J.C.MacSwell

Maybe you should give her more credit, given what she had to overcome to achieve that success.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/13/politics/abortion-right-polling-roe-v-wade/index.html Seems that few Americans have positions on abortions that reflect the extremes of either party. "A few months ago, Lydia Saad at Gallup did a great roundup of how Americans responded to the different ways questions about the legality of abortion have been asked. counted nearly 20 ways and found anywhere from massive support for abortion rights (north of 80% for abortions to save the life of the mother) to massive opposition (only about 10% were in favor of legal third-trimester abortions)." Most tend toward more moderate positions. "An AP-NORC poll from last year that 23% thought abortion should always be legal, 33% said it should mostly be legal, 30% said mostly illegal and 13% believed it should always be illegal." With much of the polling data depending on how and what question is asked.

If you go back to my original mention, I said power to weight ratio, but admitted when it was brought up that strength, which is related to that, is a consideration as are some other aspects of physical fitness. I've allowed the goalposts to get wider, but not otherwise moved the net. I'm quite willing to consider where it is defendable and where it might not be.

My argument against your references is that it doesn't address my assumptions in any direct manner. Why should it change my position? It is essentially mostly noise in that regard, and statistically inconclusive in any case. It really hasn't attempted to isolate the importance of fitness to success as a jockey. What you provided may satisfy you, because you don't believe fitness is significant enough to matter, even at top levels. So you conclude: "However, systematic analyses indicate that there a no significant advantages of men over women and the over-representation of men are driven by these biases." How jockeys are chosen may in fact be sexist and unfair, but I think this is a reach on top of a reach given the limits of your references. Why is it that the riders movements become so much more dynamic toward the end of the race? Is it simply to signal to the horse to encourage them to run faster? Or is it something more optimal that they simply cannot maintain for the whole race? It doesn't need to be to affect motor skills. I tried to get a link to support that but what mostly comes up is with regard to skill acquisition. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6443347/ "While the effect of fatigue on limiting skill execution are well known, its influence on learning new skills is unclear." Well known yet hard to search I guess...I tried rewording but found nothing better to this point.

Because I might beat them...amirite? I think it's a physical sport for jockeys...so I must be in favour of beating horses. No worries Phi. As incredible as that claim is...you aren't likely to get much pushback on it here. Just for fun though, run that by a competitive female jockey and see if she agrees.

I made no claim with regard to strength specifically, though that does come into play, even if the rider is sufficiently strong for the task. (physical skills often reduce as maximal exertion is approached) But the article does say: "With this action, the rider slightly overcompensates for the horse’s motion. This movement requires substantial mechanical work by the jockey." "The work required by a rider during a race will have his heart near-maximum beats per minute." It's a physical sport, and not just for the horse. Ask any competitive jockey, regardless of sex.

You really don't understand dynamics. But the confidence you're displaying in your misunderstanding is admirable. https://horseracingsense.com/how-do-jockeys-make-horses-go-faster/ Is this unique to horses? Human athletes use overspeed training and, for some magical reason...live to compete afterward. Who here are claiming either is? To the point of this thread; without proper and fair segregations in sport, truly elite athletes dedicated to develop those skills and mental acuities can't compete with elite athletes (and often even less than elite athletes) that have certain levels of some physical attributes due to their XY chromosomes, without arbitrary restrictions forced on them in a less than healthy manner. (Ironically, in the case of jockeys where the ideal weight is at an extreme of the normal XY adult range...the needs of the sport tend to put unhealthy pressures on them as well) Bingo! You thought wrong. My assumption is that being a top jockey is very physical and in that regard it gives biological males an advantage.

I think much depends on what you mean by this. Are you claiming the horses potential cannot be increased by the burden of having a rider? Or are you claiming a rider can't physically reduce that burden by optimal physical effort? (the optimal part being based on skill and/or mental aspects and the physical effort part based on physical fitness advantage) Right. And I don't believe you are skeptical enough, especially to reach the conclusion you did. It mentioned 43 past and present licensed jockeys. What were their ages and fitness levels? What were their weights during the tests? How many of the formerly licensed jockeys had health issues that might affect the results? How many were at race weight? How were the differences all accounted for? Shouldn't that alone raise your skepticism? This study is early on the subject and limited, covering aspects that don't even pertain to top racing speeds, and even the best scientific studies are susceptible to bias. If, as you suspect, the data was actually slightly biased toward men, do you think they made no attempt to account for that? Or if they did...how reasonably did they do so?

In fairness to both sides though, that would require each side to take difficult and thoughtful moderate positions toward stacking congress, rather than relying on much easier hyperbole hoped to lead to opportunities to stack the SC and let them do the heavy lifting toward permanent progress. I kid of course...everyone keep their shirt on...😄 Back to serious mode...not sure I fully understand that but thanks. I'll have to look into that.

Do you feel the constitution would need to be ignored to overturn Roe vs Wade?

Thanks for both. If we want to protect the good parts of our way of life, and make progress on the rest, the last thing we need are white nationalists.

Not challenging the point you are making, but what backlash remains against the abolition of slavery? Also what is the FoD? (Googling it I got nothing that made sense to the context)

As per my link earlier the SCOTUS at least considers pain when ruling on executions, and I would think would again on any gaps left by any overturning of Roe vs Wade, or it's replacements in Law if congress ever produces anything. But I would suspect essence more so, whether possible or not to measure it even indirectly, or by reasonable assumptions in comparison of fetal development vs baby out of womb.

