mistermack

Do you have a citation for that, or do you read minds? Do you have a citation for that, or do you constantly read minds? Except you, apparently. Hence the above. Well it feels like picking nits to me. 😄

So you're saying that it can't be abused, which was my point? Otherwise, you are just erecting a strawman. I was pointing out that some people overdo it, as a spoiling tactic. You make the general point that asking is not unreasonable. Of course it's not, unless it's abused. It's like someone complaining about being stabbed, and you explaining how useful and necessary knives are. All very true, but not the point.

That's absolute laughable rubbish. They are both clearly expressing my opinion. You would have to be a bit backward, to understand it any other way because it's clearly stated that way. Backward, or deliberately nit picking for it's own sake. Of course, I'm saying it's the second. If I say, "nobody's going to want to watch blah blah blah" this is how english speaking people give an opinion in english. Of course you can come along and nit-pick on the wording and say "how do you know NOBODY will want to watch it? " . At my school, we did that for laughs until we reached our teens. I did expect more adult posting on here.

I made a considered post keeping to the thread subject, and instead of addressing the points made, you pick nits, about the wording of a phrase. Your debating style is constantly parrotting "citation" and this kind of pointless and unfathomable nitpicking which might mean something to you, but it's hardly enhancing the debate. You can NOT be serious! (Wimbledon on the box) What is this huge and vital difference, between "opining what might happen" and "opining what will happen" ? Because to me they are the same thing, and certainly not worth a post.

Next time I get headlice, you can come round and pick their egg cases.

Opining about what might happen? Sure

What the hell? That's a ridiculous position. Men HAVE to be refused entry to womens events, otherwise there will be no womens sport. So womens sport, by definition and the force of reality, depends on refusing and banning men. Otherwise, you might just as well have one open category, that any sex can compete it. And if you start allowing males who have had gender reassignment treatment into womens races, you won't get spectators. People expect to see women in womens races. They want to know who is the fastest woman, and who is the fastest man. etc etc. There might be a bit of voyeurism to start with, but in a while, it will turn the public off. Any time a transgender woman wins, it will be put down to her being a genetic male. And the other female competitors won't be attracted to take part in a race where ex-men are competing. The people in charge have already worked this out, and that's why they are taking the current stance. Although there's no guarantee that that position will hold, but it should.

Which speed of light are you talking about?

Caster Semenya is a difficult case, the main problem being that she was misassigned as female at birth. You have to feel sorry for her, but in a way, that mistake brought problems, but also big opportunities for a lifestyle that she would never have had otherwise. Caster is 5α-Reductase 2 deficient, according to wiki, and it's "rare, affects only genetic males, and has a broad spectrum." Again according to wiki, " Semenya married her long-term partner, Violet Raseboya, in December 2015.[121][122][123] They revealed that Violet Raseboya gave birth to their daughter in 2020.[124] Her test results were never made public, but the birth of the daughter is a bit of a confirmation of her genetic sex, and how they achieved the pregnancy is their own business. But all of the protests, when she was originally tested were just woke rubbish. See her on the track, covered in muscle and male body shape and features, that the reaction was "what is that man doing in that womens' race?" And of course, technically they were right. Maybe it wouldn't happen like that today, but anyway, she's done allright out of it.

I rely on my education and science. And the bleedin obvious. If I found that I wanted gender reassignment treatment, I would happily go for it. But I'd still know that I was a genetic male, and wouldn't expect to compete against women in elite womens competition. I fantasise that I'm good enough to run the 100m olympics final. But I do realise that to do that, I would need to qualify. Just self-identifying won't make me an elite runner. Sorry. Silly question. 😞

Ok, so you don't like my answer. Surprise surprise. Now, let's hear yours. What does make one a woman? Do you have a comprehensive set of criteria?

If my sex chromosomes were xx, that would prove I was female. I would say that that's accurate and precise. There is an extremely rare syndrome called XX male syndrome, but barring that very very rare occurrence, I would say that an xx result would be good enough proof. First question, are you female? (see above) Second question, do you have Swyer syndrome? (also extremely rare) Yes to either of those makes you a woman, as far as I can tell. But it's easier to say what doesn't make you a woman, and that is performing gender re-assignment treatment on a genetically normal XY male.

I don't know why you're asking. It's like looking for documentaries on animals eating. Competition for mates occurs in nearly all animal documentaries, to a greater or lesser extent. And plants compete too, usually in a more subtle indirect way. And there is endless variety, so really, it's knowing where to start. If you're looking for the spectacular, then I would pick the pride system of Lions, and the fighting to take over a pride. That's been done too many times to name one, but it should be easy to find plenty of examples. Gorillas are another animal I would look at. In general, if it involves males fighting and the winner taking on a harem, then you will find that males are often much bigger than females. As in Gorillas and Lions, and Sea Lions. Where the females are on a par with males size-wise, it suggests more choosing or even dominance by females. As in Spotted Hyenas.

