zapatos

Agreed. But if you want to predict and protect, and you suggest someone like Tyson or Bolt will be competing against your daughters, it is hard to tell the difference between the serious debater and the troll.

My mistake as I didn't realize the 6/3 210 vs 5/6 125 was a real-life example. However I do feel the Mike Tyson and Usain Bolt examples were over the top. As you stated XY was 'clearly biologically male' I assumed that meant all XY people. Little is out of the realm of the possible. But unless you have an example of that it drags us off course rather than dealing with real life. On another note, my aunt Cathy does think it is fair. We can probably toss out the opinions of those two though as it isn't really germane. Good. If you can get rid of everyone like me you can develop the rules in an echo chamber.

As chromosome testing has been shown to be inconclusive in identifying maleness, do you have a proposal for what we do until that issue can be resolved?

Unfortunately made-up scenarios are also the go-to boogeyman for those with an agenda. Therefore it is important to attempt to have the made-up scenarios correspond to real-life as much as possible. If you use extreme examples like have been used more than once in this thread you can be seen as fear-mongering rather than honestly discussing.

As I'm researching this topic I ran across a story about Hanne Gaby Odiele, an XY model. It highlighted to me the difficulty of definitively declaring someone 'male' or 'female'. https://nationalpost.com/news/0125-na-intersex

Do you believe we should have a chromosome test, similar to drug testing, in order to ensure compliance? If not, how would you screen out transgender athletes?

Completely meaningless statement.

So XX and XY is where your focus is in this discussion? Is it safe to say you haven't necessarily made up your mind on competition wrt people with atypical chromosomes?

There has been much talk surrounding this so just to be clear, for the sake of this discussion how are you defining biological males and biological females?

Q. What is the first thing a man does after ejaculation? A. Clear cache.

You've just substituted one ambiguous reason ('because we'll never understand the world') for another ('because there is no universal truth'). Why must we do anything at all, including believing in a god, just because we don't understand something or cannot agree on something else? You are completely leaving out reason. You could just as well say "it's not silly to chew gum because math will never be a well-liked subject for 8 year old children".

I don't see how one follows the other. Why believe in god just because we'll never understand the world? Why not believe in fairies, or meditation, or Tex Mex cooking instead? Or perhaps we should take up pilates because we will never really understand the world. What exactly is the reason to believe in god given that we'll not understand the world? Seems to me you are just searching for any conceivable reason to believe in god.

It would still apply to all companies who deselect candidates who vote against democracy. Unfortunately in the US corporations are not seen differently than individuals.

They didn't say they weren't funding both parties. They said they weren't funding those individuals who did NOT support democracy. Seems Toyota's decision is right in line with the standard explanation of supporting democracy in the round. What about individuals? Should they be able to tip their hat one way, or does the "unfairness" only apply to corporations?

And just to be safe, he should get inside the box himself so that he can properly monitor the situation.

Hmm. Did you happen to call them 'dumb aholes' in your post? Because that could certainly get someone to downvote you.

???

Citation please. In terms of the total mass of the solar system (sans the sun) it is an incredibly large number. Where do you propose getting all this necessary mass to be able to put a match to Jupiter?

Precisely for what reason?!?!

That statement is meaningless.

I have never seen a paper on Evolution that denied God. I have never seen a paper on Evolution that denies creation. For that matter I have never seen a paper on Evolution that addresses the beginning of life at all. I think you are seeing aspects of Evolution that are simply not there.

I based my comment on your previous post where you implied a trans woman wouldn't be considered to "be a woman".

If it were only so simple. No matter what others keep presenting, you think that YOUR definition of a 'woman' is all that matters. Unfortunately you are not the boss of the world and you cannot dictate to others.

Now THAT'S a straw man!