Intoscience

If a person wants to be identified as a woman then we need to know by what definition do they mean a "woman"? If that person is free to define a woman by personal choice then what does this mean in terms of identity? How are we to reconcile this ambiguity so that we are all clear on what a woman or man is? If sex is non binary and gender is non binary but labels and categories are then what are we to do? In sporting events (since this thread was about this, and being in the biology section as pointed out to me just now. There is clearly a difference in the majority between men and women. there is also one major difference that separates men and women. Women are evolved to have the mechanism to grow offspring, and give birth men are not. By this definition does a man wanting to become a woman mean they want those mechanisms? The men that go to the extremes of having surgery to change their genitalia are striving for something. They obviously have a clear definition of what a woman is, what the differences are...they have some definition that goes along with the general consensus of what the differences are between a man and a woman. They want to be labelled as a woman but we are told that the definition of what a woman is is fluid? Then you have those people who prefer to be identified as "other". Fine, identify as you so wish, but in life where there are categories in place to protect rights so how do we reconcile the additional identity profiles with the majority identity profiles such that all are included and all rights go unaffected? Interestingly I was reading somewhere recently that prior to around 2017 ish the definition of a transgender woman was a man who wants to identify as and feel like a woman. Then there was a shift where the definition took a slightly differing aspect, the definition became - a transgender woman is a real woman. To understand what this means logically we need to define what a "real woman" is. Now we are told a woman is what ever you define it as, its just a label. A. "I want to be a woman" B. "Fine, what is a woman?" A. "What ever I chose it to be" B. "OK, but my definition of a woman is a person of female sex" A. "That's not what a woman is, a woman is a gender label, and sex is non binary" B. "OK, explain to me your definition of a woman, a female, and a person who was evolved to have the mechanism to give birth?" A. "My definition of a woman is what ever I chose it to be" B. "OK, so you want to be identified as a woman, what does this mean to you, what do you mean by gender label?" I think there is much confusion and too much unnecessary complexity which has no positive impact on society and/or the people affected.

I know what woke means and you know exactly what I was pointing to wards but as usual just like many other posters on this thread you skirt around, ignore the point i allude to and throw it back at me to make me look like some bigot, or ignoramus. No one is arguing this, the argument is about how we should consolidate sex and gender when they are conflicting. And how we can accommodate this in society, in a fair and inclusive manner. Yes it is, I'm happy to respect their choice of identity, but why should i accept something that is non factual? If I want to identify as a dog then i would hope people would respect this and identify me as such. This doesn't change the fact that I'm a human not a dog. citation please. Show me some factual evidence that trans people are targeted above any other. People are beaten and killed al over the world for all sorts of reasons. Maybe in the US trans murder is rife? What are you talking about?? I was pointing out that some problems are far more pressing than others and if aren't dealt with sooner rather than later there won't be anyone around to complain anyhow. I'm talking about focus and appropriately actioning by priority. This doesn't mean other issue should be ignored it just means some are greater than others and more of a threat to the planet and society in general. No one is talking about exclusion in the way you are referring. As you well know!!! Yet another example of missing the point and twisting to make those who disagree with you look bad! Some very sly and devious posting going on now. Nope I'm saying that person has a mental health issue and they should be treated and cared for accordingly. That was my whole point. You have totally missed it. If I believe I was born in the wrong body and I want to be my authentic self then we all agree that we should respect my identity choice. But should this automatically qualify me for the rights of my identity choice if those rights affect other's? It's double standards and inconsistent. If I'm a man who believes and identifies as a woman I'm free to enter any women's category If I'm a man who believes and identifies as a child I'm not free to enter any child's category In fact I'll take it one step further and say that most psychological experts would regard my choice of identity as a child to be a mental health issue. I have a condition called body dysmorphia where I see myself differently than others and what I actually am. Many people suffer from this and similar. These conditions are regarded as mental health issues. Is anyone going to answer my questions? I'm constantly being preached to insinuating I'm ignorant and a bigot. I've asked to be educated using facts and definitions.

Yeah, I tend to agree. nevertheless, when this sort of thing happens you can't help but wonder and its easy to see why it can be spooky. On another note I mentioned a while back, possible on your original thread about getting a sense or feeling when certain people's deaths are imminent. So recapping I have had on a number of occasions as "sense" about someone a day or 2 before they die. It's always been random and it's also often been about people I have little or no contact with previously or for a long while. Anyhow I was sat working just the other day and I had the "sense" just randomly pop into my head about a person I have only met once years ago. It was a friend's father, the friend which I have lost contact with over the last couple years and I had only once met her father around 10 years previous. Low and behold I had a message yesterday informing me that he had died the day after I had the sensation. Another spooky episode indeed.

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.