Intoscience

Yeah but a woman (in general) at an equivalent weight as a male (in general) even if both athletic in build, is most likely to still be weaker and often slower. That's the thing with male and female forms, the way that fat and muscle is distributed and then called into action when required. How about say a sport like tennis? McEnroe was slated for his remark around Serena Williams. She even agreed that competing against men she would struggle to break the top 400 ceded players. So based on your system, no female would ever be regarded as an elite player. yet she is regarded as the best female player of all time and she certainly exhibits, strength, speed, aggression, skills and she isn't no dainty little lady and is probably capable of beating on most average men. Seems like a step backward to me.

Ever feel like you are stuck between a rock and a hard place... Apologies, I appreciate your position. I was reminded earlier in this thread that the evolution of modern humans plays little part, since there has not been time long enough. So unless we start seeing females physically enhanced by genetic manipulation then we aint going to see females (in general) as big and strong as males (in general) any time soon. I'm all for removing prejudice, but not by shifting the problem around. I don't see how categorising (equally) persons by gender is such a big deal? Why should a person not feel proud to be who they are and applaud the category they find themselves in? So what qualification standards do you suggest would be suitable and fair? Your idea in my mind just encourages discrimination, basically you are saying - you can play in the with the top players, if you like cause you have shown that you have the skill sets to compete, but tough shit that you weigh 100 pounds less and stand 1' shorter.

Then what's all the fuss about? Crack on with an unworkable idealism. But if you limit the criteria to only skill sets then, you will end up with a more skilled person being discriminated against because of their physicality. This is why there are weight divisions in many sports, and why there are female and male divisions, so neither is unduly discriminated against, just because of the way they pee! A highly skilled female boxer is most likely (at the elite level) going to lose against a larger stronger less skilled male boxer. So in doing away with male and female divisions you will end up with the highest levels of sports where physicality plays a role in success, dominated by males. Sounds like progression to you? Yep pretty much, kids come in different sizes and shapes so we need water fountains of differing sizes and shapes, else all the bigger/stronger kids will have the water, leaving non for the little ones. (Edited my bold) "ALL kids to have access to safe clean drinking water so long as we’re and we are certain that THEY use all have access to different suitably sized water fountains".

In a nutshell yes, and it pissed me off! I agree, but how can this be achieved without some form of discrimination? iNow's suggestion of scraping the sex category may create a wider field of opportunity. But this will inevitably lead to a discriminative outcome, since, men in general, certainly at the elite level, tend to be stronger, faster and more aggressive than women. So how's that going to work out then? The vast majority of elite sports totally dominated by men? Seems like a step backwards to me, then I do have my head up my bunhole. Ermm.. I said "vast majority" at the elite level, I never said "all"! At the amateur level and in certain sports where its all about fun and games then maybe not so much. What all 6 of the athletes you mentioned? or all the rest of the transgender population? I thought this thread was centred around transgender sports persons? No one is suggesting its an appalling idea, its just a crap idea, all it will do is constrain the eventual outcome. I want to see all sexes - female, male, trans whatever.... competing "fairly" at all levels, with equal status, equal pay and recognition. I don't want to see a 6'4" 250 pound man beat a woman to death in a boxing ring thanks.

Ok, In general sports as pastimes - "fun and games" then any differences, advantages, weaknesses... are less important since as the good PC brigade keep ramming down our throats "its the taking part that counts". Fine this works just dandy. But at the elite level where "professional" sports people are competing at the highest level and are earning their living from this then the distinction between differences, advantages, weaknesses become majorly important, to keep things as "fair" or rather, as equally opportunistic for those people. Ha ha, Nobody said they are, we are discussing why they should/shouldn't be allowed the opportunity to do so in the first place. How many times in history people have suffered the consequences out of ignorance? Me personally I couldn't give a shite since it doesn't really affect me if Mr Joe decides to become Miss Jo and kick everyone's ass. It just amazes me that people are so afraid to speak of such, even to ignore the very evolution of humankind just because it doesn't fit in within modern western society. Crack on if it fits in with PC, and makes everybody feel better about themselves. I had a discussion at work yesterday, I'm a middle aged man who's hair is now well receded and consider myself bald (though technically I'm only slightly bald). Apparently I offended a colleague. They were offended that I did not mind when somebody else, in jest, remarked on my hair. They asked why it did not bother me and why I had not reported the incident to our human resources department. I explained that I enjoy a little banter and that it was all in good fun. They were shocked and dismayed and proceeded to report this themselves. My point being that, in my humble and perhaps archaic opinion, this world is a bit fucked up and we have bigger problems to worry about other than all this over bearing PC.

