MigL

For a couple of thousand years ( since the original Olympic competitions in Greece ), women have not been alloowed to participate in sports. Finally in the last century, they have their own leagues and competitions, and are not second class citizens anymore ( somewhat ). Now some men, who identify as women, want to go back to the 'good old days', where cis women did not compete in sports, but stayed in the kitchen and raised kids, by competing in women's leagues and competitions, to the detriment of the cis women athletes. By all means, find a fair way to include trans athletes; but NOT at the expense of women being able to compete fairly. As I said, my opinion, and OT in this thread; obviously yours differs ...

Sorry INow, but so far this new thread seems to be heading down the same twisting, winding road as the other one. My opinion ... Recreational sports should allow playing by males, females, trans, and whatever other gender classifications you wish to come up with. It has nothing to do with size or strength because until they reach puberty they are arguably equally strong ( and girls might actually be larger, on average ), but mostly with the fact that it is recreational. ( and I don't understand why your government would have legislation preventing this ) Competitive or professional sports, on the other hand, have very strict rules and guidelines. A way to include trans competitors needs to be found, but not at the expense of women participating in those sports.

They sent both of them ? What will they use for their air shows ? Give it a rest; they are not in series production yet, and may never be.

All I'm saying is that, at the recreational level, there should be no gender requirements. IOW, neither male or female, nor cis or trans. A lot of other places have that. Why don't you ?

People did. Religion is the original 'social engineering'. When mankind became a social animal, as opposed to a familial animal, there was a need for uniform moral values across that society, and religion, with one or many gods, provided a way to 'control' people, such that they fit in with that society. Essentially, for better, god(s) and religion provided a way for a few to exert control, and direct the evolution of that society, and, for worse, a way for a few ( unscrupulous ) people to exert control, and direct the evolution of that society.

Why not pressure your government , federal or state level, that it has no business legislating kid's recreational activities ? Doesn't your Government have better things to do ? Like legislating abortion rights, and gun laws ? In Canada girls can play hockey with boys, if they can make the cut. And many do. Girls are even allowed to join the boy scouts. Why must the US always do things the hard way ?

Why does clicking on the date/time of the last post in a given topic no longer direct you to that post, but rather the first post, as does clicking on the topic header ? Have I inadvertently changed a setting, or are others experiencing this issue ?

Well, I'm not allowed to use J Peterson to tell you what is wrong with ( popular ) progressivism. How about Bill Maher

So why is JC not allowed the same ? Maybe you see 'fairness' differently.

So are we to assume that you are either a professional level athlete or trans, as you seem to have a vested interest in the outcome of this discussion ? Or are you looking for an excuse to be indignant, Dim ?

The term for the volume of the universe in causal connection is 'observable' universe. It is the sphere that defines how far we can possibly 'see' at any specific time. Beyond that 'edge' light/signals/information will never reach us, and so they cannot affect us ( causally disconnected ). At the time, before inflation, the universe must have been causally connected, to account for isotropy and homogeneity, otherwise it could not be in thermal equilibrium. But after inflation, and as time progressess, the portion of the universe that is causally connected expands out of the observable universe, even as the observable universe is continuously getting larger, and eventually ( billions and billions of years into the future ) we may only be able to see galaxies that are gravitationally bound to ours, like the two Magellanic clouds and Andromeda galaxy.

Quantized field theories can be 'modeled' by the typical Feynman diagrams with their interaction connections ( in simplistic terms ). In QED and QCD, these interaction connections can be summed, the infinities cancel out, and you have a workable field theory. If the same approach is attempted with gravity, the infinities generated by the summing, do not cancel out because gravity is self coupling. IOW, it interacts with itself; gravity gravitates. That makes the standard approach to a quantized field theory unworkable.

'Quality' is sbjective perception. Especially if you are part of the opposing argument.

As I've said previously, Beecee is not the only one who's been repetitive in the last 47 pages. Not sure about the treatment, but we could all benefit from learning/teaching. That is what we're here for, the berating treatment I could have gotten by getting married. ( just kidding, all women love me ) You gotta do a better job of keeping up 😃 .

