Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Intoscience

  1. On 9/25/2023 at 6:26 AM, Markus Hanke said:

    I think it suffers from the same problem as the opposing claim - you cannot ever disprove the existence of a designer. The best we can do is show that the laws and processes of physics as we see them arise without need for outside intervention - but at the moment we can’t really do that yet. But even if we can do this, the mere absence of such a need still does not necessarily rule out a designer - it could have been designed even though there wasn’t a need for a designer.

    So I think looking for evidence for either claim is ultimately a waste of time, unless the alleged designer chooses to reveal himself in indisputable and unambiguous ways.


    7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    That's a double edged sword

    Though I do side on the no designer argument I can't help but feel much like what Markus stated. I have yet to find a compelling argument for the need of a designer, but many for the non requirement of design or designer. However because our knowledge still lacks, and the evidence supporting theories on and around how the universe initially began, and how life (as we know it) initially began, then I do beg the question.

    I'm happy to dismiss wild claims, especially those focused/built around religious beliefs. So at this juncture, I would remain on the - random evolutionary models bench. 

    A little part of me wishes/hopes that a designer was indeed required, this may give some extra meaning to it all. Especially so if humans are intended to be just that little bit extra special.      

  2. 14 hours ago, Sensei said:

    Isn't death the ultimate punishment for an atheist?


    Or the ultimate escape.

    Depending on your beliefs. If a person is an atheist who doesn't believe in any form of after life or transcendence, or reincarnation then death means full stop, the end in every sense. 

    But you can be an atheist and believe in some form of continuum. (as per what The Vat stated) 

    18 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    So, in a way being an atheist condones his actions, because he died before he got punished, we all know he deserved to be punished, and the only way that that can happen, is in the imagination of a believer...

    For a person to be be punished then they need to be judged. 

  3. 18 hours ago, TheVat said:

    One thing I liked about Arrival was that the aliens, "heptapods," were not remotely humanoid, or even terrestrial looking.  


    Going back to this recent claim


    Either the film makers of close encounters knew something no one else did, or the person making these claims is very unimaginative!

    I read that the latest NASA report on UAPs states that they have no reason to believe that any of the UAPs are non terrestrial. However, they do go on to state that the findings are inconclusive and many of the phenomena remain unknown both in construct and in origin. they also state that some of the evidence suggests that some of the objects are not moving as fast as reported and maybe just "drifting" with currents.

    This last part I find rather odd and I'm not convinced. Many of the objects where witnessed on multiple occasions by various experienced air force personal. I find it hard to believe that they would all mis-construe what they witnessed. 

    I do however remain sceptical of "alien" visitations. But I'm not in the club of completely ruling them out. What may convince me more to join the "believers" is if we discovered new physics which may allow for, or at least theorise, a plausible practical method of long-distance short time space travel by meaningful physical objects. 


  4. 22 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    I get a warm feeling, when I think about the horrendous things Jimmy Saville did to children, by imagining what the god of his victims did to him, when he died before he faced true justice..

    I would have structured the sentence differently, because when I read the first part it came across as though you condoned Jimmy Saville's actions. Any person/s who abuse children deserve something!

  5. Image result for e.t. the extra-terrestrial

    9 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

    They simply look too stereotypical.

    With all the variety we see on Earth, what are the odds they'll look anything like us?

    Could argue some commonalities are going to be necessary for a space faring race. Tool usage and social behaviour for example, but beyond that? 


    hmmm... uncannily

    The sad thing being that all this does is fuel the stigma surrounding aliens and the possibility of their existence. 

  6. On 8/31/2023 at 8:39 AM, exchemist said:

    No, it just smells of the usual credulity and yearning for mystery and occult knowledge that is such a tiresome feature of all societies. 

    The problem is that the public cannot discern what is fact and what is fiction these days, especially so on subjects like this. People tend to buy into what ever is trendy at the time and with social media so accessible and also easily manipulated then the general public can be convinced of fiction over fact without much question. 