So you believe that the performance differences between males and females is sociological rather than biological? The vast majority at the elite level, yes. Especially those sports where physical strength plays a major part in performance.

It will be interesting to see if this premise pans out, if equal opportunity continues gaining momentum maybe we will see a shift to a more equal outcome? I'm not sure it's just a general assumption that girls are good at some things and boys are better at others. I think that it is that way due to years of evolutionary necessity. Maybe with evolution this will change, but I think this will only happen over a long period of time if left to happen naturally. If you consider the roles that males and females adopted from the course of evolutionary survival and environmental requirements over history (pre-to modern humans), then it is quite easy to link certain skills in modern sports back to ancient skills developed over time.

Or maybe males (in general) have a more natural affinity to sports than females? Much like females (in general) seem to have a more natural affinity to nurture than males? Both of which may have come from the evolutionary process? This is the crux of the main argument in the OP (my bold) However, now the thread has diverged to skill capacity in addition to physical strength. I think you are correct that certain skills are handed down through evolutionary processes. Though, sporting skills (in evolutionary terms) are quite a recent phenomena.

I know some extremely good off road women riders that are faster and more skilful than the vast majority of male riders. However, when they compete at the higher levels in open competitions against males they just don't compare. Not only do they struggle in comparison physically, but their skill level is not as high. So what is the difference other than physical strength? Why do males often have a higher skill level in some sporting practices than females? (this is a sincere question that I'm interested in learning the answer to)

I'm also a non expert, but share the same view. There seems to be so much judgemental pressure on the younger generation through social media. Yeah I think this is certainly plays a part in it, especially since bullying can be easily done over social media these days. Thanks, I never considered this. So do you think that the morality of suicide being a crime originally stems mainly from Christianity?

As already been said the size of a star is determined by its mass and its age. There are a few considerations to think about when we talk about "size", there is the minimum mass it takes to form a star in the first instance, then there is the total amount of mass distribution available along with other factors that determine the eventual mass and then there are the cycles a star goes through during its life. So the mass changes and also the diameter changes during a star's life span. For example, in the next 4-5 billion years its estimated that our own sun will grow in diameter, possibly expanding so far it comes close to, maybe reaching the Earth's orbit. Here is a link to the life of a star - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star

I agree with you. I think rather than condemning a person for committing suicide, maybe we should look at each individual case and assess the reasons why. In modern western society there seems to be a growing trend of younger people taking their own lives (I think it was MigL who touched on this) Why is this so? Is it peer pressure, social media, the pressure of modern living? Rather than concerning over whether its morally wrong to commit suicide, maybe we should concern ourselves more with the reasons anyone does it in the first place and what we as a society should try and do about it. There is a big difference between a person terminally ill and suffering with incurable pain and a teenager who feels their life is worthless. For one its most likely kinder to let go, for the other all attempts should be made to save them.

Again, the difficulty being how do you calculate one's misfortunes? How do you compare them? What may seem like a rather small misfortune to one could well be a great misfortune to another. Yes, people make mistakes, especially when there is no one right answer.

I agree, though I feel that it all depends on the circumstances. I often say to my partner, people should be free to do what they want, provided it causes no harm to others, directly or indirectly.

