Intoscience

Then why have categories? Then why do males who feel they have been born in the wrong body want so desperately to become women? It's hypocritical and inconsistent. There is no such thing as binary sex just a spectrum Some people born male want to become female I oppose making sporting events unfair and boring Yet there is lots of media exposure & fuss on transgender rights, but we are to dismiss the rights of those affected by this. Typical. Funny how all of a sudden when suits a person's opinion, beliefs and feelings matter in science? Yet if I claimed that aliens are real, and that I was born a human but really I should have been an alien. You would then quickly dismiss this as nonsense, show us the evidence, you need therapy... Double standards. Yeah sure. All the nonsense that is being shoved down peoples throats, that is nothing more than a cry for attention and getting rather tedious and boring and promotes nothing positive in society, but actually encourages more contempt and resentment. The LGBQTAA+1, I mean WTF is this supposed to represent? and what are the people who are supporting this trying to achieve? I think it's insulting and patronising for the people who are gay, lesbian... and people are getting tired of it. Lets focus on things that really matter like saving our planet, saving near on extinct species, famine, poverty, disease... sustainability for the human race. Kindness & harmony in society, real equality & inclusion... Or shall we continue to pander to attention seeking people who have nothing else to worry about? Do you think the starving poverty stricken dying people in third world countries give a flying f about people who are complaining about wanting to be identified as "they"? And for those that are whining about being born male/female and should have been the opposite. Wow! how insulting to those people who are born disabled. I'm very embarrassed that I suffer from body dysmorphia, because I know that I'm very fortunate to be relatively healthy and that there are millions of people who would trade places with me! Ok, Lets cut to the chase Educate me please, Define the difference between male & female If there is no difference explain to me why the term male & female exist Define the difference between man & woman If there is no difference then explain to me what the term man & woman represent Assuming the above answers are satisfied, when a man wants to be identified as a woman what does this mean? What if my definition of a man or a woman doesn't match another person's definition of a man or a woman , how do we categorise such? If a person born male claims they are really female what do they mean by this? Would you say that if a person believes they are something that they are physically not, this would be regarded (scientifically) as a mental issue? I'm more than happy to change my views on this matter if we can find some consistencies and common ground.

No, but I have and still do feel/believe I was born in the wrong body. I suffer from body dysmorphia for one thing. So I can and do find some empathy for people who believe they were born in the wrong body. Well for me personally yes, opening up the playing field in a way that could be exploited. Granted, only a few individual cases have made the headlines. Depends on what sporting discipline and at what level. Honestly, it's not ever going to affect me personally, so from a selfish perspective I couldn't give a crap who competes with who. If you want to promote a left wingest, "in vogue" virtuous, woke driven extremist society, to make you feel better about yourself crack on.

First, apologies for creating a copy cat thread - Spooky Experiences - I'm more than happy for the threads to be merged if that's ok with the mods and OP of the original thread? Yes I think my experience is a coincidence, as unlikely as it may have seemed to me though. The 2 words/phrase that came up in the book are - dark web & antifa. At the time of reading I was completely unaware of either term and definitely never searched either of them ever in the past. In fact I haven't searched either since nor did I click on the ad links to either as displayed on YouTube. So I'm still non the wiser on either of them now. In answer to your questions - The Vat - I never spoke the words and I never searched either before or after since. In fact writing them in this response is the first time I have mentioned them since reading them in the book. What spooked me was that I had not typed or spoke either word, I had read part way through the book and took a quick coffee break at which point I flicked on YouTube (as I often do) and was shocked to see those items right there as the very first adverts. I can't ever recall seeing them advertised beforehand and I have not noticed them since. I'm not claiming anything I really do think its a spooky coincidence but I thought I'd share my experience with you all. I just found it very strange and somewhat unnerving at the time.

