beecee

Galaxies at the "edges" of the observable universe are apparently  receding from us (due to space expansion) at faster then the speed of light. So that means that any light signal we send in their direction will never reach them.

That does not mean that Einstein's SR is invalidated for two reasons, (1) the law of "c" being the universal speed limit only applies to anything with mass, and (2) is harder to explain, so..... "A key feature of this expansion is how uniform it is. Imagine a bunch of folks standing around the edges of a stretchy piece of fabric, tugging at it. Let us assume they're choreographed well and are able to walk backward and pull at the same rate. You, standing in the middle, would correctly observe that your "universe" is expanding: any objects placed on that fabric would slowly move away from you.

Because stretchy stuff is stretchy, the objects on the fabric close to you would appear to move away with some speed, but the farther objects would appear to move faster. Even though the folks doing the pulling are moving at a constant speed, the apparent stretch changes with distance. I swear this is true; you can even try it for yourself at home!

Now, let's jump to the universe. It's as if a bunch of folks are at the edge of the cosmos, gently tugging at the fabric of space-time, stretching it. Edwin Hubble was the first to measure the expansion rate. The number he got was way wrong, so I won't bother mentioning it, but good on him for trying. The more modern value is 68 kilometers per second per megaparsec, plus or minus a couple, but close enough"

from.....https://www.space.com/33306-how-does-the-universe-expand-faster-than-light.html

The other point is that we cannot yet say with any confidence whether the universe is finite or infinite, just that it appears flat, (as opposed to open and closed) according to latest scientific instruments like WMAP. It appears flat (which normally denotes infinite) within small error bars.

5 hours ago, iNow said:

Perhaps some sports should maintain a distinction between boys and girls,

No perhaps about it, at least above a certain age. It will always be maintained for the reasons already mentioned.

5 hours ago, iNow said:

 but then we’d need to allow boys who weren’t identified as such by the doctor at birth to still participate… and to allow girls who weren’t identified as such by the doctor at birth to still participate. 

You speak as though this is a common occurence. It isn't, and any situations that develop as a child grows up, is handled with care and decency (based on known medical and scientific advice) at least in my main sporting reference, rugby league.

5 hours ago, iNow said:

I’m fine with that approach too, but as this thread makes apparent, I’m not the one you must convince to be a partner in seeking ways of editing the existing qualifications. 

That's a matter of opinion though, isn't it?  In the main, sports segregation has been with us for yonks, because it has worked and because it is evident what would happen to any professional female, playing against a 110 kg prop forward. Women in body contact sport, compete equally and entertainingly against other professional women. They cannot and will not compete against professional men for obvious reasons, if they wish to remain in the land of the living.

I also gave an example back a couple of pages re some bloke, ranked 203, beating both William sisters, one after the other...quite easily to I might add. No one has mentioned it as yet.😄

1 hour ago, iNow said:

You’re okay with them having clean drinking water so long as they get it from a different water fountain, right? They have a right to education so long as they aren’t attending the same school as your kids. They’re welcome to a hot cooked meal so long as they sit at a different counter… welcome to ride the bus so long as they sit in back, etc.

You're confusing American style racism with valid and reasoned scientific medical advice, at least in rugby league..

7 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Deciding "that" ? No. Asking the organizers to let her try out for the team that exists in her age a weight category.

As long as she is under 10 years of age, that poses no problems with the rules of junior rugby league.

7 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Deciding "that" ? No. Asking the organizers to let her try out for the team that exists in her age a weight category.

And I was of course speaking of the fact of you deciding that she had an identity problem.

4 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I'm not going to read all 1200 posts in this thread but I would like to ask if anyone has thought of the idea of letting trans kids participate in a order by themselves? This is all above my pay grade, maybe i will skim through the posts after all. 

