Intoscience

I don't think anyone is suggesting we simply ban transgender female athlete's from competing in the female category, just because it doesn't seem fair. I'm certainly not advocating this even if the shape analogy gave this perspective. Its very clear that the situation is not simple, since it seems medical studies and evidence is currently limited. What I would like to see is that there is conclusive evidence to support in favour either argument. Once this is determined and accepted then the system either can remain as is or amended / expanded so as not to negatively discriminate against anyone It appears to me that we are all not being honestly objective, and we are allowing our opinions and feelings to be vented in our posts. I don't think this is a negative thing and I don't think it is suggesting any transphobia. It's not morally wrong to discuss gender identities, sexual differences, biological differences... in this way. But there is a distinction between these that should be recognised and not muddying the waters in regards to this thread. Can we all agree that there are biological differences between male and female? Because this should be the focus, since the question is do those biological differences equate to potential performance differences in sports? If they do, then are those differences significant enough to warrant an investigation into the advantage/disadvantages in potential performance... and would this have an adverse effect on the current system or would it make no difference? Sexual identity should be irrelevant to this study, since I can proclaim that I want to be identified as a woman and then compete against women in sports. This would be no different than me proclaiming I want to be identified as a child and then compete against children. What we need is hard scientific evidence to determine whether or not transgender women have a clear unfair advantage over cis-gender women in potential performance. Not opinions based on beliefs or culture.

Did you not read my response to Swansont? (I've quoted above)^^^ On the contrary to your comment that I'm suggesting female athletes are 100% equivalent, I'm clearly suggesting that differences can be many and varied, regardless of gender alone. I'm not the one advocating we frame everyone into a couple of specific groups, I'm saying the groups are diverse in many ways so we should try to accommodate this diversity by expanding the options rather than trying to "make fit". It appears to me that you are the one suggesting we fit as many shapes as we can into just a few holes. I was pointing out that this may not be the best solution.

I don't disagree, I think its important that we take responsibility and consider others at all times. I wear my mask not to protect myself but to protect others and set an example. I think its important that people know this, especially when I hear people say they have had their inoculations so feel they don't require protection, not realising that by wearing the masks they are protecting others!

We have this debate at my place of work. For certain aspects of manufacturing, the process requires face fitting 3m respirator masks which would (so I believe) give quite significant protection against the virus. However as already been pointed out, the virus can be ingested through the eyes also, and live long enough on clothing or skin to get contracted at later times etc.. So its my understanding that basic face coverings most people are using is to reduce the distance the virus can travel on the moisture ejected from breathing, coughing or sneezing by slowing down the expelling speed. Thus, in general you wear the mask to reduce the chance of infection being distributed air borne from your expelled moisture by you to others. Rather than any sort of significant protection for yourself. If this is correct there is pretty much no point in wearing a basic face covering unless you are in close contact to others, that you may unknowingly infect, should you be carrying the virus (which is the responsible thing to do).

Coming from an engineering background (where precision is important) wouldn't the best solution be to just create triangular holes rather than trying to make them fit round or square ones? I agree with you though that the basic premise should not be to describe each group as a particular shape. But this is one of the reasons why we have sub categories, like age, body weight etc... If you want to advocate fair and equal opportunity across the whole spectrum of genders, age, weight etc (which I do). Then categories, sub categories, rules... need to be expanded or amended to accommodate this, especially if there is a potential that by accommodating all, you discriminate against some. If the triangle fits neatly into the round hole and there is no issue then fine. But if the triangle is forced into the round hole and the round hole will no longer support the round peg then it needs addressing. I don't agree with you on the relevance of the history of segregation. For this discussion I don't see why it is relevant. There are many things in life that get introduced with one intent, only to gain unintended usefulness. You agree that we are stuck in a binary system, so you recognise that this system maybe outdated. Yet it is you who insists on trying to fit the triangle peg into either a round or square hole. I'm suggesting that there are many shapes, some that can fit in more than one hole and some that won't so require their own hole that is equally recognised . I'm saying lets make all the holes we need for all the shapes we have so that no shape is ever excluded and no hole is ever compromised.

Doesn't matter what happened in 1920, and what the intention of segregation was back then. The point is, it works now for the right reasons, simply because in many disciplines men have a clear advantage over women. If you want to ignore this fact then that's your choice. Segregation and classification in the modern era serves a useful purpose, where it allows for more people to compete and be recognised for their performances. That is where the most useful equal opportunity arises. It allows for women to be recognised and respected as equals to their male counter parts and this then should extend out to other sex identities, including the minorities, but not at the cost of the majority. Scrap segregation and classification and open it to everyone and you end up with the vast majority just taking part and a small minority (probably mostly cis males in many disciplines) dominating everyone else. You cant have equal opportunity with equal outcome. Transgender should be included and not discriminated against! We all agree on this, but we need to make sure inclusion and diversity should be fair for everyone, and is not discriminating against others. Ok, it might be that its no big deal for transgender women to compete with cis gender women, I'm not an authority to make judgement. I Have my opinions, but my opinions are idealist and not really practically possible, so not very useful. I'm just struggling to understand why the obvious differences in general between cis males and cis females get ignored or diluted in these types of discussions? Especially at the elite levels where those differences can be very significant.

