Leaderboard

Indeed, that's the only aspect of human society on which you have focused throughout, except for the references to "science". I agree that you have made your conviction on this topic perfectly clear.

XY chromosome athletes account for every male athletics World Record, and every player on every major male Professional Sports team. Does your "subject matter" recognize that? Can you expect to integrate XY transgenders into female competitive sports without recognizing that, and without understanding the implications of that? Tell me this. If a transgender female high school athlete breaks 10.49 in the 100m should it be considered a World Record?

Nobody has gotten around the 2nd law, which states that entropy of an isolated system can’t decrease, and it hasn’t. Usually it increases, and in this case it hasn’t, or at least that’s apparently the case.

The graphs I'v seen correlated party affiliation and educational level, which isn't at all the same thing as intelligence. I found one that you can use as a starting point. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289620300350 I'd approach it warily, however, as they seem to be looking for genetic factors.

All of biology is incomplete. Some of biology is more incomplete than other parts of it. While improving all the time it still seems the binary sex classification system is one of the more useful tools used. How does one defend Evolution from being considered wrong/incomplete without the use of it? For humans, based on standard biology science currently, it is at least 99% accurate, is it not? And while the overlaps may vary from sport to sport, the distributions, and peaks, of athletic potential for those with XX chromosomes fall short of those for XY chromosomes, often markedly and most often very clearly. For elite level competitive female sports the under 1%, the intersex, has long been problematic as to how to classify them and/or how to handicap or exclude them. But this is under 1%, which biology considers intersex. Presumably a similar under 1% in other mammals would also provide classification difficulties for biologists. (yet Biology doesn't consider interviewing any of the 99+ % to help in the classifications) Further to, and mostly separate to that, drugs have been a problem in elite level sports, including deciding on fair use for medical reasons. Despite those problems elite level competitive female sports has come a long way. Despite the problems the presence of intersex athletes presents, and despite the problems of drug use in sports. Now many want to further include some non intersex athletes, potentially any of the biologically male half of the 99+%, to traditionally female only sports, both competitive and recreational. Some even claim this does not threaten female sports often citing the problems of including intersex athletes, as if they are the same thing, or as if they won't add to the problems otherwise already faced. Some claim the problem isn't sufficient to address ("just let them play"). Some believe that scientists or other experts can make it fair, even while arguing the limits of scientists on the subject. If you want to include XY chromosome transgenders in female sports to support their acceptance in society what rules do you propose to use? Testosterone targets well above that of typical female range? Unhealthy targets within typical female range? Something else that you think both transgender and cisgender female competitors will be comfortable with. If you want to include XY chromosome transgenders in female sports how do you define them? Do you simply let them define themselves? What questions do you ask that they ask of themselves? What experience do they fall back on other than their own, and only their own, while none have shared that experience? How do you ask them to differentiate themselves from, say, a gay male with XY chromosomes, with no known biological disadvantage, that also only has his own experience and judgement to fall back on? One more bad analogy...😛... ...Ben...no let's call him Bert Johnson, identifies himself as a "Supermale" and has increased his testosterone levels under doctors orders for the sake of his overall health, both mental and physical or some combination there of. He was already a fast runner, and now runs even faster His Doctor thinks that's great, and like Bert also and wants him to compete at the Olympic level...who is anyone to deny him his place at the track? (his Doctor points out that his testosterone is merely twice normal levels, much less of an advantage than the 3+ times normal levels that current transgenders are allowed over typical females, and Bert retains no other advantages over his male counterparts) Not that anything like that would every happen. (I have to add that as I know someone would be on me about it faster than anyone could say "East German Swimmer", or "why doesn't the Russian flag get played at the Olympics, or their anthem played when Russian athletes win?)

Yes, most research I've seen points more to differences between party members and how they respond to strangers, or to new ideas and situations. There does seem to be a correlation between being Republican, for example, and having a larger amydala and a stronger reaction (pupillary dilation, BP, respiration, adrenaline) to unfamiliar faces and situations. (not going to dig it up, but googling "amygdala republican" or similar should get it) As a common sense observation, I think many of us notice that personalities that value status quo and traditional approaches tend to register more anxiety about change and innovative ideas. An official who steps up and says "Let's make things more like 1953" often gets a warmer reception from that personality. Unless, of course, the person was in a group that had to ride in the back of the bus and stay out of certain neighborhoods in 1953. I would say, as a personal observation, that it seems to me that empathy and social IQ do positively correlate. And I do have my own opinion as to where the main locus of empathy is found on the political spectrum, but will keep that out of this chat.

Without wasting too much time on this merry-go-round, I respectfully suggest that you appear a half empty sort of bloke, while I prefer half full [more realistically probably 7/8 full]. Plus of course there is good and bad in any endeavour, as I have said many, many times, but thankfully in most, particularly sport, science and music, the good side far, far out ranks that which maybe construed as undesirable or bad. And again, seriously, it is not sport which is bad...it is not science which can be bad, it is not music...it is the rare individuals that may seek to use it, or abuse it to there own advantage...I have given an example of that with Don King the Boxing Manager, and another of the same ilk, would be Colonel Tom Sanders, Elvis' former manager. The Good, the bad, and the ugly, it all exists. I prefer to concentrate on the uniting and beneficial qualities of sport, and obviously science, and music, not the negative side, unless of course it gives me the opportunity to right that negativity and the undesirable parts. But that won't happen, nothing is perfect as most of us know. On one more point, you misconstrue my statement replying to your missiles and solar panels.... of course they are not equally desirable, not by a long shot, particularly since I mentioned earlier in the subject in this thread, about devoting one's energies towards de-militarisation of nations. It is again, the individual that turns to the harmful ends of a particular aspect of science, [or sport] Or if you prefer, everything has a dark side. Yes, I could have worded it better, but I'm sure most understood what I was driving at.