This thread, despite the title, has essentially been about no sex segregation what so ever in any sport. In other words, a professional woman rugby player, should be allowed to play agaisnt a professional 110 kg male player, IF they achieve the same skill, and endurance levels. The "IF" is an absolute furphy if we get right down to the nitty gritty. The facts are men are generally "STRONGER", they are generally "FASTER", they do generally "HIT HARDER" they are generally able to "ABSORB AND TAKE BIG HITS" far better, they are generally "MORE AGGRESSIVE" the are generally "HEAVIER".

Now certainly we may have some women that might be faster then a professional rugby player, but will they be as aggressive? and stronger? and be able to take big hits? and hit harder? and absorb punishment better? 😁

The transgender argument is another matter, that my reference sport alreay have rules for, based on scientific medical advice, (or the lack thereof) as there is much to learn in that regard and much to measure and decipher.

19 hours ago, Peterkin said:

At age 8, she or he may not know what gender they're supposed to be. All they know is, they want more than anything to play the game they love and they're not allowed even to try out. For a little kid, that hurts. A lot. It's that simple.

😊 So you are deciding that for her?

19 hours ago, StringJunky said:

This is only the case because of cultural indoctrination, of which you are victim too, especially in your era as a youth when gender roles were even more markedly defined culturally.

My argument in the main concerns the common sense, scientifically medically based decision that segregation in certain sports is deemed necessary and a must. That won't change. 

The transgender issue is a rare recent debatable subject that my chosen sport, rugby league are already catering for under more scientific medical advice, with sensible cautionary rules, based on the many unknowns at this time.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

No, but why would you? If you haven't got a vested interest in the outcome of a game, I can only imagine it's a vicarious excuse to be indignant; if I'm wrong, please explain how...

And why would you as a non politician, or position of authority comment on the unworkable no jails, no criminals, justice and torture threads? You are as usual grasping at straws. We all have every right and even knowledge, in commenting on the nature of sport, and the valid reason/s why in some of those sports, sex segregation is needed. That won't change.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

My sister Bella, she's a big girl and if she put her foot down it would take the entire front row to move her.

Your sister Bella, even if she was 110 kg, would not ever match it with any 110kg, or even 90kg professional rugby player. You claiming she can, is a furphy. 

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

You are so blinded by your cultural bias, that anything or anyone that doesn't conform is impossible to see; to the point that if she did beat your arse, you'd pretend not to feel it, from your hospital bed.

I challenge you, also, to come up with an answer to the above question...

My breath, while baited, won't be held; for obvious reason's.  

For someone who was recently screaming no jails and other such unworkable nonsense, my non existent cultural bias that you claim I have, over rules the  stupidity of your posts in general.

I have given my answers, many of them and the valid reasons why segregation is needed in some sports. And in actual fact, (just like the stupidity suggestion of no jails will never happen) that segregation will remain. Women, will never be allowed, and the vast majority will never want to, play professional rugby league, and other body contact sports against professional men. It won't happen, and that fact alone is what is contributing to the angst shown by many here, sadly.

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, just answer my question and my incorrect assumption will be corrected.

The typical dimreeper, question avoidance so often employed when confronted with reasonable opposition to silly proposals. 😄

For those interested in some honesty and argument in good faith, please note....

9 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

 *Anecdote very far from top elite professional world-class competition, though international. A young friend, who was eight years old at that pre-Covid time, was temporarily relocated to France with her parents. She loves hockey. They do have a Moustiques  (under 9) league, but there were not enough girls in the school district to make up a team and they wouldn't even let her try out for one of the boys' teams. So, tough. She missed two years of development, at a critical age, in the sport at which she excels. Because.... Vive la differance! 

No mention of transgender....

My reply....

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

So? More males compete then females. Why? Perhaps males are more aggressivley competitive. Is that wrong? Boys generally play with trains or fire trucks...girls play with dolls and prams. Viva la difference indeed! 🥱

Then it starts... 

13 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Apparently, little kids who choose gender-inapproriate games deserve to be disappointed.

It doesn't work that way in Australia...Ahh well, sadly par for the course it seems. 

9 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Who gives a flying fig about your NRL? And why do you expect them to?

