iNow

Here is what I said:

And that’s a feature, not a bug. No unfair advantages. No more exclusions based on arbitrary historical reasons. Competitors don’t get displaced. It’s win-win. This is a problem… how, exactly? Your morals are clearly shit, and I thought you were better than this. I feel that my actual position and actual proposal solves for it, renders your concerns moot, and if enough people could simply extract their heads from their bungholes they might agree it’s the simplest, most logical, amd most fair approach and it could have a chance of becoming a reality. But alas… people often seem to get rather mad when you try to assist them in removing their craniums from their colons. Are you unfamiliar with try-outs in sports or physical skills testing? It’s no wonder you’re so confused. Last I checked, it was middle school and high school kids having laws written to prevent them from playing. And frankly, if a trans person can make it to the very pinnacle of their sport, then good for them… but I’m talking about legislation being directed at already marginalized kids in schools who simply want to play sports… laws that make it explicitly illegal for them to do so. This isn’t hypothetical. It’s happening. Where I live. Real children are getting hurt. And for what? Because we’re too lazy to update divisional thresholds to be based on skill and not how someone urinates?

Why does the importance of these alleged differences in their “builds” supersede letting anyone qualify based on merit and skill based thresholds regardless of who they are and how they urinate? You keep repeating this point. I find it irrelevant and peripheral to the position I’m advocating. Can you convince me why I’m mistaken without simply repeating yourself or dismissing me as a PC social justice warrior? I tend to agree, but it’s the threshold that matters, not their maleness or femaleness or anything in between. What would their advantages matter if divisions were setup based on skill and competence instead of assigned sex at birth?

I recommend you believe me, specifically here now when I point out that this fun little anecdote of yours has literally Jack and his other brother Shit to do with the point I've been making about how better to setup sports divisions for improved and more inclusive outcomes.

I don’t know. All 6 of them are pretty incredible. (that one’s for you, MigL)

Unless, of course, you're the transgendered person, or parent or loved one of a transgendered person, who's being needlessly discriminated against as a result of some not so humble yet extremely archaic opinions and assumptions. Categorize based on skill and ability and merit. Ignore gender, and sex, and how they identify or how they sit or stand when they pee. Why is this such an appalling and unacceptable idea to so very many? Why is it so hard to agree here that sports qualification criteria shouldn't care how you were classified at birth and how it should instead be focused on qualifications based on sport-specific thresholds?

Lol! I'd go with "Moontanned in Canuckistan!"

Of course. Language is a funny thing that way. Thx

I thought Moon lived in Georgia or the Carolina’s <pauses to check profile> Yep. North Carolina, in fact. Always nice seeing museums being respectful of artifacts and original owners, though.

I feel like we’re beating a dead horse at this point, but yet again the issue vanishes if you classify and set brackets based on skill and strength and ignore whether they pee standing or sitting. Will certain sports continue being dominated by cis-gendered males? Of course, but if fairness is your metric then excluding trans people is the least fair approach of all. Just set qualification thresholds based on skill and capability and merit. Done and dusted. Solved.

Too late Why would we ever do that? One of the beauties in the scientific method is that all observations and conclusions are only ever at best provisional. It’s self-correcting, not based on ridiculous circular reasoning like “the fact of existence must come before all else.”

Cynical? No. Not cynical enough. It’s May 16, and there have already been more than 200 mass shootings in the US… just so far in 2022.

If we start back at the beginning, it’s actually about whether “pees standing” or “pees sitting” is the best way to categorize and separate athletes within a sport, or if new legislation should continue to be crafted to create new laws actively preventing transgendered kids from playing their preferred sport in the league mostly closely aligned with their identity… with who they are in every other moment of their lives.

I guess 2 weeks ago I was right. My point remains. You’ve begin with a conclusion and say others must disprove it, then say THEY’RE not being skeptical enough when they call that conclusion into question. It’s sad, otherwise I’d laugh.

I may be misunderstanding, but I thought your position was to begin by assuming males are better riders then ask others to accept the assertion as valid or disprove this with evidence. Likewise, I thought Charons position was to ensure we validate our priors and confirm that our opening premise is actually valid before searching for disproof or gathering reasons to explain why. In what universe is that equivalent to “not being skeptical enough?”

Quite right. Appreciate the correction. He should worship Frankenstein’s monster then

Exactly right! This is why I never give my sweetheart more than 50 pounds of chocolate in Idaho or pay my one armed piano players to perform in Iowa. Finally, when I travel on business to New York, I never wear my slippers after 10pm. 🙄 https://online.olivet.edu/news/united-states-crazy-laws

Correct

The effects of meditation seem to overlap quite a bit with sleep.

You’re also unfamiliar with gene editing, and viruses I take it? Snark doesn’t magically make me wrong. 😂

One leg at a time. (Works better when spoken) I see Genady already replied, but even in a biological sense answering this is easy. For example… Radioactivity would work, and gene expressions change based on behavior as per epigenetics, for example.

Thanks for clarifying.

Nope, but you ought to be asking JCM as he introduced it. Twice. I quoted it and replied in context.

You two remind me of a married couple, and not a loving one.