Outrider
-
Posts
299 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Outrider
-
-
Autism is such a catch all term these days that the original question makes little sense.
Anecdotal I know but fwiw.
My son was diagnosed at eight years old. During the course of I realized I had a lot of the "symptoms "
But we are completely different. Hes very coordinated, still has trouble comprehending what he reads and is emotionally aloof. That last part does not stop him from doing things for people but if his help does not help he just dosen't feel it. Where it wrecks me.
I was reading 12th grade literature in the sixth grade but still cannot do a jumping jack to save my life.
My point is that I think autism is one of those things that is very undiagnosed and the term has become so broad that it's not really useful.
0 -
Who cares? Not me. As has already been said this "issue" will go away with time as we all get used to a new reality. I used to be uncomfortable around homosexuals. But as I am around them more that did pass.
I am a widower (covid took Laura three years ago) and I do date and occasionally have sexual relations and I would be offended if the lady wasn't always a lady and did not tell me. I think when you are intimate with someone they deserve to know your history. Period.
Also in youth sports (don't give a damn what the pros do) I would not like to see a young ladies one chance to be a hero for her small town taken away by someone who was born a biological male.
Otherwise it's none of my business.
I have only know two openly trans. Both born 100% female according to them. Lucinda asked that I call them a he. I asked would it be ok if I just called them Lucinda. They were fine with that.
Sally does not (according to them) know what Sally is but is ok with being referred to as Sally.
It's really not that hard 95% of the time.
To answer your question Phi. 95% of the time yes I get to identify as whatever I want to be. But in a very small number of cases where it is take away from a cis or a trans. I think society has the right to make a decision. It would be case by case and I personally would not want to be in the position of making that decision. I could if I had to.
0 -
Quote
"Here," write an international team led by physicist Tolulope Ajayi of Ohio University and Argonne National Laboratory in the US, "we show that X-rays can be used to characterize the elemental and chemical state of just one atom."
Heh.
There is a lot I don't understand here but I did find the news very exciting and wanted to share.
The scientists are using synchrotron x-rays. A process of accelerating electrons in a circular path to make them glow with light. They are also using a technique called scanning tunneling microscopy which takes advantage of quantum tunneling and may lead to better understanding of that phenomenon. Hence my excitement 🙂
This all according to my understanding of the article.
Either of which (the article or my understanding) could well be flawed. Any corrections and or comment will ofc be appreciated!
The paper is behind a fairly pricey paywall.
0 -
14 hours ago, Kurious12 said:
Isn't giving the universe an age based on the limit of our technology the same thing as standing on a beach back in 1300 AD, looking out on the horizon and saying the earth is flat because that's all we can see?
Others have done a good job addressing some of your misconceptions. You have a lot of reading to do if you really want to understand the mountain of evidence we have on the age of the universe. I suggest "pale blue dot" by Carl Sagan. It's a bit dated but still a great starting point to a wonderful journey should you take it.
So whats the difference you asked. Well the person on the beach didn't go look. We (as a species) have. Billions have been spent and many very smart individuals have spent their whole lives investigating the age of the universe question.
The person on the beach could have found a way to travel in a straight line till they arrived back at the beach. Then would have known the earth isn't flat.
Or they could have used some sticks and shadows like Eratosthenes did over 2,000 years ago.
0 -
1 hour ago, MigL said:
My opinion ...
Recreational sports should allow playing by males, females, trans, and whatever other gender classifications you wish to come up with.
It has nothing to do with size or strength because until they reach puberty they are arguably equally strong ( and girls might actually be larger, on average ), but mostly with the fact that it is recreational.
( and I don't understand why your government would have legislation preventing this )Girls can play in the more competitive male leagues. Boys cannot play in the less competitive female leagues. That is the system in the USA. I don't see any need to change it. In 2018 we had 2,404 girls playing high scool football.
1 hour ago, Peterkin said:There, I can't really agree. I don't see parenting as gender-specific.
Missed this earlier. This is the only thing in your post I disagree with. I won't go into it. To far off topic.
1 hour ago, Peterkin said:All children need to be respected, encouraged, assisted and accepted - as well as disciplined, instructed and corrected.
Agreed.
