CharonY

Here, you are somewhat wrong. You should check back on JCM's post regarding the definition and binary nature of biological sex and perhaps also the link I provided that questions some of the tenets there. It is important to note that an evolutionary/biological system cannot be mapped exclusively to humans, it has to cover biology as we know it. Thus, in the evolutionary view, the common definition is based around anisogamy, which means the different in types of gametes produced in a population. Here, we have a binary distinction (large gametes like ova, small gametes like sperm). The physical build of the producers does not play into it, as there is no direct connection between types of ovaries and a particular build, for example. In fact, some species change over their lifetime whether and what kind of gametes are being produced (a specific example that was provided in the prior discussion). Therefore, although the Goymann et al claim that biological sex is binary, they do state that In other words, if we use it as a condition to categorize each and every individual, we are in fact misusing the concept of biological sex. And this goes back to the issue that in the society we have learned to conflate concepts like gender and biological sex to a degree that the latter is often also applied outside of the precise valid scope. To some degree it is inevitable, as many areas (especially medical sciences) obviously have a human-centric view, which kinds of ignores the broader scope of biology. But if we want to talk about biology and especially evolution, we are forced to be more precise about it (it is a bit like trying to apply classical physics to quantum phenomena, at some point it becomes wildly inaccurate). The challenge here is that science here runs counter to intuition.

I think the whole discussion here is a bit on the ridiculous side, but unless one wants to apply semantic tricks (e.g. in terms of which stage of the Muscovy we talk about and/or whether being a vassal is the same as being ruled over), this is not quite accurate. I am pretty sure you are familiar with the phrase of the Tatar-Mongol yoke, and there is a reason for that. In the early conquests of the 13th century most major cities found in the now Russian sphere were conquered and/or razed (including Moscow). The invasion also famously came to an end due to the death of Ögedei Khan. Most Rus' principalities then became vassals. There were varying conflicts (in-fighting, but to a large part also actions against the waning power of the Mongol empire) and Moscow got burned again towards the end of the 14th century. But Mongol rule is often marked after the defeat in 1480 at the Ugra river (though tributes continued for quite a while thereafter). As such, the original Muscovy principality was a vassal of the Golden Horde, even as it increased its power from the mid 13th century to the end of the 15th century. One could argue that the rise of Muscovy was eventually a response to Mongol rulership and ultimately united feuding principalities. But again, none of that really matters as trying to extrapolate history to presence is really silly. There is a reason why seemingly almighty empires ultimately crumbled. But as others have stated, it is not even clear what a win is supposed to be. Not fighting a war would be a huge win, for example.

This is not a scientific approach. You are pre-defining your scenario and then declare any deviation merely as aberrations and then basically ignore them. As I said many times before, you can create binary categories, but they are not universally applicable. You can, for example state that biological sex is only valid in the context of reproduction (which is reasonable). You can further state that you want to categorize folks based on the types of gametes they produce (also fine). As such, you now have a binary category of only two biological sexes, which makes entirely sense in terms of reproductive discussions. But this is not the same as claiming that every single individual falls inevitably into either of categories. There are quite a few folks who are either born sterile as well as the fact that reproductive ability is not maintained throughout one's life. So there are times and/or individuals that fall outside this specific scenario. This is not to mean that there is anisogamy (quite the opposite as outlined above), nor that that there are sexual dimorphisms. What is really discussed here is that these categories are "typical" but not "universal". You may want to have everyone neatly fall into either category, but so far you have failed to come up with a definition or categorization that manages to do so, without having to at least an additional category for what you call aberration. The latter term in itself is rather unscientific, as it implies that nature has a rigid norm of sorts. But nature has no "ought to be" it only has what is. And our job as scientists is to describe and explain what is, rather than telling nature what it should be (I mean seriously, they should stop with horizontal gene transfer, that is no way to behave).

I didn't have time to follow all the new posts on this thread, but here you ironically managed to contradict yourself. If a human was indeed defined by the parameters you outlined, then by this definition obviously an organism outside of these parameters would not be considered a human. This is how definitions work. If I define something by parameters X than something that does not have this parameter, it automatically falls outside. The way you created a definition demonstrates that it is either wrong, or at least not useful, as you want to create a category that would still sort folks with atypical features into the same category. Your definition does not do that. As such your definition is either wrong, or at least not useful for your purposes. That is why modern species concepts are defined by lineage and ability to interbreed. This would take care of what you consider abnormalities. Rather, what you describe is what can be considered as "typical" features. And as you you just more or less described yourself, it cannot be used as a definition, since it actually excludes individuals, which you want to put into the same group. In your mind that is not an issue, as you just need to define things that do not fit as outliers and than just put them into the same group. But this is clearly a rather arbitrary approach to things, which undermines your basic argument that it is somehow clearly (and perhaps objectively) delineated. As we have discussed earlier, there are binary definitions that one could use, but as even folks advocating it (I am referring back to the essay JCM provided), it struggles with classifying it the way we want to classify folks (especially with a view on athletic performance).

