Transgender athletes

[Intoscience]

On 8/5/2023 at 6:01 PM, mistermack said:

And it's hugely amusing, that the only way you can claim that men are NOT banned, is to agree that transgender women athletes are indeed men. You're tying yourself up in ridiculous knots.

Ah... this is because as recently eloquently put by the popular astrophysicist Neil Degras Tyson - " I may wake up one day and feel 80% female, decide to put on make up and wear a dress, who are you to tell me I'm not a woman?" 

The issue is that some people born with male genitalia believe they were born in the wrong body and will do anything even go to the extreme suffering of having physical changes made to make them more female. I sympathise with such people and agree that their beliefs and feelings should be respected. Unfortunately this does change any facts though. i suffer with body dysmorphia, I believe i was born in the wrong body, my mind feels disconnected from my physical form. Unfortunately I am what i am and I have to find a way to deal with it. 

This doesn't mean people should be ignored, persecuted or discarded. on the contrary people who suffer should be supported, sympathised with, aid in solutions to fix/accommodate their issues.

To me the transgender issue all seems rather arse backwards, rather than reaching out to each individual and supporting them, helping to ease their suffering. People would rather change everything else at the cost of others to appease or be virtuous or what ever other agenda they have.  

  

On 8/5/2023 at 2:07 PM, iNow said:

It important IMO to recall the broader context in which this discussion is taking place. Right wing populism is spreading across the world. Voters seem in greater numbers to be supporting fascist tendencies. Books are being banned from schools and neighbors are bloodying each other over simple differences in policy. Racism is up. Jewish community members are being attacked. Behavioral norms are being ignored while untraceable guns and homemade ammunition are being found at insane levels

Do you wonder why you see an increase in right wing populism?

I'll tell you, because left wing extremists are pushing extreme ridiculous wonkiness into society and thus those that would normally sit somewhere in the middle ( the vast majority) are sick and tired of listening to all this crap they are spouting. As a result those that feel strongly about it are pushing back and in doing so being branded right wing. When in fact all people want is a balance, tolerance from both sides, equilibrium...  

 

[StringJunky]

56 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Ah... this is because as recently eloquently put by the popular astrophysicist Neil Degras Tyson - " I may wake up one day and feel 80% female, decide to put on make up and wear a dress, who are you to tell me I'm not a woman?" 

The issue is that some people born with male genitalia believe they were born in the wrong body and will do anything even go to the extreme suffering of having physical changes made to make them more female. I sympathise with such people and agree that their beliefs and feelings should be respected. Unfortunately this does change any facts though. i suffer with body dysmorphia, I believe i was born in the wrong body, my mind feels disconnected from my physical form. Unfortunately I am what i am and I have to find a way to deal with it. 

This doesn't mean people should be ignored, persecuted or discarded. on the contrary people who suffer should be supported, sympathised with, aid in solutions to fix/accommodate their issues.

To me the transgender issue all seems rather arse backwards, rather than reaching out to each individual and supporting them, helping to ease their suffering. People would rather change everything else at the cost of others to appease or be virtuous or what ever other agenda they have.  

  

Do you wonder why you see an increase in right wing populism?

I'll tell you, because left wing extremists are pushing extreme ridiculous wonkiness into society and thus those that would normally sit somewhere in the middle ( the vast majority) are sick and tired of listening to all this crap they are spouting. As a result those that feel strongly about it are pushing back and in doing so being branded right wing. When in fact all people want is a balance, tolerance from both sides, equilibrium...  

 

Everyone has their version of 'equilibrium', just as they have their own version of 'extreme'. It's what suits them. It's why we have science. An astrophysicist  pontificates on something out of his expertise and you cite him?

Edited August 7, 2023 by StringJunky

[swansont]

 

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

There are categories based on physical advantages/disadvantages.

weight, age, sex etc...

But you didn’t cite this earlier. You said it was because they are different. Evidence has been provided that transgender women who undergo HRT (which is the rule for many sports) have no advantage.