  7. On 8/26/2023 at 1:18 PM, mistermack said:

    No, I was trying to illustrate why a cover up would be unlikely, and hence the visits by aliens would also be an unlikely scenario. 

    If alien visits WERE known by the government, that would mean they've indulged in a hugely elaborate cover up including paying for pointless research into alien life on Mars and exoplanets.

    I'm not sure that is true though. Even if aliens were visiting (i'm not advocating they are) then why would we still not explore our local neighbourhood anyway? 

    The question would be why are we not using the so called captured technology to make it easier for us to explore our local neighbourhood?  The so called "whistle blowers" have claimed that the government has being back engineering this technology for over half a century, and included in that are claims of test flying anti gravity devices.

    It all smells of a diversionary tactic to cover up advanced technology testing that is human in origin.  

  8. 1 minute ago, zapatos said:

    You are the one advocating for them to change it. They are not attempting to change it themselves. They are attempting to integrate transgender women into the competition

    I'm not, I'm advocating that in order to integrate transgender then the rules should consider the new definition of what a woman is. 

    They are not changing the definitions, society (a  group of) are changing the definition. The governing bodies are attempting to integrate this new definition into sporting categories.  

    1 minute ago, zapatos said:

    Again, you are the one who is saying how they need to change the definition to function. No one else.

    I'm not!!! The rules have to consider the new definition to enable integration. How that is achieved is beyond me since the original definition was fundamentally based on biology. Now its not, so now the ruling boards need to consider this. 

  9. 3 hours ago, swansont said:

    And it isn’t based simply on what chromosomes you have

    I never advocated it was. There is an undeniable difference between male and female physical performance. The current world athletic championships highlight this as we speak. So where predominantly does that extra performance come from? cause it sure aint all just psychological. It comes from physiological attributes that are fundamentally biological differences.  

  10. 1 hour ago, zapatos said:

    Then how do you explain the fact that we have men's and women's categories now even though there is no universally accepted definition of male and female?

    The world is full of examples where we don't have universally accepted definitions yet we function just fine. In my circles, a gun would include my target pistol whereas in the military it only includes "any large-calibre, direct-fire, high-velocity, flat-trajectory artillery piece employing an explosive-filled hollowed metal shell or solid bolt as its primary projectile."

    What is the universally accepted definition of "football"? How can we study black holes if we don't have a clear definition of what it is? Why must the definition of "woman" be the same for a priest, biologist, sports league, school administrator, justice system, corporation and individual?

    Sports leagues are free to define 'woman' any way they wish, and if they choose to define 'man' and 'woman' as they've done for the past 50 years, why should they be forced to change that definition now?

    As I've said to you several times in this thread, I believe the quest for the mythical "one true definition of "woman"" is nothing more than a distraction when it comes to the question of transgenders in sport. We've never had the perfect definition in the past and yet we managed to have men's and women's leagues. The focus needs to be on NEW rules for trans women to compete in the existing women's leagues. There is no need to redefine the OLD rules that define women's leagues as they exist now.

    Sure we do, we have many clear definitions for many things, there is nothing stopping us redefining as we probe more detailed depths or as more accurate data comes to bear. It also depends on the context and purpose. For example you mentioned a black hole, the simple universally accepted definition is simply - a region of space where not even light can escape. Sure you can refine that definition and continue to improve on it if you wish to do so. Until recently a woman was defined as - an adult human female. The definition has since evolve over the past few years and now includes - gender identity that is fluid. 


    Sports leagues are free to define 'woman' any way they wish, and if they choose to define 'man' and 'woman' as they've done for the past 50 years, why should they be forced to change that definition now?

    I'm not the one forcing them to change the definition?????

    The original definition of a woman was  - adult human female. That's what the women's category was originally based around. Now the definition of a woman has evolved to include an additional definition - fluid gender identity. So the logical step to include trans gender in the "women" category, the rules must be fundamentally changed to fairly include the new additional definition. Or we could split the category into separate divisions, like they do with weight. 

    You cant have a competition with rules that were based on old definitions and expect it to continue to function properly without evolving to include/consider changed/new definitions, that would be illogical.  