Because that's what I am generally referring to, with of course other examples you have side-stepped.

Why do I expect them to? Because they are a reputable orginisation, controlling the greatest game on the planet. What reasons have you to think they don't give a fig?

You (whoever) can play your red neg games to your heart's content. It changes nothing.🙄

1 minute ago, Peterkin said:

Apparently, little kids who choose gender-inapproriate games deserve to be disappointed.

Did I say that? Or is this your bias rearing its ugly head?

Read the NRL rules I referenced earlier.

37 minutes ago, iNow said:

No. It’s an example of you refusing to discuss issues in good faith. You suggested I could change the situation by having some backbone. I asked you to elaborate, and here we are. 

No I didn't. I used the phrase back bone referring collectively not singling you out particularly. Have you forgotten already? 

37 minutes ago, iNow said:

You either can’t, won’t, or simply disrespect me so much you’re not willing to show me any courtesy whatsoever or even try. 

What would you like me to do? What sort of courtesy are you expecting? Can you show me where I have been discourtious to you?  Note: I do have a habit of giving back what I get.

37 minutes ago, iNow said:

This isn’t just an academic exercise. Children are being hurt by this. 

You know my thoughts on this, stop pretending I'm pushing something else. The situation is rare and applicable to recent times. The NRL and their rules are fair, comprehensive and cautionary. 

38 minutes ago, iNow said:

No. It’s an example of you refusing to discuss issues in good faith. You suggested I could change the situation by having some backbone. I asked you to elaborate, and here we are. 

Oh, and perhaps you missed this bit.....

1 hour ago, beecee said:

 But I'll help you out some....there are some obvious  actions you can take, like starting a petition, canvassing your local congessman, voicing your protest, marching on some government building, etc etc etc. 

On 5/27/2022 at 12:02 AM, Phi for All said:

Not sure if anyone brought this up before, but the Alliance for Gun Responsibility points out that "gun control" is how the right wing have framed this whole issue, and humans hate being controlled. "Control" becomes "confiscation", and even law-abiding citizens object. Reframing this issue as "gun responsibility" will force politicians into a clearer stance. I don't think they'd get elected if they objected to responsible gun use.

Funnily enough, Australian gun laws were actually implemented by a conservative right wing government, lead by a very conservative right wing leader, John Howard, that gained bipartisan support right across the politcal spectrum.

29 minutes ago, iNow said:

Right. And given that I’ve already confirmed that I have a spine, I remain ready to hear precisely what else you suggest. 

I'm an Aussie on the other sode of the world matey. Is this an example of what we call passing the buck?  But I'll help you out some....there are some obvious  actions you can take, like starting a petition, canvassing your local congessman, voicing your protest, marching on some government building, etc etc etc. 

29 minutes ago, iNow said:

 Citation needed. 

It's been discussed among some of our professional women rugby players. No I can't direct you to any actual quote, but likewise, you cannot show me any argument by any female professional sports woman asking to compete with men on their level. I'll leave you to it. 

24 minutes ago, iNow said:

Sigh

Lighten up matey!!!

29 minutes ago, iNow said:

 Citation needed. 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

And of course the women that play rugby league at the professional level in Australia gratefully agree with that. 

Being a reasonable and fair man iNow, I will modifiy that for you...I should have said  "And of course  generally many of the women that play rugby league at the professional level in Australia gratefully agree with that" 

A photo of the NRLW (National Rugby League for Women) Jilarroo/Australian side along with their male coach.......

Personally, I would love to play against them! 😁

9 hours ago, iNow said:

I must first ask you, what is your cut-off point for the definition of "female?"

Sophia Loren? Nicole Kidman?  Elizabeth Taylor? Halle Berry? Cate Blanchett? 