Why? If a person is born biologically of a certain sex but "believes/feels" they are of a gender that is different from that which is assigned to that sex then how else would you describe it? If you believe my understanding and empathy is lacking then educate me rather than assuming! This thread and indeed this forum is often full of inconsistencies. It's a science forum, but you are arguing that a person's beliefs trump the scientific evidence? I'm confused, please explain how a person's gender identity can be consolidated by their biological sex if the 2 are opposing? If a person is born genetically a certain sex (which they have no control over, and is where my empathy resides) what they choose, feel, believe or otherwise is irrelevant to scientific data. This doesn't mean we should ignore their beliefs or feelings or what ever way you want to frame it, absolutely we should respect and consider with as much empathy as possible. But we should not ignore the facts in doing so either. Well there is certainly many more important things to worry about in this world that's for sure. But with the current media exposure that this subject (and related) are generating then I guess the discussion is current. At least in Western society. 1. The argument is more about opening up the possibility of exploitation than isolated individual cases. 2. Actually, sport is a massive industry which generates trillions of revenue. Though not life threatening sport is and does provide people with a purpose, career, health and wellbeing and many more positive benefits.

Just a thread to openly discuss what you might consider strange. Whether that be personal experiences or stories you have heard about, inexplicable coincidences, spooky experiences etc... For instance, I have been reading a few novels (paper back fiction) just lately and within those novels some of the details used in the narratives are often based on real events or real places/agencies/people. I read 2 books related by author but unrelated by story line. Both are fictional stories, but feature real life details that I had not come across previously. The things I read in each book, one was a place and one was an agency. Both which I had never ever seen or heard or had any idea existed, so never mentioned previously. On separate occasions following reading each book I flicked on YouTube to find exactly to the letter what I had read, the exact thing being prominently advertised. Now, I have heard of and witnessed this happening when verbal or electronic discussions are made, where you get advertisements popping up on based key words that have been identified. But on this occasion it really appears that something read my mind! Now being skeptical on these matters I dismissed it as a very unlikely, but a possible coincidence. Even so it spooked me somewhat. Do you have any similar experiences to share?

You see, I read each as: u r joking - you are joking ur joking - you're joking

I'm in support of any mechanism which enables fair participation for all people, non to be excluded! At the same time the focus has to be on "fair" whether based on ability, physical size/prowess or any other advantage/disadvantage. Else you will get exclusion of outcome, minority groups dominating. I'm not sure what you are getting at? I have no problem with people being free to identify what gender or any other definition they want to use. But I don't see how this would work in competition? I don't understand how someone's personal feelings about their gender identity has to do with rules in sport? How is it strange, if anyone is free to decide what gender they want to identify as and thus then allowed to compete in what category that identity permits, then what is strange about that? It's just logic. I might decide to identify as a tortoise and thus from this day forward compete against other tortoises in the tortoise Olympics. Who's to stop me? Would you allow an abled body athlete compete in the Parra Olympics? Why not if a person identified as disabled? Why should all those people who "feel" they are disabled not be allowed to compete in the Parra Olympics?

The argument appears to be based on gender identification rather than biological sex (XX/XY chromosomes). In that your inclusion into categories should be aligned with your personal (arbitrary) gender identification. Which makes no sense to me, since how can we have distinctively fair categories which allow for inclusion without some form of discrimination based on clear definitions? Why not? what if the heavy weight boxer decides to identify as a twelve year old girl? If there is no limit to what a person can identify as and such they would be in their rights to enter the category which aligns with the identification of their own choosing, so how can we stop it happening? You are using an extreme made up scenario to counter my arguments exactly which I'm criticised of doing in return - Usain Bolt transgenders and comes out of retirement to compete in elite women's sprints, he/she would dominate every discipline from 60mtr to possibly 800mtrs go on to exceed every world record by a massive margin and would win 99% + of every race he/she chose to participate in. No one would be physically harmed so no argument there. But many elite cisgender women could be profoundly mentally affected and would be denied the opportunity to achieve their dream of becoming a champion. So where is the inclusion and equality in that scenario? Like I said - inconsistencies are the root cause of all these types of arguments.