I had a similar experience at a similar age, though it was a strange smell rather than a sound. When I was around 7 my youngest sister was born. A couple of years later my parents decided that we would swap around bedrooms so that my 2 sisters could share the larger bedroom leaving me with my own smaller room. Shortly after I had moved in I started to experience a rather unpleasant but faint fishy smell. I noticed that the smell would only be there at certain times, mostly from early evenings and then through the night, often, but not always, disappearing by morning. We searched high and low to find the source of the smell, deep cleaned the room top to bottom, added air fresheners etc.. but to no avail. Me and my sisters decided that it must be a ghost and named it "Mr Fishy". Oddly I was never frightened by it even though I was convinced it must be paranormal. 15 years later I decided to do a full re-vamp of the room. On swapping out the electrical accessories I found a single socket outlet that was thermally damaged, looking at it close up I could distinctly, though faint, smell "Mr Fishy". Turns out that the fishy smell was indeed the socket outlet that when used for my bedside lamp and tv would get warm and material it was made from would give off the fishy smell. I have had a number of experiences that some would consider to be psychic, but to be clear I don't believe in such. For some unknown (to me) I have had a number of premonitions of people's deaths which sounds all rather grim but its true. I have had 5 very clear and distinct experiences where I have "felt" (for want of a better word) the imminent death of a person. 3 of the 5 were people close to me and the other 2 people I had met but only had very brief encounters with. Sadly all 5 deaths came as a surprise to everyone, either caused by accidents or previously undetected ill health. I would have the "feeling" 2-3 days prior, it would just come over me with no apparent trigger or reason, I would not necessarily have been thinking about them or had any encounters with them recently beforehand. The only way I can describe the feeling is that it was this overwhelming wave of sadness for the person that would then make me think of their death. To give you an idea, there was one chap who I had met only once who was the father of a friend I competed against in my chosen sport. For some unknown reason, just out of the blue, I had the "feeling". A few days later I was told the sad news that he had suffered a massive heart attack at the wheel of his car and had died on the scene. This accident occurred 2 days after I had the "feeling" and thoughts of such. Now I don't believe in the paranormal of any kind, and I don't claim to have any special abilities!!!! I believe that these premonitions can be explained by science. A couple of possible theories I have is that time is not as linear as we imagine. Another is that maybe there are multiverses existing simultaneously that though not directly physically connected have some field connections of some sort be it EM or similar. Another is that I just coincidently for no apparent or special reason just happened to think about it.

So in the whole of this thread, you are basically saying that a god with no limitations actually has limitations because he/she/it is limited to it's very own existence. Well , yeah from our own logical perspective. Yep I like your post, +1 However, it then got me thinking, are we just by including physical capability as a measure of intelligence? The gold fish might "know" exactly how to climb the tree but is limited to do so by its physicality. Does this make it less intelligent than the monkey? I do understand the premise of the picture analogy and the point you were making, I was just considering it that's all.🙂

No problem, I enjoy a bit of sarcasm, I suppose you find on these types of forums the "joke" can sometimes be lost in interpretation. I guess (and it is a guess) judging from the recent comments, being in my early 50's I'm probably in amongst the youngest in this discussion. As you can see from my avatar I'm still able to do some pretty tough off road motorcycling, though now in the vets class, and constantly suffering from joint pain these days! My children consider me an old man! I won't comment on my looks or intelligence on any particular level other than I consider myself - all round average. Getting back to the OP I share the same sentiment as MigL ^^^^^^^ +1

+1 Though I have found the "debate" interesting, I considered getting involved, but then thought better of it since I side mostly with MSC on this particular subject. Maybe its just poor interpretation on our part, so apologies for that! No offense to our American friends but, it does often come across as - we know better and everyone else in the world should follow suit.

I wasn't arrogant or claiming to know your intent. I said "appeared", anyhow case closed as MigL stated, so apologies for my misunderstanding. It's still not clear to people where I live and the use of the term coloured is still used regularly, and by people who are not intentionally racist or mean any offense. The change to it now being offensive appears to be an American import, like many other imported trends it will take time to filter through and become the "norm" I guess. That's an interesting point of view, we acquire many American imports, especially trends that, as I mentioned to iNow can take a while to filter through. This can be (and has been proven in this thread alone) consequential especially with PC and what is often assumed globally accepted or not.