  11. 9 hours ago, zapatos said:

    I'm not sure a universally accepted definition of male and female is required.

    For the purposes of competition we already manage to slot most people into a reasonable category. That is, the way you were identified at birth as male or female works just fine for putting you in the 'male' or 'female' divisions

    Sure it is, all rules have to operate around universally accepted definitions else they are open to interpretation which leads to confusion and sometimes controversy.  Any category defined by a marker needs a well defined marker. For example categories set by weight. 

    If the definition of the term "woman" is fluid then how can that be used to define a category?  If we can clearly define (within reasonable accuracy) the physical performance difference between what we label as male and female then we can use this as a universal marker (definition) specifically for the purpose at hand - sports.

    Is that not the whole point? 

    Things get complicated when gender identity and biological sex performance attributes are conflated. When clearly by the very 2 definitions of the term "woman", gender and biological sex are not mutually inclusive. 

    We have to start with clear definitions based on a selection of data and testing. We can argue till the cows come home about how deep into the biological aspects we delve. But the logical step would be to take from the data that which is most relevant to the context - physical performance, and apply it so we can draw a sensible and universal conclusion. 

    But this is already done to a degree, and has been workable for years.

    Now we want to include trans gender, and rightly so, all should have an opportunity to compete! But qualification by gender identity alone comes with complications, which need addressing.   

    14 hours ago, swansont said:

    Even before that, for this thread (or perhaps another, since this one is supposed to be about gender), we need to have participants acknowledge the reality that the notion of sex is more complicated than what chromosomes you have, or what your visible genitalia are

    Maybe so, but for the purpose of this thread which is centred around sports then there are biological aspects that have been proven to be clear markers for physical performance. 

    The data is out there look at the sporting results, on average males out perform females in physical activities. So clearly there is a physical (biological) difference between what we term male & female. 

    So regardless whether this thread is specifically about gender identity, to have any sensible discussion we have to also look at the biological aspects related to physical sporting ability! We need this in order to determine what category a person should be included in. No different than weight divisions or other physically defined categories.   

  12. 1 minute ago, swansont said:

    Except they aren’t necessarily based on biological sex. Some of them are based on gender

    Ok, so maybe this needs changing. If there is (data driven) evidence supporting cis - male over cis female physical advantages then surely the categories require acknowledgement of this and adjust the rules accordingly? 

    4 minutes ago, swansont said:

    Cis males, on average, outperform cis females 

    “biological” determination can be based on chromosomes, or by the visible reproductive organs. And, as has been noted a number of times, either is only a very coarse description - there are a number of biological attributes if you look closer

    This is fine but where do you draw the line to enable sporting rules to be applicable? We have agreed and established that on average there is a physical difference. What we need is a distinct definition for sporting events, a cut off line so to speak, that clearly and fairly categorises in a way so that participants can compete on a relatively even playing field. 

    When all said and done this argument isn't even really about gender identity, its about biological sex. the 2 get conflated because we insist on using the term "woman" for the categories where in modern society the term woman has an additional definition that is not mutually inclusive with the original. 


  13. 1 hour ago, iNow said:

    Not necessarily. I challenge this assumption. 

    It will vary from one person to the next, as already noted. 

    I have researched the definition of a woman and can find 2. 

    1. An adult human female - attributed by biological sex

    2. A person's gender identity

    Though technically the first is the original definition the second is being (changed) embraced by some and now more widely accepted by people to use as gender identity and this definition is becoming ever more fluid, the 2 are not mutually inclusive. 

    Ok, so coming back to sports, my assumption was that sporting categories were, and continue to be based on biological sex for the reasons as pointed out over many pages - In general, but especially so at the elite level, biological men physically out perform biological females.

    Based on this, If the above 2 definitions are not mutually inclusive then why should the sporting category be so?     

  14. 3 minutes ago, iNow said:

    Nobody here is arguing zero distinctions. The point is there are more than two... non-binary, along a spectrum... distinctions still exist, but they're not representable with just two Venn diagram circles

    Ok I'm willing to accept this even though I don't agree, but for the sake of this discussion lets run with it. So a person identifying as a "woman" as a clear specific definition of what a woman - adult female - is. So what is the definition? 