On 5/27/2022 at 2:03 AM, Peterkin said:

 *Anecdote very far from top elite professional world-class competition, though international. A young friend, who was eight years old at that pre-Covid time, was temporarily relocated to France with her parents. She loves hockey. They do have a Moustiques  (under 9) league, but there were not enough girls in the school district to make up a team and they wouldn't even let her try out for one of the boys' teams. So, tough. She missed two years of development, at a critical age, in the sport at which she excels. Because.... Vive la differance! 

So? More males compete then females. Why? Perhaps males are more aggressivley competitive. Is that wrong? Boys generally play with trains or fire trucks...girls play with dolls and prams. Viva la difference indeed! 🥱

On 5/27/2022 at 2:03 AM, Peterkin said:

Why would you think that?

Because its fact?

On 5/27/2022 at 2:23 AM, CharonY said:

Yes obviously the athletes should be part of the conversation, no doubt about that. That does include transgender athletes. And rather unfortunately quite a few of the laws and rulings do not include consultations with said athletes which, as you said, is patronizing. Note that discussions on this board are purely speculative as AFAIK no one here has ruling power for any sports. It should also add that there is also the issue that sometimes a women's league is desired as women have less support in certain sports due to certain performance assumptions (which we discussed in context of jockeys).

And as I discussed and showed with relation to rugby league and union. It is not an assumption though, as generally speaking women would not be able to compete with men in the rugby codes at most levels...under 10's yes, juniors, seniors and professional ranks, NO. Like I said the average weight for a rugby prop is around 110 kgs of muscle. 

On 5/27/2022 at 12:01 AM, MigL said:

If the public perceives the situation as unfair, they stop watching, and that could diminish, or even,end some women's sports.

Yes, I mentioned that earlier...spectators want fairness and close competitions.

10 hours ago, dimreepr said:

In @beecee example rugby; why stop a women playing in a male team, if a. she wants too b. she's good enough and tough enough?

Thirdly, I don't care if my peers disapprove, that's why I'm fighting in this corner. 😉

Please explain how this question is not fundamentally about bias, specifically the cultural bias that women are the weaker sex?

It's similar in many ways to your unworkable 'no jails" and sympathies for criminals arguments that you employed in other threads. It won't happen...it's an unreal situation...men are able to absorb big hits that would seriously injure a female. The average rugby prop is around 110 kgs, some much heavier...fit, muscular, professional, and aggressive. You find me a women to compete to equally compete. 

25 minutes ago, iNow said:

It’s curious why that same public doesn’t find it unfair to exclude trans kids. Maybe they should stop watching until something is done to diminish that. 

Is that the "public" as you say, or just another peculiarity re American politics? The NRL already has a code attributed to rare circumstances of trans kids and transgenders of any age, on medical and scientific advice.

If it is just a peculiarity re American politics, then you being an American, need to do something about it.

On 5/27/2022 at 6:30 AM, Intoscience said:

Yeah but a woman (in general) at an equivalent weight as a male (in general) even if both athletic in build, is most likely to still be weaker and often slower. That's the thing with male and female forms, the way that fat and muscle is distributed and then called into action when required.  

How about say a sport like tennis? McEnroe was slated for his remark around Serena Williams.

She even agreed that competing against men she would struggle to break the top 400 ceded players. So based on your system, no female would ever be regarded as an elite player. yet she is regarded as the best female player of all time and she certainly exhibits, strength, speed, aggression, skills and she isn't no dainty little lady and is probably capable of beating on most average men. 

Seems like a step backward to me. 

More wise words. Thanks. 

I also gave an example back a couple of pages re some bloke, ranked 203, beating both William sisters, one after the other...quite easily to I might add. 😄

18 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

And I think you further know that defining those curves with reasonable accuracy will be problematic.

Yet somehow you think eliminating the female category and replacing it with a second tier otherwise open category based on choosing some cut off point will lead to an acceptable outcome. (for any group other than the sub-elite XY individuals that will no doubt dominate the category)

I want to know why you think that is likely or even plausible; Why you think you have conceptualized a solution that others can't see. I don't need to know details at this point, and I don't need to know why it's important that society becomes less discriminatory...which I think everyone here agrees with.