Ok that's fine, but if your difference is arbitrary (as iNow suggested) then why bother with a definition at all? Because if we cannot agree on what the differences are whether personal to the individual or in general then how do we categorise and should we even bother? Therefore all the sporting categories may as well be abandoned. In which case you will just end up with a minority group of people totally dominating all sporting disciplines. If you are happy with that and feel this shouldn't be an issue then fine. I just don't agree. I'm asking if a person born with male genes decides they are now identifying as a women then how do they define what makes them a woman and if this is an individual choice based on their perception of what a man is and what a woman is then does that align with the general consensus of the difference between a man or a woman? Is there a general definition which separates the 2 sexes -XY & XX? There seems to be two arguments one of biological sex and one of personal gender identification. I just can't see how the 2 can be consolidated to form a general consensus that allows for fair ruling in sports. If the definitions are going to be arbitrary then how can you set fair rules?

So what is the definition between a man and a woman? Because the way I see it, if we can't all agree on what makes a man or a woman then how can we continue with this argument? JC is criticized for using outliers as examples (real events). Then you argue back with a ridiculous response. This forum is full of inconsistences. I might jump off a tall building in protest.

Which is why sports have categories based on physical criteria, so everyone gets to compete fairly. At 170 pounds and average height I wouldn't want to be pitted in a physical combat sport against someone 6'4" and weighing in excess of 250 pounds with similar skill levels. Yeah sure I might get lucky and win the odd match but the odds would be heavily stacked against me wining. Over a period of time and a number of matches the score card would more than likely read 9-1 against me. in which case i would never get the opportunity to be ranked at the top of my sport without a category that allows me to compete on a level playing field. The whole point on tackling inclusion issues guarantee (or at least get as close as possible) to include everyone with a fair shot at winning. I don't agree that unnatural changes using drugs should be allowed either way. Performance enhancing drugs are not permitted, why else should any other unnatural procedure be permitted? By the way I didn't resurrect the thread, and nothing yet has convinced me to change my opinion on the matter.

Yeah maybe, I see your point.

I'm sorry this upset you that was never my intent. It was nothing personal. I was giving you an example of how discrimination by skin color both positive and negative can be perceived as racist. This is my point and has been throughout the thread. If you want to expel racial attitudes then you have to stop focussing on skin color for discriminating purposes, good or bad. Sorry @Phi for All But I have to agree with MigL on this because I have experienced the same on numerous threads from a few long standing members. I keep posting though because I do enjoy the discussions and even though we don't always share opinions I get to engage with like minded folk across many cultures.

Fair enough.

Thanks, It was so long ago now, I don't really think about it much these days, only if someone enquires.

Possibly, but how can that "sense" be proven as real other than an intuition or illusion or some other sensory misperception. I think it would be better to define what do we mean by "sense" in the first place. We all have had a "sense" or feeling about something. I often get those myself which I have expressed in other threads. But the subjects within my premonitions are real people proven to exist in the first place.

Sorry, I I thought the ongoing argument was around transgender women competing against cis gender women? Where there can be and has proven to be, in many disciplines, a clear unfair physical advantage. In the case of these boxers they are competing along similar physical capabilities where there is no clear advantage. Also boxing rules are such that skill 7 tactic can often outweigh pure force.

To be fair to the OP the thread started with - The OP may well be using the video to make a personal claim but that wasn't exactly clear from the offset, even though the title of the thread suggests such.

Nothing prevents God from anything, including being present outside of space & time as we experience it. Which would also unable us to "sense" God, along with the inability to observe, detect or prove God's existence. There is no requirement to prove God's non existence and there is no credible proof of God's existence. To make the OP's question valid, one must first undeniably prove of God's existence. Until then, one cannot sense God because one cannot prove God exists in the first place.