    3 minutes ago, iNow said:

    IOW, please stop erecting strawmen. 

    How is it a strawman? the vast majority of the human population are regarded by mainstream to be either biological male or biological female and any person excluded from these groups are said to have "conditions". I'm not setting these definitions the medical world is! 

  15. 2 minutes ago, iNow said:

    I understand you believe your approach is fact based, but that just means you've ignored the biology-focused content our biology and other experts have repeatedly shared here in this thread.

    You can continue working from a foundational premise that only two genders exist and everything else is some sort of "woke nonsense," but simply repeating a mistake over and over doesn't magically make it correct

    But I see, based on evidence and definitions (not mine but mainstream) that the majority of the population is made up of either male or female and the remaining minority a variety of "conditions" which are regarded as abnormalities. 

  16. 7 minutes ago, iNow said:

    More specifically, the categories aren't as hard and independent as you and others keep suggesting. Spectrum, not binary. Literally non-binary

    So if they aren't so distinctive why does a person wish to trans in the first place? Surely there has to be s distinction to make the transition?

  17. On 8/19/2023 at 1:32 AM, iNow said:

    Unless, of course, you’re trans and trying to compete in the division which best aligns with how you authentically identify yourself

    What does this mean? How does a person authenticate their chosen identity? And how does that map with actual biology or physical attributes? 

    I think this is where things get a little muddy and where we need definitions that we all align to. Personally I would prefer to align with fact based definitions rather than psychological based feelings, opinions or beliefs.  

  18. 13 hours ago, CharonY said:

    In other words, there are already examples for finer and more detailed categories in sports and question is not really whether it is feasible, but more what measures could be used for each athletic activity

    I don't think anyone is against adding further categories or fine tuning the rules. Sports evolve and rules are often updated i see no reason this wouldn't work to include trans athletes. 

    17 hours ago, iNow said:

    This is all an awful lot of handwringing and panty twisting for all 11 of those trans athletes out there actually trying to compete

    So you keep saying, so statistically it's easier to exclude them from the get go. Since it only takes one to dominate and thus exclude hundreds of other competitors from a chance of winning. Can't please all all of the time so best bet stick with the majority hey? 

    But this is not the way forward and not what anyone is advocating. we all believe in complete inclusivity. In order to do that then something like Zaptos's idea of qualification rules through some form of data driven performance testing may work. 

    On 8/18/2023 at 4:43 PM, zapatos said:

    How would YOU suggest we allow trans women to fairly compete?

    i said previously I don't have a clear workable solution. But I would happily support a workable system along the lines you have suggested. 

    The only issue I see is that I'm told science cannot accurately determine the distinction between a male and female and if a person identifies as either then this seems to trump any physical evidence anyhow. 

  19. 16 hours ago, zapatos said:

    Adding weight to the bar for weightlifters who are trans women to achieve the same target lift as a cis woman. As I mentioned earlier.

    I don't think so. You say it will be unfair to include trans women yet you know rules to make it fair will be included. So what part is "unfair"?

    That's an internal issue you'll have to work out for yourself. I've never hinted you were transphobic.

    You really are starting to seem paranoid. That or you like to play the victim.

    I don't see any sporting body introducing handicaps, other than testing for testosterone. I'm not adverse to your idea, in fact i'd support such if it proved workable and fair. But i'm sure such a system will be regarded negative discrimination.

    It will always be unfair to include trans women in cis women categories until a consistent and "handicapping" system is introduced. In order to do this one first has to define the advantages a biological male has over a biological female.  In order to do this one must define what a biological male & female are. Since the argument is that there is no clear difference and that biological sex is a spectrum how do you suggest handicapping a biological male fairly? 

    Paranoid? I'm told that a person who is born a certain biological way "feels/believes" they are something different is not a mental issue. I was pointing out since this is the case then discussion down that route is a no no. 