 

Yes, I also raised that highlighted bit, but again, like a few other of my valid points, was not commented on.

10 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Thirdly, I don't care if my peers disapprove, that's why I'm fighting in this corner. 😉

Please explain how this question is not fundamentally about bias, specifically the cultural bias that women are the weaker sex?

On the first statement, quite commendable of you, but its not about your peers disapproving, its about whether it is workable or not, and whether it is simply superfluous and merely another example of PC gone mad....similar to the Sydney council wanting to eliminate "merry christmas" and install "happy holidays" because it may offend non christians. 

The second statement, no, its not about bias, its about the observed fact that in some sports, women generally can not compete with men at senior and professional levels. The onus of course is on you to show where women can compete equally with men at a professional level.eg: please show me a 110 kgm female front rower, who is all muscle and would compete with a male of similar size in aggression, toughness, absorbing and giving big hits, speed, etc. 

And of course the women that play rugby league at the professional level in Australia gratefully agree with that. 

On 5/27/2022 at 1:30 AM, naitche said:

I would think the majority ( maybe not all)  of sports still segregated by sex are segregated by choice of the women taking part, for a reason. 

Those women should be the ones to decide if the reasons for segregation are compromised by  the inclusion of trans women. Kind of patronizing for others to decide on their behalf.

I  see the solution being proposed as unworkable. It complicates qualification,  making it harder for everyone and seems too much like matching every one up perfectly and throwing a dice. It becomes chance, not skill/strength/endurance etc. A prize for every one, eventually. Not much for the spectator in that. Sport is lessened.

Bingo!!! On the first paragraph at least in my country, women do accept that sex segregation is necessary in certain sports of heavy contact and big hits like the rugby codes. That won't change any time soon, thankfully.

The NRL and other rugby code in Australia, already have cautionary rules for the rare situation of transgenders, based on scientific and medical advice, and as detailed in a previous post re the NRL rules charter.

Of course it is unworkable as you state in your third paragraph. It's unworkable because females generally speaking will not match the weight, skill, speed, toughness, durability, aggressivness, and ability to absorb big hits. The average weight of a rugby league prop forward is 110 kgs on average, of muscle.

Like it or not, that's the state of the nation, and the reason that sex segregation will certainly remain in certain sports. 

We also as I linked earlier, (strangely no comment on) have the case of some bum tennis player, ranked at about the 203 mark, beating both the William sisters quite easily. 

"From the standpoint of values internal to competitive sport, the issue of gender identity is for the most part a non-starter. The purpose of dividing competitions into separate men's and women's events is to minimize the role of insuperable physical disparities in determining outcomes".(WIKI)

To harp on merrily and claim sex segregation is a denial of rights, is an example of going from the sublime to the ridiculous. Segregation is generally seen rightly as abhorent, but the fact that men and women are different in size, aggressiveness, etc, means that in certain sports, it is desirable and essential to avoid injury and uneven competitive results.

On 5/27/2022 at 12:01 AM, MigL said:

keeping in mind that the public is the final arbitrer as it is spectator driven.
If the public perceives the situation as unfair, they stop watching, and that could diminish, or even,end some women's sports.

Another valid point.

40 minutes ago, iNow said:

You’re essentially asking me to personally define every category threshold for every division of every sport.

My apologies for previous post. I was going to drop out of this thread, as I have made my case. Just gave myself an uppercut!!!

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Good for you. I guess this doesn’t matter for the kids growing up elsewhere then.

My point is stopping that particular piece of legislation. Not much I can do from down under. Remember the great spaghetti monster helps those that help themselves!

Ooops!!! Gives self another uppercut!!!

29 minutes ago, iNow said:

Right now, trans kids are being excluded, and laws are being written to exclude them. I’m seeking ways to allow them to compete while minimizing impact to existing sports structures and systems.  

