zapatos

If the decision to keep them out is arbitrary then I'm unable to understand why it should be considered.

This gets back to a previous point I made. Why is the default position to suggest that the cisgender women are being treated unfairly? The league wasn't developed with a rule that only cisgender women could compete. Why not take the position that it is unfair to transgender athletes to exclude them? Transgender women are not taking something away from cisgender women that rightfully belongs to cisgender women, they are simply trying to compete within the existing framework, just like cisgender women are. I understand the desire to address the concerns of the current athletes, but a blanket "NO" harkens back to keeping women out of factory jobs, blacks out of white sports, etc. If you are going to keep them out because it is "unfair" then it seems only fair that you (or someone) provide definitive evidence that it is indeed unfair.

Apparently not. I'll try again on the off chance anyone cares about this silly side discussion we've been having. I felt Firebirdy was wrong to make so many questionable assertions without any supporting evidence and so said: "I've never seen so many unsubstantiated claims in one post since I've been here." To which you replied: "Sometimes one has to search through the shit to get the answer, for instance, public/private/privileged school's, in Britain are charities... 😉" Since you responded directly to me I thought you were either in support of what I said or in opposition, but I could not tell. I had no idea why you were bringing up British charities, I had no knowledge that schools in Britain were charities, but in an attempt to understand what point you were trying to make I asked if Firebirdy's unsubstantiated claim (the thing we were talking about) was different than your unsubstantiated claim. "I'm unsure how your unsubstantiated claim of schools as charities is any better than Firebirdy's claim of schools as concentration camps." As is your style, you did not answer directly but instead gave an example of a school that was a charity, and another school that was a state school. "Wycliffe college, for instance is a charity... While Maidenhill is a state school." Alright, now I'm really confused. Why are we talking about British schools? What do they have to do with whether or not Firebirdy's claims should be substantiated? Frankly I have no idea WTF this sidebar is all about.

It doesn't man anything at all. It's just a cute way built into the software to categorize people based on number of posts. I'd be surprised if anyone here knew what all the categories are and when you switch from one to the other.

Did I explain what well enough?

https://www.fcdallas.com/youth/teams/select This is the kind of place top high schools send their best players. In addition the game was a friendly warmup. Perhaps not a definitive example.

Thanks for the tip. Is there any other behavior of mine that you'd like me to modify?

I know. I was there. Sorry I didn't get it.

I'm a little confused by your position. You commonly ask for citations, frequently including that little comic with the guy holding the sign up. As I mentioned I did Google Wycliffe but didn't understand what dim was getting at. Thanks for those. While I'm aware of issues regarding sleep for students and food options in school cafeterias, I was questioning that it was "scientifically proven...hormones from puberty that made it harder for them to fall asleep before 11:00pm." Seems weirdly specific that our hormones are tied to the clock. I would have thought screen time and other issues were the main driver for keeping kids awake in the evenings. If children go to bed earlier, do they still need to sleep later? And while I was aware the poor foods were a problem to poor physical health, I did not know that food choices were negatively impacting "teenagers' psychological health".

Remember, you are on a science forum. You need to provide scientific evidence. That doesn't mean people saying "I swear, it's true!", or documents provided by a group dedicated to the supernatural. If you cannot do this, we have nothing to discuss.

Thus far you are telling us a story. Presumably her doctor was amazed and published an article on her situation in a medical publication. That article would be a good start.

Not without evidence! Please SUPPORT your claim with evidence. Then we can discuss. I can assure you if you provide scientific evidence you will have a very fruitful discussion here.

Excellent! Then please provide it here!

You clearly don't realize it but this statement is a clear message to all here that you do not understand science. I would not be arrogant enough to tell a doctor why stents should not be used, and you should be careful about making claims regarding things you do not understand.

It means someone did not like your post. That commonly happens when you do something like make false claims, fail to support your assertions, etc. Given that this is a science forum you are expected to participate in an appropriate way, and not, for example, as you might participate on a religious forum. If you say something like "this obviously points to a “designer”" you need to back up that assertion with a reasoned argument and scientific level supporting evidence.

Very nice! I'm a huge Ray Charles fan, and love Willie's voice. Nice combination.

Can you tell me what your affiliation is to the US? I notice you are in Iceland but you spend a lot of time complaining about America. It might help me understand the basis of your questions. Citation please. Citation please. Citation please. Citation please. Citation please. Citation please. Citation, citation, citation, citation, citation... One big giant citation please. Yep, another citation requested. Otherwise I'm afraid you might be breaking the rules by soapboxing.

That' an interesting take. I've never seen a study that connected NOT watching Youtube with limited intellect. Do you have a citation for that? I was not able to find anything online.

I didn't realize Britain was following a "one-jab" strategy. And it seems to give comparable results. (Images from The New York Times)

Thanks for jumping in. I Googled Wycliffe but didn't gather the background you provided. 😁

Sorry, this took off after I commented that the OP was full of unsubstantiated claims. For some reason dimreepr responded that some British schools are charities and it went south from there.

That's not individual perception. It's a different description and different data but not a difference of perception. You are being slippery again.

Tough to tell without any references. Guess it is now up to the reader to verify the claims of others.

By your definition of slavery nearly every law would qualify as a form of slavery. Which of course renders the term useless. Perhaps you could find your own term and not try to redefine "slavery" for the rest of us.

Well, now that you've provided evidence I feel much better...