zapatos

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.

That isn't a question. I still don't know what you are referring to.

As far as I can tell you only asked one question ("Can you refute that?"), and I did refute it. What question do you think I've dodged?

Re-read the thread. We are trying to determine how/if to allow transgender athletes to compete. Everyone else is discussing whether or not testosterone levels are meaningful, or even safe to use. They are trying to decide if muscle mass can be measured, or if different sports would require different rules. You do not get to decide above all other opinions what constitutes a woman, and who should be allowed in the 'women's' category due to your definition. You don't get to end this debate because YOU decided what a woman is NOT.

Sure, I'll refute that. And the reason I can do so is because it is made up. Any of us can make up any definition we wish. Which makes this a distraction. The "definition" is not the issue. The issue is how/if we allow people to compete in the existing categories.

I've run across many inhabitants of earth who I don't think would be considered to have super strength on even the smallest of planets.

Seems to me he was pretty clear... Your post was about drug use, it was not a scientific reference, and there was no discussion or invitation to discuss.