It's very relevant, historically how the segregation came about is irrelevant, but the fact that the segregation works well and gives woman an equal and fair opportunity to compete and gain equal status to men is very relevant. No one is arguing that transgender competitors should be discluded, the argument is whether if they are categorised into the current system does this have an adverse effect on this system in a way that it makes it unfair to other competitors. I'm no expert, but it seems alarmingly clear to me that in certain sports, especially contact combat sports, there may be a concern not only for fairness but maybe safety? I have a friend who's son is a transgender woman. Yesterday, I plucked up the courage to ask a few questions on the subject without sounding offensive. I asked about combat, she told me that she would never strike another woman in fear of doing some serious damage but had no problem striking a man if it was ever required. She told me that she still retains her physical strength regardless of her surgery and hormone treatment. Her stance was that transgender women should not be allowed to compete certain sports against cis-gender, however she was very clear on discrimination and identity. So she acknowledged that fairness could be a problem and felt torn between the arguments. (in fairness she openly admitted that she was not very "sporty" so could be talking out of her ass) Interesting hearing this from the horses mouth so to speak. It seems, at least in her case that the world needs to accept sexual identity and equality for all, but also appreciates the difficulty in certain scenarios where segregation can lead to discrimination.

This is the one that always ignites my scepticism. Though, one could argue that since man was created in the image of God, why would he not do the same elsewhere? (tongue in cheek)

Because we are impatient. Would you want to be part of a large program, where your sole purpose was to travel on a spaceship your entire life just to procreate so the next generation and the next and so on... gets to their destination? This is all assuming that any destination is worth the time, investment and commitment to get there in the first place. Sure we can consider pseudo science, to conjure up warp drives and wormholes... to get around the time and distance issues. But based on our "current" known physics, travelling (in person) to even local star systems is nigh on impossible. So unless there is some science which enables FTL, or at least get around the distance issue, then the only thing we are likely to send out to other star systems is mechanical probes. Wild speculation, If aliens have technology to achieve FTL or warp drive, or some other exotic form of long distance space travel. Then they must have discovered physics/laws that transcends our current understanding. Either that or their life spans far exceed ours, so that long distance travel over long periods of time is not an issue.

Thanks for the sketch, I already understand this. I realise and appreciate your point on the scales involved. I also appreciate that a Planck length defines the smallest size that could be observationally probed and we have no idea of what might go on at those sizes. I think the point I'm trying to make is concentrating around whether space is continuous or not. So I'm coming from this perspective, in an attempt to understand whether "nothing" is a valid notion that could be attributed to a definition at the smallest scales. Basically would it be reasonable to suggest that below the Planck limits there could be nothing?

Ok, thanks Glad you got to make the pun 😉 Sorry to dwell on this, I'm just trying to get an understanding of the physical reality (Don't want to get into the definition of reality) of what is going on at the extremely small scales. If there are 2 physical objects separated by a Planck length what is in-between those objects, nothing, space, quantum "foam" etc...?

Yeah maybe, though the question would be; can we continue to exist without any stars (including our own)?

Yes, I appreciate that using the term "orbits" in relation to QM is not technically accurate. However I was just trying to get an understanding of what is actually happening in this scenario at the quantum level. I guess I'm thinking, maybe to talk about nothing, between any 2 physical objects is more complex than it may appear at first glance , even if from a macroscopic perspective the items are touching. There is obviously interaction between the atoms of each object at the quantum level. At the quantum level would there be a clear distinction between the surfaces of each object?

If we didn't have stars we wouldn't be here to ponder the question, since we are predominately made from "star dust"

Just expanding on what Phi For All said. The current model only goes back to 10−43 seconds after the expansion and it is hypothesised that spacetime may have begun at the big bang, therefore a "before" maybe a null concept, at least in terms of time. As to leaving the universe, well again this maybe a null concept, in that there is no "outside" of the universe. If the universe is larger than the observable universe then this obviously implies an "outside" of the observable universe. In this case to go beyond the observable universe would require some fantasy way of travelling, wormhole or similar. It's very difficult, I suggest impossible, to conceptualise the universe and its origin. We are part of this universe and operate under its laws. Our experiences are bound within space & time, to even consider, with any worthwhile meaning, "outside" of these parameters is impossible.

A sentiment I also share 😊

I find this an interesting perspective. The force exerted, would this be the repulsion of the orbiting electrons between the atoms of each electrode? Would there still not be space between these atoms, at least at Planck scales?

Unfortunately you should expect nothing else but negative feed back on a science forum like this, when you assert unfounded ideas that are based on pseudo science. If you are serious about considering your ideas then you should at least read up on what the mainstream has to say about it first. Then if you feel you have a counter argument then come back with some evidence to back up your claims. This is the only way you will be taken seriously, and even then to challenge the mainstream can be a difficult journey to undertake. We can all have a bit of fun and play around with ideas, this can be exciting, but assertions require evidence to back them up.

