zapatos

I remember using that argument with my mom when I was a kid. "But mom, why can't I have cake for breakfast? Cake is made from milk, eggs, and wheat which are all healthy foods. Don't you want me to be healthy?" Wow. What a massive abdication of personal responsibility. I'm speechless. I'm without speech. Could you please provide a handful of examples?

As a layman it is obvious to me that as mass increases it becomes harder to get something off the surface of a body. I can easily toss a ball in the air. A bowling ball is harder. Imagine launching a boulder. To launch a spaceship requires a massive amount of brains and energy. Yet I can flip on my $2 flashlight with a flick of my finger and see the light beam instantly move up the side of the building and into space. Light readily leaves something as massive as the sun. I have absolutely no experience where light seems to be held back. It seems gravity cannot hold it back, nor does gravity even have any affect on it. So when someone says "Even light cannot escape!", I think "WOW! That is AMAZING!!" Light ALWAYS escapes!! (in my experience) "The amount of gravity in a black hole must be something really extreme. And as an afterthought, I guess that is why it is called 'black'."

We 'willfully ignorant' forum members love when we are presented with "proof" in the form of a meme.

Exactly. And we share and exchange ideas with those who have an open mind and are open to scientific debate. Asking me to support my position when you've made up your mind beforehand is not arguing in good faith. I'll not waste my time. I'd rather attempt to shave my head with a cheese grater.

Why do you care if you don't believe in it? We could say anything at all and it wouldn't make any difference to you. Close, but no cigar.

Cool. I can't say I've met many people who don't have a personal sense of their own gender.

When did you choose your gender? Could you change it on demand?

Gender identity is there at birth. Just like your foot and heart are there at birth. You may as well be saying that whether or not they have a head is irrelevant to how they were born. No, the doctor got it half right. Lia did have a pecker but the doctor was unable to tell us about Lia's gender. Bullshit.

Unless you can clearly define "real women" then using labels is no more than an approximation. People are what they are, no matter what slot others want to put them in. Who cares if they call themselves real women, if you call them real women, or someone calls them trans women. They are simply people and they want to be accepted as people, whatever their differences from the average. I believe the focus should be on figuring out if there is an equitable way to allow people to compete. Arguing over 'real' or 'delusional' is a distraction.

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.