mistermack

Well not me. I've made a clear distinction from the start. Gender being self identified, your gender can be whatever you like. My one transgender friend varies from day to day, from male through indeterminate to female. It really depends on who he expects to meet that day. On sex, I would say that as above, that there are only two sexes, apart from very rare 1 in 6,000 intersex cases. In other words, if you are not one of the 1 in 6,000 intersex, then your sex is either male or female, as defined by your sex chromosome configuration.

Doesn't this average income map look a bit like the earlier "age at death" map? I wonder why?

According to the Wikipedia page on intersex, the occurrence of all intersex conditions is roughly one in 6,000. So this is just a distraction tactic on your and others part, and is a bad faith argument. This thread is about transgender athletes, not the very rare intersex cases, which would not necessarily be classed as transgender. In other words, it's about the 5,999 cases out of the 6,000. Not the 1 exception. Men who elect for gender reassignment treatment are of course men, and are from the 5,999. And anyway, I did post about Swyer syndrome earlier in the thread. You weren't paying attention.

Of course, a lot would depend on the type of life, and it's environment. For instance, what if life originated under miles of ice, at the bottom of a very deep ocean. What kind of cosmic radiation could affect that? ( I don't know the answer to that, I'm just posing the question ). A lot of people contend that life on Earth originated very deep in the ocean, so that could be the case elsewhere too. But a highly irradiated part of the Universe might be impossible to explore in space craft and not worth the effort. So it could be that there is life in hostile parts of the galaxy, but it remains primitive, deep in an ocean, and not of much interest.

Clever use of the word "comprehensively". ( I would say devious ). I have covered that. Have you? Where is your "comprehensive definition" ? Where have I done that? Citation please. It's you who've missed the point. Confusing sex and gender is what I'm arguing against, you appear to have missed that. I've made the point that sex is a characteristic indicated by scientific analysis of physical facts. ie genes. Whereas gender is what you choose to present as, and what you feel you are. What's wrong with that? And here's what Richard Dawkins said on the subject : " In 2015, Dawkins also wrote: “Is trans woman a woman? Purely semantic. If you define by chromosomes, no. If by self-identification, yes. I call her “she” out of courtesy.”" My point has always been that "real woman" is not a matter of self-identification, it's a matter of chromosomes, but I'm happy to call my trans friend "she" for the same reason as Dawkins. And I stated earlier, if trans women are real women, then they have every right to compete against other women without any hormone, chemical or physical treatments. Of course they are, as real women. But of course, that opens the door for ANY MAN to declare himself a woman, and take the top womens prizes. So let's hear an actual position from you. (For a change) If there is no such thing as a real woman, support that with argument, rather than just your vague and evasive "nobody has asserted this" because it's the essence of the differences on this subject.

Well, that's the situation we live in now. It's not practical now, to carry hydrogen to make water, so why would it be practical elsewhere? I have a portable water filter that makes drinkable water out of lake, river, or pond water. It weighs very little, and lasts for years, so if there's water in the environment, you can use it. Salt water can be used for drinking if you make a solar still, or have a reverse osmosis pump. All much more portable than heavy steel tanks of hydrogen.

Classic false dichotomy. And anyway, joining you would not alter the facts. One more convert doesn't make Christianity right. There either was a son of god called Jesus, or there wasn't. Repeating it fervently over and over doesn't alter the facts in the slightest. And the same applies to the transgender question. Constantly repeating that gender reassignment procedures turn men into real women is just like praying. It doesn't affect reality in the slightest.

They are more likely to give good results. If you try to save seeds from supermarket tomatoes, or shop bought seeds, you might have an F1 hybrid, which is likely to produce infertile seeds. It's a while since I dabbled so I can't remember if tomatoes were problematic in that regard, but quite a lot of seeds are, so it pays to get seeds from people who have been saving seeds for a while. If you buy seeds, it usually says on the packet, if seeds are F1 hybrids, but I wouldn't rely on it, if it doesn't mention it.

What if you ARE the character? Like Donald Trump. I wonder if he owns the copyright to Donald Trump? There was a film on tv the other day about the airliner that ditched in the Hudson. I wonder if the pilot got money for creating the character ?

I have no idea how that was done. From my experience and reading, tomato seeds are enclosed in a jelly substances that inhibits germination, so the above shouldn't happen. If you want to germinate tomato seeds efficiently, it's standard to employ some way of removing that jelly. I used to do it by putting them in water with a little yeast and sugar, for a number of hours, and then rinsing and drying the seeds. That was my own invention, but it seemed to work and enable a good proportion of the seeds to germinate. My thinking was that it would mimic the passing of the seeds through a digestive system, which also works well.

Since it's a clear factual claim, and not in any way posted as a personal opinion, it's hardly a 'game' to ask you to provide a "citation" to support what you claim is a fact. Or were you just soapboxing? Or maybe the rules don't apply to your posts.