I would suspect that viability might be pretty close to the point where a majority of Americans would consider the fetus to have a right to life, as long as it did not significantly threaten the life of the mother. I'm not sure what religions would advocate based on that, assuming it matters beyond their influence on votes. I did bring up pain. Pain and loss of essence (with the reasoning that both affected fetuses further from the point of conception). Pain considerations seemed to be questioned more than essence, maybe as it is considered more tangible? Is the Law just about the other?

I certainly agree with that.

You're right of course Dim. It's certainly a lot easier if I don't, or refuse to, empathise with what I eat. But I do hope and like to assume it has been treated as "humanely" as practical.

To the degree we can reasonably expect a fetus has developed enough to feel pain, and to what degree, I think that would be one criterion in weighing the rights we might choose to allow it. If we still choose to abort it, surely that should still be considered as to how it is done.

So for context, what are you getting at? Can you empathize with a 9 month post conception fetus or just one that passes from the womb? Or neither? I can agree or disagree with the remainder of this: Depending on that and more context. I'm also unsure of what stricter controls need to be put in place and what their scientific basis might be, but... not directing at you in particular... .... I'm pretty sure assuming ill will of everyone with contrary opinions, even if those include many with poor motives, politically driven, or religiously driven...won't lead to answers. From MigL's link: "Alito writes that by raising the point he isn’t casting aspersions on anyone. “For our part, we do not question the motives of either those who have supported and those who have opposed laws restricting abortion,” he writes." The SCOTUS at least believe it deserves consideration for those being put to death: https://www.npr.org/2019/04/01/708729884/supreme-court-rules-against-death-row-inmate-who-appealed-execution

Are you aware of any for (insert minority of your choice here)? Yet I'm sure you believe they share your sense of what pain is. Do you not suspect late term fetuses would as well? (and that very early after conception they would not?)

I don't think we need much of a metaphysical argument to support scientifically that those 10,000+ abortions every year in North America are more likely to cause pain, and loss essence, to the fetuses than that of the 10,000 done earliest in pregnancy. Does it not make sense to have stricter controls as the fetus progresses in development?

This is an emotional issue. it comes right down to it, we're probably just another species on just another planet, but it doesn't take much of what drives religious conviction to have some degree of faith that we are more than that, at least to ourselves as a human species. We frown upon those who don't, or can't somehow bring themselves, to share that view and include all of mankind in it, the type of special we don't hold for other species. When does that "special" start in an individual? Is there a scientific answer? Surely science and logic can at least help with this emotional issue. What is the special "human" value of a fetus? Surely it can't depend only on the emotional attachment of those closest in relationship to it. Is every sperm sacred in terms of human value? Surely not. At least not special. Every egg? How about when the two are combined? Is it "special" at that point; conception? Special enough to override the rights of the mother at that point? But at some point "special" starts with full force, or starts and presumably grows from some point. Can anyone make a good argument that it starts at birth? Is a premature baby born 7 months after conception more "human" than a 9 months past conception fetus? Does it make one more human than the other depending on which one is wanted more? Which one has parents better equipped to nurture it, more rich or more poor? Which one's mother's doctor holds what views of life? Or are women's rights simply so important that they override any rights of a very human fetus, right up to that point?

Don't we all...

If you guys think you can bring up who's the most modest around here without mentioning me I humbly ask you to think again.

Okay thanks. That's not enough to convince me you are right, but enough for me to apologize for a couple of the comments to the degree they were personal. I apologize for that. I googled a couple of lines from that second abstract, and got only slightly more to look at. It's very recent and claims to be the first study of it's kind with actual testing of male vs female jockeys in a scientific manner. I would question the makeup of the 103 rider group of 66 male and 37 female riders, the design of the testing/experiments and how the data is reflected in the conclusions. Just 43 of them were past or present licensed professional jockeys with no indication of further breakdown, and makes no mention of the weights of the riders, or ages of the riders, fitness levels of the riders, though of course that could be included behind the paywall. Where much of the testing included various speeds, often at below racing speed, and effects on the horses physiology, it seems more like baseline testing to form a hypothesis than reach a conclusion. Is this one recent study, that claims to be the first of it's kind, the basis of your claim? Am I being overly skeptical?

I just clicked the links now. I did not see them when you first posted, did you add them afterward? The first, for me at least, contains only the title and abstract. No paper or data. The second not even a title available. So I can't comment on any data. I highly suspect something is lacking and quite possibly agenda driven, but despite that I can keep an open mind. Can you provide the papers and data? From the abstract I could read: Among other findings, the results indicated that the probability for female jockeys finishing a race in the money was not significantly different from male jockeys, ceteris paribus, yet female jockeys continue to receive fewer mounts after controlling for other relevant, observable factors. So how did they control ceteris paribus, all things otherwise equal? What assumptions were made? It seems to indicate no experiments were done, and the data massaged and analyzed. Again, what assumptions were they using? If everything was done reasonably well, in terms of scientific method they seem to have enough to support a hypotheses...not a conclusion. But no paper, and no data to ascertain that.