Not where I come from. While there are criteria as there should be they are not excluded. I suggest that you, (please don't take it personally, I'm speaking collectively 🙄) get some back bone, much as your President ascribed to after your latest massacre, primrilly  due to of course to the  ease of obtaining aussault weapons and your general weird gun laws...or lack thereof. Why potentially drive women away from sport in general, because of another stupid potential American law. The majority of women, (damn! I repeat myself) in my country are satisfied with the status quo and the efforts to keep them from playing against the males in top grade professional rugby, who are  generally far more  aggressive, tougher, faster, with the ability to absorb hard hits and the probable resultant injuries. While of course probably able to hold there own in darts, etc.

13 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If you walked up to a door and decided it was a push door, you'd be there all day pushing; even after the owner told you "it's actually a pull door".

7 hours ago, swansont said:

Not a fan of this style.

It's lazy, for starters, to tag things with a label. Almost like you don't have an argument and have to rely on the flash of name-calling.

It also implies that it's fashion, like someone is going along with the crowd, and not that the position is sincerely held.  

"Particularly and sadly on a science forum."  Oh, the irony. How about substantive discussion instead of name-calling?

Let's first touch on my extreme PC accusation. It exists and that's a fact. I previously in another thread brought up an incident of a council in Sydney wanting to do away with "merry christmas"greetings and install "happy holidays" you know, because it may offend some.Then we have what I was "chastised" for in another forum, re casual banter and calling strangers I was interacting with "love". Yet that situation has been shown to be the extreme PC near every day of my life, particularly on the occasion when I called an ambulance to my wife who was suffering a bad bout of asthma, and they were addressing her as sweety, love, and telling me "don't worry love, she'll be OK" And of course then we have this current issue. I'm not going to answer all posts, as obviously my replies would not be up to the educational standards that some of my peers here have. And I won't repeat my past arguments anymore, despite some never being addressed, particularly my main argument re the NRL and their segregation policies under expert medical and scientific advice. And of course the women themselves. I'm rather confident that most in my society are happy with the status quo, with obviously a  few feminazis screaming their arse off.

The other point you raise re laziness might have some merit. I certainly am sometimes too lazy to go back checking on what ssomeone has said or may have said, but on the bright side, my memory is still pretty good for an old bastard.

You are also correct re your implication that I may be hinting at some simply following the crowd. I'm rather sure of that in fact, at least with two or three here.

Re name calling, that's an interesting point. But something to consider may be that I am more to the point, rather then beating about the bush, making half baked insinuations, that are directed in my direction.

On your insinuation in my direction re "substansive discussion", let me say that unlike most of you folk here, I didn't go to uni, and understand my debating style and ability is probably not to the high degree that others may have. That doesn't make me wrong though. One of the best debaters around, but obviously also an extreme right wing patsy and opportunist is this Jordon Peterson character, who would probably make mince meat out of me in any debate no matter how substantially correct I was.

Being a science forum though, I was expecting more along the lines of the scientific method, and the huge differences between the hard and soft sciences, and the difficulties in measuring such "qualities" as toughness, durabilty, strength and all those other factors I have mentioned, that make sex segregation in some sport, as highly necessary for the general protection of generally lighter frame females. The transgender question is answered in a pleasing cautionary way in the rules of the NRL which I dare not post again!

In finalising my contribution to this thread, again I am doubling down on my position, as so far no one has shown me, or agued against the medical and scientific advice under which the NRL and union hierarchy have acted on. 

And as one or two other wise souls have mentioned after a quick look through some of the posts, the public and the women directly involved in sport is the final arbiter, and I am again rather confident that the public and those women in this scenario will stick rightly with the status quo, including the rare transgender argument.

Finally to a couple of others that imo have seen this debate for what it is with regards to a few cases, thanks for the support, but don't be too concerned, I am big enough and ugly enough to understand where some are coming from and why. In that regard, I am beholding to no one (except the Mrs and young bloke) and will continue to express my position that I see as being left of centre, without any extremes of politics  either left or right, and despite some of the rather pretentious "feel good" religious like unworkable philosophical situations that some have championed in this and other threads. 

