swansont

! Moderator Note Good for you. Now stop spamming the forums with drek. You can ask questions about science, you can raise issues for scientific discussion. "I have ideas about fairies" is neither.

! Moderator Note Is there a question here, or a point of discussion?

Personally I’d use atomic clocks. I imagine they were discussing the next level of theory, much like Newtonian physics was “doomed” by relativity, and yet, it works just fine in most everyday situations. It’s possible a concept of spacetime won’t work at the Planck scale.

If you don’t have math, you don’t have a theory

You must be unfamiliar with modern physics; we don’t personally experience many things in it. We gather evidence the shows the entity exists. Belief doesn’t enter into it. Quarks. Neutrinos. Atoms. Electrons. Neutrons. Protons.

! Moderator Note Why is this in the evolution bin? Why is the thread title so different from your OP? Why do you keep spamming us with drek?

That’s not the issue. You don’t have to perceive something for it to exist. You can be oblivious to it.

“I don’t see” doesn’t make something untrue. It’s argument from incredulity.

You’ve started a number of threads that lack rigor, so this is hardly the appropriate criterion. Pointing out blatant errors doesn’t require asking questions

! Moderator Note And yet you’re here…

We do this in science by removing human perception and using instrumentation where appropriate

It is analogous in that it’s not a choice. (gender, like sexual orientation, might have more factors involved than simple genetics)

Just because you don’t think two hours have passed doesn’t mean that it hasn’t. Time is not the same as time perception

Why do you choose to be right/left-handed? This whole stance is analogous to asserting that everyone is right-handed, but some people just choose to use their left hand. Or vice-versa.

Note the use of “traditional” in that explanation. IOW it references pat views and excludes the current realization that gender is not so simply defined. One might think that the dictionary definition of “feminine” might someday include “archaic” in the notes. Perhaps one whose rights are being denied, are at least not being recognized? Like just about any minority, to some extent.

! Moderator Note Please establish that this is true.

Time most certainly be measured.

! Moderator Note Not sure what part of “don’t re-introduce this topic” you didn’t understand, but yes, I meant it

Most people are just fine with such cases. Is there some rash of incidents of CD/DVD damage being reported?

I can talk of things in momentum space, which is not spatial. Describing things of x,y,z is one option, but not the only one.

You said the situation wasn’t a false dichotomy, which implies there isn’t a third option. So basically you did. Claiming that as a "false dichotomy" for the purpose of allowing generally advantaged xy chromosome individuals to compete in the category of those with xx chromosomes counts as well Nobody has established that the chromosomes of these people (is anyone doing such tests?) or that chromosomes are actually the sole determinant of gender. Nor that the ones competing are “generally advantaged” because this. The lack of examples of all the medals/money being won suggests this is not true. Furthermore, this is not an exclusive matter of science. There are moral/ethical considerations, and legal ones in play. It basically demands we use two categories for gender when that’s not the case. And that gender is all in the plumbing and not in the brain and other aspects of the body (and even then ignores that it’s not so simple as only 2 options for what body parts you have) To me the blinders seem similar to the mistaken notion that you choose your sexual orientation. That one is choosing to be a different gender, like one is choosing to be attracted to people of the same sex. Out of convenience, perhaps. Since it applies to a large majority of people It’s a social distinction, but probably much less of a scientific one.

Fock space is not a physical region. The “space” is a mathematical one. There was a recent discussion of this

This whole argument is based on there being a disadvantage to competing in the men’s category. And framing it as “men who claim to be female” is part of the issue. It was a claim of logic, not science. Is there some excluded third option? So in the US you exclude about 200,000 people. Yeah, sure, that’s the same as zero </s>

But it’s not. Men and women were divisions made long before chromosomes were known, and we know there are more than these two pairings. The two are not mutually exclusive.

The pseudo-science being…what?