pears

30 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Exactly. And we share and exchange ideas with those who have an open mind and are open to scientific debate. Asking me to support my position when you've made up your mind beforehand is not arguing in good faith. I'll not waste my time.

I'd rather attempt to shave my head with a cheese grater.

I haven't made up my mind. I just haven't seen evidence. I guess if you can't provide any that tells me something.

33 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

"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?

 

But that is about sexual attraction. There is a measurable physiological response there. In males it's particularly obvious.

Ok so there is empirical evidence in this thread for gender identity? Great. I'll go through in more detail and find it.

37 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

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. 

I do empathize with those who feel distress at their sexed bodies. But what I'm looking for is evidence for innate 'gender identity' that we can be sure exists like hands and hearts exist. I'll go through the thread again to find it.

How you answer that question also depends on your prior beliefs. If you believe the terms male and female are defined by your sex characteristics then you would answer no because you can see what sex you are.

I can understand gender/sex dysphoria as a concept but not innate gender identity. It sounds like pseudoscience to me because I don't see how it can be tested for.

6 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Why do you care if you don't believe in it? We could say anything at all and it wouldn't make any difference to you. 

Close, but no cigar.

Because this is a science forum so there must be a good basis for such an idea. If I rocked up and stated I have a soul because I feel like I have one I'd be torn to shreds.

Change my mind. With scientific evidence.

3 minutes ago, pears said:

 

Just now, CharonY said:

Have you ever wondered whether you are male or female?

I assume I am my sexed body. A question like that could determine whether one feels at odds with their sexed body. But does a feeling of distress at ones sexed body mean that an innate gender identity is a tangible thing?

Zapatos stated that gender identity is a fixed immutable tangible thing like a physical body part.

13 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

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 d

Autistic traits are pretty clearly defined and testable. What is the definition of gender or gender identity? How do I know whether I am cis or trans. What are the specific tests?

12 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think in order to avoid centering the discussion on a possible strawman I suggest to make things a bit more precise. We do not know exactly when or how gender identify is fully formed. Based on what we know the rough idea is that:

1) it is not a conscious decision

2) but while there seems to be a genetic component to it, it does not mean that it is immutable assigned at birth, rather 

3) it likely has some sort of developmental aspect, though we do not know when it happens or what precisely contributes to it. However, most children develop a relative firm sense of their gender identity before puberty (i.e. before they express sexual preferences).

What do you mean by there seems to be a genetic component to gender identity? Have the genes for it been identified? What are they?

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Cool. I can't say I've met many people who don't have a personal sense of their own gender.

What do you mean by gender? Do you mean sex characteristics?

7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

When did you choose your gender? Could you change it on demand?

You mean gender identity? I don't believe in gender identity. I haven't seen any good definition of it or any empirical evidence for it. The word gender on its own used to be a polite term for sex category.

5 hours ago, zapatos said:

Gender identity is there at birth. Just like your foot and heart are there at birth. You may as well be saying that whether or not they have a head is irrelevant to how they were born.

No, the doctor got it half right. Lia did have a pecker but the doctor was unable to tell us about Lia's gender.

Bullshit.

How do you know gender identity is there at birth?

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Unsure how this is a problem since one of the classification mechanisms I offered was to group athletes based on size and strength. Will you help clarify why you believe gender assigned at birth is relevant under such a system?

I agree, which is why it's such a good thing I've never proposed anything even remotely similar to this. 

If size, strength and muscle mass is taken into account then I don't have a problem with that. 

Going by sex (not gender) assigned at birth is another, simpler way of achieving a similar outcome.

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Can you explain why gender should remain in any way relevant when grouping and classifying sports by size and ability seems much more appropriate?

Consider it similar to the difference between junior varsity versus varsity, or Division 1 versus Division 2. There's really no need to keep the distinction between male and female (as classified at birth) other than "that's how we've always done it."

Grouping by sex you mean? Well I guess you could argue it's simpler. Men who've been through puberty generally have more muscle mass than women as well as being simply bigger.