PS: . SWANSONT: I chose your post to directly answer on spec, and none of the situations I have raised, necessarilly apply to you personally.

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Being male is not prerequisite to possessing those qualities. Your position is poor and your argument repetitive, weak, and unconvincing. 

You used the word "prerequisite". I used the word "generally". Get things straight before you start accusing others. At best, the position you hold is debatable, not correct. I totally though reject it.

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

So what? You seem to be suggesting they CAN be measured, but only based on being male or being female. That’s rather obviously bollocks. 

To the contrary. I'm suggesting they are difficult to measure and hence your idea falls apart even before acceptance...or if you like, its obviously bollocks..

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. 

I know what it means matey, and you know I know what it means. Isn't that an example of being obtuse? And the fact that your idea remains in the wilderness, is evident to its extreme PC nature, and will almost certainly stay that way.

56 minutes ago, zapatos said:

No one. J.C. asked if I was sure this was not a threat to women who complete at the elite level, and I answered that I was not.

Try to pay attention.

Sure, I was though distracted by your obtuseness and smart arsery answers. But yeah, again, at least in rugby league,they will be adjudicated and ruled on as per medical advice.

56 minutes ago, zapatos said:

"Talent and ability" are neither unfair at the elite level, nor do American women have a clear advantage due to talent and ability. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Talent and ability are both enhanced by training methods, and of course, what would never be fair, is any wholesale implementation of this "no sex segregation" that is being pushed valiantly but just as hopelessly. It won't happen, at least not in the hard hitting body contact sports and others. Sorry about your comprehension problem.

56 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Um, are you following any of the conversations at all?

The experiment that will never, thankfully eventuate.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Totally fair. Being male or being female, however, aren’t prerequisite for those characteristics and qualities. 

In general they are. Males are generally far more aggressive, heavier, tougher, stronger and able to take and absorb the big hits in the rugby codes.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Quite the contrary. I’m suggesting we focus there instead of whether someone stands or sits whilst taking a piss. 

No, actually in addition to, the toughness, speed, aggression, ability to take big hits, heavier etc. They all matter and some are difficult, if not impossible to measure.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

And? You act like they’re the pope. 

 😁 Actually the ruling body of rugby league in Australia, and that's what matters. The same body that makes the rules, based on professional, scientifically oriented medical advice. The same rules that are changing all the time, in line with progression, sensibility and cautionary requirements. The same scientific rules and medical advice that many here are doing their best to ignore, in favour of the extreme, pretentious PC nonsense instead.

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

It matters not how someone takes a piss. We can proceed by focusing on skill, strength, capability, and desire to compete. Maleness and femaleness are rather irrelevant when setting up divisions and qualification thresholds. 

and aggression, speed, toughness, ability to take big hits etc etc. It all counts and all equally uncertain in being able to measure.

1 minute ago, iNow said:

I hear the stone tablets into which they’ve been chiseled and handed down from on-high are quite lovely. 

Actually quite modernised, sensible, adequate and cautionary to boot.

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I'm not sure, but I also don't believe competition is 'fair' at the elite level anyway. For example, the US has a lot more money to train its women athletes in many other countries which gives them a clear advantage.

You forgot about talent and ability. 

Ariarne Titmus didn't just beat Katie Ledecky at the Tokyo Olympics, she beat her in the best form the iconic American has had for three years.

8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I don't find the fact that a few trans women who compete at the elite level, competing under regulations specific to them, are a major threat to women's sports at the elite level. 

Who said they were??? They will be adjuducated and ruled on as per medical advice.

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

If I'm wrong, then this will be an experiment that fails eventually. But at least we will have tried, which I think is important.

What experiment is that? Our NRL already has rules and conditions based on scientifcally devised medical advice. Talk about a storm in a teacup! 😅 

Quite pretty all those shades of red! 😄

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Categories and rules in general should adapt as we learn more about ourselves as a species.