    20 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    It's the question I've asked, in many different ways, throughout the last 10 or so pages, and always ignored; but WTF I feel lucky, why do you care what game's other people play?

    I don't in particular,  is my answer. I'm sure I said such earlier in the thread but hey ho...

    I just have a strong sense of moral fairness. I particularly believe that trans inclusion without workable rules is a non starter for all parties involved. 

    The cis women lose out on opportunities and the trans women lose further support and are negatively exposed to the public, just enforcing further bigotry.

    I support the rights of all people but not at the cost of others. Society should always endeavour to find solutions which bring harmony, not promote further divide.

    Does this answer your question?


    16 hours ago, iNow said:

    Like the separate, but equal reference?

    I was just having a bit of fun. Trying to add some levity to an otherwise heavy thread. You suggested that others were being weaselly and hiding and other similar derogatory characterizations. I pointed out that perhaps they simply felt the effort of answering your question wasn't worth it. That the ROI wasn't there. That in this thread you seem to have firmly made up your mind and really don't want to openly explore other ideas.

    I summarized all that by saying, "Maybe they just think you're engaging in bad faith" and basically aren't worth the time or effort.

    In response? You said, "Link?"

    Link to what? Link to my suggestion that maybe they have other reasons for not answering your loaded questions? There is no link to that... it's another bad faith request.

    So, I shared a picture of Link from the Legend of Zelda. This is a game that's been out for decades. It's recently become more popular with a new version release, and it's everywhere in the social either lately.

    I made my picture of the hero of that game (Link) more on-topic by sharing a pic of him expressing himself as a female, something he did to gain entry to an area of the kingdom where men aren't allowed.  

    You know... fun? Lighthearted... levity. I'm sorry it went over your head, but I'm sure it went over the head of others, too... so thanks for the invitation and opportunity to elaborate. 

    I for one appreciate you explaining your motives and elaborating. We can all get frustrated, exasperated and sometimes angry especially so if the subject matter strikes a cord. 

    i can sometimes get sucked into arguing in anger rather than stepping back and trying to explain my position in a polite and logical manner (I often fail).

    I think believe that everyone posting on this thread in essence wants the same - fair inclusion for all. we just have differing views/opinions on what is fair. 

  20. 15 hours ago, zapatos said:

    It is only unfair on the group if you don't implement rules that make it fair for the group. Which is of course the route everyone (except you) is taking. No one is arguing there should be no rules surrounding transgender inclusion. You are again erecting straw men.

    I'm sorry but you mis represent me.

    I have advocated throughout this thread that I support "fair inclusion for all" I have not presented a workable solution, because I don't have one. I have also stated this during the thread discussion.

    I'm not transphobic by any means, which seems to be the inferred accusation when someone disagrees with the pro trans inclusion in women's sports group. 

    If a system can be implemented in such a way that fairly includes trans in cis gender groups then sure I fully support it. 

    You suggested "handicapping" fine, what type of handicapping do you propose which has no ill health effects and can be consistent across the board?  

    15 hours ago, mistermack said:

    Well, it can be one or the other, or both. It's mainly because people identify as their mental ID firstly, over their physical ID. That's why people consider they have the wrong body, and not the wrong brain. You could conceivably put your brain in another body, and still feel that you are still yourself. But if they put another brain in your body, then "you" would be gone.

    It appears that you cannot advocate that a person suffering from gender dysphoria may be suffering from a mental issue. This discussion is off limits since maybe perceived by others that the person advocating such is transphobic. 

    19 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    Oh come on, this isn't a playground; be honest and point to a post where you, or anyone else, have answered my fundamental question.

    Remind me, what was your fundamental question again?

    I have asked so many that have gone ignored I've lost count. 

  21. 15 hours ago, iNow said:

    Of course I can: https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001669.htm

    Now, will you update your flawed preconceptions, or carry on repeating inaccuracies? 

    That article describes  "abnormalities" resulting in various types of intersex. It describes possible causes for and refers to each condition. 

    "Intersex is a group of conditions in which there is a discrepancy between the external genitals and the internal genitals (the testes and ovaries)."

