Intoscience

No, in my opinion - cheating means, an intent to gain an unfair advantage by knowingly breaking the rules. What I'm saying is, the rules/categories may require amendment to accommodate transgender groups in a way that their inclusion in competition is not "deemed" as cheating. Whether they have the intent or not is down to individual choice and should not be considered as a given for the whole. As a transgender person (if I was), I would be quite offended if I were to be included in competition only to be branded a cheat just because of my gender identity. This is why I keep proclaiming "fair for all". I would also, as a cis-gender be some what upset if I lost out to someone who had a clearly large advantage that was not conducive to the category I was in. (e.g. if I was a boxer in the light weight division and a heavy weight boxer was permitted to fight in the same division). Its not about being phobic in any manner, its about positive discrimination to allow inclusion and fairness for all. Yes, some people are fortunate enough to make their chosen sport their career, I don't see the relevance? We all have to earn a living, some of us have to take what we can, some are lucky and some are just talented at what they do and can exploit this. Yes, fair competition, we are intelligent and civilised enough to consider the whole. This means we are in a position to encourage "fair competition" for all. Along with money and power comes corruption, so I'm sure it is inevitable in sports also.

You are quite right implying that money plays a big part in shaping the system, we see this in everything not just sports. It's important though and I have pointed this out to you before. There is a big difference between playing a round of golf at your local club in an amateur event compared to playing in a tournament as a professional trying to earn a living. Getting cheated out of winning a tin pot trophy at your local club is no comparison to getting cheated out of your earnings which you work hard to earn and require to live on. So has I keep implying, at the elitist level where small differences can have large impacts, its important that those small differences are managed as fair as possible. Let them just play, its only a game... if we took that attitude with everything in life there would be anarchy. Everyone should be included, everyone should be treated fairly, everyone should be treated equally in success and failure. We, like most animals evolved to be competitive to survive, its coded in our genes. Supress this natural instinct and you will create behavioural issues in society. Fair competition is healthy for society, unlike animals we have the intelligence and are civilised enough to collectively survive at the same time as encourage personal competitiveness within that collective without detriment and ensure a balanced healthy society.

Because we are inquisitive and have discovered the tools required to model and gain knowledge & understanding of the universe and all within. As already been pointed out, what we chose to do with that knowledge and how we then apply it is a choice, not a natural consequence of doing science.

Again, you imply with little hints, that the few of us who are concerned about the fairness of transgender females competing along side cis-gender females, are transphobic. When on the contrary to this, we are actually concerned for fairness and equality for all groups so as not to negatively discriminate against anyone. Transgender and any other gender identity group should be recognised and treated fairly, as should any person regardless of colour, race, religion... The focus of this discussion is about whether in order to achieve this for transgender females, do we need to, is it possible to, positively discriminate so that there won't be any negative discrimination. If there is a possibility that biologically a male has a clear advantage over a female in performance in sports (which results absolutely prove there is in many disciplines at the elite level) Is there a mechanism more accurate than chromosomes to determine the difference potential advantage/disadvantage between all groups that makes it clear that a person would then fall into either group? Because if not, then the current binary system requires revision to be more inclusive in a fair manner. What is the accepted mechanism which determines between a male and a female, then what is there in-between this and how do we, should we categorise, to be able to positively discriminate in order to achieve a desired fair outcome? If there is a clear set of biological genders not just a binary set, then should sporting competition recognise this and expand the categories to match? The other part of this discussion is on sexual identity over sexual biology. Does a transgender female who is born a male (assuming we have clearly defined this) retain the physical advantages? The last thing I want is people rejecting achievements of people because of their gender identity due to the system being outdated.

But, we start with the premise of male/female because this is how we have evolved in evolution. Yes the possible advantage of someone being taller in basket ball is recognised, and accepted. If it was raised that basket ball is discriminative to short people then maybe it should be investigated and accommodated. Maybe height categories? My point is, if we want to be inclusive then we have to positively discriminate in order to categorise fairly. I accept we have a binary system and this is based on generally accepted male/female biology and covers the vast majority. But I'm not the one who's trying to shoehorn all genders into the 2 categories. I'm trying to positively discriminate between groups so that they can all be accommodated equally and fairly. I'm advocating that proper scientific studies may reveal that the current binary system requires amendment or expansion.

I think one of the problems that may cause confusion with some people is the difference between gender identity and male/female biology. To be clear, I'm only interested in the physical performance differences between male and female biology, and whether or not those differences give a clear physical advantage of one over the other in the context of sporting performance. If there are no clear physical distinctions that prove to be advantageous for one over the other in this context then I see no problem. let's simplify it down just for arguments sake, Is it accepted that in general males hold a distinct physical advantage over females when it comes to strength & power? I believe this is most people's view, would you agree? Is this distinction highlighted mostly in elite athletic sporting disciplines? The figures from sporting results clearly indicate that this is fact. I believe these are 2 good arguments to warrant an investigation into whether its fair to cis gender females to allow transgender females (once male, possibly still retaining physical advantages)to compete in the same category. I've stated this a few times, I'm not an authority on this, I'm not a performance biologist. My only concern is that society and culture focusses so much on discrimination as though all discrimination is negative, when in fact some discrimination is positive and a requirement. Discrimination: 1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, sex, or disability. 2. recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.

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?