Phi for All

Because you phrase it just like this, but it gets heard as "I want women to get hurt" or "it's more entertaining when average people can compete" or "any woman can compete against the top elite men in all sports". And I don't see those supporting transgendered athletes misinterpreting the opposite stance in the same way. The pushback I've been getting seems mostly arguments from incredulity and don't be a snowflake and we already have categories.

The GOP has dressed all these concepts up as scarecrows, stuffing them with straw and misrepresenting the stances behind each in a fallacious endeavor to knock them all down. Progressivism is also mischaracterized, as we've seen quite recently with FOX News and Tucker Carlson promoting the Great Replacement theory, helping indoctrinate white supremacists across the country and, imo, directly leading to the recent mass shooting in Buffalo. The GOP, FOX, and Carlson all have a LOT of blood on their hands, imo.

Under the second amendment, as long as she didn't plan for that to happen, it's her right to risk her child's life that way (the American way).

It seems like all the arguments you mention either mischaracterize opposing arguments, or argue from incredulity, or are outright strawmen attacks. If you can meet the physical requirements necessary to compete at a certain level, can you explain to me again why your age or gender is an issue?

Page 36, still strawmanning hard. I believe there are women out there who, if supported as athletes from a young age (the way men are), are fully capable of trying out for pro sports at virtually every level and qualifying for all the physiological benchmarks. Most assuredly, some sports would have a level of competition that would disqualify MOST people, men or women, and men may indeed dominate that league/class.

If you were looking for a binary result (is capsaicin present in ANY amount - yes or no), that would be a pretty cool school project. What you're talking about has some real commercial applications. This site https://www.zpchilligroup.com/ claims to have such a device.

The meme has been around a while, without Skeletor, so perhaps this is He-Mansplaining? I got hung up on the bad punctuation.

It's not an analogy, it's a scenario, and it's not like your strawman either. You obviously wouldn't qualify the way my example did. My 80 year old woman qualified for every test she needed to pass for heavyweight boxing in this scenario, and she's a monster in the ring. She's strong enough, and has the capabilities and endurance, and thinks you should take your "protect the women" and shove it. Why won't you let her box with Tyson Fury if she has all the skills? Is it her age? Is it her gender?

Does that sound like what the arguments I mentioned said? When I read them back, they say "rankings should rely on all sorts of other factors, and that age and gender become meaningless if you've actually bothered to test for sporting capability". Why does that sound like anybody would be competing against anybody else who was stronger and faster? Isn't that what classification is all about? If you run the 100m in a certain time, and fall between this weight and that, you qualify to compete against others, regardless of age or gender, who also qualified. As for your boxing example, if an 80-year old woman (trangendered or not) qualifies for the heavyweight class (one that's centered on various capabilities that aren't age and gender), why would you think that person is automatically invalid?

This must be the logic JCM mentioned.

Reading back over the arguments, I didn't miss them. It wasn't my arguments I was going by (I'm not a sports fan at all anymore, haven't been for a long time), but rather better arguments offered by participants other than you or beecee. Like setting standards for the industry that involve actual sporting capabilities like strength, endurance, agility and other performance factors, and establishing categories of competition that reflect those standards. So that a person of any gender and age can compete in the categories they qualify for. I didn't see logic anywherre else.

Seriously, after 36 pages, we still have people who think things like gender or age are important to sports? I thought we'd at least established that rankings should rely on all sorts of other factors, and that age and gender become meaningless if you've actually bothered to test for sporting capability. Are we going backwards on this, or did I skip some pages that argue we can't possibly test men and women/young and old for the same factors?

Spice/spicy isn't any kind of heat. It's not a taste either, which registers through facial, vagus, and glossopharyngeal nerves. Spicy foods irritate nociceptors in the tongue and mouth which register in the brain through the trigeminal nerve. Real heat from hot food is sensed as thermal pain, but spicy foods are chemical pain, and because the trigeminal nerve monitors temperature as well, the chemical pain also feels like thermal pain. AFAIK, which isn't much, the tests for capsaicin provide a scale to measure its strength, but you mention "ways to detect capsaicin presence". Are you looking to devise a quick test to show whether capsaicin is present or not, perhaps for those who are hypersensitive?

Everyone can "handle" the truth, if they're allowed to hear it. What they do with it afterwards is a test of character for individuals, and ultimately the countries they live in. If the Russians can rid themselves of their greedy leaders, it should inspire the rest of us.

There goes another irony meter. Don't you know things are getting too expensive to be replacing them so often?

In tattoo symbology, triangles point up for males, down for females. Triangles are also a Christian symbol representing the Trinity. The explanation involving these triangles and circles and pi doesn't make much sense, but I'm not a mathemetician. Even so, it seems like a dubious connection to draw. And what's the point of etching it on a metal tag? Is it to be worn on a chain? Nailed to something? What would a mathemetician do with this?

I disagree. I think it's definitely something our modern society has developed, and it seems more psychological than physiological at times. Look at your own phrasing, girls are just "good at some things" but "boys are better at others". There is a toxic competition at work here, much more ego than id.

I would hope not. Men and women both control horses as jockeys by staying in a perfectly balanced position to reduce drag and improve stride. They aren't trying to hurry the horse around the track by the reins, or beat it with a heavy club that requires ogre strength. You urge the horse on by constricting and relaxing your legs to impart some vertical force, but again, it's more about stamina than physical strength.

It does happen, and more often with men (for obvious reasons), but there's no doubt you need a fair amount of strength to hold onto a running horse. If anyone doesn't believe that, try riding a motorcycle on motocross trails for twenty minutes and you'll feel like you carried the bike part of the way. The horse/vehicle may be working harder, but it's not easy staying on.

This is why bars hire bouncers. They're not necessary until people start drinking.

This is a really messed up sport, imo. Women typically are underrated because it's known that at the same weight they have more body fat than men, but then the men have all kinds of health problems trying to "make weight". The strength needed for riding is only what you need to NOT fall off, so women actually do better because of superior stamina and pain tolerance. Women as jockeys generally don't get access to the best horses, even though physiologically they're on a par with their male counterparts. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2378023117712599

One of "they" had this clarification.

Oh please. The foodservice giant they use for catering at the US House is uber-greedy, they used to be a client of mine. Sodexho took over the contract in 2015 and like all big corporations, they need steady growth, and offering booze to their clients is an easy way to assure that. This isn't because of liberal politics or even alcohol, this is because we've allowed too much privately owned enterprise in our public intstitutions.

If Arnold Schwarzenegger is Frankenstein's monster, can Russel Brand play Jesus AND Muhammed?

How does video promote discussion? It's a one way medium. It promotes monologues. I think the micro/macro argument is a bad one, and allows creationism to get a toehold in the ignorant mind. It's all evolution, the result of several factors and lots of time. Remember that we're talking about creationists here, so why bother with evidence they'll ignore? Also, you should make the distinction between evolution and the theory that describes it. Evolution is a fact, we see it in each generation of every species. What you're supporting with evidence is the theory of evolution, one of the strongest explanations we have for what's been observed in nature. I don't watch videos because I can't interact with them, they take forever compared to reading, and I feel like the people who make them are only interested in improving their YouTube channel views rather than actually discussing science.