Holmes

I know only what I perceive, everything I know (other than a self evident truth like "I exist") is assumed or inferred from what is assumed. The proposition "an objective reality exists" is not falsifiable and so must be regarded as a belief. I'm not maligning the claim or those who make it, but want to point out that this kind of claim is often made without its deep implications being recognized.

What do you mean "special" and what is it that must "happen" every week?

Well the experience of time exists, you experience it, but it is subjective all experiences are subjective, if you think otherwise then I'm listening...

This is the strawman tactic at work, clearly you can't control this habit and is the reason you've lost the privilege of engaging in conversation with me,

How so? how is a person who voluntarily elects to become a trans-woman disadvantaged relative to a woman?

Like the right to choose to make oneself a member of a disadvantaged group?

You mean, puts you at odds with him?

What is a "disadvantaged" Trans-woman? disadvantaged relative to what?

I wanted to mention this Radio show that's been running for quite some time now and is available on the BBC site with all previous episodes accessible. It's format is a chairman and two, sometimes three guests who are usually from academia. The approach is to explain to the unschooled listener why some subject, person, belief etc is regarded as important and overall it does a very good job. Consensus is not always present but generally the panel do not get contentious. The material is broken down into categories like Science, History, Philosophy, Religion etc. These show are often thought provoking and often highly informative to a layman who wants to get some insights into the subject. For example the episode on The Black Death is fascinating, learning how society handled some 40% of people dying back then, how this affected land ownership, art and so on. Likewise the episode on The Fire of London is also informative (records of land ownership were burnt so disputes arose after the fire and so on). For Physics there are some superb subject, just take a look and see for yourselves.

This kind of thing emphasizes how everything is subjective, the claim that there is an external world distinct from us observers is itself based on personal subjective experience. Objective reality in an inference, a very reasonable and rational one but an inference nevertheless.

But people are struggling to define "Woman" so I do not see how we can define "Feminine" by reference to Women other than as a recourse to history. If we are willing to define things based on history and tradition then Women have vaginas, XX chromosome and allowing a person who is not a woman to compete in a women's team is therefore a contradictory act that prejudices women. That is why my question is relevant. Yes and that distinction is based wholly on the historic fact that there are men and women. I agree with you, but you must accept surely, that we need solid definitions for Man and Woman if we are to define Feminine and Masculine. Again you are forced to base your explanation on the assumption there's a definition for Women but there is not. I think Man and Woman are objective, XY and XX chromosomes is a scientific fact based way to define these classes of individuals.

In answer to the question posed in the title of the OP: The challenger disaster Cold fusion Chernobyl Thalidomide Curing homosexuality etc, etc, etc For those unfamiliar with thalidomide, read this, a kid in my class in school was a victim and my mother tells me I could have been but she refused the drug at the time. Teaching about these mistakes (as opposed to silly things like Pluto and misidentified fossils) would indeed help people understand how science doesn't "work" sometimes.

The restricted CPU support appears to be due to a thing called TPM 2.0, if the CPU does not support that or work with that, then I think MS want to avoid or discourage use of Windows 11. But MS are all over the place, the company keeps messing up stuff like never before, like the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing or they've started hiring more dorks.

I'll consider the above and respond in due course, in the meantime though: Very well so define "feminine" for me please. Right, now back to your first point: I just read the Wikipedia article and noticed this "...in which a female has an extra copy of the X chromosome...". So it seems that this is regarded as a female (XX) with the addition of an abnormality, and a similar definition exists for the others, all of them refer to abnormalities. I also just saw this too, quite by accident: Examining "SRY" gives us: Unless I'm mistaken, this is what one would call "scientific".

Get this book (this specific edition), it explains in some detail, patiently, how and why the rules are what they are. The writer knew how to teach and you'll pick that up as you begin to read it, like all good teaches he anticipates the questions his readers might ask or be asking themselves: I have many books on introductory calculus and this one covers this specific area (no pun intended) better than the others.

