beecee

54 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Ok, that confirms that you indeed do not get follow the gist of the argument. I am trying one more time and then I suggest that we give up on that as it does not seem to go anywhere.

I certainly follow and my argument still stands. As illustrated in the William Sisters I linked to, Rugby league and Union are rightly segregated sports. Just because I was never a first grader professional, does not mean I automatically have the right to play with say a third grade women's team. All the categories can never really be measured, strength, speed, endurance, aggression, toughness, etc. And the reasons why after the age of 10, with the rugby codes, men and women are segregated, under professional medical advice.

And I support that stance fully, and reject any and all fabricated excuses for any implementation of extreme PC.

54 minutes ago, CharonY said:

(1)The argument of segregation is based on the fact that boys at some point become stronger than girls. Agreed?

 

(2)From there it follows that there is a physiological difference, and let us just call it strength to make it simple. After all if there is a difference, we should be able to measure by whatever means (otherwise there would be no difference).

(3) So let's say at girls have an average strength of 5 going up to 7, whereas boys have an average of 8 going up to 10. So let's say individuals with a strength of 8 or above are too dangerous to put together with folks with, say, more than two levels of difference.

So let's say then that we put a threshold of 8 for the higher league. As no woman might reach it, it will be only men. However, men who do not reach that threshold (and therefore would be at similar risk of injury as women), would also not qualify. Conversely, transgender and potentially some other rare women who cross that threshold would then compete in that league, which would minimize risk of injury.

(1) yes

(2) you are now trying to simplify it to support your stance. There is far more then just strength....endurance, ability to take big hits, just to name a couple, and I suggest many other areas including tackling ability, and aggression.

(3) See (2) and tell me how we are ever going to gauge all the "qualities" and thresholds with all I have mentioned and probably many more. And why do you reject the professional medical advice already received and tabled by the NRL and myself.

BTW I played hooker and lock forward....not that big, (as in height) but a ferocious little tackler and cover defender. Just simply was never good enough, nor had the wider range of abilities to reach the first grade ranks. 

20 minutes ago, zapatos said:

They don't exist. You are making up stories because it fits your world view and allows you to pontificate from on high.

No they certaily do exist, and I have linked to the rugby League official rules to show that they exist. What doesn't exist, of course ( at least in the rugby codes, tennis, cricket, weight lifting etc etc etc) is your preferred extreme PC that you try and force down mine and others throats.

45 minutes ago, CharonY said:

In other words, if we split the league according to the factors you describe we will automatically segregate folks which will, for the most part, follow sex lines. So what is the issue with that then?

??? The rugby codes are already rightly segregated and have mostly always been, from the age of 10, as per medical advice. I have no issue with that and find their rules and methodologies regarding transgenders, wise, cautionary and acceptable.

The only issue I have is the argument regarding open slather and desegregation based on sex, in all sports, as PC gone mad, unworkable, and actually working against women's participation in sport in general.

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’m also curious to know. 

See above...or to repeat myself again,  the suggestion of open slather and no segregation in sport, is superfluous and unnecessary at best and simply unworkable at worst, for the reasons given. In actual fact, such PC intervention, may lead to the elimination or reduction of current entertaining and necessary, women's sport. 

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

Segregating based on size, strength, and ability clearly makes sense. Tell me again why we can’t do that while ignoring how someone urinates?

It's already done, but according to sex. *sheesh* Let me again repeat myself for what I now see as some being purposely obtuse. In the body contact sports like the rugby codes, no female will match the size, strength, ability, toughness and heavy knocks endured, as happens in the men's code.

I have posted video of professional men's and womens NRL games already, and the differences are as clear as dog balls. The men's game is harder, faster, more violent, more aggressive then the women's by many factors.

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

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

It's called holding you accountable for what you say, not "oneupmanship". Don't play the victim just because you are asked to support your claims on a discussion forum.

It's actually you that needs to be held acountable, considering I answered your question. "Those proposing that sports such as rugby league and union, can be successfully and fairly played without the current segregation, as recommended by professional medics and others". 