    14 hours ago, iNow said:

    What does this mean? It means that all this talk about sex is irrelevant to the topic

    Hmmm, it's very important! Since male & female sports are segregated based on sex. But a minority group want to claim otherwise. They want to claim qualification by personal gender identity. The 2 often get conflated when there is a clear distinction between them when a person is transitioning. 

    20 hours ago, swansont said:

    No comprehensive definition is a far cry from no distinction.

    That’s a helluva strawman


    Why? to make a clear and concise distinction between 2 things then surely you first need a comprehensive definition of each? 

    My argument is and as always been that there is a clear biological  distinction between a male & female (especially so post puberty) and that at the elite level sports that distinction can have a profound difference on performance ability. 

    I'm still waiting for someone to refute this when all the evidence is there to see. If this was not the case then the men's & women's records would align. But this is not the case, in the vast majority of disciplines the men out perform the women by what (at elite level) is regarded a massive margin. 

    This is a science forum we use verified data to come up with a sound conclusion. If the data changes we adjust our conclusion. As yet no elite biological woman has broken any of the elite men's records. 

    For this reason there requires a solution to include all participants in a fair manner which pits each competitor against others with similar performance ability.  The governing bodies already do this by categorisation based on physical attributes, which includes biological sex. There is a very clear (based on evidence) that males (in general) out perform females in athletic disciplines, at the elite level this is more profound and evident. 

    But then in comes the curved ball - what about people who identify as a certain gender, but biologically do not qualify for that gender group? 

    Well its unfair to dis-clude them altogether because that's not fair on them! but in the same token it's unfair to include them in the group with which they identify because that is unfair on the group.

    So what's it to be? 

  22. 17 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    Have you actually read this?

    "Using testosterone levels as a basis for separating female and male elite athletes is arguably flawed."

    Yes, I have read it and have I at any point argued that testosterone levels should/shouldn't be used? I'm arguing that there is more to it than just using drugs and therapy to "change" a biological male into a female.  

    18 hours ago, iNow said:

    Because there are more than 2.

    So there are more than 2 biological sexes? There may well be anomalies, but in general there are male & females. 

    You can apply a spectrum to any number of things, frame it how you want to.  

    17 hours ago, swansont said:

    What you’re asking for doesn’t exist. I thought that this had been made clear.

    So if there is no distinction why do people want to change their identity? Why do people want to go through the suffering and endure surgery & drug treatment? 

    If a person is willing to go through this then they clearly have an end game in mind. They can clearly make the distinction between how they were born and what they would like to change about that. 

    There must exist a distinction or else there would be no differences and nothing to change. 

    For a person wanting to change from male to female there must by logic be a distinction, else by logic there is nothing to change. 

    18 hours ago, iNow said:

    But we really cannot since the binary categorization is itself flawed. There is a spectrum. There are thresholds, but clearly there are more than two categories.

    It's as if you're asking us to describe a rainbow using just white and black. We're never going to agree if that's your approach because your framing of the issue is fundamentally flawed.

    But there is because at either end of the spectrum sits a start and an end, by definition these two are distinctively different. You can call them what you like but in this context we use the terms male & female. 

    Your analogy is flawed, you can model black to white as a spectrum of ever changing shades and at some point along the spectrum you get a middle point grey which is neither closer to black nor white, each side there sits a group. One group of shades are closer to black than white and the other side of the group are closer to white than black. 

    In biology we can do the same, only that close to 50% of people sit very tightly group to the male end and close to 50% of people sit very tightly grouped to the female end, as the 2 groups merge near centre then this small minority would be regarded as anomalies since the vast majority sit tight up to either end. 

    If you wish to remodel this so that you spread out the groups or even overlap then sure that is easy to do. You can model it in any way that suits your arguments.   

  23. 41 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    What did I miss?

    Lord Coe, only got to the top of the greasy pole because he was allowed to play in the first place, with his inherent advantage's...