The types to refer to are technically classes of finite state machines, all of them can be represented as state machines (and in most cases this is implemented in hardware). Take "int" ultimately this is just a set of bits but how the bits change over time as events occur is defined by a state machine. This is my answer, it may not be obvious but I think it goes to he heart of what you're asking.

I agree with the others here, avoid the update unless you have a definitive reason, a major release like this will incur a learning curve here and there and will almost certainly have at least minor annoyances.

Do you really want to pursue this line of reasoning? it leads nowhere useful. For example what if someone argued that marriage to twelve year old girls should be legalized and accepted by society, including some 12 twelve year old girls? Today - we and certainly I - would point out that this is a child but then someone could ask "define child for me?". So, how would you react if someone were to suggest this? I don't see how it is not part of "the issue", if there were not men claiming to be female (that is, demanding to be regarded as female wherever the distinction arises) then there would not be an issue surely? Furthermore if you insist on supporting this idea then logically we should eliminate the current distinction between men and women altogether since if we cannot scientifically define "woman" (as you and some others appear to argue) then why even entertain the concept at all? Why even have terms like "feminine" or "masculine" when there's no logical prospect of defining these? Can you define "feminine" for me for example in objective scientific terms?

There are two sexes male and female, as for "gender" this is a social construct.

No, I'm refusing to argue with you at all in any thread in this forum from this point onwards. Your modus operandi is to seek out opportunities to disparage others, to discredit them and attribute to them negative characteristics, this is the case just now where you introduced the suggestion that my position on this issue of gender and sports means that I must inevitably be opposed to gay marriage or that I must inevitably be a racist. I've made many posts in this thread and nobody has stooped to this level despite my obvious disagreements with several people here. Personally such conduct should not be tolerated but that's a matter for others, I simply want nothing more to do with you.

It's misleading speculation intended to disparage me, I fully support gay marriage, I fully support the fair and equal treatment of people irrespective of skin color.

In which case the claim that my position on gender and sports is "akin to refusing to accept gay marriage and forcing same sex couples to be called civilly unioned, or suggesting blacks be treated separate but equal" is pure speculation. In fact attempting to imply I am a racist is possibly a breach of forum rules.

I did not actually suggest that we exclude those who are neither XX nor XY, I just said that such individuals are neither male or female. Perhaps, but the division men and women is based on an objective scientific facts, the chromosome pairing. To tell women that they must now compete with men who claim to be females irrespective of this chromosome criteria is inherently prejudicing women, it makes their challenge more difficult while making the challenge for these men, more easy. This is not a real disadvantage, if they no longer want to compete in the men's category then that's their choice, I do not see why women should be expected to suffer just because men who claim to be female decide to no longer participate as men. They quite obviously aren't, they have XY chromosomes whereas women have XX. Yes, I have no problem with new categories being introduced. What is my position on gay marriage and same sex unions?

I don't see how one can misrepresent their gender in this day and age, one's gender is merely announced ("fluid" to use the trendy term) nowadays it seems, not imposed by nature.

Since there are at least 58 genders, insisting that these can all be meaningfully and fairly partitioned in sports into just two categories not based on chromosomes strikes me as unscientific. If this is to be partitioned into just two then surely, scientifically basing it on the chromosome paring of XX and XY solves this problem. Agender Androgyne Androgynous Bigender Cis Cisgender Cis Female Cis Male Cis Man Cis Woman Cisgender Female Cisgender Male Cisgender Man Cisgender Woman Female to Male FTM Gender Fluid Gender Nonconforming Gender Questioning Gender Variant Genderqueer Intersex Male to Female MTF Neither Neutrois Non-binary Other Pangender Trans Trans* Trans Female Trans* Female Trans Male Trans* Male Trans Man Trans* Man Trans Person Trans* Person Trans Woman Trans* Woman Transfeminine Transgender Transgender Female Transgender Male Transgender Man Transgender Person Transgender Woman Transmasculine Transsexual Transsexual Female Transsexual Male Transsexual Man Transsexual Person Transsexual Woman Two-Spirit