You wanting, actually demanding names, is just as I said, your attempt at oneupmanship, nothing more, nothing less. You have my answer. Deal with it.

And of course my claims of segregation in the rugby codes are certainly supported by the professional medical advice sought by the NRL, and as referenced in the link I gave. So your own accountablity faulters yet again.

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

Then you should consider no longer posting on sites like these, because it's not your blog. 

I'm not blogging, I offering thoughts and suggestions based on morals and the scientific method. Plus of course the question was already answerd thus....

Those proposing that sports such as rugby league and union, can be successfully and fairly played without the current segregation, as recommended by professional medics and others.

It's just a shame some prefer to play one upmanship and other games.

The segregation in rugby league and union, above the age of 10, have been deemed as necessary by professional medical advice and experience, and is sensible, fair and just. 

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

Why can't the threshold for qualification include something about weight and height where it's actually relevant? Why does sex have to play a role at all?

Because experience and medical advice have shown, that no woman will match men in a hard hitting, body contact sport/s such as rugby union and league in all of those categories you mentioned, along of course with the highly bruising contact...hence segregation above the age of 10. In other words, the suggestion is superfluous at best and simply unworkable at worst, for the reasons given.

This is beginning to be fun! Let's forget the two great rugby codes and look at the Olympic sports. Pole vaulting: Olympic record for men...6.03 mtrs: For women...5.05mtrs

Tennis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)#1998%3A_Karsten_Braasch_vs._the_Williams_sisters

"Battle of the Sexes" took place during the 1998 Australian Open[58] between Karsten Braasch and the Williams sisters. Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple of bottles of ice cold lager".[59][58] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[60] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[58] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun"[61] and that the big difference was that men can chase down shots much more easily and put spin on the ball that female players could not handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Again, while I have concentrated on the body contact sports and rugby codes, the segregation in many other sports is necessary  and sensible, and that's why this silly elimination of segregation in many sports is nothing more then PC gone mad.

If we look at cricket, the fastest female bowler is recorded by Australian great Cathryn Fitzpatrick, at 120 km/h during an exhibition event at the MCG. Male fast bowlers are often around the 150 kms/hr mark.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 In other words, the suggestion of open slather and no segregation in sport, is superfluous and unnecessary at best and simply unworkable at worst, for the reasons given. In actual fact, such PC intervention, may lead to the elimination or reduction of current entertaining and necessary, women's sport. And I would hate to see that. Again, to repeat myself, before any smart arse attempts to "rail road me" I am all for equal pay for men and women in professional sport, as well as other comparitive endeavours and employment. 

6 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think you are missing the core idea behind the suggestions.

I don't. But thanks anyway for not misrepresenting me as occured by another yesterday. (although I admit to some fault in that)

https://www.playrugbyleague.com/media/1939/nrl-member-protection-policy-revised-27072015-002.pdf

page 10:

6.6.1 Gender identity discrimination and harassment Federal, state and territory anti-discrimination laws provide protection from discrimination against people on the basis of their gender identity. (See definition in Dictionary of terms).

The NRL is committed to providing a safe, fair and inclusive sporting environment where all individuals can contribute and participate. We will not tolerate any unlawful discrimination or harassment of a person who identifies as transgender or transsexual or who is thought to be transgender or transsexual. If a transgender or transsexual person feels he or she has been harassed or discriminated against by another person or organisation bound by this policy, he or she may make a complaint.

6.6.2 Participation in sport The NRL recognises that excluding people from participating in sporting events and activities because of their gender identity may have significant implications for their health, wellbeing and involvement in community life. We are committed to supporting participation in our sport on the basis of the gender with which a person identifies.

If issues of performance advantage arise, we will consider whether the established discrimination exceptions for participation in sport are relevant in the circumstances. Discrimination is unlawful unless an exception applies.

