zapatos

12 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Do you have any factual support for that claim?

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

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

If a person is born biologically of a certain sex but "believes/feels" they are of a gender that is different from that which is assigned to that sex then how else would you describe it?

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. 

8 hours ago, Intoscience said:

If a person is born genetically a certain sex (which they have no control over, and is where my empathy resides) what they choose, feel, believe or otherwise is irrelevant to scientific data.

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. 

14 minutes ago, wtf said:

If you posit an infinite universe it still wouldn't help unless your physical computers are themselves infinite. But if you want to imagine computers with infinite storage I'll grant you the point. But you see the leap of imagination required to even make the premise conceivable. In an observable universe known to be finite, you want an infinite universe in which we can build computers having infinite amounts of memory. At what point does this go from an exercise in rationality to pure anti-scientific fantasy?

 

 

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! 😁

2 hours ago, wtf said:

If you run the computer long enough, you'll see your life experiences duplicate, over and over. If you allow interactions among the programs, that changes nothing. There are only finitely many possible states. Which part of this simple argument is unclear?

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?

2 hours ago, wtf said:

If you have a standard American egg container with 12 slots, you can only put an egg into one of the twelve slots. Those are your only choices.

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.

26 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I'm not a member of Twitter.  Posts are open to read AFAIK in most countries.  If it contains "sensitive" material, I think you can just click a permission button to choose to remove the block.  It may be different in the UK, though.  

See my reply to John.

Thank you, @Phi for All

Worked for me just fine. 

8 hours ago, wtf said:

You have no way to know that. Your life lasts only 80 or 90 years. Your body is made of finitely many atoms. There are only finitely many configurations you can be in.

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.

53 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If there were no elite women's sports no one here would know her name.

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

1 hour ago, Bob Cross said:

Those who have faith...

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.

42 minutes ago, Photon Guy said:

But the 1901 Marconi is way too big to fit in your pocket. And we do have phones today that can communicate with orbiting spacecraft (as the Star Trek communicators could) and that can fit in your pocket in the form of satellite phones. 

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

17 minutes ago, Bob Cross said:

Again, if the brain is just a collection of neurons, their connections, and the states of those connections, it is possible to collect all the necessary information using nano-machines - as I've described earlier.  Even if it's more complicated than that, the issue will not withstand the tidal wave of technological advancement to the edge of infinity.  These are simply techological speed bumps that will get flattened in that wave.

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".

11 hours ago, Photon Guy said:

But we didn't have any wireless communication devices that could work at the range at which the Star Trek communicators could work while being the same size or smaller than the communicators, not until we had small cell phones. 

 

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

20 hours ago, wtf said:

Human experience is finite, but our lifespans are short. If you're uploaded to a computer, you'll inevitably reach the point where your experiences duplicate. Once that happens often enough, you'll beg to be unplugged.

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.

36 minutes ago, mistermack said:

What is this huge and vital difference, between "opining what might happen" and "opining what will happen" ?

 

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.

12 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Next time I get headlice, you can come round and pick their egg cases.

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?

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Opining about what might happen? Sure

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

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

And if you start allowing males who have had gender reassignment  treatment into womens races, you won't get spectators. 

 

I believe you are projecting.

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

This is exactly my opinion too, with maybe some need to flex on the "tested and proven" component. After all, how the hell do we test and prove if we never even allow it in the first place?

 

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.

26 minutes ago, iNow said:

I've been recommending merit / skills based qualification systems for some time now. The plumbing we use to urinate need not enter the equation.

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.

Quote

"I'm 100% supportive of trans inclusion," she told TIME. "People do not know very much about it. We're missing almost everything. Frankly, I think what a lot of people know is versions of the right's talking points because they're very loud. They're very consistent, and they're relentless.

"At the highest level, there is regulation. In collegiate sports, there is regulation. And at the Olympic and professional level. It's not like it's a free-for-all where everyone's just doing whatever."

https://www.si.com/fannation/soccer/futbol/news/megan-rapinoe-on-transgender-participation-in-sports

2 hours ago, deema78 said:

To a certain extent I accept that some of physics is real. The problem with physics, of course is that it only applies to the physical. What is math? Numbers? What are numbers? Made up bs. If math was REAL, it would be able to explain things. You would say "it takes time". No, dude. Nothing takes time

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.

13 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

As long as it's safe, and most of it is, there is nothing wrong with including trans women in competition against anyone.

The issue is the current necessity of discluding them for most elite women's sport. There are good reasons not to allow them to compete. So I agree with much of the current intent to stop their inclusion. I just don't agree with some of the methods which I think are contrary to clean sport, and not good for the trans athletes, or the intersex in particular.

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. 

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

No. It assumes my interpretation of INow's "solution" that he assures me is incorrect and he will hopefully elaborate on.

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?

25 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

it basically sets women's elite sports back about a hundred years,

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?

14 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

 The solution will be empirically-discovered as ideas are tried out over time.

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.