Paper such as those referenced in the article on fish and other animals have raised broad question regarding the nature of self awareness (is it binary or gradual, for example) and pretty much since folks did the original experiment it was hotly discussed what it actually measured. I think there are (at least) two major changes in behavioural biology which ultimately will tip the scale toward the gradualist school of thought. One is a departure of using mammalian behavior as hallmark of complex behaviour. A large number of experiments on birds, mollusks (especially octopus but also other invertebrates) have challenged the notion of what could be considered higher cognitive functions. A second movement has increasingly shown that many classic behavioural studies could be very skewed, as they often ignore individual behavioral differences. Animals that do not cooperate with certain experiments, are excluded, for example. But it is possible that the cooperating animals are in fact only showing a sliver of the behavioural repertoire.

How would you know if someone was transgender, if they are not transitioning?

You seem to be weirdly hung up on nomenclature. As these categories do not exist yet, I do not know what one might call them. For all the relevance, you could call them Category 1 and 2. And it might surprise you, but featherweights do not actually weigh the same as a feather. In addition, there is no reason why age cannot be a factor (there are age categories in sports already. For the rest of your question, you almost make it sound that sports does not have any regulations. Who determines eligibility of athletes ? Who sets and enforces weight classes? Who determines what is considered doping and how it is enforced.... right now? If that was an issue, we wouldn't have sports in the first place. Moreover, one of the argument of separation is to ensure safety of the athletes. So in that regard, doesn't it make more sense to separate them according to measurable parameters such as body weight, muscle to weight ratio and so on rather than just by genitalia or karyotype or whether they can bear children? The latter three parameters generally do not cause injury in among competitors, as far as I am aware of.

I might have missed some intermediate posts, but fundamentally, when we talk about transgender inclusion, we are talking about some level of some level of HRT. AFAIK, folks that have not undergo some level of gender affirming therapy do compete based on their assigned sex (which usually is based on presence of external genitalia), rather than the gender they are representing. That being said, I found some articles discussing something that we have been circling around in this thread for a fair bit, is the idea of using "athletic gender". The basic idea is to designate athletes to a gender for sports performance only and using a quantitative criteria based performance. Originally the idea was focused on testosterone levels, but has been expanded (similar to our discussions here). But the basic idea is the same, use quantitative parameters to create categories.

Also piles of teeth, hair, items made of hair as well as the leftover belongings of the victims (suitcases, glasses, rings and everything else they pillaged from the bodies). In Germany school classes would have exchange with Poland and we would go to Auschwitz (or other memorials) to see the exhibits, clean the paths and spend time thinking about it. It seems that others would benefit from it, too.

Have you ever wondered whether you are male or female?

I think that goes to the point that folks misunderstand what development means in a biological context. Just because you have XX or XY it does not mean that your developmental path is set. It depends on things like nutrition, the level of hormones you produce, stress and so on, which can subtly but significantly alter your path. But once set, it often stays that way throughout life (and remember, depending perspective, development does not end with adulthood). For many folks this is the same as genetic or at birth, but if we look at the fine details, it really isn't. It seems like a semantic difference, but is in fact a mechanistic one. Fundamentally it does not make a huge difference, as our ability to predict or even manipulate those outcomes is very limited (mostly through a good diet, I suppose). Well, there are many components, obviously. Many are likely coupled to the system that affect sexual development. Obviously, there is a mechanism which results most XY folks feel like men and XX like women (I am using karyotype here for simplicity, though in an earlier link by JCM, it was pointed out that general biological definitions differ from that). Likewise, genetic studies have shown that in folks where gender and sex does not line up, there are rare mutations especially in estrogen receptors. I.e. one might speculate that in those, brain development in response to certain hormones might be different. Other indicators of genetic components were gained from twin and sibling studies.

I think in order to avoid centering the discussion on a possible strawman I suggest to make things a bit more precise. We do not know exactly when or how gender identify is fully formed. Based on what we know the rough idea is that: 1) it is not a conscious decision 2) but while there seems to be a genetic component to it, it does not mean that it is immutable assigned at birth, rather 3) it likely has some sort of developmental aspect, though we do not know when it happens or what precisely contributes to it. However, most children develop a relative firm sense of their gender identity before puberty.

I am not sure what your point is. The whole discussion regarding transgender athletes is whether and how folks that have undergone gender-affirming procedures can participate. If they don't transition, there is little question where they participate, is there?