This point however I'm not sure about. Maybe I'm being pedantic and taking it out of context, but I'm not sure this statement is strictly true? I liked the rest of your post, it made some good points! At the quantum level, what does it mean for the electrodes to be touching?

I don't see anyone attacking transgender people, so not sure where you get that impression. I see folk arguing the "possibility" that transgender women athletes may hold a natural advantage over cis-gender women athletes. I think this is a fair argument to have, at least until it is proven one way or another whether it holds true. MigL pointed this out quite clearly when he stated the development of young males during puberty and how their bodies develop specifically for increased strength and endurance. Which stems back 100's of thousands of years in evolution, likely due to the males going out to do the hunting etc, while the females nurtured and protected the young. So it was natural that their respective bodies require different attributes for survival. Now we have sports this difference, especially at the elite level, becomes quite obvious and depending on the discipline there can be a large advantage/disadvantage between cis gender sexes. Which is why there is a male and female category and rules within the categories, all in an attempt to give everyone a fair and equal opportunity to compete. There will always be cheaters and there will always be dominate competitors, this is a given. The argument is not whether transgender people are cheating. Cheating implies a clear intention to gain an advantage over others by breaking the rules of competition. The argument is whether a transgender woman has a significant "natural" evolutionary advantage over cis-gender women that could result in unfair competition. This doesn't mean that transgender people should be discriminated against, on the contrary. It means that "if" its a problem (I'm not advocating it is since I'm not a performance biology expert)then it should be addressed so that no one is left at an unfair disadvantage or discriminated against for an advantage. Some are arguing there is most likely an advantage over cis gender females, others are arguing there isn't anything conclusive to prove this to be the case. This is a fair discussion and argument, its not an attack on the sexes and identities of people. Oh, then you have the odd one who argues it all doesn't matter and it should just be a free for all. Well then we may as well just scrap competition altogether. Which would be a step backwards in my opinion! Competition (especially sporting competition) is a great way to control natural aggression, its good for mental wellbeing, as well as for physical well being. It teaches discipline and structure and gives people a goal to strive towards and a purpose, all positive things for humanity.

There are plenty of speculative reasons why an alien may not wish to be seen by or communicate with us, your comment (my bold) is as good as any. If aliens are advanced enough to easily travel interstellar distances, it's a safe bet that they are so much more advanced that communication with us might be as futile as us with insects. For me, the reason we have not been visited maybe not just one but a number of things. 1. Space is vast and there are countless galaxies and star systems, why would we be noticed (yet)? 2. Space is vast and the distances between star systems is so great it presents massive obstacles for biological life (as we know it) to travel even a fraction of these distances. 3. Space is vast so the time it would take to travel between star systems, at sub light speeds, goes beyond any practical sensibility for biological life forms (as we know it). 4. Space is vast so the energy requirements to travel between star systems maybe total inefficient and costly. 5. Spacetime is vast so the odds of any advanced life forms co existing within a relative close proximity at similar times is going to be extremely low. 6. Advanced life (based on Earth) could be very rare. Humans have only been around for a tiny fraction of the time life has been around on planet Earth, and there were a number of random events that were crucial for humans to evolve in the first place. Life existing may not naturally evolve technological capabilities. 7. Though almost 14 billion years old, relative to the estimated life span that the universe should achieve, it's very much in it's early infancy. Humans may well be the one of, if indeed not the first, technological life form to exist in the Milky way galaxy or the universe. 8. Biological life is fragile and susceptible to extreme environmental changes and conditions. There may be a filter that is difficult to go beyond. 9. The universe maybe swarming with advanced alien technology, they just either have not detected us or have no interest to engage (not my favourite reason to be honest) 10. We are alone.

I've got an old vacuum cleaner I'm thinking of selling, its just knocking around collecting dust. Did you hear about the first restaurant to open on the moon? - It has great food but no atmosphere. There's a fine line between a numerator and a denominator. What did one ocean say to the other ocean? - Nothing it just waved. What do dentists call their X-rays? - Tooth pics

These sort of matches are just a promotional spectacle and shouldn't be taken serious. John McEnroe who got slated for making a comment about Serena Williams at the time when she was ladies world No1. His comment was something along the lines of "If Serena competed on the men's circuit she would not rank any higher than 700th" I'm not sure of the exact details, but though controversial, this figure was just plucked out of his head and shouldn't be taken as "you cannot be serious" (sorry couldn't help myself). But it was generally accepted to some degree, and even by Serena herself, she went on to play an exhibition match against a male player ranked 203rd at the time and lost the match. This does not take away the fact that Serena Williams is one of the greatest tennis players of all time, and is an elite athlete who should be recognised equally as much as her male counter parts.

@ the OP Would you consider consciousness to be limited to mankind then?