1 hour ago, Peterkin said:misplaced post
There, I can't really agree. I don't see parenting as gender-specific. All children need to be respected, encouraged, assisted and accepted - as well as disciplined, instructed and corrected. There are statistical differences in how boys and girls behave at a given age - but nobody's raising statistics; we're raising individuals - every child a singularity. Our daughter was headstrong, impulsive and temperamental. Our son was clever, subtle and manipulative. They needed quite different handling - because of their character, not their sex.
Of course. But generally with boys the emphasis is in teaching them not to be a predator. In girls not to be prey. But if you get something else then you have to do something else.
0 -
18 minutes ago, CharonY said:
Going through the thread I think the common theme is that we need to provide options. This might include opportunities to contact or non-contact sports and potentially (there might some disagreement here) less inhibition in terms of what kids choose to play. I think to a certain degree one can apply common sense without necessary planning for every possible contingency here
Maybe big schools could have a less competitive league or something. My son's graduating was less than 80. In high school you really need 30 to 40 kids to be competitive in football. We struggled to keep 30 or more on the team. Not really seeing any options in that sport for small schools. I relate everything to football because my son dropped all other sports in junior high. Both the girl and the boy played many different sports in we elementary. She stayed in softball awhile but finally dropped everything but cheerleading when she entered high school.
7 minutes ago, Peterkin said:If a pair of 15-year-olds want to be together, I'm sure could a better place to play show-and-tell than a public toilet. Besides, they have cubicles, with doors.
One 15 year old creeping on another is not the same thing.
0 -
6 minutes ago, CharonY said:
Especially on the recreational level participants together with coaches could figure out how "hard" they want to go into. From my experience at least it worked reasonably well. For example, we had one boy who was developing much faster than the rest of us but was asked to hold back a bit when playing against girls (and I wished he had held back against me, too).
I'm glad that was your experience. It wasn't mine at all. My boy started football at 5 years old. 60 kids on that team. Not what you want as a coach. 20 to 25 is ideal at that age. Ranging in age from 4 to 6. The first game maybe half of them played including my son was usually the biggest kid around. After the game I asked the coaches were they gonna play the other kids in the next game. I got blank stares and was asked did I not want to win. 25 years later there are still those who dislike me. The number of parents who did not care to win at any cost out numbered the ones that did and we were able to get all the kids significant playing time. So for 13 years I sat with parents who hated me and cheered on our team.
0 -
50 minutes ago, zapatos said:
Kind of like making someone use the bathroom that corresponds to the sex listed on your birth certificate.
Ahh this whole other thread but with apologies to the op it needs answered. I wouldn't have wanted a 15 year old boy in the bathroom with my daughter when she was that age. I think the final answer to this is to make all restrooms gender neutral.
0 -
7 minutes ago, zapatos said:
No. It is not just 'nurture'. 'Nature' is involved too.
You are using outdated stereotypes to make your point.
Still doesn't address iNow's point of this thread being about Secondary school.
Sorry Zapatos, iNow, board. I totally missed that this topic is restricted to secondary schools. High schools is a more popular term round these parts. I'll try to do better.
This makes things a lot more simple. Lets just keep the current system. If a girl desires to compete in the male league that is fine. Not so the other way around. If the quarterback prefers to go to the prom in a dress that is their prerogative. Swimming on the female team is not.
Gender divisions were created for a reason and that reason has not changed. Taking some pills does not change your gender it just puts you on that path.
And if you have an 18 year old who has successfully transitioned into a female. IMO you have over sexualized that child somewhere along the way. But sure let her swim with the gals.
1 hour ago, Peterkin said:That's how boys have been expected to play. If you've had much to do with them, you know that children try to live up to adults' expectation of them. And I know this from experience: If a boy has been told all his life to "man up" "Stop being a wuss!" "You're such a loooooserrr!" etc, he will be more aggressive, whether it comes naturally to him or not. If a girl has been told all her life to smile, be polite, be pretty, nobody likes a tomboy, she will be less competitive. If they've only ever been allowed to rough-house with other boys or play house with other girls, they won't learn how to play together. What has been the norm doesn't necessarily have to stay the norm forever.
