Leaderboard

I think there might be too much emphasis on testosterone by trans-opponents because they persistently visualize the classic masculine proportions in a drag-like feminine presentation , but not all gender-dysphorics are like that. This person below is the other extreme, and then there's all the gender-dysphorics inbetween. There is as much diversity in this group as there is in cis-genders. Just as with them, you can't monolithically describe gender-dysphorics. The only way to judge eligibility with fairness is by what a person can do and their physical ability put into the appropriate sporting class. Picture this person thrashing sporting cis-women at 100m because they were a cis-man. Not likely, is it? I think people need to go out there, and the internet is a good resource for this, and actually look at trans-people.... the whole gamut. It's pretty obvious to me that human gender is not binary and people can be born with mismatched personal identities to which they sense they belong. Then there's those individuals who identify with neither... they are in a state of gender equilibrium. As iNow has already suggested the solution, it's a practical method to properly accomodate this diversity in a fair and equitable way in sporting competition.

Something about it being easier to motivate base voters by pointing at who they should hate instead of offering popular policies that could meaningfully improve their lives. People are often unfamiliar with and even scared of trans kids being around their own kids, so politicians feed that ignorance by passing laws preventing trans kids from using the bathroom of their identity or playing sports… bc they’re all big bruising hulks who are gonna rip poor little Sally’s arms off at their sockets, etc. They appeal the basest instincts of the base, fire them up, win their votes, gain more power, and the cycle continues as more hateful and more needlessly discriminatory laws get passed. See also: Don’t say gay legislation in Florida. 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. 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 same way kids get assigned to the varsity team versus the junior varsity team, or T-ball versus Little League. You’re not being asked to solve world hunger or find a rational number = the square root of 2.

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!"

Pam Reed. Lynn Hill. Gertrude Ederle. Danica Patrick. 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.

That's a very good perspective, Serg. The whole world is in danger because of "leaders" like Putin and Orban. Perhaps the whole world would be better off without "leaders" who risk their people this way.

So you're saying the transgender situation is non-binary? Go figure!

By scientists, not by science. But the questions are still philosophical, and a training in philosophy definitely helps. I don't care who does the philosophising, as long as it is 'quality philosophy': well argued positions, well informed about the subject (physics in this case), but also well informed about the philosophical relevant areas to avoid overhauled positions, faulty logic, etc. Most of the present-day well-known academicians doing philosophy of physics have double PhDs, both in physics and in philosophy. To exaggerate a little, Krauss, with no extended education in philosophy, is critisising Aristotle, but none of today's academicians doing philosophy of physics. You can use citations to strengthen your point, by citing experts in the field, i.e. valid arguments from authority. I just wanted to show that Mencken is not such an authority. Depends on the purpose. If it is to ridicule philosophy, then sure, you can use such bonmots. If you want to make valid argumentative points, no, not so much. What is your purpose? But then you equate everybody who thinks he is philosophical with philosophy as it is done in academia. You know physics is bullshit? Just read the crackpot postings here. 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 when I am retired, in a couple of years... Yes, but you should not mistake 'playing philosophy' for 'academic philosophy'. But not today's philosophy. And what was Aristotle doing? language analysis grammar logic biology physics philosophy 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? Just to add a citation by Sean Carroll:

No way ! Then someone sees your history and you get accused of looking at weird porn. ( Just kidding 😄 )

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.

I think you need to look elsewhere. Your nearly had the right idea when you replied to my question. I say the positively charged proton exposed due to electrons orbiting a ways from that nucleon. The point for this thread is that standard valency bonds are permanent, as are permanent dipole interactions which do not form valency bonds. Both of these types can hold solids together. The non valency ones are a type of VDW force. But yes, a further interaction can be due to a temporary dipole. These are the London forces. Both temporary and permanent dipoles have two possible sources of derivation.

It was unknown whether the plants would germinate at all - the fact they did tells us that regolith did not interfere with the hormones necessary for this process. The plant they chose was the first one to have its genome sequenced, allowing them to look into the transcriptome to identify epigenetic changes due to the regolith, particularly what stress responses were triggered. They also compared regolith from 3 different lunar sites, allowing them to identify differences in morphology, transcriptomes etc between sites. Full paper here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-03334-8