So which is it? 

 

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Do you wonder why you see an increase in right wing populism?

I'll tell you, because left wing extremists are pushing extreme ridiculous wonkiness into society and thus those that would normally sit somewhere in the middle ( the vast majority) are sick and tired of listening to all this crap they are spouting. As a result those that feel strongly about it are pushing back and in doing so being branded right wing.

All I wonder is why you all care so much about something that doesn't involve you at all, except in the most vicarious of way's??? 

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

When in fact all people want is a balance, tolerance from both sides, equilibrium...  

What you mean by this can only be, that it's your finger on the scales; all I want is finger free scales, you know, a fair deal... 😉

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

People would rather change everything else at the cost of others to appease or be virtuous or what ever other agenda they have.

The only agenda we have is, one step closer to a slightly better society... 😉

[iNow]

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

The only person's complaining are the ones who want to redefine what it means to be a biological female. 

More precisely, these persons are reminding others that there never has been a valid definition, that those who suggest otherwise continue offering versions which don’t map on to the reality around us (they miss too many counter examples and ignore large swaths of the population), and that we have an opportunity to stop excluding people based on flawed outdated inaccurate models. 

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Do you wonder why you see an increase in right wing populism?

I'll tell you, because left wing extremists are pushing extreme ridiculous wonkiness into society and thus those that would normally sit somewhere in the middle ( the vast majority) are sick and tired of listening to all this crap they are spouting.

Ahh, yes… victim blaming at its finest. We clearly wouldn’t have a massive surge in online hatred and right wing fascism and violence were it not for those evil pesky lefties trying to make progress for marginalized humans. Everything would be fine if they’d just shut their pissanty pie holes. 🙄

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

More precisely, these persons are reminding others that there never has been a valid definition, that those who suggest otherwise continue offering versions which don’t map on to the reality around us (they miss too many counter examples and ignore large swaths of the population), and that we have an opportunity to stop excluding people based on flawed outdated inaccurate models. 

Ahh, yes… victim blaming at its finest. We clearly wouldn’t have a massive surge in online hatred and right wing fascism and violence were it not for those evil pesky lefties trying to make progress for marginalized humans. Everything would be fine if they’d just shut their pissanty pie holes. 🙄

If only, +1.

Now, what's the betting on 100+ page's? 

[Intoscience]

6 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Everyone has their version of 'equilibrium', just as they have their own version of 'extreme'. It's what suits them. It's why we have science. An astrophysicist  pontificates on something out of his expertise and you cite him?

Exactly why I cited him, he is out of his expertise and out of his depth and being a well known and respected scientist I was quite shocked to see him "pontificate" in such a manner. If all he has is that women wear make up and dresses but men don't then I find it rather embarrassing coming from a scientist.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

 

But you didn’t cite this earlier. You said it was because they are different. Evidence has been provided that transgender women who undergo HRT (which is the rule for many sports) have no advantage.

So which is it? 

 

I'm happy for science to prove by test that there is no advantage gained. This certainly sets the levels more fairly. 

I think we are arguing over 2 extremes. I'm arguing that the rules should not allow some bloke who suddenly decides to identify as a woman to compete against cis-females. If however a male that has transitioned & gone through significant therapy, procedures etc... and any physical advantage they had previously can be proved by scientific test to be eradicated then sure, crack on.

All I'm seeking is all inclusive fairness.  

2 hours ago, iNow said:

More precisely, these persons are reminding others that there never has been a valid definition, that those who suggest otherwise continue offering versions which don’t map on to the reality around us (they miss too many counter examples and ignore large swaths of the population), and that we have an opportunity to stop excluding people based on flawed outdated inaccurate models. 

Ahh, yes… victim blaming at its finest. We clearly wouldn’t have a massive surge in online hatred and right wing fascism and violence were it not for those evil pesky lefties trying to make progress for marginalized humans. Everything would be fine if they’d just shut their pissanty pie holes. 🙄

Hmm, typical lefty response. . 