But surely there is some middle ground somewhere. I have two children. I raised the boy to be a man. He is. Yesterday I saw his newborn sleeping on his chest and him being as nurturing as any person could be. I cried like a girl I guess you could say. I felt no shame in it. I guess different fathers have different concepts of what being a man is. I raised the girl to be a lady and so she is. She lives alone and changes her flat tires, fixes her leaky toilet, etc. And then she goes to school and gently teaches 3 and 4 year olds.
40 minutes ago, zapatos said:No. It is not just 'nurture'. 'Nature' is involved too.
And I think the jury is still very much out on which holds more sway.
I also think we agree that girls need different things from their dads then what boys need.
0 -
5 minutes ago, zapatos said:
Many Christian schools. This is from an older article but is still an example.
These are private schools. Nothing I can do about that. If you want me to say it, fine. Generally females are allowed to compete in male leagues. If a female in a private school wishes to compete against males she does have the option of enrolling in a public school.
My point stands.
0 -
3 minutes ago, iNow said:
Lots of 21 and 23 year olds in secondary school, are there?
I retracted that see above^^
Lets make the cutoff between amateur and pro.
0 -
17 hours ago, iNow said:
So, what might be the best approach assuming inclusion of trans kids in sports is the desired outcome?
IMO you really need to come up with a more specific example.
In regards to what I posted earlier "at 21 years and older anything goes" I'd like to retract that. I was wrong. Reading some of Lia Thompson's story made me realize that.
https://www.foxnews.com/sports/penn-swimmer-lia-thomas-olympics-trans-women-not-threat-womens-sports
QuoteThomas, 23, addressed concerns that despite going through a year of hormone therapy, she still had a physical advantage over other female swimmers.
So what? He took pills for a year and that made him a female? I think not. If Lia would like to be addressed as she then that should be respected. But I think the key word here is "transitioning". Until the transformation is complete Lia should compete in the male class.
My opinion of course.
Also, of course, this is under the current system. I'm still chewing on the whole "let's dissolve gender classifications" thing. All of my emotions cry no, no, no. Which is why I should think on it some more.
19 minutes ago, Peterkin said:You don't think a culture like that needs a reset?
What made you think that? Yes we need to change many things.
24 minutes ago, Peterkin said:Anyway, I'm willing to put up with the unfair advantage of children whose parents are rich and ruthless enough to find a surgical facility corrupt enough to perform that procedure; I imagine those kids will go to private school where they're no threat to normal people, and the parents will die accidentally by own firearms.
Now thats the Peterkin I know and love.
0 -
3 hours ago, Peterkin said:
Nobody's going to replace their child's normal feet with robotic ones, just to win at football.
Again sorry inow but this also needs addressed. How unusual for you Peterkin. Giving humanity to much credit. Every spring 12 and 13 year old boys are dressed up in garbage bags and made, by their fathers, to run and/or sit in vehicles on hot days with heater on full blast. This is to cheat the weight limit rule. To give their boy another year in less competitive football league.
Trust me theres a few fathers out there willing to mutilate their kids in order to bring them athletic success. Prob a mom or two as well.
14 minutes ago, zapatos said:I'll assume you meant that "generally", because it is certainly not true in "any and all leagues".
I'll bite. Which league are they excluded by regulation from?
Maybe you can find me an example we will see. But my main thrust was to clear up Clint Eastwood's misconception about American football.
A collegiate basketball coach may not give a lady the "look" she deserves but that's her/his/their prejudice not regulation.
Back to topic.
What do you think of my proposal?
14 hours ago, zapatos said:In grammar school, trans girls should compete with cis girls, and trans boys should compete with cis boys. While I suppose there will be exceptions, this should be the general rule.
In secondary school this general rule will continue except at the varsity level. Varsity level is where winning or losing could potentially have a significant impact on a person's life, such as being drafted in some sports, winning scholarships, etc.
At the varsity level there should be additional rules such as handicapping, rules regarding level of transition attained, particular sports it applies to, etc. I am purposely not adding detail here because it is not my area of expertise and therefore would not be meaningful.
The two general guidelines I am following are:
1. Transgendered students must have reasonable opportunities just as cisgendered students do.
2. Not everyone gets to do everything. Just like Title IX doesn't guarantee women will have the exact same sporting opportunities the men have, it does ensure a reasonable amount/type of opportunities.