We also recognise that there is debate over whether a male-to-female transgender person obtains any physical advantage over other female participants. This debate is reflected in the divergent discrimination laws across the country. If issues of performance advantage arise, we will seek advice on the application of those laws in the particular circumstances.

The NRL is aware that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has established criteria for selection and participation in the Olympic Games. Where a transgender person intends to compete at an elite level, we will encourage them to obtain advice about the IOC’s criteria, which may differ from the position we have taken.

Drug testing procedures and prohibitions also apply to people who identify as transgender. A person receiving treatment involving a Prohibited Substance or Method, as described on the World AntiDoping Agency’s Prohibited List, should apply for a standard Therapeutic Use Exemption.

6.6.3. Intersex status Federal anti-discrimination law, and some state and territory anti-discrimination laws, provide protection from discrimination against a person on the basis of their intersex status. (See Dictionary of terms). The NRL is committed to providing a safe, fair and inclusive sporting environment where all people can contribute and participate. We will not tolerate any unlawful discrimination or harassment of a person because of their intersex status.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Considering the rarity of the situation and the fact that it really hasn't been considered for that long, I find the NRL rules as progressive and sensible.

16 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You made claim that seems dubious to me. I'm just curious if you actually know anyone who did that or not.

People who refuse to support their claims are generally dismissed as trolls.

Why is it that YOU won't tell us even one person who has done this?

Really? 🤔 I'm not that interested in what you actually believe or think, or imagine. 

Perhaps more to the point you should critique my position instead of playing one-upmanship and looking for argumentive points to boost your own ego....

That position for the umpteenth tie is "segregation in body contact sports such as rugby league and rugby union, will remain as they are, and what is recommended by medical experts and professionals knowledgable in those games, at least from the age of 10 years. I don't see that changing any time soon, if ever, and more importantly, it is what is generally supported by the majority of reasonable folk".

I see the position being put by some to cover all sports as extreme PC and pretentious at best. 

I would also ask, why in hell would I misrepresent what I or you claim, considering that I am all for equal pay for men and women at the professional level of sport, and in all other areas of employment where the same job is being done?

7 hours ago, Phi for All said:

It's not just the skill sets to compete, it's whatever the category calls for. If you have the skills but don't meet other category factors, like height and weight, you can't try out for that category. You should always be able to play with "top players" within the group you compete against. 

And I'm asking for you to give me one example in the body contact sports such as the two rugby codes,  of women meeting all of those criteria and to be able to play at the same level and same competition as men. You would of course be refuting already accepted medical and professional advice anyway.

Otherwise your proposal is nothing but superfluous, and simply done to please the extreme PC brigade.

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Do you know anyone who is doing that? Can you give me a name?

Why do you need names?🙄 It's obviously here in black and white. Rugby league and union are body contact sports where segregation is necessary above the age of 10, as advised by professional medical experts, and previous observational evidence. Anyone proposing anything different is pushing shit uphill. It is mainly necessary because of the bruising heavy contact along with endurance, which by the decisions of the professional medics, sees the women's competition played at 5 minutes less per half then the men's.

7 hours ago, Phi for All said:

And I'm convinced you and others know this is what I and others have been talking about, but you've purposely been misrepresenting it for 44 pages now. We're not that bad at explaining ourselves, but you always end up with some ridiculous image like that above as your argument.

Just as I was previously misrepresented, due to my ommision of certain words in one post, that were expressed according to a number of other posts, making my position clear..

6 hours ago, zapatos said:

Who exactly are you talking about?

Those proposing that sports such as rugby league and union, can be successfully and fairly played without the current segregation, as recommended by professional medics and others. 

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I've never proclaimed myself a philosopher, and just to be clear "I AM NOT A (trained) PHILOSOPHER"; I am, however, guilty of philosophising, the quality of which you're not qualified to assess, as your no expert.

Actually guilty of proposing situations entirely unworkable and denying the obvious. I don't need to be an expert to see this. 😉

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

So, FFS, stop using it as an excuse.

