zapatos

I may be mistaken but I suspect a great many of them object because they are afraid they are going to lose relative standing. If trans women were only half as competitive as cis women I doubt very many would be complaining. I also doubt that "a great many" cis women see transsexuality as a "delusion".

I was trying to use colorful language. I wasn't actually suggesting that as a requirement.

But competitively there would be no issue. I also question whether the Women's World Cup would take a big hit just because a few players used to have a penis.

You said "But for human athletes, competing for elite status and prizes, it won't be long before the cry of "unfair" comes back. "Why should I be handicapped, surely this is discrimination" !!" I thought you were saying if we tried to implement a rule that had to do with handicapping, trans people (the ones who have to limit testosterone for instance) would cry "unfair". Further I thought you were implying the "unfair" issue doesn't exist now. That is why I said you seemed to be thinking trans people would act differently to rules governing their sport than do cis people. Yes, they will play within the same rules of the game. And just like the keeper in a football match can use their hands inside the box but others are restricted on hand use, one of the rules of the game might be that trans people have a restriction that other players on the turf do not. We already have rules regarding men in the Women's World Cup (not allowed), and rules regarding women in the Women's World Cup (allowed). It doesn't seem like such a stretch to add rules for trans women in the Women's World Cup (allowed with restrictions).

Why is it that you think we don't have to worry about people crying "unfair" with any set of rules in all of sport except for rules having to do wth trans players? Are trans people different from anyone else when it comes to playing within the rules?

But we're trying to address a specific problem. How can you let someone with a clear advantage compete equitably with someone who does not have that advantage. And that is what we are discussing; can trans women compete with cis women in a fair and equitable manner? The only way to let them compete equitably is to either give one an advantage or give one a disadvantage. Having trans women reduce testosterone for example is giving trans women a disadvantage. If you want a fair competition between mismatched opponents you can add a handicap. I can golf with Tiger Woods because of our relative handicaps. If a jockey is too small, they make the horse carry extra weights. Bowling uses handicaps, as do many sailing competitions. If we can find a way to make things equitable, then the competition will be fair. That doesn't mean we have to do it, but it does mean we can do it.

Surely the NCAA can do better than that. As can Lia. Is anyone aware of sporting authorities considering a handicapping system? For events dedicated to competition between individuals, say, the 100m freestyle in swimming, this could help individuals compete more equitably.

At the risk of earning your ire, are those two statement actually true, or is this... ...in the worst possible light? Yes, it seems as if they have a lot of work to do before they come up with a system that is truly equitable.

You should be an Evangelical preacher. Substitute "God" for "human technological advancement" and you'll soon be healing the lame and handling serpents.

You don't know that. You don't know that. You don't know that.

Don't be ridiculous. If the target of the scientific observation is the person himself, then of course you can use all evidence about that person. You are essentially saying that if a person goes to a doctor complaining of depression or anxiety, the doctor should not consider the patient's feeling of depression and anxiety when making a diagnosis.

Perhaps. I've seen grape tomatoes hold up reasonably well in the refrigerator. I've never had full sized tomatoes do well.

Yes. The cells break down and leave you with mush.

That tomato looks like it was kept in the refrigerator.

Don't be childish. I'm not going to play this game with you.

As the term is commonly used, people are not 'born biologically a certain sex'. They are assigned a label based on what is between their legs. There is no "universal" guide on what defines the sex of a human 'biologically'. Instead, people have made up rules to help them organize and make sense of the world. Long ago when it came to babies it was very simple to glance between their legs and make a determination. But as our knowledge has increased we have learned that sex is not binary and not nearly so simple as what bits they have. Instead we have physical attributes, genetic attributes, hormones, and of course the brain. Some of us here tend to look at sex and gender more holistically. It seems unreasonable to me to dictate to a person their gender based on some skin between their legs when their brain tells them unequivically that is not a correct assessment. Suggesting that what is going on in their brain should not be considered 'scientific', and a genetic test is the only science that matters, seems to me like you have blinders on.

I wasn't myself trying to argue against your position although I can certainly see where it looked that way. I was instead trying to understand your reasoning (or at least understand where my reasoning was wrong) which I finally do. Thanks! 😁

The part where the data changes. If I live in a never ending universe I can marry a new person and have new experiences for an infinite amount of time. Similarly if the computer experience includes a new person, one after the other, for an infinite amount of time, why can't I 'experience' something new forever? Not really. I can put different eggs into those 12 slots. I don't have to keep reusing the same 12 eggs. That way the container can be filled an infinite number of ways.

A snapshot of the brain at a given moment tells you next to nothing about the brain. It is like taking a long distance snapshot of our galaxy and trying to extrapolate how life, ecosystems, feelings, human connections, gravity, time, art, sports and everything else will function and change over the next second, month and year. Our nervous system sends roughly 20 billion messages per second. In each cell of the brain you have approximately 1 billion chemical reactions per second, or about 37 billion trillion chemical reactions per second for the whole body. What is happening in your heart, spleen and skin affects what is happening in your brain. You may be able to create something superficially similar to a human's brain and memory, but it is not a duplicate.

Worked for me just fine.

But my experiences are only in part based my body. They are also based on the people around me, the location of my car, the weather pattern, the size of a tree, entropy, and who is singing today's most popular song. Unless you freeze the observable universe in its present state, its change will guarantee that my experiences change.

I don't know if that is true or what point you are trying to make even if it is true.

Well sure, if you believe without evidence then I can see why you might also believe in shapeshifting and Santa Claus. Being pragmatic though I understand that some things are impossible to know, and humans are limited, just like every other living thing is limited.

I was responding to you comment that said cell phones, not satellite phones.

It is not just that we don't know how to do certain things to meet your goal, but that we don't even know what those certain things are. You are assuming first that all problems can be solved, and second that all problems can be solved by humans. I would argue that neither of those assumptions are true. Thus, until we know a lot more than we do now, it is not possible to claim you've made a "plausible case that they will be solved".