StringJunky

There is a lock material that will resist multiple cutting discs:

If he can't, then, by his definition, he's a woman.

There isn't an all-encompassing objective definition. It's an arbitrary category that humans made up to suit their purposes. It all started with genitalia, then it has got more nuanced with increasing knowledge.

Sex testing hurts more females that are outliers than transgender females. This article is useful for reading the history of sex testing in sport. All it's done since the 40's is hurt female outliers. If one thinks this focus helps women... think again. All because of the biblical/historical assertion that humans are binary.

Once a drug has been developed and passed the 3 development phases, the only thing left is feedback from prescribers and patients as it is used. That's $2B plus. From there, the feedback processes guides the procedures and ongoing prescription advice. I don't know what more they can reasonably do. Your position is coming off like that of a hypochondriac. Stop reading the-side effects. They note every teensy-weensy thing to cover their ass. Just because a patient complains of an effect, doesn't mean it's attributable to the drug.... an apparent correlation is not causation all of the time. I don't why you are making such a bogeyman of cancer. Cells are little machines and sometimes they malfunction that way, even without a catalyst.

Loading an iMax film is mental...

I meant trans-males going through the same stress and invasive methods.

Strawman. You are making it a choice. Does bolding words (shouting) increase the veracity of your arguments? I doubt anyone would want their penis removed and undergo invasive hormonal therapy because they arbitrarily made a choice. Like-wise trans-males. And we go around in circles.

1% of the world population is 80 000 000. That's just under the population of Turkey.... I don't think that's insignificant.

As swansont said earlier:

It would seem to me that the AI needs another layer of persistent memory to track and retain successful responses, rather than shoot differently every time. That would currently indicate an amnesia-equivalent, which is no good for learning.

In photography it would be called 'non-image forming light'.

If a bit of narcissism got him where he was, science may be all the poorer if he didn't have it.

He worked with him and had the opportunities to see his idiosyncrasies. We all have them.

One cannot ignore the outliers because it's inconvenient to supporting binary positions. That would be tampering with the data and actively pursuing confirmation bias as a strategy.

...and to the bottom of the barrel we arrive.

We are on page 69 and you are asking that question? By 'works' I meant: With sufficient ignorance, wilful or not, binary gender and sex looks correct... just like rainbows appear to have 7 discrete colours from a distance. Hint: it's a continuum. I think you've put blinkers on. Everybody: When the beginning of a conversation has been forgotten, I think it's time to wrap up the thread. Do we want to go around in circles?

The permutations are endless... if one looks. Only at sufficient distance and resolution is a rainbow composed of seven visible and distinct colours.

Cheers.

They might be 'real' in the sense that they measure the same or different when compared to each other. As far as understand if it's measurable it's real. Co-ordinate choice may be arbitrary, but the results between them aren't...or are they?

If you ignore the 1-2%, chromosome-defined sex works, but that's not representative of reality in the actual phenotypes that are out there. Shall we just arbitrarily ignore the 1-2% and say they don't count because they twist too many knickers? Let's be honest. The more I think about this and understand paths of evolution, the less tenable binary states become. Hundreds of pregnant male seahorses were released this week to boost their numbers. I don't think nature gives a monkey's. The states that proliferate genetically in any given environment are the ones that hang around. There is clearly room in the human genome for these types of variations in human expression. Why must gender expression be irrevocably fixed to chromosomes, when, clearly, there is all manner of variations in nature? Are humans exempt from the forces that create these variations?

My question was not well posed on reflection.

It means they aren't causally connected, as far as light goes. What happens between the object and observer is not knowable from either end.

By that I meant the expansion rate exceeds the speed of light, beyond a certain distance. Light carries information and can't catch up as the distance increase between an object and an observer outpaces the photons, effectively 'disappearing' from the observers view. The distance is about 250mlyrs and beyond.

The elephant in the room imo is Andrew Wakefield of MMR 'fame' that precipitated the antivaccination mess.