Intoscience

Sounds to me a poor excuse for not facing up to the responsibility of your actions.

Though I do side on the no designer argument I can't help but feel much like what Markus stated. I have yet to find a compelling argument for the need of a designer, but many for the non requirement of design or designer. However because our knowledge still lacks, and the evidence supporting theories on and around how the universe initially began, and how life (as we know it) initially began, then I do beg the question. I'm happy to dismiss wild claims, especially those focused/built around religious beliefs. So at this juncture, I would remain on the - random evolutionary models bench. A little part of me wishes/hopes that a designer was indeed required, this may give some extra meaning to it all. Especially so if humans are intended to be just that little bit extra special.

Or the ultimate escape. Depending on your beliefs. If a person is an atheist who doesn't believe in any form of after life or transcendence, or reincarnation then death means full stop, the end in every sense. But you can be an atheist and believe in some form of continuum. (as per what The Vat stated) For a person to be be punished then they need to be judged.

Agreed, Going back to this recent claim Either the film makers of close encounters knew something no one else did, or the person making these claims is very unimaginative! I read that the latest NASA report on UAPs states that they have no reason to believe that any of the UAPs are non terrestrial. However, they do go on to state that the findings are inconclusive and many of the phenomena remain unknown both in construct and in origin. they also state that some of the evidence suggests that some of the objects are not moving as fast as reported and maybe just "drifting" with currents. This last part I find rather odd and I'm not convinced. Many of the objects where witnessed on multiple occasions by various experienced air force personal. I find it hard to believe that they would all mis-construe what they witnessed. I do however remain sceptical of "alien" visitations. But I'm not in the club of completely ruling them out. What may convince me more to join the "believers" is if we discovered new physics which may allow for, or at least theorise, a plausible practical method of long-distance short time space travel by meaningful physical objects.

I would have structured the sentence differently, because when I read the first part it came across as though you condoned Jimmy Saville's actions. Any person/s who abuse children deserve something!

hmmm... uncannily The sad thing being that all this does is fuel the stigma surrounding aliens and the possibility of their existence.

The problem is that the public cannot discern what is fact and what is fiction these days, especially so on subjects like this. People tend to buy into what ever is trendy at the time and with social media so accessible and also easily manipulated then the general public can be convinced of fiction over fact without much question.

I'm not sure that is true though. Even if aliens were visiting (i'm not advocating they are) then why would we still not explore our local neighbourhood anyway? The question would be why are we not using the so called captured technology to make it easier for us to explore our local neighbourhood? The so called "whistle blowers" have claimed that the government has being back engineering this technology for over half a century, and included in that are claims of test flying anti gravity devices. It all smells of a diversionary tactic to cover up advanced technology testing that is human in origin.

I'm not, I'm advocating that in order to integrate transgender then the rules should consider the new definition of what a woman is. They are not changing the definitions, society (a group of) are changing the definition. The governing bodies are attempting to integrate this new definition into sporting categories. I'm not!!! The rules have to consider the new definition to enable integration. How that is achieved is beyond me since the original definition was fundamentally based on biology. Now its not, so now the ruling boards need to consider this.

I never advocated it was. There is an undeniable difference between male and female physical performance. The current world athletic championships highlight this as we speak. So where predominantly does that extra performance come from? cause it sure aint all just psychological. It comes from physiological attributes that are fundamentally biological differences.

Sure we do, we have many clear definitions for many things, there is nothing stopping us redefining as we probe more detailed depths or as more accurate data comes to bear. It also depends on the context and purpose. For example you mentioned a black hole, the simple universally accepted definition is simply - a region of space where not even light can escape. Sure you can refine that definition and continue to improve on it if you wish to do so. Until recently a woman was defined as - an adult human female. The definition has since evolve over the past few years and now includes - gender identity that is fluid. I'm not the one forcing them to change the definition????? The original definition of a woman was - adult human female. That's what the women's category was originally based around. Now the definition of a woman has evolved to include an additional definition - fluid gender identity. So the logical step to include trans gender in the "women" category, the rules must be fundamentally changed to fairly include the new additional definition. Or we could split the category into separate divisions, like they do with weight. You cant have a competition with rules that were based on old definitions and expect it to continue to function properly without evolving to include/consider changed/new definitions, that would be illogical.

Sure it is, all rules have to operate around universally accepted definitions else they are open to interpretation which leads to confusion and sometimes controversy. Any category defined by a marker needs a well defined marker. For example categories set by weight. If the definition of the term "woman" is fluid then how can that be used to define a category? If we can clearly define (within reasonable accuracy) the physical performance difference between what we label as male and female then we can use this as a universal marker (definition) specifically for the purpose at hand - sports. Is that not the whole point? Things get complicated when gender identity and biological sex performance attributes are conflated. When clearly by the very 2 definitions of the term "woman", gender and biological sex are not mutually inclusive. We have to start with clear definitions based on a selection of data and testing. We can argue till the cows come home about how deep into the biological aspects we delve. But the logical step would be to take from the data that which is most relevant to the context - physical performance, and apply it so we can draw a sensible and universal conclusion. But this is already done to a degree, and has been workable for years. Now we want to include trans gender, and rightly so, all should have an opportunity to compete! But qualification by gender identity alone comes with complications, which need addressing. Maybe so, but for the purpose of this thread which is centred around sports then there are biological aspects that have been proven to be clear markers for physical performance. The data is out there look at the sporting results, on average males out perform females in physical activities. So clearly there is a physical (biological) difference between what we term male & female. So regardless whether this thread is specifically about gender identity, to have any sensible discussion we have to also look at the biological aspects related to physical sporting ability! We need this in order to determine what category a person should be included in. No different than weight divisions or other physically defined categories.

