swansont

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?

Yes, it is unscientific, and your earlier example shows you can’t use chromosomes to get you to 2 categories.

I don’t know. I wasn’t responding to CY Thanks for recognizing this wouldn’t be equitable The expansion of women’s sports in the US was driven by the realization that there was rampant discrimination. To exclude anyone who isn’t XY or XX would be further discrimination. “tradition” is chock full of discrimination, so perhaps it’s best not to lean on that. What about disadvantages to trans women? This whole thing boils down to either accepting or rejecting that trans women are women. Born or typically live with it, or not, referring to something that gives an objective advantage. You aren’t born with bionic limbs, per the example.

So you would not let these other people compete? That hardly seems fair. These are the only two options currently before us. Men’s sports and women’s sports. Once you acknowledge that this is an artificial dichotomy, the wheels come off many of the arguments.

And what of people who don’t fall into these two categories?

Yes. It’s used for photon-atom systems That’s the classical description. That’s also classical. It gives incorrect results

If they are in DVD cases they should be fine; the cases protect them from physical damage from minor disturbances like this.

I don’t see artificial enhancements currently being as hard to distinguish as the topic of the thread.

You can’t tell that time passes? That’s too bad, but this isn’t generally the case for people.

No, “we” don’t. Dressed state formulation, for example, uses energy eigenstates. No localization. Position isn’t an eigenstate.

the “dressed state” approach Particle wave function has ground and excited states, with numbers of particles in each, and photon states have an occupation number. The photons and atoms can interact. https://www.quora.com/What-are-dressed-states-in-Quantum-Optics

An EM wave isn’t a component of a particle In my part of physics you can use the “dressed state” approach Particle wave function has ground and excited states, with numbers of particles in each, and photon states have an occupation number. The photons and atoms can interact. https://www.quora.com/What-are-dressed-states-in-Quantum-Optics

I have no idea what you mean by this

A perfectly cromulent view.

Not gravity

Is that what it means? Or is it that time can’t be resolved at that scale? A bullet is significantly larger than the previously described scale, so why is there an issue? We can’t “see” the kinetic energy or momentum, either. Time isn’t spatial, so why would we see it?

As far as I recall, there’s no particular name. In many cases, the region is all space.

I recall experiments where you can have the excited atom or a photon, but that isn’t detecting the fields. That’s absorbing the photon.

! Moderator Note No, this will not fly. How this works is you present specific questions, without requiring anybody to click on links to participate.

We've had discussions here about sex and gender. I know they exist and what the conclusions are, but I can't replicate the discussions themselves. Suffice to say that I do know enough about physics and perhaps chemistry to know first-hand that these topics are far more complex than what gets discussed in high school and college, so it's not at all difficult for me to realize that biology is the same way. IOW, it's nowhere near so simple as penis vs vagina. People just act like it is out of convenience and ignorance; i.e. because they can't or won't learn more. It sounds more like a "bogeyman under the sofa" drill

Usually it's detect by being absorbed somewhere, or having some other interaction. What method are you alluding to here?

It's actually the case for most of physics. We are able to solve a few kinds of problems under simple conditions. Outside of those few, complications are legion.

We don't have consistency now in other areas as people transition from schools to the pro level, and international competition, so this doesn't seem like a reasonable standard.