I am no expert and this is likely not my final thoughts on the matter. It does however seem like a reasonable possibility and a reasonable place to start.
Since I asked you to weigh my proposal I thought it only fair I took a closer look at yours.
I find I'm in total agreement with what you had to say. Bravo!
I can only add what I have already stated. If you are that one in ever how many girls that can compete with boys and you have that desire well then have at it. I think the current system in the USA accommodates this.
0 -
13 hours ago, MigL said:
Why not pressure your government , federal or state level, that it has no business legislating kid's recreational activities ?
Doesn't your Government have better things to do ? Like legislating abortion rights, and gun laws ?
In Canada girls can play hockey with boys, if they can make the cut. And many do.
Girls are even allowed to join the boy scouts.
Why must the US always do things the hard way ?Long time lurker here and as some of you know I pop up from time to time. So sorry inow. I know this isn't the topic but this misconception needs to be addressed. Girls are allowed to play American football in any and all leagues. Straight up to and including NFL.
QuoteIn 2018, 2,404 girls played high school tackle football, compared to just about 500 girls playing in 2008, according a study by the National Football League. That’s a fivefold increase in the number of girls playing football in the last decade. From 2008 to 2018, 47 of 50 states saw an increase in the percentage of girls who play full-contact high school football, according to the NFL’s study.
My son started at age 5. There were 10 girls on the sixty person squad. The last female dropped out in junior high. She may have felt some societal pressure but she was not excluded by any regulation.
ASFASIK ladies are allowed to play in mens leagues period. And, for me, as it should be. But the reverse is not true. Again I think thats fair.
Back to topic. Here is my simple solution. Up to the age of 21 you play as the sex you were born with under the current system. Girls can play in male leagues but not visa versa. After that anything goes.
Be a mess for Olympic committee I guess but they will sort it out. 21 and under games and over 21 games maybe.
We can quibble over the age I guess. Any cut off will of course be arbitrary. It's a messy world. We just do the best we can.
0 -
This is a simulation not an animation. In my opinion it is awesome.
Before scientists had to chose between long, large scale simulations with little detail or short, fine detail simulations. But with the Hazel Hen supercomputer in Stuttgart, with16,000 cores running for over a year. A simulation of a cube of space measuring more than 230 million light-years in diameter and has 20 billion particles representing dark matter, stars, cosmic gas, magnetic fields, and supermassive black holes has been generated. The team was led by Dr. Annalisa Pillepich of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, and Dr. Dylan Nelson of the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics.
Two papers have been published and I will link those at the end.
I read about this here.
The papers are on the monthly notices of the Royal Astronomy Society and are linked below.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/490/3/3234/5556547
And.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/490/3/3196/5566345
Enjoy!
I have only watched on my phone but am looking forward to watching on tv in just a bit.
P.S.
I hate that I never get on here to post anymore but I do read very interesting content almost daily.
Keep up the good work!
1 -
59 minutes ago, zapatos said:
Again, you can infer that she did that, and maybe it is true, but it was not clearly stated. She said "I was educated about tropes, I don't want to offend anyone, I am sorry". A perfect example of how to apologize without actually admitting guilt.
1 hour ago, zapatos said:It looked to me like she apologized because she was pressured to do so. Saying she was taught about anti-Semitic tropes could have been a way to make her apology more palatable to others.
The fact that she ended her apology with a reiteration of her concern but in softer tones makes me think she is sorry about nothing but getting called out.
To me the apology seemed 'well crafted' more than a sincere belief she did something wrong.
I agree with all that.
1 hour ago, zapatos said:I agree that she knew what she was doing. I think the difference in our opinions is that you feel she was slurring Jews, and I feel she was probably just criticizing both the use of money by this group to influence politicians, and politicians who are influenced by money
I have been misunderstanding you quite a bit. Sorry about that.
I think she used a slur to criticize policy and did it on purpose.
AIPAC is a political action committee (PAC) which basically means they legally bribe politicians to vote in their interest. I am very much against PAC's on principle. In particular AIPAC is a bad one because the money comes from Israel. So we have other countrys bribing our politicians to influence our foreign policy with them. Ain't America great.