🥱 Far from being an excuse, it is observational evidence, over a number of topics, and as others have also concluded and observed.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

"Science is a discipline in eternal progress way of thinking, and we do science even if we do not  to understand what we are doing." FTFY

And for science read philosophy.

Not sure if rewording basically what I have been saying is smart or just a sign of frustration. 😏 My advice? take an asprin and have a good lie down.

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” Einstein:

7 hours ago, iNow said:

Our elected officials tend to be the ones who lost the popular vote. 

9 hours ago, StringJunky said:

There isn't enough people with them... apparently. The Constitution is equivalent to the tablet of the ten commandments. It belongs in a museum as a curiosity.

I have a suggestion. Grab all the senators that are blocking gun reform, along with the hierarchy of the NRA, grab Trump along with them, and the clowns that invaded your white house, and lock then in the morgue with the bodies of the 19 children and teachers killed by the lunatic that was able to get his hands on an assault weapon of that kind and calibre.

As your President said...You ( presumably referring to the senators and Americans in general) need to grow a back bone.

7 hours ago, iNow said:

Can you convince me why I’m mistaken without simply repeating yourself or dismissing me as a PC social justice warrior?

I don't need or see any reason for trying to convince you or anyone else of anything. My claim stands as is...that is segregation in body contact sports such as rugby league and rugby union, will remain as they are, and what is recommended by medical experts and professionals knowledgable in those games, at least from the age of 10 years. I don't see that changing any time soon, if ever, and more importantly, it is what is generally supported by the majority of reasonable folk.

Transgenders is another issue that hasn't been discussed a great deal, but what is known as per my previous link, is that such positions with say male-to-female- trans genders will be judged on any possible  physical advantages and/or performance advanatges in a particular circumstance and the proper advice will be sort and duly acted on.

I see that as progressive and wisely cautionary actions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport

Sport is usually governed by a set of rules or customs, which serve to ensure fair competition, and allow consistent adjudication of the winner. 

Sportsmanship is an attitude that strives for fair play, courtesy toward teammates and opponents, ethical behaviour and integrity, and grace in victory or defeat

5 hours ago, MigL said:

Many participants in this thread have repeated themselves, as is likely to happen after 40 odd pages; to single out one person as repetitive is hypocritical.
And some in this, and similar threads, have been called way worse than 'Social Justice  Warrior', or 'PC Brigade'.

Just sayin'.

It seems its a mortal sin to go against our extreme PC brigade. 🤣

Certainly won't change my position or the facts as I have expressed throughout this thread, at least in Australia and with the body contact sports such as the two rugby codes.

6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It's  happened 27 times in US schools this year. It seems like wasted energy to feel affected by it anymore. Fuck the GOP, NRA and the 2nd.

So all it should take is a majority of American's to get up off their fat arses, (don't be too concerned, plenty of Aussies have fat arses too) and their elected representitives to do something concrete and take the bit between the teeth.

On 5/21/2022 at 6:24 AM, beecee said:

As nice as those sentiments are, the facts are it would never work in certain sports. Men and women, (thankfully) are built different. The sport's specific thresholds and standards are very rarely ever going to compare equally...Men would generally align with one threshold, and women with another.

Let me spell it out again. What I am saying is that in many sports, particularly all football codes, a professional men's side would be faster, stronger, and more aggressive then any professional woman's side. That's why we have sports segregation in those sports. So that is a furphy. 

Another post illustrating what my claim has been.

Let's get down to the nitty gritty, no matter how much it disturbs the extreme PC brigade......Professional rugby players, or professionals in other body contact sports, will always be segregated for obvious reasons.  That will not change anytime soon. That stance is supported by medical and expert advice, based on the physical differences and biology between men and women. 

14 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

But your argument was:

So you're obviously moving the goalposts just as many times as you've stated your arguments. It's a version of No True Scotsman, really. No example will truly suffice, because you'll keep bringing up more extreme examples. "No woman could ever compete with the top Whitewater Apple Bobbers!"

