J.C.MacSwell

Sorry Alkonoklazt. I'm only being facetious. It's been a common theme in the thread by some posters that somehow it can be made fair to allow trans women to compete in elite sports in some practical manner without threatening women's sport, even though there are far more men that can compete at the elite women's level than there are women that can. Anyone that believes this to be true in physical sports understands little about the biology or is being extremely short sighted on the social impact on the transgenders being encouraged to compete (IMO of course). So I'm taking the position that trans men deserve there chance in men's sport every bit as much as it's claimed trans women do in women's sport. Why wouldn't they? As to the weak "it's only 6 individuals argument" it should be only a matter of time for there to be plenty more unless it's intended to maintain a social stigma against them competing...a very unhealthy situation for a vulnerable section of our populations.

What's wrong with different sized rackets? You sound like one of those "elitists" that would rather watch the likes of Usain Bolt in an all XY Olympic 100m mens final than allow trans men a fighting chance and a 0.91 second head start.

Well that's a fine kettle of fish...

If it's about percentages: What percentage participate hoping to someday advance to elite level, and in particular, what percent of females do so looking up to female role models? (I do get that potential trans individuals deserve the same...but if based on percentages as you suggest it should not be part of your focus)

@ Dim When knowingly avoiding the context, what's the point of posting?

Are fetuses lives included in that equation? Because unless you include just the mothers there is no evidence that making abortions illegal would cost more lives. Also, would you think it hypocritical to oppose clinical infanticide, if you were concerned many mothers might do themselves in while illegally killing their kids?

Fairness in the top 200...no problemo. For mens play: Those with no Y chromosomes play on the usual markings on their side of the court, but get to use the doubles markings on the other side if a Y chromosome individual is playing them. Markings can be adjusted until there are as many trans men in the top 200 as cisgender men. For womens play: Those with any Y chromosomes must use a smaller racket. Racket size can be adjusted until there are as many cisgender women in the top 200 as trans women. Easy-Peasy. Other associations may form to try to keep the balance differently, and possibly there might also be a Non-gender league that forms where only those with no Y chromosomes play in one division and those with one in another. Win for everyone as they can all choose what league they might wish to play in. Compensation and prize money to be determined by each association based on costs and revenues.

Statistically at least, the majority tend to favour the right of a women to choose earlier in pregnancy and the rights of the fetus to live later in pregnancy.

I heard cattle playing baseball against chickens was finally segregated by sex because the cows kept hitting fowl balls.

I only mentioned it as I remember pondering the thermodynamic potential (limited...but your mind wanders when watering rinks in the dead of winter) A small enough rink is great for very young kids and not too much work, especially with shade and a good white tarp. The older they get the bigger the rink they need...and the flat and level factor really kicks in and makes it hard. But on topic a good heat sink can make ambient a decent energy source.

I always thought it was pretty cool (no pun intended) that I could water my kids backyard rink and have it freeze at +2 celcius air temperature during a night with a clear sky. Not a chance when overcast at anything above 0. (relative humidity was also a factor) Hard to comment on the economics of it, but it was worth something to the kids....not that that has any relevance to your point.

I laughed out loud...but it helped that I googled Balzac before I actually got it. So I connected the comedy angle first. Sometimes it helps being slow...

Maybe. In the spirit of science we should give it a couple of test tickles.

There seems to be a fine line between barely acceptable and definitely not where potential comedy resides.

And here we thought you guys were too busy burning your cities and planning insurrections to notice...😄

A few caveats. Make the rules equally inclusive, and equally effective competitively, and equally incentivized, for trans males wanting to compete in male sports. Fair is fair. If we don't see trans males making inroads toward the top of the male podiums allow them to sue the rule makers for lack of equality. XX chromosome individuals struggling to compete in the female division should be able to transition and compete more favourably in the mens. Trans males are people too.

Does it go far enough? Probably not. (read as definitely not) But maybe it's something and maybe a turning point. Let's applaud all the "sellouts" that got something done. https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/12/politics/whats-in-senate-gun-reform-agreement/index.html

You seem to have the belief that we're advocating compromising with the extremes, or the extreme positions of the extremes. Half of America can't be all bad on this issue if 83% are in favour of gun control. On this issue at least, if the political bigotry can be set aside it would seem some progress can be made.

Progress? https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/12/politics/senate-gun-safety-agreement/index.html

Compromise toward worthwhile progress is hard work. Maintaining polarization is cheap and easy.

Political polarization is much more acute in Congress. There are far more conservatives than the lawmakers themselves.

Swing and a miss. Start by showing less animosity toward your independent and conservative allies on gun control, and follow with the same toward others that are open minded. Look for a path to a win, and when you see it avoid that tempting cookie jar of political gamesmanship.

The Canadian race are naturally the best ice hockey players. So much so in fact, that we've built more ice hockey rinks per capita of any other race on Earth.

LOL. Seems we all agree with "Meathead"...we just don't agree on the best way to get there.

With just 11% of your population were also bound to have less examples of pants-on-crazy. And while we do have the advantage of more than 2 parties, a party can be elected by majority without even a plurality of votes. But I do think we have better control of election spending and political lobbying. And we let those with criminal records vote, even those currently incarcerated. On topic. Our gun laws still need work, but at least they are comparatively reasonable.