So Omar has every right to criticize them. But Omar wasn't criticizing PAC's in general or even PAC's funded with foreign money. She was criticizing a Jewish sympathetic PAC and using an anti-Semitic trope to do it.
1 hour ago, zapatos said:But as I said before, I may be wrong about her words, as subtle attacks on Jews is not as clear to me as subtle attacks on some other groups.
I think the hatred on the Muslim side comes from them both regarding Jerusalem as holy land. And fighting over it.
On the Christian side is quite a bit more complicated. Short version is Shakespeare wrote "neither a borrower nor a lender be" in one of his plays and somehow that got attributed to the Bible. So many Jews ended controlling the banks. I think there are still parts of the world where Christians think it is sin to lend money.
Why so many American Christians hate them I have no idea but I grew up in the middle of KKK country and both them and the skinheads do hate Jews.
But then again they hate pretty much everybody.
0 -
The question can war be moral is philosophical. But the question should it be avoided if it is all possible is a practical one and the more important of the two. And on that we all agree. So here is a very hopeful 6 minute Kurzgesagt (german for "in a nutshell") video about how war may becoming (mostly) a thing of the past.
5 minutes ago, beecee said:Exactly!! No one knows the answer, particularly in the circumstance someone used re children being marched in front of advancing troops. How could any reasonable decent Soldier handle that! I can thank my lucky stars that I was born at the end of WW2, obviously too young for the Korean war, just missed out on conscription for the Vietnam war, and was too old for any participation in the Iraqy war. Truthfully, I don't know how I would act with bombs and bullets flying around me...I hope responsibly and if necessarilly, heroically, but I just don't know.
Yeah I was lucky that way myself. I fell between Nam and Iraq. My grandaddy was on Omaha Beach on D-Day and somehow survived. Two uncles I never knew died in Vietnam while my dad served as a conscientious objector. I served during peacetime and my son son took part in the so called war on terror as an MP moving prisoners around.
I would go, beecee if I felt my country needed me but how I would react I don't know. I don't think anybody that hasn't been does.
27 minutes ago, beecee said:Two points, most all wars are immoral and wrong, and with regards to WW2 the Allies really had no alternative with Hitler, Mussolini and Japan, other then to do what they did. The only question I would raise is the dropping of the Atomic bombs...just questioning though.
I think us participating in WII was a good moral decision but dropping the bomb on Nagasaki was a horrible immoral decision. But in between that is the first bomb dropped on Hiroshima. I have struggled with that my whole life and I just don't have an answer for it. I am heavily emotionally invested in the answer to that question. Grandaddy was on a commandeered German luxury liner headed for Japan when they dropped it. I would have possibly never met him had they not dropped it.
29 minutes ago, beecee said:The worrying thing for me is how close the Allies [Europe and the British Empire] came to losing the war....if the Brits had not invented radar, if Hitler had not invaded the USSR, if Japan had not bombed Pearl Harbour, if Hitler or Japan had of perfected the bomb first, if the Japanese had not been stopped on the Kokoda trail...the list goes on and on.
Yes it does indeed. Read up on the Navajo code talkers if you haven't heard of them.
0 -
5 minutes ago, zapatos said:
Why else would she bring what up? The apology?
Why else would she bring up the fact that what she said is a fairly well known anti-Semitic trope? I would think if she really had not known she would have just apologized for offending people.
53 minutes ago, Outrider said:painful history of anti-Semitic tropes,"
That is the part of her quote I'm referring to. To me she acknowledges she used one.
15 minutes ago, zapatos said:I don't see it, but that may be my lack of exposure. I have in the past been rather ignorant about what women and minorities have to put up with.
It looked to me like she was saying people are unduly influenced by money. If she'd said it about people taking gun money or oil money I don't think anyone would have batted an eye. But because it is related to Israel a lot of people immediately took issue.
I attribute "all about the benjamins" to her age.
But similarly to my position on the 'stupid woman' thread, I feel it is a good idea to avoid certain language if you know people might be offended by it.
You are one of the most moderate posters on this forum and I respect your opinion.
But we have:
She has used blatantly anti-Semitic rhetoric in the past.