Ok, so maybe this needs changing. If there is (data driven) evidence supporting cis - male over cis female physical advantages then surely the categories require acknowledgement of this and adjust the rules accordingly? This is fine but where do you draw the line to enable sporting rules to be applicable? We have agreed and established that on average there is a physical difference. What we need is a distinct definition for sporting events, a cut off line so to speak, that clearly and fairly categorises in a way so that participants can compete on a relatively even playing field. When all said and done this argument isn't even really about gender identity, its about biological sex. the 2 get conflated because we insist on using the term "woman" for the categories where in modern society the term woman has an additional definition that is not mutually inclusive with the original.

I have researched the definition of a woman and can find 2. 1. An adult human female - attributed by biological sex 2. A person's gender identity Though technically the first is the original definition the second is being (changed) embraced by some and now more widely accepted by people to use as gender identity and this definition is becoming ever more fluid, the 2 are not mutually inclusive. Ok, so coming back to sports, my assumption was that sporting categories were, and continue to be based on biological sex for the reasons as pointed out over many pages - In general, but especially so at the elite level, biological men physically out perform biological females. Based on this, If the above 2 definitions are not mutually inclusive then why should the sporting category be so?

Ok I'm willing to accept this even though I don't agree, but for the sake of this discussion lets run with it. So a person identifying as a "woman" as a clear specific definition of what a woman - adult female - is. So what is the definition? How is it a strawman? the vast majority of the human population are regarded by mainstream to be either biological male or biological female and any person excluded from these groups are said to have "conditions". I'm not setting these definitions the medical world is!

But I see, based on evidence and definitions (not mine but mainstream) that the majority of the population is made up of either male or female and the remaining minority a variety of "conditions" which are regarded as abnormalities.

So if they aren't so distinctive why does a person wish to trans in the first place? Surely there has to be s distinction to make the transition?

What does this mean? How does a person authenticate their chosen identity? And how does that map with actual biology or physical attributes? I think this is where things get a little muddy and where we need definitions that we all align to. Personally I would prefer to align with fact based definitions rather than psychological based feelings, opinions or beliefs.

I don't think anyone is against adding further categories or fine tuning the rules. Sports evolve and rules are often updated i see no reason this wouldn't work to include trans athletes. So you keep saying, so statistically it's easier to exclude them from the get go. Since it only takes one to dominate and thus exclude hundreds of other competitors from a chance of winning. Can't please all all of the time so best bet stick with the majority hey? But this is not the way forward and not what anyone is advocating. we all believe in complete inclusivity. In order to do that then something like Zaptos's idea of qualification rules through some form of data driven performance testing may work. i said previously I don't have a clear workable solution. But I would happily support a workable system along the lines you have suggested. The only issue I see is that I'm told science cannot accurately determine the distinction between a male and female and if a person identifies as either then this seems to trump any physical evidence anyhow.

I don't see any sporting body introducing handicaps, other than testing for testosterone. I'm not adverse to your idea, in fact i'd support such if it proved workable and fair. But i'm sure such a system will be regarded negative discrimination. It will always be unfair to include trans women in cis women categories until a consistent and "handicapping" system is introduced. In order to do this one first has to define the advantages a biological male has over a biological female. In order to do this one must define what a biological male & female are. Since the argument is that there is no clear difference and that biological sex is a spectrum how do you suggest handicapping a biological male fairly? Paranoid? I'm told that a person who is born a certain biological way "feels/believes" they are something different is not a mental issue. I was pointing out since this is the case then discussion down that route is a no no. I don't in particular, is my answer. I'm sure I said such earlier in the thread but hey ho... I just have a strong sense of moral fairness. I particularly believe that trans inclusion without workable rules is a non starter for all parties involved. The cis women lose out on opportunities and the trans women lose further support and are negatively exposed to the public, just enforcing further bigotry. I support the rights of all people but not at the cost of others. Society should always endeavour to find solutions which bring harmony, not promote further divide. Does this answer your question? I for one appreciate you explaining your motives and elaborating. We can all get frustrated, exasperated and sometimes angry especially so if the subject matter strikes a cord. i can sometimes get sucked into arguing in anger rather than stepping back and trying to explain my position in a polite and logical manner (I often fail). I think believe that everyone posting on this thread in essence wants the same - fair inclusion for all. we just have differing views/opinions on what is fair.

