zapatos

I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist on a citation. This is an awfully bold and predictive assertion. If your statement is true it will have a huge impact on the ability of trans women to compete. On the other hand, if you just made this up then you are arguing in bad faith. Well, presumably because their brain is telling them they are distinct. Surely the brain is as much a part of a person's identity as are their dangly parts.

Agreed. Things will change over time, and we should not assume that testosterone level is the only factor that can go into making competition equitable and ensuring XX athletes can remain competitive. Throughout this thread I have tried to envision a multifaceted approach evolving over time as we learn more. I think testosterone levels alone will have a limited ability to encompass all of women's sports. Testosterone probably have a larger impact where you have individual sports and reliance on muscle mass (e.g. weight lifting) and less of an impact on team sports that rely less on muscle mass (e.g. synchronized swimming). You wouldn't even have to check testosterone levels (theoretically) for weight lifting if you introduced handicapping. For instance, add 'x' pounds to the bar for the transgender woman to accomplish the same lift as a cisgender woman.

You said XX cannot be competitive if they must compete with XY without serious restrictions on trans women. I disagreed and cited the ratio as my reasoning. As far as I can tell we were both looking at a snapshot in time. That is, we are talking about now. I don't mind talking about how/if XX can remain competitive if that ratio changes. While that ratio may change in the future I am also sure in the future we'll be factoring in changes to the science of hormone levels, transitioning, muscle mass, competitive classes, development of handicapping systems, ratio of trans vs cis allowed on the field at once, equitable funding for training, and all the other ideas people come up with on how to allow everyone to compete equitably.

When did I say "questionable testosterone targets" is a healthy goal? When did I say "unfair social stigmas" was healthy? When did I say 2200 to 1 should be maintainable? Perhaps you can answer the questions I asked of you.

Yes Even if the answer was 100%, the cisgenders outnumber the transgenders 2200 to 1. How is that one person stopping those 2200 from being competitive? If I'm competing in the Pac-10 and you are competing in the ACC, how have you stopped me from being competitive? In addition, what is wrong with serious restrictions? Getting back to an earlier comment I made, why would handicapping be such a terrible thing?

I understand why you think there would need to be very serious restriction on XY athletes, but it feels to me as if you are overstating the impact on XX athletes. After a short search I found that there were perhaps 100 trans women competing in NCAA sports, compared to about 226,000 women competing in NCAA Women's Championship Sports. https://www.newsweek.com/how-many-transgender-athletes-play-womens-sports-1796006 https://www.ncaa.org/news/2023/3/1/media-center-a-look-at-trends-for-women-in-college-sports.aspx#:~:text=226%2C212 — The number of student,for women since 2000-01. To suggest that women cannot be competitive at elite level without serious restrictions on XY athletes seems to be an overstatement. Since there are about 2260 cis women to every one trans woman in the NCAA it seems likely most cis women will go their entire NCAA careers without ever going head-to-head with a trans woman.

It's not perfect and it's not mine.. Another of your misunderstandings. Your misstatements show that you clearly don't understand the model. Don't take it personally. I was just offering up a suggestion that I thought might help. It won't hurt my feelings if you choose to dismiss my suggestion.

As an observer to this conversation I think I see @tmdarkmatter's difficulty. Your approach to learning these concepts is to develop a model in your head then to ask what is wrong with it. You'd be better served by reading about these concepts then asking for others to explain those parts you don't understand or would like further clarification on. Your false model is simply causing you roadblocks as you keep trying to tie things back to that. Imagine you wanted to be an auto mechanic. When you go to your first class and the instructor tells you how something works, if it doesn't fit with your (false) preconceived notion of how the engine functions their description won't make any sense to you. You should jettison your model, start over, and learn the model that already exists.

Maybe you should tell us who you think is virtue signaling instead of hiding behind vague language in order to avoid having to support your accusations. You can't have it both ways. If you think "certain people" are virtue signaling then tell us who they are and why you think that, so we can debate your accusation and discover if it is true. Otherwise you are simply trying to enhance your own position by erecting and toppling straw men, which is arguing in bad faith.

😁

My dreams often have to do with being late for something, no matter how much I hurry.

I'm getting pretty fucking tired of you suggesting that my motives in this discussion are simply to improve my image. I've made it pretty clear why I've taken the position I have. If you don't believe me, fine. But I'm tired of you indirectly denigrating me in a public forum. Please stop.

Quit keeping us in suspense. Tell us just one. Please.

No need to attack everyone just because one person called you a name. While my proposed solutions may be "hand wave" they are the best I'm capable of. I am in no position to lay out specific policy to the IOC. They have qualified people dedicated to this issue. I have 'me' part-time with feedback coming from other part-time participants.

In addition to what @TheVat said, there is also the Equal-Time Rule for radio and television. https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=equal+time+rule&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

So what do you suggest we do at this point. Give up or keep trying?

I remember using that argument with my mom when I was a kid. "But mom, why can't I have cake for breakfast? Cake is made from milk, eggs, and wheat which are all healthy foods. Don't you want me to be healthy?" Wow. What a massive abdication of personal responsibility. I'm speechless. I'm without speech. Could you please provide a handful of examples?

As a layman it is obvious to me that as mass increases it becomes harder to get something off the surface of a body. I can easily toss a ball in the air. A bowling ball is harder. Imagine launching a boulder. To launch a spaceship requires a massive amount of brains and energy. Yet I can flip on my $2 flashlight with a flick of my finger and see the light beam instantly move up the side of the building and into space. Light readily leaves something as massive as the sun. I have absolutely no experience where light seems to be held back. It seems gravity cannot hold it back, nor does gravity even have any affect on it. So when someone says "Even light cannot escape!", I think "WOW! That is AMAZING!!" Light ALWAYS escapes!! (in my experience) "The amount of gravity in a black hole must be something really extreme. And as an afterthought, I guess that is why it is called 'black'."

We 'willfully ignorant' forum members love when we are presented with "proof" in the form of a meme.

Exactly. And we share and exchange ideas with those who have an open mind and are open to scientific debate. Asking me to support my position when you've made up your mind beforehand is not arguing in good faith. I'll not waste my time. I'd rather attempt to shave my head with a cheese grater.

Why do you care if you don't believe in it? We could say anything at all and it wouldn't make any difference to you. Close, but no cigar.

Cool. I can't say I've met many people who don't have a personal sense of their own gender.

When did you choose your gender? Could you change it on demand?

Gender identity is there at birth. Just like your foot and heart are there at birth. You may as well be saying that whether or not they have a head is irrelevant to how they were born. No, the doctor got it half right. Lia did have a pecker but the doctor was unable to tell us about Lia's gender. Bullshit.

Unless you can clearly define "real women" then using labels is no more than an approximation. People are what they are, no matter what slot others want to put them in. Who cares if they call themselves real women, if you call them real women, or someone calls them trans women. They are simply people and they want to be accepted as people, whatever their differences from the average. I believe the focus should be on figuring out if there is an equitable way to allow people to compete. Arguing over 'real' or 'delusional' is a distraction.