swansont

Provide some evidence that this happens, or some reason - backed by some physics - to think it would happen That does not result in negative energy. Trivially so; we define a zero-energy condition (typically potential energy), and remove some energy. But that zero energy is an arbitrary choice - we choose zero for convenience - and are usually interested in energy differences between states, so the negative sign doesn’t matter. Some energies are positive definite, such as mass energy and kinetic energy.

What does the testosterone range have to do with sex being a continuum? The fact that there is a range supports the notion that there is a spectrum.

I was just about to add a comment about how the article was centered on reproduction, and yes, for humans, it’s binary situation. But we aren’t discussing that particular sport.

Even this article acknowledges that there are a lot of biologists who consider sex to be a spectrum. It’s right there in the abstract, where they appeal to the slippery slope. They are arguing, basically, that everybody else is wrong, despite the many details they admit to in the article. “For example, in 2015, Nature published an article entitled “Sex redefined,” stating that the concept of two sexes is too simplistic and that sex is actually a graded spectrum” But, hey, Nature is just some second- or third-rate journal.

This is circular reasoning. Most of us are one sex if you only have already limited the options to two. We’re back to biology-for-beginners, ignoring the more nuanced picture. “Sex refers to a set of factors that determine whether an individual is considered biologically female, male, or intersex. These factors include chromosomes, genes, internal and external sex organs, hormones, and secondary sex characteristics (such as breasts for females or facial hair for males).” https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sa-visual/visualizing-sex-as-a-spectrum/ If you limit it to chromosomes, you have two options that cover ~98%. If you include genes and hormones, etc, you have a spectrum.

“yet” implies we expect to. We don’t. We have added large amounts of energy to particles - many times their rest energy - and they travel at speeds close to, but not meeting or exceeding c. As expected by the theory of relativity. At c, the gamma is undefined. IIRC the Casimir effect can be solved without encountering infinities; you don’t sum the series. You look at the terms left over when you exclude a finite number of modes of the vacuum. Transforming anything into dark energy or dark matter is a huge leap that would require some testable mechanism rather than a waving of the hands.

We won’t care, because they will all have married their dogs.

“It is estimated that up to 1.7 percent of the population has an intersex trait” https://www.americanprogress.org/article/key-issues-facing-people-intersex-traits/#:~:text=It is estimated that up,identifiable sexual or reproductive variations.

Alternatively, it could be A. "I want to be regarded as a woman" B. "Fine.”

It wasn’t a yes or no question EVEN IF we go with the simplistic biology-for-beginners definition based on chromosomes, there’s the underlying question, noted a few posts back by The Vat, of the more complicated genetics - that there are genetic differences between these nominal categories of men and women, and differences between cis- and transgender people. Studies have shown this*. But that doesn’t come up because of the refusal to engage in any actual science discussion and instead relying on “as far as I’m concerned” and “this doesn’t match the reality that I observe” which sidesteps the science. * for example, see https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200205084203.htm

We’ve been over this. Did you not understand my response, did you forget, or is there some third option?

You haven’t shown that this isn’t about some other rare case, so this claim isn’t true. You’ve just asserted that it’s true. You continue to avoid the fact that you haven’t defined what makes one to be a man (or woman). It’s a problem of trying to treat a complex issue as if it were a simple issue. iNow has highlighted one manifestation of this. Swyer syndrome is one example of being intersex, not the only one.

Google scholar might be a way to find more citations, which would tell you something about this.