Here, a rather precise analysis is warranted as such a sweeping statement (as mentioned multiple times) can mask important differences caused by transitioning. It is complicated by the fact that performance is not an inherent ability but also depends on the sport, training and the how the performance improves with training. It also does not help that elite athletes are a tiny fraction of an already highly selective group, so it is small wonder that there is even less data available. In fact, a study on elite transgender athletes at this point would essentially likely only consist of a handful of people, scattered across different types of sports, which would likely be rather useless. Things are even further complicated as longitudinal studies are needed as the effects of transitioning on the body can take a long time. As also mentioned before, data is therefore lacking and a lot is still based on extrapolation rather than high quality data. Depending on the length and cohort investigated, the results can be fairly different. For example, here is a review on a cohort of non-athletes: https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgad414 Here, they found that the "innate advantage" of transgender woman after 4 years amounted to a statistical advantage of push-ups, but in none of the other measures.

I think it got lost in the thread, especially as we have been repeating the same things for quite a while now, but I have mentioned before that studies have shown different levels of separation (or lack thereof). This includes the Healy paper (SJ posted the abstract earlier), which was not included in the review you posted, for example.

Well, talking about facts, that one is false, for example. Studies have shown that older folks are more likely to share fake news: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0963721420915872 Though some studies indicate that the inability to spot fake news tend to increase in the upper age bracket. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igab046.3489

Well both are often tap water, I assumed bottling process for all drinks. If not, self service soda fountain could be cheaper (no labor).

The cheapest non-alcoholic drink to produce is arguably bottled water. Everything else is an additive.

If there are no taxes and easy access to all the ingredients, the equipment is readily available with, then no or perhaps yes. The real answer is dependent on how well you streamlined production, how much you scaled it up etc. Small-scale production are quite a bit more expensive regardless what types of drinks you make, for example. But there are of course also rather expensive non-alcoholic drinks. Kopi Luwak coffee is likely going to outprice all but the most exotic beers.

Depends on where you are and which non-alcoholic drinks you are thinking about. Tap waters is a non-alcoholic drink and very cheap, for example. But generally speaking, high beer cost is typically caused by high taxes on alcohol more than anything else.

True, the issue is that in essence they are appeals to base emotions (mostly fear and aversion) and those are quite resilient to facts. This can be easily weaponized in order to introduce authoritarian viewpoints (i.e. by saying that only a strong man can save us) and from then on, an erosion of liberties and rights can follow (Hungary, Poland and Israel are well on the way to the next stage there, for example).

Well, culture wars and scapegoating have been the go-to for authoritarian regimes for a long time and they are making many successful revivals in recent times.

There are different types of reviews and they are not all written the same. A good review is typically written by someone who is engaged in the field and hence knows the relevant lit and can critically evaluate and synthesize the information in the field. Often when grad or undergrad student write a review, it starts off as a a list of facts and factoids out of the papers folks read (often having highly relevant and irrelevant info side by side) and needs to be heavily edited to provide real benefits to the reader. If no supervisor is involved, it is rather unlikely that an undergrad paper will be in a shape for submission to an academic journal in most areas. Yes it can. It serves more like a writing example and a potential supervisor can use it to judge your ability to read and write. However, in order for it to be seen as a plus one should spend a fair bit of time on editing it. Obviously, just reading something does not mean that you understood it. A paper that is clearly just a crude summary, plagiarized from multiple papers or contains guesswork to gloss over parts that were clearly not understood won't necessarily leave a positive impression. Conversely, a well written review that shows a certain level of understanding (or at least a serious effort to understand) even with gaps (that are ideally acknowledged) will provide potential supervisors with an idea of what capabilities a candidate might start off with.

Another thing that I forgot to mention is efficacy, as that obviously has a huge impact on overall evaluation.

The question cannot be answered properly with the parameters driven. The first obviously is the type of risk. Mild symptoms are viewed differently than severe or potentially fatal ones. Short-term issues are different than potentially chronic issues. Others have already mentioned the lack of a control (i.e. what is the rate in placebo groups, for example). And in addition there is also the question of what the drug/treatment is against. Even severe symptoms might be considered acceptable, if the untreated outcome is high risk of death, for example. Due to the complexity regarding pharmaceutical safety, it is not judged on a simple safe/unsafe dimension. It should be stressed that there is no drug that is safe under all circumstances. I.e. one should not take drugs without indication. A drug is at best "safe" for a given purpose and that is what you can see on the labels, together with the likelihood of adverse effects commonly encountered. Edit: managed to cross-post with others, so much has already been said. Well, there has been a discussion on this and in all actuality there are no side effects either. Biologically, of these are effects. The difference is mostly whether they are desired (in a given context) or not. But it has been universally ruled that this level of accuracy is going to confuse consumers.