J.C.MacSwell

I happen to be the World Weightlifting champion in my category, assuming the arbiters get it right, and exclude anyone capable of lifting more than I can. ...and though not quite as many people are willing to spend their hard earned money to watch me play as, say the American Men's Soccer Team... I demand equal pay! https://www.cnn.com/videos/sports/2022/05/18/us-soccer-equal-pay-deal-gingras-pkg-lead-vpx.cnn

I think you must have skipped the half of the arguments in the last 36 pages that didn't support your opinion, or failed to follow the logic in them, while believing your own were fairly robust. Reading this post of yours, Wolfgang Pauli's "not even wrong" quote comes to mind here.

Even in the "Wild West", where none of the assault level weapons of today existed, there were laws in place to restrict guns: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west-180968013/ "Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business"

Hopefully only sports where this is actually true, otherwise we are back to the 1920s with limited female participation.

Gender is a choice. You can't choose to have XY chromosomes, which all other things being equal give a distinct advantage in the vast majority of sports.

You're welcome to not read my posts, or not respond to them, as you see fit. If you ask a question I'll do my best to answer it, just as I did with my replies you took a "dig" at.

It's not. It doesn't mean women cannot or should not compete at any level. It just means they have significant extra hurdles to overcome, as they don't have some well known advantages of XY males. Those include physical ones, not just those that might be unfairly motivated.

It is. But that doesn't make it sufficient for optimal riding. My point is that it's not just the correct position, but the correct dynamic, and that dynamic is not just about signalling. https://horseracingsense.com/how-do-jockeys-make-horses-go-faster/

Maybe you should give her more credit, given what she had to overcome to achieve that success.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/13/politics/abortion-right-polling-roe-v-wade/index.html Seems that few Americans have positions on abortions that reflect the extremes of either party. "A few months ago, Lydia Saad at Gallup did a great roundup of how Americans responded to the different ways questions about the legality of abortion have been asked. counted nearly 20 ways and found anywhere from massive support for abortion rights (north of 80% for abortions to save the life of the mother) to massive opposition (only about 10% were in favor of legal third-trimester abortions)." Most tend toward more moderate positions. "An AP-NORC poll from last year that 23% thought abortion should always be legal, 33% said it should mostly be legal, 30% said mostly illegal and 13% believed it should always be illegal." With much of the polling data depending on how and what question is asked.

If you go back to my original mention, I said power to weight ratio, but admitted when it was brought up that strength, which is related to that, is a consideration as are some other aspects of physical fitness. I've allowed the goalposts to get wider, but not otherwise moved the net. I'm quite willing to consider where it is defendable and where it might not be.

My argument against your references is that it doesn't address my assumptions in any direct manner. Why should it change my position? It is essentially mostly noise in that regard, and statistically inconclusive in any case. It really hasn't attempted to isolate the importance of fitness to success as a jockey. What you provided may satisfy you, because you don't believe fitness is significant enough to matter, even at top levels. So you conclude: "However, systematic analyses indicate that there a no significant advantages of men over women and the over-representation of men are driven by these biases." How jockeys are chosen may in fact be sexist and unfair, but I think this is a reach on top of a reach given the limits of your references. Why is it that the riders movements become so much more dynamic toward the end of the race? Is it simply to signal to the horse to encourage them to run faster? Or is it something more optimal that they simply cannot maintain for the whole race? It doesn't need to be to affect motor skills. I tried to get a link to support that but what mostly comes up is with regard to skill acquisition. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6443347/ "While the effect of fatigue on limiting skill execution are well known, its influence on learning new skills is unclear." Well known yet hard to search I guess...I tried rewording but found nothing better to this point.

Because I might beat them...amirite? I think it's a physical sport for jockeys...so I must be in favour of beating horses. No worries Phi. As incredible as that claim is...you aren't likely to get much pushback on it here. Just for fun though, run that by a competitive female jockey and see if she agrees.

