zapatos

I don't think anyone needs to be sterilized. Many countries have already shown that simply by being prosperous (and the things that go along with that) is often enough to lead to population decline. Stopping lives from beginning can be achieved through global development. Not many people are opposed to their lives getting better.

Not everyone is doing okay.

My fault. I didn't re-read your post first to understand why you responded the way you did.

Please tell me what that new definition is. Because if you cannot, then how can they possibly consider it? Please show an example of where they are doing this and what that new definition is. NO THEY DON'T!!!!!!! They've ALREADY allowed trans women to compete WITHIN THE TRADITIONAL WOMEN'S CATEGORY!!!

Again, you are the one who is saying how they need to change the definition to function. No one else.

You are the one advocating for them to change it because you say they "have to operate around universally accepted definition." They are not attempting to change it themselves. They are attempting to integrate transgender women into the competition.

Pipes? Toilet tank mechanism? Pumps? Metal components at the sewage plant?

Wonder what all that salt water is going to do to the metal components it comes in contact with. And we've now given the treatment plants the additional responsibility of desalination or risk killing freshwater plants and fish or fouling groundwater when the treated water is discharged.

Then how do you explain the fact that we have men's and women's categories now even though there is no universally accepted definition of male and female? The world is full of examples where we don't have universally accepted definitions yet we function just fine. In my circles, a gun would include my target pistol whereas in the military it only includes "any large-calibre, direct-fire, high-velocity, flat-trajectory artillery piece employing an explosive-filled hollowed metal shell or solid bolt as its primary projectile." What is the universally accepted definition of "football"? How can we study black holes if we don't have a clear definition of what it is? Why must the definition of "woman" be the same for a priest, biologist, sports league, school administrator, justice system, corporation and individual? Sports leagues are free to define 'woman' any way they wish, and if they choose to define 'man' and 'woman' as they've done for the past 50 years, why should they be forced to change that definition now? As I've said to you several times in this thread, I believe the quest for the mythical "one true definition of "woman"" is nothing more than a distraction when it comes to the question of transgenders in sport. We've never had the perfect definition in the past and yet we managed to have men's and women's leagues. The focus needs to be on NEW rules for trans women to compete in the existing women's leagues. There is no need to redefine the OLD rules that define women's leagues as they exist now.

I'm not sure a universally accepted definition of male and female is required. For the purposes of competition we already manage to slot most people into a reasonable category. That is, the way you were identified at birth as male or female works just fine for putting you in the 'male' or 'female' divisions. If you identify as the opposite of the way you were identified at birth and your transition status complies with the rules, then you compete in the category in which you identify/transition. There may be something lacking in the above but I think for the most part we needn't get any more detailed in our definitions of male/female.

I used to compete in a co-ed soccer league. The way they addressed fairness was to limit the number of XY allowed on the field for a given team at one time. With 22 players on the field the XY advantage could be diluted pretty well by numbers alone in a women's league that allowed trans women to play. Men and women use the same size goals now so I don't think a change would be necessary to allow trans women to play.

Sounds like a pretty typical situation for many people.

So, using your definition then, what would you like to discuss?

That is why I clarified by stating: This thread is about adding transgender players to sport, not about some unattainable 'fairness' ideal. So "YES", in this context, it is 'fair' that some people are taller than others and that some have better eyesight.

Can you expand on that please? Why can't we find a "fair" solution? ( Assuming "fair" is roughly equivalent to the way things are "fair" as of today in women's sports.) What specifically is the intractable issue that you don't feel can be addressed?

Math, statistics, science, trial and error, etc. The same way they figured out how to allow fair competition in boxing, soccer, bowling, horse racing, co-ed sports, Olympics, etc. As I said previously, it should be done by the the governing bodies of the sports in consultation players, experts, etc. and should be adjusted as time goes on. Allowing trans women to compete fairly should be figured out just as they figured out how to deal with new technologies in sports equipment, performance enhancing drugs, and the myriad other issues that arise over the years. How would YOU suggest we allow trans women to fairly compete?

Adding weight to the bar for weightlifters who are trans women to achieve the same target lift as a cis woman. As I mentioned earlier. I don't think so. You say it will be unfair to include trans women yet you know rules to make it fair will be included. So what part is "unfair"? That's an internal issue you'll have to work out for yourself. I've never hinted you were transphobic. You really are starting to seem paranoid. That or you like to play the victim.

On the left...

You've already decided that a solution is impossible and thus dismiss any ideas out of hand. As such, any further debate with you is a waste of my time as anything I say in the future has already been dismissed by you in the past. I believe I'll limit my interactions to only include those people who are willing to entertain the ideas of others before rejecting or accepting them.

Handicapping.

Can you think of anything, anyone in this thread has mentioned over the past 88 pages? Anything at all? Testosterone levels perhaps? Handicaps? Different rules for different sports? Number of transgender players on the field at a time? Olympic rules for participation? Trying different strategies and collecting data as they are evaluated for fairness?

It is only unfair on the group if you don't implement rules that make it fair for the group. Which is of course the route everyone (except you) is taking. No one is arguing there should be no rules surrounding transgender inclusion. You are again erecting straw men.

Will you please just re-post the question you are accusing me of dodging?!?!

For some reason I feel like we're being trolled.