Do you have any factual support for that claim?

I believe I did post on that. But to save checking back, I'll go again. In the quote above, I've bolded and underlined being. Being male in humans is easy to define, for the vast majority of people, who do not have rare genetic conditions. It's having the standard XY genetic conformation. Identifying as female gender is also easy to define. It's something you choose to do. And undergoing various treatments to accentuate your identifying as female is just that, it strengthens the impression of gender that you project. And that's the difference between sex and gender. Sex is something you are, gender is something you choose to present as. (and also feel yourself to be) If transgender women were actual women, then we wouldn't need the concept of gender ( a 20th century concept for people ), and we wouldn't be having this discussion, because of course women would be allowed to compete against women, in elite women's competitions. The competitive advantage argument would be irrelevant. If you're a real woman, of course you qualify. What exactly is the "science of gender" ? I know that sex and science are intertwined, but gender is more of a tool of psychology and social science. It's a construct, an aid. The 'science of gender' is very much a matter of opinion. Some scientists view it as an abandonment of science. Robert Winston, Baron Winston - Wikipedia

What will happen to copyrights, if you are rehashing earlier work? If I run a top AI machine after inputting all of the Harry Potter books, and demanding a new novel, will I own the copyright, or will JK Rowling? After all, it could earn tens of millions in revenue, so it's not chickenfeed. Maybe this has already been thrashed out in the courts, I'm not aware of it either way.

You can summarise it like that. But I think that's a ridiculous summary, considering that you're claiming it covers "elsewhere" as well. My own argument is that men who undergo transgender treatment are fundamentally still men, and so should compete against men, not women. Where is that in your summary? I don't think that's an unusual attitude. In fact here in the UK, the public opinion is moving away from "transgender rights". Where does the British public stand on transgender rights in 2022? | YouGov

I have access to water when I need it, without having to lug around lots of water. And I don't have to lug lots of hydrogen around either. Having water available in water mains is pretty good. No lugging involved. Just turn on the tap. If an alien world had an oxygen-rich atmosphere, that means it would be sure to have plants that photosynthesise, and that would mean rain on land and oceans of water. So making water available would be a similar process to what we do on Earth.

Well, firstly about mass becoming energy. Remember E=MC² ? If there was any conversion of mass into energy (which I don't know) it would be absolutely tiny, and so can be ignored for practical purposes. As far as the fat goes, exchemist is correct above. And bear in mind that body fat is about 20% water to start with (on average).

There's more to it than buying a box of tissues, you know !

If I was on the side of the actors/writers, I would get together as a union, and design a contract that they consider fair. Then use that template throughout the industry, and refuse en-masse to sign anything else. In any case, there are copyright laws that could be tweaked to give people rights to their image and voice etc. But as in any other walk of life, if you agree to sell something freely, it should then belong to the buyer, so long as there is no deception involved. You could put a legal time limit on the period, at government level, if that was considered desirable. Personally, it doesn't affect me at all. The last movie film I watched was Green Card, with Gerard Depardieu and Andi McDowell. And that wasn't my choice, but it was a good film. But it was 30 years ago. And I don't think I've watched a film on tv in that time either, although I have watched bits of them, usually not my own choice. My attention span doesn't allow it

I would say that we're far from rational beings. We're capable of rational thinking, some of us, some of the time, but if we were rational beings we would probably be extinct by now. What rational person would go to the trouble we do, to reproduce? In the experiment with children mentioned above, I believe the over-the-top attitude to unfairness only persists to a certain age, but we still carry remnants around with us as adults. You only have to see the riots that can happen, if a football side loses because of an "unfair" refereeing decision. The rational being can evaporate in an instant.

There's no intrinsic reason for a difference. Possible slight variation might be more rolling friction on towing, because more wheels are spinning. And the towing example shown would probably encounter more wind resistance. So towing, on the face of those examples, would need more power, but not because of towing vs. carrying.

It's been shown in research that humans instinctively have an exaggerated sense of fairness, even to their own detriment. Researchers would offer children differing amounts of treats, and the kids would refuse offers that were not considered fair, even if it meant that they would get more. They would rather get less or nothing, than see someone else get more, unfairly. And I believe that Chimps do the same thing.

I don't know if it's a fact, but little blonde children seem more blonde when they are very young. The ginger ones also seem more ginger. That's a fact with some of my family. The hair was very red when very young, and changed to reddish brown as we got older. Going north sounds a bit extreme. Unless the hair salon is to the north.

There was a time when desperate doctors would deliberately give patients a dose of Malaria, to try to kill the infectious agent of syphilis with the resulting high temperature. It might sound a bit drastic, but having syphilis in those days, with no other cure available, was pretty drastic itself. Maybe in the future, if syphilis evolves to be antibiotic resistant, they might need to try it again. Maybe somebody should be researching how to maintain a high temperature in humans, without damge or risk to the patients. Athough that might not turn out to be possible.