It appears if you are not on the left then you are a righty? 

I see now why I get so many negative reps and this thread is so one sided.

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

What you mean by this can only be, that it's your finger on the scales; all I want is finger free scales, you know, a fair deal... 😉

Nope I want a scale which measures fairly all. You want scales which, oh yes, fib a little to make you feel better.  

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The only agenda we have is, one step closer to a slightly better society... 😉

Better society for who? The crackpots? Good luck with that one, lol

2 hours ago, iNow said:

More precisely, these persons are reminding others that there never has been a valid definition, that those who suggest otherwise continue offering versions which don’t map on to the reality around us (they miss too many counter examples and ignore large swaths of the population), and that we have an opportunity to stop excluding people based on flawed outdated inaccurate models

What a crock of crap, there are 2 sexes - male and female this maps out just fine. Outliers to this are like any other abnormality. A human is defined as a bipedal mammal, with 2 arms 2 legs, 8 fingers 2 thumbs. ten toes, 2 ears etc... Any person born with less or more is defined to have an abnormality (outside of the general normality) this doesn't make them any less of a person any less valued or anything else, but it does make them outliers and such they standout from the norm. 

A person suffering from dual personality is said to have a mental issue, a person suffering from depression the same. But for some reason a person with gender dysmorphia has no issue but the general public who recognise this are said to be wrong, transphobic or bigots. This has nothing to do with identification, it is about reality.   

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

What a crock of crap, there are 2 sexes - male and female this maps out just fine. Outliers to this are like any other abnormality. A human is defined as a bipedal mammal, with 2 arms 2 legs, 8 fingers 2 thumbs. ten toes, 2 ears etc... Any person born with less or more is defined to have an abnormality (outside of the general normality) this doesn't make them any less of a person any less valued or anything else, but it does make them outliers and such they standout from the norm. 

A person suffering from dual personality is said to have a mental issue, a person suffering from depression the same. But for some reason a person with gender dysmorphia has no issue but the general public who recognise this are said to be wrong, transphobic or bigots. This has nothing to do with identification, it is about reality.   

Very well put.

[TheVat]

Whenever I look in here, I become sort of baffled at all the categorization.  I am not really Left or Right, because I see individual issues rather than some sort of checklist of ideology where you put all your checks on one side or the other. 

But this is a thread about qualifications for playing a sport.  And biological criteria for creating fair fields of competition.  If choosing to be trans reflects a real condition called gender dysmorphia (in the States, I sometimes hear it termed gender dysphoria, which seems to give a different shade of meaning, but that's a whole other thread perhaps), then how does that affect sports?  Some people have body dysmorphia and they treat it by becoming bodybuilders, which brings some fairly dramatic transformations of their appearance.  To qualify for a competition, we don't require a determination of why they became bodybuilders or how scrawny they used to be.  We just make sure they aren't doping in some way that discredits the level playing field.  Why should, say, trans-females be different?  If they've transitioned to a physiological state (mass, fast-twitch muscle fibers, hormone levels, etc.) that is on a par with other players, then what is the problem and why the need for 84 pages of discussion?  This is a biology thread.  So, one presumes, we aren't hear to discuss the moral or ideological dimensions of altering one's body or being in possession of dangly bits in a locker room.  (not that that couldn't be an interesting chat, over in Philosophy)

[zapatos]

10 hours ago, Intoscience said:

We are seeking a fair solution others are seeking false virtue 

 

9 hours ago, Intoscience said:

People would rather change everything else at the cost of others to appease or be virtuous or what ever other agenda they have.  

 

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.

[StringJunky]

In this  thread, I see nobody engaging in virtue signalling. If they were, they wouldn't be thinking as hard as they clearly are. 

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Hmm, typical lefty response. . 

It appears if you are not on the left then you are a righty? 

Clearly a political subject from hereon because the biological aspects have been answered as far as present knowledge allow that we know of.