My argument throughout this thread has been women competing on an equal footing with men in the body contact sports like rugby union and league. Perhaps I neglected to mention that in the statement you refer to, but I'm sure you'll see what my argument is with regards to all my posts to this thread. Women, are unable to compete with men at the professional level, nor the amateur level above a certain age in the body contact sports I have been speaking of. No shifitng of goal posts. My point is absolutely clear.

If we chose to be honest, men in general are taller, stronger, heavier, and yes, quicker then women. .. I am a relatively short arse, and many women are taller then me. But generally speaking, men are taller, stronger and heavier and as such, segregation is necessary for fair competition in "certain" sports, namely body contact sports.

Ice skating is a beautiful sport where men and women are paired. In that sport, we do not often see the women throwing the man into the air and catching him before he hits the ground. 

10 minutes ago, beecee said:

My argument throughout this thread has been women competing on an equal footing with men in the body contact sports like rugby union and league. Perhaps I neglected to mention that in the statement you refer to, but I'm sure you'll see what my argument is with regards to all my posts to this thread. Women, are unable to compete with men at the professional level, nor the amateur level above a certain age in the body contact sports I have been speaking of. No shifitng of goal posts. My point is absolutely clear.

10 minutes ago, beecee said:

The point I make is that no women could qualify or have the level of skill required to compete with men, in most contact sports like the two rugby codes, American football or Soccer. Even in our own domestic rugby competitions (which I love watching) the time women play is less then the men, for reasons medically and scientifically based. 

Like I said, I watch both men and women rugby league matches, and while both certainly entertaining and skillful, it would be a weird or dishonest person that did not recognise the increased aggression, skill, hardness of the big hits, in the mens competition. The clash of bodies in some of those "big hits"can be heard at the back of the grandstands. 

NOTE: Irrespective of that increased skill level and toughness in the mens competititon, and irrespective of the fact that no women could match or qualify at that level, I still support equal pay. That's simply how it is.

12 hours ago, beecee said:

I'm preventing no one from trying whatever they like. That's up to the country and society in question. Segregation in RL in my country is based on observational data and medical advice.

It is also far from being an argument from incredulity. It is an argument based on observational and medical opinion and advice, and yes, protecting females who do wish to play Rugby. 

 The segregation in sports like Rugby, is based on observational standards. With regards to transgenders within the NRL, (National Rugby League)there really hasn't been a great deal of discussion, simply because of the rarity of the situation. What I could find is the following......

And many more over a few pages. No amount of red negs or positive greens will change that. 

26 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

But your argument was:

So you're obviously moving the goalposts just as many times as you've stated your arguments. 

No, its an example of me not absolutely clarifying the statement you refer to, and sadly I see that as less then an honest approach, considering my other posts, which I suggest you were aware of. 

26 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Pam Reed.

Lynn Hill.

Gertrude Ederle.

Danica Patrick.

Great champions certainly, but my argument as I have stated many times, concerns physical body contact sports, like the rugby codes of football. Your first Pam Reed seems to fit the bill in some of the physicality skills having won overall, the others are sports where I certainly agree with mixed competition. Certainly a grueling race I was unaware of before today. 

26 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You need to remove dexterity and endurance from this list as prejudices. Women are either more dexterous than men or their equal (depending on whether you adjust for finger thickness) on most tests for this quality. Wrt endurance and stamina, women are the clear winners.

I'll gladly remove dexterity. Stamina is debatable, and I am reminded of the medical and scientific advice given to the NRL and how the women RL competition, are 5 minutes per half shorter then the men's. Of course we need to also consider the increased and additional physicality of this sport. 

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Philosophy doesn't accept what's generally believed, it's there to question 'why it's generally believed'; you freely admit that you've not been trained in either discipline.

There isn't really much philosophy does accept though. And while I admit I'm not trained in either, I also do not avoid questions with silly pedantic "define belief" type of nonsense that poor self proclaimed philosophers  indulge in.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

To do something practical in a violent situation also requires training; otherwise you're just an angry old man trying to take out Bruce Lee in a street fight.