    It is very unfortunate that people who want too play against people that also want too play, are unable to do so because other people, not involved in the game (by which I mean not playing), maybe it's because they can't think of a way to make money out of it.

    You both keep stamping your feet and claiming it's unfair with no actual evidence, WHY IS THAT?

    If it's not a misogynistic bias, then what is it?





    You have been provided with examples previously on this thread. 

    If you want some data backed technical detail then here you go - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9331831/

    On 8/11/2023 at 12:50 PM, swansont said:

    That’s the wrong approach, though, if you investigate the distinctions between cis men and cis women. The investigation should be the distinctions between trans women and cis women.

    That’s what one should investigate.

    The investigations between trans women and cis women is ongoing. But it is clear that certain distinctions are fundamental and set at an early age, especially so during puberty. 

    The question remains as to whether all the drug taking and therapy is enough (ignoring the health and moral issues) to biologically alter a male physiology enough so that it is much closer to that of a female, and whether those changes directly influence sporting performance accordingly.  At  recreational level who cares? In the words of dim "let them play together". But at elite level, were every tiny detail counts, then it's more important to ensure it's clear with no ambiguity. 

    But first we have to all agree on what constitutes a male & female. Since this is the bench mark, yet people are reluctant to explain in a well defined detailed manner which indicates clearly and unequivocally the distinctions between the 2 sexes. 

    If a man decides, feels, imagines in his brain that he is not a he but a she (not male but female) then we need to understand what she means by this and what the distinctions are.  

  24. On 8/11/2023 at 3:30 PM, zapatos said:

    Well, presumably because their brain is telling them they are distinct. Surely the brain is as much a part of a person's identity as are their dangly parts

    Well there it is then, conclusive objective evidence.

    There are 8 billion or so people who's brains tell them they are distinct, and guess what, they are, each has their own identity. 

    It's just that some claim to be something that they physically are not. In most circumstances these people would be regarded as delusional.

    My brain tells me that the Earth is flat, it looks flat so it must be, and you should accept this as fact. 

    Inconsistent notions as per usual. 


    19 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    Transgender athletes just want a magic wand and a spell (expelliarmus seems appropriate), and then to just get on with their lives and play with whomever they like...

    Unfortunately society doesn't operate this way (thank the good lord). 

  25. On 8/9/2023 at 12:31 PM, StringJunky said:

    What is the exact wavelength of  the colour yellow?

    Answer: It's a range between 570-585nm, but there is no clearly delineated line in to orange.

    In case it's gone over your head, things get fuzzy and merged the more details/resolution we pursue.


    Are you patronising me? Because this response sure looks that way.

    I'm not a child I understand how spectrums work. 


    On 8/9/2023 at 11:59 AM, swansont said:

    A good start would be to investigate the biology - beyond what chromosomes or visible reproductive parts one has - of what it means to be a man or woman.

    I have no disagreement there. But there are clear distinctions in general between what we consider a man and what we consider a woman and some of those distinctions make a difference especially so at elite level sports. 

    My point is that transgender women want to be identified distinctly from a man, so what distinction are they using to achieve this? What are the markers?  

    On 8/9/2023 at 6:04 PM, CharonY said:

    note that an evolutionary/biological system cannot be mapped exclusively to humans, it has to cover biology as we know it

    But we are discussing humans not other species, and specifically elite sporting ability.

    I accept that there is only a very small minority of transgender athletes that will likely impact women's sports. But the impact of that small minority is large. Large enough that within their chosen category they will go on to dominate and break world records way surpassing anything set previously effectively relegating all the other competitors to competing for runner up positions.  

    What JCM and myself are advocating is not banning transgender athletes, on the contrary, but trying to find a way to have fair inclusiveness. A system that born from science, performance testing... (probably the best starting point) which allows for a level playing field as to speak.

    i'm persistently told on this thread that human biological sex gender is not binary. So what defines the terms male and female at each end of the spectrum?  If a person born with what is considered "male" chromosomes, male genitals, male bone, muscle structure and density etc... They then choose to identify as a "woman" (female) by what definition are they using to make that distinction?  


  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.