Hans87 has been banned as a sockpuppet of gamer87, mariob87 and carlosfan87

I wasn’t sure what you were pointing towards. It’s why I asked for clarification. All I did was give a definition. If anyone made you look like a bigot, it’s you, with what you wrote. Well, “targeted above any other” isn’t what I claimed; that’s your strawman. I claimed they were targeted for who they are. Brown and black people have been targeted for the color of their skin. Jews have been targeted because they are Jews. This issue isn’t that trans people are targeted more, it’s that they are targeted at all. It’s not like there is some (non-zero) acceptable level of such behavior, IMO. It’s hard to imagine that one could participate in this discussion and need such a citation. https://www.hrc.org/resources/fatal-violence-against-the-transgender-and-gender-non-conforming-community-in-2022 “In 2021, the Human Rights Campaign tracked a record number of violent fatal incidents against transgender and gender non-conforming people — with 50 fatalities tracked.” One can’t answer them without having defined the categories. And a definition that covers most but not all people does us no good, because the discussion is about the people that fall into the grey area.

In my educational path, you were expected to know algebra when you took calculus. It was a prerequisite. Pre-calc included algebra and trigonometry

You’ve covered the fact that you have no definition, and I’m not claiming there is one. Without a definition, any assertion about “real” men or women is a bad-faith argument Because the thread is about gender (specifically, transgender), so sex is moot, and yet you keep referring to it. Which is a slippery-slope argument. It’s not like cheating and/or subterfuge is a new thing. No matter what set of rules are adopted, there will be people who try to cheat, so potential cheating isn’t a legitimate reason for not adopting a rule. Any attempt to divide sex or gender into two categories will fail, because there will always be exceptions. It is, as I already stayed, a false dichotomy. The evidence for this has been presented in the thread more than once. Beyond that, my position is that your claims are largely unsupported. If someone other than you has asserted this, feel free to point out where. I think one of the differences here are things that some people want to be true, but can’t actually support with science or evidence, and the people asking for that evidence.

Prior to AI, assassinations and other heinous crimes happened, not carried out by geniuses. Do you have evidence that AI has facilitated any such events? From what I’ve seen, AI would make critical factual errors in creating a plausible-sounding set of instructions, because that’s what AI is currently doing.

Almost two-thirds of US adults are overweight or obese, and that triggers a lot of chronic issues. https://www.aha.org/system/files/content/00-10/071204_H4L_FocusonWellness.pdf There’s also the overall aging, as the baby boom generation are all senior citizens now. I wonder if the CDC meant to say adults, vs all. There’s also this https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2023-04-05/americas-decline-in-life-expectancy-speaks-volumes-about-our-problems

What does this have to do with what I said? This isn’t what “woke” means to a lot of people - to those who coined it, it means alert to prejudice and discrimination. Perhaps you could use another word, rather than appropriating it. Personally I think eliminating prejudice and discrimination is a positive in society. Real equality and inclusion should include sex and gender. Given that trans people are shunned, beaten and killed, I’d say they are not folks who have “nothing else to worry about” Sports is just one area of inclusion that’s become a focus, and used by some as the scapegoat du jour; other minority groups used in the past have gained acceptance, so it’s not as effective in stirring up the emotions of the masses. But you could look at this from the other perspective - why are we paying attention to the folks who have nothing better to do than stirring up trouble for people who haven’t done them any harm?

You’ve yet to comprehensively define what a real man or woman is (and good luck with that - talk about a false dichotomy!). This is a straw man argument - nobody has asserted this - there is no such insistence on “real” men and women supported by science. To cast the argument this way misses the whole point, starting with the confusing of sex and gender.

AI, which is not actually intelligence, is not in a position to provide new information. If you want to do these things, the information that AI would use is already out there.

I’m fairly certain Fred isn’t in a position to spend anything. Or was in a position to consent to the use of his likeness, or to decide to endorse the product.

In the last few years, the concept of “sex assigned at birth” has appeared with increasing frequency in U.S. case law on discrimination against transgender people.1 The phrase had been used, at least since the 1960s, to describe an obstetrician’s “casual pronouncement of the newborn as a male or female,” “based upon inspection of the external gen­italia.”2 https://columbialawreview.org/content/sex-assigned-at-birth/

Not really new, from an ethics standpoint. Tech allowed Fred Astaire to dance with a vacuum cleaner, in 1995. (he died in ‘87)