She used a word for word anti-Semitic trope in this case.
Leaders of the Jewish community met with her just last year about this very kind of thing.
This leads me to believe she knew what she was doing when she did.
0 -
1 hour ago, Nod2003 said:
So how is this wall/fence/barrier more or less immoral then any other wall/fence/barrier?
Yeah pretty much what Charon said plus our funds are finite and Trump's pet project takes away from other worthy pursuits.
A wall is an inanimate object and as such can be neither moral or immoral.
OTOH China built one 2000 years ago and they have absolutely no problem with immigrants from Mexico. No, no thats a joke please don't take that seriously.
0 -
12 minutes ago, CharonY said:
I am not pretending that I actually know the answer to this question and in many cases I think that the outcome is better. However that would be in the end an utilitarian way to sort out morals. Certainly not wrong but also not trivially correct. As I mentioned, there are several frameworks out there (most of which I am not familiar with) to even start analyzing the morality of wars. I do have found a review on some of the discussions on just wars: Lazar, Annual Review of Political Science 20:27-54 2017, which is a nice compact read.
Thanks Charon!
I hope I am not coming across as thinking I know all the answers either because I certainly don't.
I am interested in this in an intellectual way. But it is also an emotional issue for me because I know that most of the men and women doing the fighting would rather be doing anything else in the world. I hope I have mostly kept the emotion out of my replies and apologize if I haven't.
0 -
6 minutes ago, zapatos said:
I guess I don't understand English as well as I thought I did because I still fail to see how that statement is an acknowledgement that her controversial statement was an anti-semitic trope.
Maybe it's me but why else would she bring it up?
8 minutes ago, zapatos said:Yes, we can agree that she made anti-Semitic comments in the past.
Can we accept that as evidence that "it's all about the benjamins" was referencing an anti-Semitic trope?
I say yes we can.
Keep in mind the exact words are used by some in describing Jews. As in "they are all about the benjamins".
1 -
On 1/14/2019 at 1:36 PM, John Cuthber said:
It would be really nice to be able to say something like
"I think the question is meaningless.
The medical schools and army recruitment offices don't measure IQ (or, at least, I hope they don't) because it's not a measure of anything these employers are interested in.
IQ only measures how well you do in IQ tests.
No war was ever won, nor any patient cured by some soldier or doctor doing an IQ test."
But...They do have a proxy measure for IQ, and they have limits based on it.
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-U-S-military-have-a-minimum-IQ-requirement-for-entry
But, even that doesn't actually exclude any individual from joining- regardless of IQ
Well I served as a tele-type repairman and I took no such tests as mentioned on your quora link. I'll have to have something better than quora before I accept my memory is that bad.
This was in 1986. I remember physical tests, physical examinations and a physc test. Also you had to tell the doctor what kinds and how much of certain drugs you had ingested in the past.
Boy was he surprised.
0 -
6 minutes ago, beecee said:
When the Vietnam war concluded, and Australian troops came home, they were treated like lepers, so great was the anti war attitude in this country. Thank Christ though, that since those times, that treatment of Vietnam Veterans has disappeared, and on Anzac Day [held on 25th April every year in our country, actually to commemorate our greatest defeat in WW1 at Gallipolli ] they march proudly with what is left of their units and are applauded like any return servicemen.
I did know that Australia participated but I did not know that your returning soldiers got the same treatment ours did.
0 -
9 minutes ago, zapatos said:
Sorry if I'm being dense, but can you please quote the part of her statement that indicated her own statement was an anti-semitic trope?
Quote"Anti-Semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes," Omar wrote in a statement posted to Twitter. "
Thing is she was educated last year.
0
Airlines And Other Private Companies Going Into The Space Industry
in Astronomy and Cosmology
Posted
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
Our future is already writ in the stars. I don't know this and I can't know this but I highly suspect that every day some form of life springs forth on some alien planet. There are so many of them and well, we are here.
So where all they all at?
We have a few anomalies like tabby's star. But not near what you would expect by just crunching the numbers.
We will, as a human race, burn this planet and everything on it.
Best case scenario is we blast ourselves back to the stone age. I highly doubt we are that lucky.
Again.
I am sorry!