Yes, and that's being done. Check out the NRL rules.

Just now, iNow said:

You know, I wasn’t convinced the first 17 times you copy pasted this, but this 18th time really made a difference. 

I'm far more convinced after being misrepresented yesterday, and so much ignoring of the facts that I have linked to with regards to the NRL, and the standing medical advice that's being ignored, that some are also playing being obtuse for conveneance sake.

Incredible how some are so drawn to automatically blindly accepting what extreme PC demands of them for convenience sake. Particularly and sadly on a science forum. 

40 minutes ago, zapatos said:

And the dance continues. Where is the quote showing my "extreme PC" that I'm "forcing" down your throat? Either put up or shut up.

Certainly old friend!!!

So you disagree with the extreme PC notion of doing away with sex segregation in body contact sports like the rugby codes, rather you prefer to be based on all the other doubtfully measurable qualities? You know like speed, weight, height, toughness, durability, aggression, ability to take and absorb hard knocks. Why not tell me what you stand for instead of beating round the bush. (although I do have a rough idea!!😁)

Essentially, if the cap fits, wear it. 

Again, In most body contact sports, particularly the rugby codes, segregation based on sex,  above the age of 10, is applied exclusively by the NRL on expert professional medical advice. That's the state of the nation and as it should be and will always be.

Again if the cap fits, wear it. 

It's a real shame that on a science forum, some see the need to blindly adhere to and follow extreme PC demands.

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

And the dance begins. Where is the quote showing my "extreme PC"? 

So you disagree with the extreme PC notion of doing away with sex segregation in body contact sports like the rugby codes, rather you prefer to be based on all the other doubtfully measurable qualities? You know like speed, weight, height, toughness, durability, aggression, ability to take and absorb hard knocks. Why not tell me what you stand for instead of beating round the bush. (although I do have a rough idea!!😁)

Essentially, if the cap fits, wear it. 

Again, In most body contact sports, particularly the rugby codes, segregation based on sex,  above the age of 10, is applied exclusively by the NRL on expert professional medical advice. That's the state of the nation and as it should be and will always be.

32 minutes ago, iNow said:

This current state is needlessly discriminating against trans kids. If it can be improved without sacrificing the other rules of fairness and decorum that cis-gendered kids play within, then why not try?

Is it? Does a transkid no he is trans? Or at what age?

33 minutes ago, iNow said:

You seem to be saying, “because it’s always been this way and we can never change it” and TBH that doesn’t move me at all nor is it compelling in the least given humanity’s long history of hatred and bigotry. 

Far from it. Give me a better alternative and I'll be right behind it. There are many sports where men and women at any level can compete. There are also some where they cannot compete. That's not to say that I would beat Serena in a tennis match, but I would certainly make her regret (legally) if she opposed me on a rugby league field...even at my age!!

BTW and to repeat myself, the NRL in Australia also have categories for children and adults with disabilities, although I am not quite aware of exactly the criteria they use.

And also with transgenders and the advice forthcoming in that regard, yet no one has yet commented on those progressively sensible and cautionary rules.  

24 minutes ago, iNow said:

I absolutely agree with you that “extreme PC being forced down peoples throats” DOESN’T exist here, and certainly not in this thread, but I also know that was just sloppy language and not at all what you meant to convey. 

I accept the sloppy language jibe and yes you are correct, it certainly was in reference to extreme PC being forced doown throats on this forum. 🤭 It seems you are just not a pretty face!

17 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I'm sure I'll be accused of "oneupmanship" and playing games, but can you provide a single quote from me that displays "extreme PC"?

I anxiously await your tap dancing and misdirection as you do your best to not be held accountable for yet another baseless claim.

I was never much of a dancer and with the accusation of oneupmanship, if the cap fits, wear it. 

Again, In most body contact sports, particularly the rugby codes, segregation based on sex,  above the age of 10, is applied exclusively by the NRL on expert professional medical advice. That's the state of the nation and as it should be and will always be.