mistermack

What's wrong with you? How can you not know that after taking part in this thread?

Maybe hyperbola, but the small number is actually relevant. If a handicapping system is brought in, and you remove their current advantage, then they're far less likely to qualify for the top level, and the already small number could shrink to nothing. So the women's sports are likely to have jumped through all of those silly tiresome and expensive hoops, only to find they still have all-women in the championships etc. And the trans women would still be complaining that the handicapping is unfair. And when one actually qualifies and wins, the females will complain that the handicapping wasn't properly assessed.

I think that slang, like names and nicknames, comes about as a bonding mechanism in social groups, or populations. We tend to adopt and mimic things we hear from our peers, which produces a constantly evolving culture. In our evolutionary past, this bonding mechanism helped to preserve the genes of those who adopted it, and those genes tended to cause inheritance of the tendency. Humans are not unique in adopting culture, but we take it to extreme lengths compared to most other species. Bird species have been found to have regional accents, and I seem to remember that various whale or dolphin species have local accents too. Local accents and slang are pretty much the same thing, we acquire it subconsciously by hearing it from others. I suppose we humans are unique, in having what we consider a "proper" version, compared to a slang version.

That's worth knowing. I've only come unstuck once, I had a cheap pen/camera, and left it charging, and the battery cooked and died. Most reasonable quality stuff will have a circuit that prevents overcharging, but going by that pen, cheap stuff might not. Or maybe that was a one/off, and you can't overcharge lithium? I don't know.

The most important equation to solve with a young female is B4i√uru/16

I'm not knocking the OP list, it's just interesting to add your own slant on it. I would put at number one, out in front by a mile, to "keep your expectations at rock bottom". But it's not in the original list. If you let your expectations run sky high, you will almost certainly never be happy. If you keep them rock bottom, your life will be full of pleasant surprises.

That's not necessarily going to bring you happiness. Some people will just use it to walk all over you.

If you can't work it out yourself, then nothing I say is going to help. I'm not going to nit pick with you till christmas.

Why don't you check your facts, before you come out with these silly aggressive posts? Caster Semenya has XY chromosomes, and 5α-Reductase 2 deficiency, Look that up, and you will find "The condition is rare, affects only genetic males, and has a broad spectrum." Wikipedia.

Is this meant to be a guide to your own happiness, or communal happiness? There's a big difference. If it's your own, then it depends on your own character. For a psychotic psychopathic serial killer, the key to happiness would probably be to kill lots of innocent people, and not get caught.

She's a biological male, wrongly assigned at birth and has never officially transitioned to male. And why would she, she holds two women's olympic golds and three world championships. However, from wiki, "Semenya married her long-term partner, Violet Raseboya, in December 2015.[122][123][124] They revealed that Violet Raseboya gave birth to their daughter in 2020.[125]" And all the best of luck to her, being wrongly assigned at birth hasn't been a total disaster to her life, it would probably have been a lot more mundane, if she'd grown up as a male.

I was replying to an interesting and amusing post by TheVat. Well, it amused me anyway. I hope that's all right by you?

One thing I've found is that if you have text that you think is saved, but then click quote or try to type in an earlier page, what you thought you had saved disappears instantly.

As far as I'm concerned, it they were assigned Windsor at birth, and have gone through puberty as Windsors, then they are not trans Windsors, they were simply wrongly assigned at birth, like Caster Semenya. If found to have raised levels of haughtiness, and lowered sense of humour, that can be addressed with compensatory treatments.

I'm against them being considered royal, or having hereditary privilege. There are lots of people called Windsor, it doesn't imply superiority or privilege. That sounds very wise. I'll forward it to Zelensky.

I'm amazed you asked. You actually quoted the obvious answer. The name "trans woman" implies something I don't accept. Camilla Parker Bowles married Charles Windsor. I don't refer to her as "Her Royal Highness Queen Camilla" because I don't agree that she's high, don't accept the monarchy, and don't regard her husband (his majesty) as majestic. I would call them "the Windsors" unless I was talking to someone who wouldn't understand that. If Americans started calling Donald Trump the "National Treasure" , I doubt if many on here would choose to follow suit.

No definition was attempted. But if I substitute "refer to" then I would say that by saying "trans" you ARE referring to their former appearance. In any case, for me, the expression "trans woman" sometimes jars a bit, because it implies an acceptance of something I don't accept, that a man can transition to be a woman. (as I stated a long way back) But I don't care particularly, and have used "trans woman" previously in this thread less than a day ago. If you can suggest something that doesn't imply acceptance that trans women are women, I'll try that out too.

It's not compulsory, and it would be a sad day if political correctness ever became compulsory. Former men is true and accurate, unlike trans women, of which both words are debateable. Having said that, I don't care, I use whatever seems most appropriate at the time. I don't believe that. Sounds like she's stretching the truth. Amazing for a lefty. If it is, then banning men is too, for the same reason. She's not thought it through at all. Amazing for a lefty. But hey, if it's ridiculous and offensive, then women won't enter the women's competition, they will be too offended, and worried by the ridicule. Actually, I find it debateable if a women's competition is a good thing in chess. But the good thing is that it's not compulsory, and women can enter in the open section if they like.

That's a silly post even by your standards, and factually incorrect as well. Women and former women are not excluded from the open class.

Even the chess world is now moving away from allowing former men to compete as women in women's championships : Chess body bans transgender players from women's events (rte.ie)

This came up on MSN, looks recent. Athlete left furious after trans competitor breaks female record in competition (msn.com) It’s just a little taste of what’s in store if trans women compete in women’s events. The athlete put it rather well : Hutchinson criticised the decision to allow Andrew to compete, labelling the 40-year-old’s inclusion as “completely unfair”. She added: “It’s bodies that play sports, not identities. “Remember, bodies are biology, not identities that play sports.”

Fair enough. I take it back. I should have said accurately.

No you didn't say that. You said : Good faith might start with quoting your own words truthfully. And not changing it to "maybe they just think", weasel words that change it from you saying it, to others thinking it. Anyway, I quoted you, and asked for a link (obviously meaning to where I posted not in good faith), and you pretended not to understand the bleedin obvious. More bad faith. And yet you expect me to believe that me quoting what you wrote, and asking for a link regarding the quote, went over your head. I don't believe that for a minute. It's just more bad faith posting. I tried to do that with Zapatos, asking what rules could be applied, and got a one word answer, "handicapping". And when I questioned that, got a refusal to debate. Basically, from where I stand, there's a lot of handwaving going on, and not much facing of facts. I'll openly explore other ideas, but if they look wrong, I'll say so, and try to explain why I think so. There's nothing stopping the world from including trans women in women's sport. I wouldn't do it myself, because of principles and practicality, and I've said why. But the world is free to disagree and get on with it.

Pretty much. I put myself in the place of a female athlete who has spent most of her life trying to be the best, only to have some less talented male athlete declare himself a woman, have a bit of surgery and hormone treatment, and deny her the prize she deserved, and take records off amazing truly outstanding female athletes that had to win them as real women. By the way, they are "allowed to play". Just thought I'd remind you.