StringJunky

The two mentioned were the ones often cited in UK papers iirc.

When anyone puts 'Truth' in a name, you know they are lying. Trump's Truth Social site comes to mind.

Which has caused adverse climate change. I don't think scientists are going to wait to see if climate sceptics are right. Because we'll be fkd.

I'm thinking self-reference is another virtual memory space, a cumulative, more durable record, but still plastic, that represents the identity.

Yes, the vocal minority. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. I will refer to TERFs in future.

It worked fairly well until relatively recently. Much of this is political and an extension of feminist discontent with the direction these kinds of activities are taking, in contravention of their exclusionary aims. Feminists want to exclude, and LGBTQA+ just want to be included. Guess which side I'm on.

If the program routine for that ability wasn't already there and evolved it in the course of its operations, I think so. That would be functional-plasticity in action

My point was, if you sufficiently restrict your vision, put blinkers on, everything 'looks' hunky-dory.

Fuck the talented elites, like Semenya then.

You mean those that were judged to be women... and the natural outliers excluded, cue the present-day furore with Caster Semenya, their contemporaries and others preceding them throughout elite sport history.

Pseudo-Galileo's live on. Narcissism is everywhere.

That plays into the oft-unspoken exclusionary feminist trope of separate but equal. That didn't work very well dealing with racism in the 20th century... did it?

In the converse, there's plenty of trans-males accepting testosterone that undergo the full transition. Sex hormone therapy is a widely accepted method on both sides of the transition spectrum outside sports. It's not hard to extrapolate that to sports. Testosterone targets only reflect the knowledge of today, not in the future, as more information is collected and understood in the context of elite sports. Only empirical testing and observation will find meaningful ways of inclusion. That answers your earlier question to me that I and others have repeated quite a few times.

Ah, Mr Dunning-Kruger, how the devil are you?

An anxiety of yours with minimal/negligible evidence to show for it to date. That's 0.0032% of Olympians since 2003. Storm in a thimble, or what?

Cheers.

All we've been suggesting is possible paths to resolution, not the details, which can only be found with empirical methods and experience. Is that so hard to understand? If you call that 'handwaving' then further discussion is pointless.

Interesting, been around a fair old while as well. I can see the need in those days, as there probably wasn't a lot of mass media outlets at the time and monopoly was too powerful. It's only since the internets arrival, that it's not so important, as any deficits in getting other views 'out there' can easily be rectified with new alternative sources.

Thanks.

Are the big social media companies bound by US law to allow freedom of speech, as it pertains to government, or are they just as free to censor according to their own rules, like small discussion sites? Is it just adverse political exposure/noise that forces them to change?

Nothing is being forced on anyone. If the price of entry to a swanky restaurant is white coat and tails with a top hat, one is required to comply. Otherwise, one can wear what one likes elsewhere.

We only need to look at people absorbing and applying the hypothetical-at-the-time approaches promoted in 'Das Kapital' at a revolutionary rate to see that fully-constructed social theories can have disastrous social consequences.

It's looking like you are going into panic-mode, and quickly compiling a litany of obstacles. It doesn't matter if we here don't have all the answers now... Rome wasn't built in a day. If it takes decades for the stakeholders and regulators to find equitable solutions, that's ok. We only have to look at the timeline of homosexuality in the UK, since its eventual absorption into the UK's social fabric after 1967, to see the timescales probably involved. Society and nature is constantly in flux. It's only when we look over several decades of societal development do we see more distinct periods of our behavioural evolution, and thus large-scale changes of attitude emerging from each era. I don't think responsible social adjustments are amenable to remote, hypothetical modelling. It needs to be small, empirical steps, in the field, with concomitant assessment.

This is a work in progress, and those questions can be addressed empirically, as and when they become an issue in the course of trying things out.

"It is so strong, it can pull on light as well as matter". This is not a level of educating where you would be mentioning extreme curvature as the proper reason.