I'm sorry but you mis represent me. I have advocated throughout this thread that I support "fair inclusion for all" I have not presented a workable solution, because I don't have one. I have also stated this during the thread discussion. I'm not transphobic by any means, which seems to be the inferred accusation when someone disagrees with the pro trans inclusion in women's sports group. If a system can be implemented in such a way that fairly includes trans in cis gender groups then sure I fully support it. You suggested "handicapping" fine, what type of handicapping do you propose which has no ill health effects and can be consistent across the board? It appears that you cannot advocate that a person suffering from gender dysphoria may be suffering from a mental issue. This discussion is off limits since maybe perceived by others that the person advocating such is transphobic. Remind me, what was your fundamental question again? I have asked so many that have gone ignored I've lost count.

That article describes "abnormalities" resulting in various types of intersex. It describes possible causes for and refers to each condition. "Intersex is a group of conditions in which there is a discrepancy between the external genitals and the internal genitals (the testes and ovaries)." Hmmm, it's very important! Since male & female sports are segregated based on sex. But a minority group want to claim otherwise. They want to claim qualification by personal gender identity. The 2 often get conflated when there is a clear distinction between them when a person is transitioning. Why? to make a clear and concise distinction between 2 things then surely you first need a comprehensive definition of each? My argument is and as always been that there is a clear biological distinction between a male & female (especially so post puberty) and that at the elite level sports that distinction can have a profound difference on performance ability. I'm still waiting for someone to refute this when all the evidence is there to see. If this was not the case then the men's & women's records would align. But this is not the case, in the vast majority of disciplines the men out perform the women by what (at elite level) is regarded a massive margin. This is a science forum we use verified data to come up with a sound conclusion. If the data changes we adjust our conclusion. As yet no elite biological woman has broken any of the elite men's records. For this reason there requires a solution to include all participants in a fair manner which pits each competitor against others with similar performance ability. The governing bodies already do this by categorisation based on physical attributes, which includes biological sex. There is a very clear (based on evidence) that males (in general) out perform females in athletic disciplines, at the elite level this is more profound and evident. But then in comes the curved ball - what about people who identify as a certain gender, but biologically do not qualify for that gender group? Well its unfair to dis-clude them altogether because that's not fair on them! but in the same token it's unfair to include them in the group with which they identify because that is unfair on the group. So what's it to be?

Yes, I have read it and have I at any point argued that testosterone levels should/shouldn't be used? I'm arguing that there is more to it than just using drugs and therapy to "change" a biological male into a female. So there are more than 2 biological sexes? There may well be anomalies, but in general there are male & females. You can apply a spectrum to any number of things, frame it how you want to. So if there is no distinction why do people want to change their identity? Why do people want to go through the suffering and endure surgery & drug treatment? If a person is willing to go through this then they clearly have an end game in mind. They can clearly make the distinction between how they were born and what they would like to change about that. There must exist a distinction or else there would be no differences and nothing to change. For a person wanting to change from male to female there must by logic be a distinction, else by logic there is nothing to change. But there is because at either end of the spectrum sits a start and an end, by definition these two are distinctively different. You can call them what you like but in this context we use the terms male & female. Your analogy is flawed, you can model black to white as a spectrum of ever changing shades and at some point along the spectrum you get a middle point grey which is neither closer to black nor white, each side there sits a group. One group of shades are closer to black than white and the other side of the group are closer to white than black. In biology we can do the same, only that close to 50% of people sit very tightly group to the male end and close to 50% of people sit very tightly grouped to the female end, as the 2 groups merge near centre then this small minority would be regarded as anomalies since the vast majority sit tight up to either end. If you wish to remodel this so that you spread out the groups or even overlap then sure that is easy to do. You can model it in any way that suits your arguments.

You have been provided with examples previously on this thread. If you want some data backed technical detail then here you go - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9331831/ The investigations between trans women and cis women is ongoing. But it is clear that certain distinctions are fundamental and set at an early age, especially so during puberty. The question remains as to whether all the drug taking and therapy is enough (ignoring the health and moral issues) to biologically alter a male physiology enough so that it is much closer to that of a female, and whether those changes directly influence sporting performance accordingly. At recreational level who cares? In the words of dim "let them play together". But at elite level, were every tiny detail counts, then it's more important to ensure it's clear with no ambiguity. But first we have to all agree on what constitutes a male & female. Since this is the bench mark, yet people are reluctant to explain in a well defined detailed manner which indicates clearly and unequivocally the distinctions between the 2 sexes. If a man decides, feels, imagines in his brain that he is not a he but a she (not male but female) then we need to understand what she means by this and what the distinctions are.

Well there it is then, conclusive objective evidence. There are 8 billion or so people who's brains tell them they are distinct, and guess what, they are, each has their own identity. It's just that some claim to be something that they physically are not. In most circumstances these people would be regarded as delusional. My brain tells me that the Earth is flat, it looks flat so it must be, and you should accept this as fact. Inconsistent notions as per usual. Unfortunately society doesn't operate this way (thank the good lord).