As usual, you avoid what I was talking about to a reasonable philosopher. I'm referring to getting of your big arse and doing something practical about what you perceive as wrong, instead of waxing on lyrically with unreal and invalid analogies,  and generally avoiding questions and/or proper answering. 

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Just because you're capable of throwing a punch, it doesn't mean you'll be effective.

Never thrown an "unjust" punch in my adult life, and when I have had cause, it is certainly effective. But you seem obsessed with taking this off topic. Why is that?

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Entropy is in eternal progress, science/philosophy lives and dies with us...

Is that supposed to add anything to my useful debate with Eise  a trained philosopher? Or is this you again, trying to gain some traction and recognition? 😴 For your edification though, entropy (or disorder) of course is part of the science of thermodynamics and is a concept that distinguishes the past from the future, giving a direction to time. Hope that helps.

I repeat......

Science is a discipline in eternal progress, and we do science even if we do not understand what we are doing.....

"Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion?

Oliver Heaviside (1850-1925) English physicist.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It's strange how often an ideal is dismissed as unworkable, by people who don't want it to work...

All you need show us is an example of professional women, competing on a level footing against professional men and holding their own or winning. I won't hold my breath.

7 hours ago, iNow said:

The same is largely true in the US, yet state legislatures are actively legislating to exclude them… hence threads like this one. 

You failed to comment on the progressive reasonable NRL situation. 

6 hours ago, zapatos said:

If you are going to criticize me at least first read what I post. I've only ever promoted the idea of trying to develop some workable solution, rather than simply dismissing it is "unworkable idealism".

And some people believe in fairies at the bottom of your garden.

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

This issue would be much less of a bother if we just made billiards, frisbee golf, and croquet the primary sports of our nations.  And think of the medical resources that would be freed up.  

Except sport is defined as a test of skills, endurance, speed, physical ability, athleticism, dexterity,  toughness, both mental and physical and the pursuit of excellence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport

Sport is usually governed by a set of rules or customs, which serve to ensure fair competition, and allow consistent adjudication of the winner. 

Sportsmanship is an attitude that strives for fair play, courtesy toward teammates and opponents, ethical behaviour and integrity, and grace in victory or defeat

56 minutes ago, Eise said:

 What is your purpose?

I believe action/s are more powerful than words. If a certain situation in my society bothers me, I won't just sit on my arse in front of a keyboard and wax on lyrically.  I will do something practical if I can to help or improve that position. My philosophy in life is to enjoy it,help out when and where I can, based on my capabilities and live by the generally accepted morals in my democratic society. My quotes of choice I suspect may reflect those morals, although I disagree with your "not to make valid points" Plenty of wise quotes on many aspects of science, one of my favourite being 

"Science is simply common sense at its best that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic".

Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-95) English biologist.

1 hour ago, Eise said:

You can use citations to strengthen your point, by citing experts in the field, i.e. a valid argument from authority. I just wanted to show that Mencken is not such an authority. 

Agree totally with your first point, on Mencken I decided to refresh my memory...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken#Death My conclusion? Much I like about the man, much I agree with, and much I respect. By the same token, also much I disgree with and totally reject.

1 hour ago, Eise said:

Isn't it a bit funny, just because everything was called 'philosophy' in those days, that modern physics has taken the place of philosophy in the domain of fundamental questions? 

Newton dabbled in Alchemy or changing of one element Pb to Au. Today we use nuclear fission/fusion to do such changing of one element to another. Science is a discipline in eternal progress, and we do science even if we do not understand what we are doing.....

"Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion?

Oliver Heaviside (1850-1925) English physicist.

1 hour ago, Eise said:

Just to add a citation by Sean Carroll:

Respect the man very much and have watched many debates with him...Your quote of himis interesting. Here's another by someone deserving of much respect.....