Not quite: 'philosophy' was just the name of every activity that wanted to understand the world. (Was Newton a philosopher? His main work is titled 'Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica'.) It is our understanding of the musings of Aristotle that he was active at disciplines that we now distinguish: during my physics study in the context of the history of physics I learned about his 'laws of falling bodies', during my philosophy study I learned about Aristotle's logic (syllogisms, categories, etc), and I assume he would also appear in the history of biology. There are some overlappings, e.g. Aristotle's concept of causality that is interesting for the history of philosophy and physics alike. 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. In modern days, no, not so much. Genady is partially right: To simplify: if the topic is nature, it is physics; if the topic is methods and general assumptions behind physics then it is philosophy. And in this sense there are at least periods in which physics needs philosophy, even if it are physicists themselves who are doing the philosophising. But physics does not need music or sports; physicists might, but they are not special in this respect. There are a few reasons, why you got this impression. First, the irony, or even sarcasm, of one of these was just too much. As a science fan, you could get the impression that you are plainly stupid. (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. AFAIR his point was that the selfunderstanding of science (a philosophical topic!) of many scientists is poor, but you read somehow that he implied that science in general is wrong. 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? Philosophy is not science. In the natural sciences there is always an arbiter: nature itself. Philosophy is essentially reflecting on our thinking. But as the thinking changes, due to developments in science and society, the reflecting will change as well. Grappling with these assumptions is the scientific methodology, which is a part of philosophy. 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. Yes, I notice you are pretty good informed about the contents of modern physics and astronomy. 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:

I wonder whether using this term 'racism club' (twice) is indicative of a particular sort of pre-judgment of another poster's motivation. And I wonder whether the inclusive but unspecific phrase 'everything one does not like' indicated less than objective or incisive intellectual inquiry. Is the 'racism club' a hyper-inflated version of the old 'racism card'? 'Playing the racism card' was a charge that used to be levelled at anyone who mentioned historical bias in relation to the distribution of anything from baby clinics to public transport to polling stations to secondary schools. Now that the very same inequalities of distribution have remained unchanged or increased through space-age gerymandering, the not-very-effective card has grown into an equally ineffective club.... ....which, I'm guessing, is only ever used by "progressives" who still don't like everything they didn't like 50 years ago.

You are of course correct, no extraordinary evidence is forth coming. There are some that were so sloppily explained by the air force it reeked of incompetence at least. I often wonder just what would extraordinary evidence look like? Is it reasonable to think we could acquire such evidence on this subject with out intent from the source? I honestly wonder if this subject is going to be limited to circumstantial evidence unless the source, what ever that may be, decides we get such evidence. The comparison to meteorites comes to mind. In the beginning of "science" the experts were quite sure that rocks did not fall from the sky. Even rock falls witnessed by people were dismissed as rocks blown by winds or thrown out of volcanoes. Even a collection of meteorites that was on display at a famous museum were taken off display because the prevailing wisdom decried they could not be extraterrestrial. Of course today we know better, but did the evidence suddenly become extraordinary? No the same evidence was all we had at the time but it became apparent that the debunkers were just that, debunkers, and that rocks falling from the sky could only be explained by rocks falling from the sky. All the other arguments of mistaken eye witnesses, wind blown rocks, and volcanoes simply served to muddy the water for the real explanation. When we see something that, while unknown, is inexplicable by by all other evidence do we really require that the object land on the Whitehouse lawn?

+1. Kind of harshly stated...but unfortunately accurate.

Comments like CharonY’s are ridiculous and grotesque, borderline same level of ridiculousness that comes from the extreme right entourage. But the fact that this political brainwash dressed in science comes from a bilogy PhD is just plain scary.

It must be difficult living in constant fear that you could melt at any time. LOL! Stop it Smalls, you're killing me! 😂

How are they the same group, and the US Womens and mens hockey teams are not? No. As you pointed out, the women brought in similar revenues to the men. Close enough that the men felt compelled to support your World champion team, and to proceed to work together to grow the shared revenue. The Law did not support them in getting equal pay with the men. (though the Law certainly should have, and no doubt would have, supported that they deserved more than they were getting, including based on what the men were getting) If the law supported them for equal pay, they would have had to prove equal work. Their deal will set no precedent in Law for other sports, or even in their own when they negotiate the next contract. They simply settled on a win-win deal with the men, and possibly/possibly not also a win-win-win with US Soccer, for a set term. We were discussing the effect of incentivizing womens sports for transgenders, as per how it reflects on the thread topic. +1...and they deserve to challenge that potential brain and muscle memory just as men do. Citius, altius, fortius...not watchus from the sideus...

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. 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. Just because you're capable of throwing a punch, it doesn't mean you'll be effective. Entropy is in eternal progress, science/philosophy lives and dies with us...

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. You failed to comment on the progressive reasonable NRL situation. And some people believe in fairies at the bottom of your garden. 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

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. 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.