Phi for All

! Moderator Note By using quotation marks, you imply these things were said by someone in this thread, but nobody said these things except you. You've also used several disparate posting styles that make you look like a bot of some sort. If I see more evidence that your account isn't legitimate, you'll be banned.

What folks like that don't understand is that we've heard, debunked, reheard, and redebunked everything they keep on about. They don't listen when their ideas are picked apart, because they lack the critical thinking skills required. It does no good to explain it to them because they don't understand and don't want to. So depriving the tripe of oxygen isn't trying to silence them, it's more like trying to shut them up because they won't stop yelling ignorant filth at the top of lungs while visiting our study group. I'd love it if the next overt racist was met with a wall of indifference.

disobey has been banned for bad faith arguments, refusal to engage in two-way discussions, and abusive behavior.

! Moderator Note It's called discussion, and we do it civilly here. It requires that people question what you say, and it requires your good faith in response. You need to leave here and never come back. Go hate the world from your own frame of reference.

I can tell you're just going to be turning people's stomachs with your "truth". I'm very sorry for the hurtful things that were done to you as a child. Please get some help.

I think it's more like energy, which is NOT a thing unto itself, but rather a property of a system. But I don't trust your "truth" because I've seen no evidence for it. I don't know you, you sound like an arrogant asswipe of a person (not that you actually are, you just come off like one), and you can't muster the courtesy to discuss this with anyone here. You just keep blogging with your fingers in your ears. You're boring!

Which truth? Whose truth? Ah, the REAL truth! Don't be absurd, truth is defined by the person speaking. The whole reason behind the scientific method is to remove subjectivity from our observations and measurements. Again, science is looking for the explanations that have the most evidence for them. So, having been corrected, does this change your personal outlook on the "truth"?

This sounds like more blogging. This is a discussion forum. Are you going to engage in this conversation, or just blog about the monologue you want to deliver? It's pretty clear that despite being such a smart person, you have a flawed foundational science education. That's not uncommon when a country doesn't put enough funding towards schools, but it's not an obstacle you can't overcome.

You've misunderstood time dilation unless you can tell us the velocity your "awareness" is moving at.

Plausibility is all that's required for you to believe?! This is me, recoiling in horror at the dubious system of belief you follow. I call that type of belief "wishful thinking". That's as opposed to faith and trust, the other two types of belief I observe. My preferred method is trust, which requires more evidence, and far less assumption.

What is "digital time", and how does it differ from regular time? You make it sound inherently weak or ineffectual.

Where did you get the idea that science seeks "truth"? You claim to be super knowledgeable, but you don't understand how subjective "truth" can be? It's a BIG RED FLAG whenever someone comes here with their own personal "truths" and tries to claim they're being scientific. Science is interested in the best supported explanations for various phenomena. These are called theories, and they're the strongest arguments science makes.

! Moderator Note Moved from Classical Physics to Computer Science.

So, you don't listen to anyone. I can believe that. I've seen the pattern in your writing. Not to attack you personally, your argument style is pretty much yelling while your fingers are inserted firmly in your ears. I don't know why you go to DISCUSSION forums when it's obvious you're hate blogging. Why would anyone want to discuss complicated issues with you? It sounds like hundreds of people have already wasted a LOT of time trying to talk to you. For us here, it's all about the ideas, and yours are total crap, no joke.

It doesn't seem like a good faith argument to defend certain human rights while spewing hatred for whole groups of humans at the same time. Does that seem right to anybody?

This is like saying, "Obviously, my hammer is behind all these nails being driven in". On the contrary, it helps even more to be educated and informed in an unstable society. Forewarned is forearmed in just about every situation. There's no boat. It's a system, and it's broken in many different ways. Most of those are readily identifiable, and capable of analysis and improvement. As science-minded folks, we'd never choose ignorance. We're here to banish as much of our own personal ignorance as possible. I agree that society needs rocking. In the US, we have a very bad problem with racism that's been eroding quality of life ever since the country was founded. It keeps us being the world's largest jailor, a first world country that allows slavery, and a first world country without universal healthcare. We claim all people are created equal, then allow extremists to warp the system so many aren't treated as equals. Is this the kind of ignorance you're talking about?

I browse the AGMA (American Guild of Musical Artists) newsletter for my politics. Congress loves to give the citizens a big song and dance.

Most of the problems LGBTQA folks have are because of you and those who think like you. Their outlook is only bleak when confronted by those who deny them the right to identify themselves as they wish, something I'm sure you want for yourself. That's the "real denial".

Most people do, and some of them realize at some point that they feel differently now that they know what society is asking of them. The key in all this is to empathize with those who don't or can't make the assumptions you do. The reason we know you're arguing in bad faith is all the evidence you ignored by not reading the other 79 pages of this thread.

"Identity" implies that the individual "identifies" as a particular gender. It's not unlike homosexuality. Who tests you for homosexuality? Who is the arbiter of what it means to be a man or woman for YOU?

This by itself tells us gender identity is at least partially there at a very early age. I've never heard of a cisgender person who remembers making such a decision. It's always transgenders who have to correct the perceptions of others or conform unnaturally. Immutable? I have no idea, but I do think the evidence points to very early development, possibly misunderstood because the child still has to learn why society is wrong about them. I highly doubt any developmental aspect is going to be as specious as some trans opponents make them out to be. I get the feeling many think most transgenders are making a decision based on what advantages it gives them. The latest professional terminology isn't something you get to "believe in", any more than you can say you don't "believe in" the autism spectrum. These are the terms being used professionally right now, so if you want to stay stuck in the mud, please keep denying what others are feeling and telling us about. The word gender has grown up, taken on detailed meaning, as so many other scientific concepts do.

Which helps more with surface swimming. Shorter swimmers do better when they need to be underwater. And there are some very tall female swimmers: https://swimswam.com/the-tallest-female-olympic-swimming-medalists/ Edit to add: Lia Thomas got beaten last year by a shorter swimmer transitioning to male, Iszac Henig. Henig hasn't started taking testosterone treatments and so is allowed to compete on the women's team.

Because you didn't bother to explain this in your opening post, what exactly are you talking about "winning"? Is there a war between Russia and "The West", or are you talking about economic competition? Please focus on one aspect of your argument at a time, because this half-assed whataboutism gets OLD very quickly.

And I think your arguments are unfocused and don't address the specific points others are making in this thread, but our opinions aren't that interesting, are they? If you had any evidence to support your claims, THAT would be interesting.

Could this be a symptom of rising fascism? I'm struck by the similarities in the percentage of population between transgender people in the US and Jews in Germany prior to WWII. A good bogeyman should be a small, marginalized group that people distrust already through misunderstanding and fear.