"The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it can be comprehended". Albert Eistein:

1 hour ago, Eise said:

I cannot help it that there are many specialists here in different sciences that can correct wrong positions, but it seems that I am the only one here who studied philosophy as a main subject. And my time is limited, as you probably noticed, I am not posting very much at the moment. Maybe if I am retired, in a couple of years...

I'm happy that you chose this poor old retired maintenance Fitter/Machinist/Welder to exercise your obvious philsophical knowledge with. It is a welcome change  ...mostly! 😉

7 hours ago, iNow said:

And they don’t need you preventing them from trying. This is an argument from incredulity… Nobody cares that you personally can’t envision non-XY chromosomal people being able to demonstrate certain abilities or surpass various skill levels. Let them try and prove you right or wrong.

I'm preventing no one from trying whatever they like. That's up to the country and society in question. Segregation in RL in my country is based on observational data and medical advice.

It is also far from being an argument from incredulity. It is an argument based on observational and medical opinion and advice, and yes, protecting females who do wish to play Rugby. 

7 hours ago, iNow said:

Just set the standards and move forward. Those who qualify get to play. Those who don’t qualify can’t play. If the standards need review or future adjustment, that can be done without wondering how best to keep trans kids separate and rejected, or boys and girls in separate divisions. 

 The segregation in sports like Rugby, is based on observational standards. With regards to transgenders within the NRL, (National Rugby League)there really hasn't been a great deal of discussion, simply because of the rarity of the situation. What I could find is the following......

https://www.starobserver.com.au/news/nrl-is-considering-the-application-of-a-transgender-athlete/211567

NRL’s Policy For Transgender Athletes

According to the National Rugby League Member Protection Policy, it was “committed to supporting participation in our sport on the basis of the gender with which a person identifies.”

His name is George E Hammond: 

His Credentials: GEORGE E. HAMMOND

B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester MA, USAM.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University, Boston MA, USAPh.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68 Northeastern Univ.Boston MA. Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt at N.U. and later Distinguished Professor of Physics at TAMUPeer reviewed publications: Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in NewIdeas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167 Elsevier Scientific Ltd.. Online copy ofpublished paper is posted at....... 

Elsevier Scientific Ltd. 1994 also a full length free research only copy is located here:url deleted Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Proof of God Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July2003, pp231-244(Noetic Press) Online copy of peer/published paper is postedat:https://www.academia.edu/196570/Scientific_Proof_of_God

He claims, The first experimental measurement of God; to a 2-decimal point accuracy

thus........................(in his own words)

39 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You at least need to remove American football from this "no women could qualify" list. There's no rules stopping women from being recruited in the NFL, and there are women kickers like Becca Longo still in college (Go Grizzlies!) who can qualify for professional positions on any team. But mere kicking is probably not the "level of skill" you're talking about.

OK, point taken. While my knowledge of American football is scant, unlike the rugby codes where any player must be able to attack and defend, including the nominated goal kicker in the side, who must be on the field at that time already. Your game,( correct me if I am wrong) can have your nominated goal kicker, (Becca) sitting on the side line, waiting for a kicking opportunity, brought on for that kick, and then back to the reserve bench, correct? The rugby codes are two 40 minute halves of 13 on field players, with four reserves waiting in case of injury or at the coaches discretion. Unlike American football, it is basically 80 minutes of non stop action.

Mixed rugby league is played at the junior level, until the age of 12, and then separated into men's and women's competitions, for obvious reasons.

9 hours ago, Eise said:

It is clear to us nowadays that to make methodologically justified statements about nature, you must study nature, not just sit behind your desk and start thinking. However, if you encounter problems, there may come a point where you have to think about the fundamentals of your methods or other assumptions, like in the early years of quantum physics. And that discussion is not over yet, but has shifted. E.g. the question if String Theory is still science, or just mathematically advanced metaphysics. And what about the Multiverse: proponents of some version of the Multiverse generally affirm that there is no causal connection between the different parallel universes. So the hypotheses about the Multiverse cannot be empirically tested. Is that still science? These are philosophical questions.