+1 Well as a bystander, I interpreted it the same as MSC, so creative or not it appeared to be a dig. I think in this instance "pre-announcement" just means he announced his selection would be limited to a certain gender and a certain skin colour. So he effectively "pre" selected prior to selection. Though I agree with you, I think its not fair (my bold) to tar every person with the same brush. Some people maybe, or may seem, ignorant due to their age, education, country of origin, or culture... It can certainly take a while for these things to filter through.

This pretty much sums it up for me. Me too, Though some electricians will squirm at the use of the word "bulbs". I over heard an electrician telling off his apprentice for saying bulbs. He corrected him with "you plant bulbs in a garden! they are lamps not bulbs"

Ok Thanks, I think that he stated the next person will be... and it was based on colour and gender which might infer the choice was already made to appease people. This intent could be viewed as demeaning because it could be interpreted as the person was only chosen because of colour and gender rather than qualification required for the job. KJB maybe more than qualified and an excellent choice based on her capability and qualification, this should be first & foremost. The pre-announcement potentially invalidated the selection criteria process by appearing to put colour and gender first and foremost, which is exactly the thing modern society is trying to eradicate. So based on this I can see how it could be negatively viewed. I'm also confused by what you mean? My objection (if you want to call it that) is that intentionally or not, the pre-announcement that the next person will be a person of a certain gender and a certain colour goes against the very thing that modern society is trying to eliminate. Selection based on a person's colour, race, gender, religion, sexual identity... In my opinion, I just don't think the pre-announcement was necessary, or rather if so, it could have been delivered better.

I think this is the key point for most PC issues and also to the question over Biden's pre-announcement. It seems intent often gets either lost in translation, ignored or worse, twisted out of context. I have friends family etc... who I often insult out of fondness similar to your best mates. This if heard by others may seem very offensive especially if there is any cross cultural differences. The term "love" and "sweetie" which you previously mentioned are ones I'm familiar with but are much less often used these days. It tends to be the "older" generations that continue with it while the younger generations do now tend to view such terms as offensive and demeaning. Going back to the OP, my query over the pre-announcement was, what was Biden's intent? (the intention behind the announcement, not the actual selection) If what I suspect (I could be completely wrong) was his intent then yeah I feel it could be demeaning to female black ladies, and possibly black people and females in general. What trumps this though is the actual final selection, so well done to Biden for this. Yeah it always spice things up some! Absolutely, If only everyone shared the same outlook maybe the world would be a better place. But here we are fussing and arguing over petty nonsense that will make no difference at all, except maybe raise one or two blood pressure levels.

No one is arguing his choice, in fact we all applaud it. We are questioning the merits of the pre announcement, whether it was it was a good idea or not. Personally I don't see why it was necessary and as a result see how it could be perceived negatively. Whether or not it makes a difference, I don't know the answer to, and to be fair it makes no odds to me so I won't be losing any sleep over it. I just find it interesting reading other perspectives and then discussing and trying to understand why they differ from mine. Its all educational after all. 😉

Firstly, thank you for your approach to this discussion. Though we are in some disagreement I think overall we share similar views. I would just like to comment on the part in bold. Yes, the good done far outweighs the clumsy process, this I agree on. However, (and its no big deal to me by the way) the way it was handled insinuated using racism for political gain, whether this was true or not, the perception could be that the pre announcement was to gain popularity with a previously oppressed group at the expense of all things being equal. This then could cast a doubt over the choice and singles the person out, for good or bad due to their skin colour and gender, rather than their actual qualities and abilities they may bring to the job. You are then potentially faced with "KBJ was only chosen cause she's a black female" instead of "KBJ was chosen because there was no other person more qualified and so previously the position has been dominated by white males this was a fair opportunity for a female black lady to take the position, as a step forward towards equality".