It would be nice to have women participating in this discussion to get their take on the matter. Especially any women in professional competitive sports. Unfortunately, they don't seem to frequent science forums ( any lurkers please speak up ). As for my opinions, I can only think of two obvious examples where they may have; in weightlifting and swimming, so not a particularly big issue at the moment. However, as it becomes more accepted ( there is still a degree of pushback from the public ) I can see more problems cropping up, and it would be wise if sporting bodies got ahead of these potential problems, keeping in mind that the public is the final arbitrer as it is spectator driven. If the public perceives the situation as unfair, they stop watching, and that could diminish, or even,end some women's sports.

I only jumped back in this thread because I did not like the way Beecee was getting treated. I would like to see trans kids participate in recreational sports and be accepted. I also want to see them participate professionally, but balk at the idea of setting cis women's participation back 100 years; that was my original objection. I would think you've had your ass kicked by women quite a few times 😄 .

Why, though... if they meet ALL other criteria and show the same prowess on those other metrics? Well for ditch digging it'smoot, because even though I may have that opinion, there are laws that prevent that kind of discrimination ( and I am a law abiding citizen ). As for competitive spectator sports, it is market driven. IOW, if nobody wants to watch, you have no expectation of equal pay, or even participation.

You''re gonna have to explain that one better, because in this thread you are opposing those who claim that urinary/sexual plumbing has nothing to do with performance, while in the other, you did not raise any such objections to those who did. You should strive to be more consistant. Would you mind if I quoted that next time the shoe is on the other foot, and some of us are the recipients of nasty labelling, direct or implied ?

Or maybe, you just want to beat up on women 🙂 .

The legislation of recreational sports for kids seems to be a problem with your elected officials; choose better Governments, and when you do, make sure they enact proper/appropriate laws. As for professional/hi-level sports, you and others are forgetting that these are largely spectator events, and people will choose to see what they want to watch. IOW if the national women's soccer team does not draw any spectators, or TV rights ( although that is certainly not the case ), they should have no claims for equal pay ( actually for the US, the men should be paid less, as they are the lesser draw ) And why do you claim thatwhen your, or a viewpoint you supported, is contradicted, and others point it out, that it's a personal attack ? My apologies if you wern't one of the ones who claimed J Biden had every right to call for a 'black woman' SCJ, after years of old white males, but you did not raise any objections in that case as you are in this one. In the case of skills, such as ability to interpret the Constitution or ride a horse,gender need not, and should not, be considered, but in the case of physical prowess, like ditch digging or Am. football at a professional level, my opinion ( for what it's worth ) is that gender should remain a consideration. ( IIRC, women's football was not much of a spectator/TV draw, even when the ladies were playing in lingere )

I chuckled upon reading this ... That would have been good advice to give J Biden when making his Supreme Court selection criteria announcement. Oh wait ... you were all for selection based on how people urinate in that case. And even the color of their genitals.

INow has often said we agree on 99%, and disagree on 1%, yet we are very critical of each other's opinions; sometimes much more so than we are of extreme 'right' opinions. This came to mind ... And I like Elton John.

Many participants in this thread have repeated themselves, as is likely to happen after 40 odd pages; to single out one person as repetitive is hypocritical. And some in this, and similar threads, have been called way worse than 'Social Justice Warrior', or 'PC Brigade'. Just sayin'.

TThis is becoming sad, shameful and ridiculous. I guess Americans have decided they would rather protect their 2nd Amendment rights than their kid's lives.

Hypersonic is a classification for speed in the atmosphere, and usually means >M5, or 5 times the speed of sound in air at that density. There were certainly rockets which exceeded this speed previous to hypersonic missiles, but they mostly did so in very rarefied ( hi altitude ) atmosphere, or what is considered space. The main problem is having enough fuel, or burning it slowly enough, to be able to accelerate to M5, in a small enough package. But for big rockets the technology has been available since the end of WW2.