And I accept that, pursuit of perfection can (does) often hinder progress. This is true however if you only focus on and accept perfection as the only goal. If though you set out realistic goals along the journey towards the perfection you seek that does not hinder your pursuit and accept each of those as an achievement within itself then you can quickly make progress, especially so if action is taken and not delayed towards each step. I worry that knowing that perfection is an unrealistic goal, we may give up in our pursuit and accept something much less, thus missing out on potential we never thought was possible. Especially if in doing so we end up taking steps back or at best sideways. Ok, we are in disagreement then. Crudely put my point is - A system that assumes that all people black have suffered injustice directly or indirectly, and therefore, all black people, no matter each individual case, shall be compensated, is a racist system by definition. In this case then fine, there is a common denominator for the injustice that as occurred, and these people should be compensated on individual or group cases . No one is arguing this. But it has been mentioned many times about reparations for people who's ancestors suffered injustices, especially focused around all black people. Intermating that justice should be so that all living black people should be compensated even if/ or not it's for past injustices dating back hundreds of years. In which case the system is using a blanket racial positive discrimination tactic which may not really be fair justice for all. Referring back to iNow's point about the pursuit of perfection, maybe a blanket system is the sensible approach. From my perspective I don't agree. I still stand by my opinion that invoking a system that uses any form of racial discrimination tactic will in the long run add fuel to the fire. Those who are arguing against a blanket system by giving examples of injustices both past and present across many cultures are just offering you the opportunity to consider perspectives.

No all was good, though back then there was a more lack luster approach to health & safety. I'm in no doubt it was entirely my own fault, just a lack of concentration for a moment. Though one could argue that if the guarding was up to modern day standards then the accident may not have occurred, but that is just if's, but's and maybe's. I was de-burring a load of pipes that I had cut to length and somehow as I spun the pipe against the grinder wheel the pipe snagged dragging my thumb into the wheel. It was just one of those freakish accidents that can happen when you get complacent. The strange thing is that since the accident I have used these types of machines many times since, and weirdly when I do I have this (luckily controllable) urge to grab the grinder wheel.

The evidence suggests that it is a region of space where the gravity prevents light from escaping. How do we know it's not an alien, or the fairy godmother, or a space giant's butt hole...? But this is an illusion, I "sense" many things myself, sometimes in fear of my life if I'm half asleep and think there is a monster in my bedroom. We are hard wired to be self preservative in which case our brains may invent something unnatural to provoke us to act fast - Better to run in fear than wait to see if it really is a monster.

There is no credible evidence to support the existence of God. So based on this reasoning, I would choose this (my bold) as the most likely reason out of all the other possibilities.

Yep, I'm a victim of a 9" pedestal grinder. Lost part of my thumb when I was 18, it happened so fast I had no time to react. My thumb was a mess, luckily I can still use the remaining part to grip things and I don't have much trouble other than a bit of maintenance keeping tidy the tiny bit of nail that persists on growing out the side of it. Oh... I do get the odd phantom itch in the missing part which can be frustrating. So good advice! It's easy to get caught out even if you are experienced, so never get complacent and get the right training.

If you are prepared to use skin color as a factor for discrimination whether positive or negative then does that not automatically qualify it as racist? This is the argument that is often used by many racial activists on the flip side. My argument is more about changing people's attitude towards racism, a start would be to stop highlighting skin color differences in circumstances where it may invoke further racial tension. There are people out there who fully believe that if you are black then you cannot be a racist and that if you are white then this automatically makes you a racist. Then you have the very racist people who genuinely believe that skin color defines a person's status in society. These attitudes need to be expelled. My point being, skin color should have no influence. Discrimination both positive & negative by skin color has done nothing but cause harm to people either directly or indirectly. The people who have suffered injustice as a result of their skin color deserve reparations, full agreed. However, iNow keeps point out to me that an ideological system which I may envision will not work. Maybe iNow is correct (nothing is infallible). All I'm trying to point out is that invoking further discrimination by skin color, even if positive, may not in the long run produce positive outcomes for all and may further invoke directly or indirectly negative racial attitudes. Honestly I'd be a fool to say I have an answer, maybe the sensible approach is to follow your proposed system. But again honestly, I'm of the opinion that to eradicate racism is to change people's attitudes towards it, starting with stop making a deal about all physical differences, including skin color.