I made no claim with regard to strength specifically, though that does come into play, even if the rider is sufficiently strong for the task. (physical skills often reduce as maximal exertion is approached) But the article does say: "With this action, the rider slightly overcompensates for the horse’s motion. This movement requires substantial mechanical work by the jockey." "The work required by a rider during a race will have his heart near-maximum beats per minute." It's a physical sport, and not just for the horse. Ask any competitive jockey, regardless of sex.

You really don't understand dynamics. But the confidence you're displaying in your misunderstanding is admirable. https://horseracingsense.com/how-do-jockeys-make-horses-go-faster/ Is this unique to horses? Human athletes use overspeed training and, for some magical reason...live to compete afterward. Who here are claiming either is? To the point of this thread; without proper and fair segregations in sport, truly elite athletes dedicated to develop those skills and mental acuities can't compete with elite athletes (and often even less than elite athletes) that have certain levels of some physical attributes due to their XY chromosomes, without arbitrary restrictions forced on them in a less than healthy manner. (Ironically, in the case of jockeys where the ideal weight is at an extreme of the normal XY adult range...the needs of the sport tend to put unhealthy pressures on them as well) Bingo! You thought wrong. My assumption is that being a top jockey is very physical and in that regard it gives biological males an advantage.

I think much depends on what you mean by this. Are you claiming the horses potential cannot be increased by the burden of having a rider? Or are you claiming a rider can't physically reduce that burden by optimal physical effort? (the optimal part being based on skill and/or mental aspects and the physical effort part based on physical fitness advantage) Right. And I don't believe you are skeptical enough, especially to reach the conclusion you did. It mentioned 43 past and present licensed jockeys. What were their ages and fitness levels? What were their weights during the tests? How many of the formerly licensed jockeys had health issues that might affect the results? How many were at race weight? How were the differences all accounted for? Shouldn't that alone raise your skepticism? This study is early on the subject and limited, covering aspects that don't even pertain to top racing speeds, and even the best scientific studies are susceptible to bias. If, as you suspect, the data was actually slightly biased toward men, do you think they made no attempt to account for that? Or if they did...how reasonably did they do so?

In fairness to both sides though, that would require each side to take difficult and thoughtful moderate positions toward stacking congress, rather than relying on much easier hyperbole hoped to lead to opportunities to stack the SC and let them do the heavy lifting toward permanent progress. I kid of course...everyone keep their shirt on...😄 Back to serious mode...not sure I fully understand that but thanks. I'll have to look into that.

Do you feel the constitution would need to be ignored to overturn Roe vs Wade?

Thanks for both. If we want to protect the good parts of our way of life, and make progress on the rest, the last thing we need are white nationalists.

Not challenging the point you are making, but what backlash remains against the abolition of slavery? Also what is the FoD? (Googling it I got nothing that made sense to the context)

As per my link earlier the SCOTUS at least considers pain when ruling on executions, and I would think would again on any gaps left by any overturning of Roe vs Wade, or it's replacements in Law if congress ever produces anything. But I would suspect essence more so, whether possible or not to measure it even indirectly, or by reasonable assumptions in comparison of fetal development vs baby out of womb.

I would suspect that viability might be pretty close to the point where a majority of Americans would consider the fetus to have a right to life, as long as it did not significantly threaten the life of the mother. I'm not sure what religions would advocate based on that, assuming it matters beyond their influence on votes. I did bring up pain. Pain and loss of essence (with the reasoning that both affected fetuses further from the point of conception). Pain considerations seemed to be questioned more than essence, maybe as it is considered more tangible? Is the Law just about the other?

I certainly agree with that.

You're right of course Dim. It's certainly a lot easier if I don't, or refuse to, empathise with what I eat. But I do hope and like to assume it has been treated as "humanely" as practical.

To the degree we can reasonably expect a fetus has developed enough to feel pain, and to what degree, I think that would be one criterion in weighing the rights we might choose to allow it. If we still choose to abort it, surely that should still be considered as to how it is done.