Absolute fairness in sports sounds incredibly hard to achieve. Seems like you could end up with a lot of categories.

3 hours ago, iNow said:

You're absolutely right. We should do exactly that, and we've already discussed this in the thread you acknowledged you haven't read.

Categorize based on ability, size, strength, or other relevant criteria. Ignore gender and genital plumbing. Problem solved. 

Ah ok, thanks for the summary

Down with women's sports!!

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

If you are going to resort to hyperbole please start reading the thread from the beginning. This is a serious discussion and we are treating it as such.

Apologies. You're right I shouldn't jump in on the end of an old thread without reading it all. I did read a fair chunk, then got tired and just posted. I find the whole subject a bit depressing sometimes and just vented.

43 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Define fair; for instance, is it fair that England's women's rugby team wins because they're paid to train harder than Scotland's women?

You're right. You can never make sport truly fair. Then let's remove all attempts to level the playing field. We shouldn't discriminate older ages from children's sports and men competing with women.

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

But the question to ask is: "Are trans-women winning disproportionately?"

Is it? So we have to wait and see?

I haven't read all of this thread but I've read enough of it to feel quite sad. I thought men and women's sports are separated in order to make competitive sports fair. The discussion over what is the definition of a man or a woman is highly confusing. I thought a science forum would be able to give greater clarity. We may as well just get rid of those categories altogether if they are so hard to define. The fact that someone can say they identify as a woman and yet be physically much more like a man than a woman and still get to compete in women's sports means you may as well just get rid of women's sports.

12 years isn't long. I can't say I feel too hopeful.

I just read a similar story on this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45775309

It's very worrying. I'd be interested to see what people here think of this.

It's always good to get the right phrase to describe a phenomenon, especially a negative one. That's the power of words.

I'm sorry you've had such difficult experiences to deal with lately. That sounds painful.

Agree with everything you've said about faith.

circular reasoning?

The three main possibilities are:

 

1. There is no god.

2. God is perfectly willing to let you suffer. This is rationalized as testing people for the afterlife, or the result of free will, which god created, so it comes back to him anyway.

3. God is jealous and punitive, which he says he is in the bible.

4 - God is willing to let you suffer but the purpose of suffering is unknown.

If you're talking about the God of the bible then, he is not described just as a jealous God but as an incarnate God - who comes and suffers along with us. My view of God is that everything we experience he experiences. Whenever we suffer he suffers too. Just my opinion.

Lets not just make it always about us and our suffering...

 

What kind of a vain God would create a whole universe for the sole, perverse purpose of worshipping Him.

Why do you think that's the reason God created the universe (if he did)? Could there be another reason?

Other forums with Community Forum Software IP.Board 3.4.7 work OK for me in IE. Not sure if patches/updates would be the same though.

Fine in chrome for me too.

I've tried to post with a quote, (click the quote or multiquote button) but it just takes me to the bottom of the page where the reply section is, and no quoted text appears in there. Have I missed something? I just need to hit the button (or multiquote plus reply to multiple posts) and the text should appear in the reply area right?

By the way this is IE.

This is what I was thinking, whether a David Attenborough type of approach is more effective.

I wanted the views of evolutionary biologists really, I don't know how many of them look in here.

If it was rephrased - 'Does Richard Dawkin's style of promoting evolution work' could that stay in the evolution section?

Then is the question about anti-evolutionary creationism in particular then? Or religion in general?

Boo!! I'm dying to stick my hand in a beaker of the stuff now

Oh dear.

Out of interest, what are the safety implications?

 

By which definition?

 

Here I have a few for you:

• Free will means that decisions cause my actions

Please show me why any of the above is in contradiction with determinism, or with the idea that in principle our actions can be predicted. Please also telle me why above do not describe (aspects of) free will.

 

Be aware: in none of the above descriptions I said that your wishes, beliefs and decisions are not determined.

If a decision is determined - in what sense is it a free decision? If the decision is not free then how can it form a definition of free will?