zapatos

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".

Cell phones might reach a tower 45 miles away. In 1901 Marconi received a radio message across the Atlantic.

If my lifetime lasted the length of the universe my experiences still won't be exact duplicates. As long as my surroundings change, my experiences change.

I'm not here to give you remedial english lessons. Don't complain to me when you cannot even be bothered to clearly express your thoughts or base any of your assertions on evidence. Debate takes some work, and you don't seem up to the task.

What is wrong with you? You've been on this site long enough to know that details matter. Why don't you join in with the rest of us instead of insisting your sloppy debate style is acceptable?

Okay. You made it sound like you were opining about what WOULD happen.

I believe you are projecting.

My 'testing and proven' comment had to do with what is already in play. We give it our best shot and if it needs adjusting we do so. We're unlikely to get everything correct right out of the gate so we need to adjust as appropriate. Sort of like the Olympics have been doing. I'm happy they were not so afraid of making a mistake that they wouldn't try at all. Instead they've made adjustments as they've learned and gained experience. And this is par for the course. EVERY sport has rule changes as new questions arise and more knowledge is gained. Pitcher's mounds rise and fall, how to define a 'catch' in American football seems to change every year, what type of swimsuits are allowed, and whether or not you can have artificial legs. I don't know why adjusting rules now that we have more and more trans women creates such an undue amount of angst in people. We've been making adjustments since sports began.

My son will occasionally use the incorrect spelling when texting. I once called him out on it and he said he knows the correct word. It is just that when communicating with certain people (parents, friends) it is easier to not switch screens to find the apostrophe, so he knowingly spells it wrong. He also stated that he would never do such a thing when inappropriate, such as at work. Thus I believe a bit of sloppiness is acceptable, whether in dress, cleanliness of house, use of expletives, or spelling, depending on your relationship with your audience.

While I believe this method would theoretically work I'm not sure it is practical. Male/Female is a simple demarcation and it is one that is pounded into people's brains, especially females, from early childhood. Men take advantage of women in many ways starting at a very early age. In elite sports women (mostly) get to break away from the influence of men and compete on a more or less level playing field. I cannot imagine that women (or most men) would accept giving up that precious space. Sports organizations are trying to figure out a way to let trans women compete in women's sports. Meghan Rapinoe has even spoken out in favor of trans inclusion. IMO it seems much more likely we can find a reasonable, "acceptable" solution by keeping the men/women categories and including trans players into those categories by using well thought out, discussed, scientifically based, sport specific, tested and proven rules. As a side advantage, it essentially provides confirmation that trans women are WOMEN since that is the category they would compete in. https://www.si.com/fannation/soccer/futbol/news/megan-rapinoe-on-transgender-participation-in-sports

I suspect that rather than a debate, you are looking to holler at people until they've had enough, at which point you can claim victory.

Okay, thanks for clarifying. Yours seems to me to be a reasoned position. Not that you were looking for my seal of approval but I wanted you to know what I thought.

Okay. So maybe I'm misunderstanding you but when you say "...experiment all you like, but leave elite XX sports as originally intended and exclude XY individuals", it sounds like you are saying you've concluded that trans women should not compete with cis women. If that is what you are saying, why can't we experiment with it?

But this statement assumes that there are no possible reasonable solutions to allowing trans women to compete at the elite level, right? If so, are you convinced that all possible solutions have been reviewed/attempted/whatever and found wanting?

This has been my position as well. If we choose to at least attempt to include transgender athletes, as for example they have done in the olympics, we will soon discover if inclusion will work. At one time it was believed unsafe for women to run marathons, or in general, to compete in any sport during menstruation. It was only by attempting to include women that we discovered women could withstand the dangers of competition. We can debate all we want, but we'll never know one way or the other if it is reasonable to allow transgender women to compete unless we actually make the attempt.

So trans people AND black people. Got it.

On a side note, did anyone else notice that on this and similar topics, most of the people from the more 'liberal' countries are taking a relatively more conservative position, and the participants from the more 'conservative' country are taking a relatively more liberal position? I know it means nothing but it kind of made me chuckle. 😁

You prefer the evidence approach with everyone or just with trans people? If someone tells you they are right-handed do you also "resent any kind of compulsion to "accept right-handed individuals as they identify"? How about a person who says they have blonde hair? Do you insist on the "evidence approach" with them? What about the person who claims to be white, or a bit of an introvert? If your resentment and evidence approach only applies to people who identify as trans then perhaps you can forgive us for mistaking that for a type of prejudice.

Inhaled dust is excreted via mucous.

I think we need to add a new emoji just for "Citation?" so we don't have to type it so many times.