If I was a woman, and they asked for proof, I would just give them a dna sample. She'd still be a woman. That's rather the point.

If that's the case, they will have no trouble proving it. And I don't think that self-identifying is going to count as proof.

They still have the sales page online. Which I find a bit distasteful. Particularly the bit at the bottom about "recently featured in" : https://oceangateexpeditions.com/

Do you know if there's a test for H.Pylori, that doesn't involve the camera etc down the throat? I've had acid reflux problems and severe heartburn for years. Some years ago, I had the camera down the throat, and it was the worst experience of my life. (I have an extreme gagging reflex when anything goes near the back of my throat, even a hair). I assumed that they would take a sample for testing for H.Pylori as a matter of course, but the doctor working the camera said to the nurse that he couldn't see anything nasty, and the nurse asked him if he was going to take a sample, and he said he couldn't see any point. If I could have spoken, I would have insisted, because it had been bugging me for years whether I had it, but of course, I had the tubes down my throat, and couldn't speak at all. I could have hit him, but I was powerless. And once they had finished, there was no point in telling him what I thought, because nothing in the world would induce me to have that procedure again. But if there was a non-invasive test, I'd love to take it to know if I had that bug, or not. I take one Opremazole a day, and it does reduce the need for antacids, but not altogether.

So you're confident? That seals it then. No sober person would fall for the deception? So you've never seen Mrs Doubtfire? 😄 Anyway, I feel confident that " Most straight people would view it as sexual assault by deception, or rape by deception, depending on how far it went." If they are not decieved, it's not a issue. I'm talking about when people ARE decieved. I hope that satisfies your appetite for pedantry. I admit most of your posts are baffling.

Or someone who claims to be black ???

Well, you are just as prejudiced, if that's the case, by proposing that if people claim to be something, then that means that they are what they claim. That's prejudging their claim to be true, by reason that they claimed it. I prefer the evidence approach.

Charles Darwin had a similar dilemma. He kept his trap shut for decades, rather than point out to people that they are apes, descended from a common ancestor of Chimps, Gorillas and Orangs. There was great pressure for him to accept humans as made in God's likeness etc etc, and he knew that it would upset millions to publish his origin of species. In the end, he saw reality as more important than a cosy delusion, and that's how I see the transgender issue. Having said that, this is a discussion forum, and the subject under discussion is transgender athletes. I wouldn't push my thoughts on "trans individuals" without a clear invitation to debate it. Just as I don't push my atheist beliefs on my christian sisters, but will say what I think, if the subject comes up for discussion. I reserve the right to have my own thoughts on the subject, and resent any kind of compusion to "accept trans individuals as they identify". I don't accept my own family as god's children. That doesn't mean I hate them, and they are mature enough to disagree without animosity.

Except that they are turning sea water into vapour by spraying. Despite the "enthalpy of vaporization" making the project impossible. But wait, maybe the heat energy in the air is doing exactly what I said. And you seem a bit confused about condensation nuclii. Without an abundance of them, the cooling vapour just forms bigger drops, rather than clouds of smaller drops which give a more reflective cloud. Bigger drops would be fine, if you are just aiming to make it rain. From the report I linked : "When you have very clean air, like we have coming in over the reef during summer, there's not very many of these cloud condensation nuclei." This means clouds form with a small number of larger droplets, which are not good at reflecting light. "So when you add extra sea salt crystals, you get the same cloud but it's now made up of many more smaller droplets and that reflects more light back into space," Dr Harrison said." I don't have any updates on the experiment, but as they've been running it for three years, they obviously are not expending unimaginable terrabites of energy doing it. By now they would know for sure, if the energy consumption was horrendous, and would have closed it. After all, there is no prospective cash return on what they are doing, whereas if you successfully greened the climate in the right place, it could be worth billions.

I know an old lady who swallowed a fly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQHmZMf6zwo

On this thread, I'm debating if trans people should be competing against biological women, in elite sports. I'm well aware that children can turn out straight or gay, and have been for the last sixty years, so your wonderful insight is wasted. If you can point to ANY post of mine that shows hate or prejudice against gay people, I invite you to quote it. Otherwise, the above post is just a nasty insinuation.

In general, that's right. They are generally on pretty poor soil, because of the high rainfall, nutrients tend to get washed out. When they burn down amazon forestry, they usuall only get a few seasons of productivity on the cleared land, before it becomes fairly exhausted. In the forest, there's an intensive 'industry' recycling nutrients rapidly as stuff falls out of the trees. From what I remember, the tree roots tend to grow outwards, rather than down, because the deeper soil is barren.