many sports, and gay men underrepresented. If biology finds an inherent reason why, perhaps a new division or two could be created but I don't see the need for it. I don't see a significant performance gap due to sexual orientation at top levels that compares to the well known XY and XX gaps. This is not something the IOC, say, should be addressing at this time. Clearly a very significant performance gap remains for XY and XX elite level athletes, regardless of their declared gender, medical interventions notwithstanding. If there is something inherent motivating gender declaration, it clearly doesn't show as being significant compared to XX vs XY. I happened to be in the 99+ % of humans where basic level biology made it obvious. One of the many that don't need to point at the fraction of 1% to question any personal exclusion from elite female sports. It was problematic for the less than 1% known as intersex, though only for females with regard to inclusion in elite sports. If you want to include non intersex XY athletes in elite female sports based on possible inherent biological disadvantage, science has a lot of work to do before it becomes useful in doing so.

What would be the scientific test for that? How should the rules be enforced, if not simply accepting an individual's claim? What was Bruce Jenner's gender identity back in 1976? Unknown? It seems most of the definitions I google are trying more to justify rather than describe the working use of the term. With the definition you choose (seem motivated) to use, no one can prove their gender identity.