That's the point I'm making. Philosophical and metaphyical questions now handled by science. The same applies to the definition of "nothing" and nothing as defined in Krauss' book, "A Universe from Nothing" 

9 hours ago, Eise said:

(If you remember, I also asked him to tone down. To no avail, as he was even banned.) This made it impossible for you to take his points seriously.

😊 No that certainly was not the one I was referring to. Both are still active, both avoid answering questions directly, both at times dishonestly, and both indulge in poor philosophy as a substitute. But let's let that slide.

9 hours ago, Eise said:

But the second point lies clearly with you: your utter ignorance about modern philosophy, just picking a few bonmots (some nearly 100 years old) that fit to your prejudices. Here I have a few others by Mencken:

Do you really want to call him in the witness stand?

I'm not sure if that's a valid argument. Even Trump has probably on rare occasions been right. And inversely, someone like Eistein or Bertrand Russell, have probably at times been wrong. And I'm also big enough and ugly enough to understand that any quote, can be out of context. Still, we all use them when it suits our purpose. 

9 hours ago, Eise said:

This is a caricature of philosophy. No doubt that Feynman heard these kind of questions, but the way he talks about them, I assume these were questions by 'would-be philosophers', i.e. fellow students who wanted to spread some 'deepities'. You do not find such questions when you look into the 'philosophy of physics' department. 

That caricature has mostly been used by a couple here sadly, that like to reflect that somehow they are deeeep thinkers, yet as I said, actually avoid answering questions directly. 

9 hours ago, Eise said:

 But, as you say you are not well-informed about what philosophy is presently doing. So why all these attacks on a discipline you simply don't know, and just take some bonmots, that support your prejudices?

Forgot to add, there are physicists, who are much better aware about philosophy, a small list:

• Lee Smolin
• Sean Carroll
• Carlo Rovelli
• Albert Einstein

From the latter:

While I am familiar with all four, the two I mostly respect are Einstein and Carroll.

I don't really know how to refute your argument properly, which reflects more on me being a poor debater, suffice to say, my criticism of philosophy is not as blanketing as you seem to make out. Afterall, I have said we all like playing philosophers, although hopefully I prefer the more practical side and that side more able to reach a solution or a consensus, rather then the innane aspects that Feynman talks about.

8 hours ago, swansont said:

Scientists play around with ideas that don’t necessarily work out, but reveal things nonetheless - excluding lines of thought, advancing ideas that might apply elsewhere. There’s a lot of “what if” that happens. There’s no inherent problem with “just asking questions” on either side of the aisle.

That's my point as I said earlier and the point Krauss makes. Ideas, subjects being scientifically discussed that as yet we have no answers for and were once the domain of philosophers. 

6 hours ago, iNow said:

If a female qualifies, she can play in that league and at that level. If a trans kid qualifies, they too can play in that league and at that level. 
if the woman or trans person qualifies at that level and meets the level of skill required to do so and wishes also to compete at that level, why should you and I tell them they cannot? 

The point I make is that no women could qualify or have the level of skill required to compete with men, in most contact sports like the two rugby codes, American football or Soccer. Even in our own domestic rugby competitions (which I love watching) the time women play is less then the men, for reasons medically and scientifically based. 

Like I said, I watch both men and women rugby league matches, and while both certainly entertaining and skillful, it would be a weird or dishonest person that did not recognise the increased aggression, skill, hardness of the big hits, in the mens competition. The clash of bodies in some of those "big hits"can be heard at the back of the grandstands. 

NOTE: Irrespective of that increased skill level and toughness in the mens competititon, and irrespective of the fact that no women could match or qualify at that level, I still support equal pay. That's simply how it is.

1 minute ago, MigL said:

Ahhh, but you left out the most important part, Beecee ...

Hmmm, not really, I have mentioned and agree that philosophy is the foundation stone of science earlier on.

And have had a heavy night celebrating a great progressive Labor win!