Edited August 7, 2023 by StringJunky

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I think we are arguing over 2 extremes. I'm arguing that the rules should not allow some bloke who suddenly decides to identify as a woman to compete against cis-females.

The rules don’t, and there’s been no evidence presented that this is being attempted. So we’re where we started on page 1, with a made-up scenario. 

 

[CharonY]

9 hours ago, Intoscience said:

What a crock of crap, there are 2 sexes - male and female this maps out just fine. Outliers to this are like any other abnormality. A human is defined as a bipedal mammal, with 2 arms 2 legs, 8 fingers 2 thumbs. ten toes, 2 ears etc... Any person born with less or more is defined to have an abnormality (outside of the general normality) this doesn't make them any less of a person any less valued or anything else, but it does make them outliers and such they standout from the norm. 

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).

[Intoscience]

13 hours ago, zapatos said:

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.

Did I mention your name in any of my posts? I said "people" maybe i should have said "certain people". From what I have read of your posts on this subject you have made some good arguments and though I may not agree with them I do respect your opinion. 

I'm getting tired of been told that what I (along with the vast majority of people and plenty of well educated and very intelligent people) consider to be reality is not real and we should change our perception even though the physical factual evidence supports it. 

6 hours ago, CharonY said:

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).

All fine, but humans come in 2 groups (male & female) who may share the typical features I described, but also have distinctive physical differences. Are you denying this?

I'm all for and have advocated throughout this thread 2 things, 1. fairness in competitive sport, 2. freedom to identify as one chooses. 

My issue comes about when the chosen identity of a person qualifies them for competitive sporting categories where they would have a very clear physical advantage which undermines the category, and may I add, undermines the rights of the persons who naturally qualify.   

My other concern is around the contradictions and hypocrisies that come about when a person demands that we define them as physical truth for something they are not.

I ask again since no one as yet answered my question, and I'll re phrase it to make it more simple.

If a person born in a male body feels/believes they were born in the wrong body and thus choose to be identified as a female. By what definitions are they using to make the distinction between male & female? 

Since I'm being told that gender is not binary and rather a spectrum, then why does a person want to identify as one part of a binary definition?  Thus in relation to this thread by what definition do they feel qualifies them to enter into women's categories?  

Edited August 8, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

All fine, but humans come in 2 groups (male & female) who may share the typical features I described, but also have distinctive physical differences. Are you denying this?

No more than your denying the inbetweener's. edit, for instance, if I tuck my ball sack away and squint, my dick does look like a clitoris...

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I'm all for and have advocated throughout this thread 2 things, 1. fairness in competitive sport, 2. freedom to identify as one chooses. 

My issue comes about when the chosen identity of a person qualifies them for competitive sporting categories where they would have a very clear physical advantage which undermines the category, and may I add, undermines the rights of the persons who naturally qualify.

Your issue seems to resonate with all the other 'isms' out there, 1, fairness as I see it. 2, freedom to identify as one chooses, provided it doesn't conflict with my freedom to put a stop to all this madness... 😣

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Since I'm being told that gender is not binary and rather a spectrum, then why does a person want to identify as one part of a binary definition?

They don't, they just want to take their rightful place on the spectrum of humanity.

Your signature is right though, simplicity is often blinding.... 

21 hours ago, dimreepr said:

All I wonder is why you all care so much about something that doesn't involve you at all, except in the most vicarious of way's??? 

Still no answer to this question, so I thought I'd bump it, for any brave righties out there to answer...

Edited August 8, 2023 by dimreepr

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I'm getting tired of been told that what I (along with the vast majority of people and plenty of well educated and very intelligent people) consider to be reality is not real and we should change our perception

Too bad

Science doesn’t care about your feelings (since you like quoting Neil DeGrasse Tyson, that’s another quote from him)

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

All fine, but humans come in 2 groups (male & female) who may share the typical features I described

It’s hard to understand why you’re struggling with this so much, but there are more than 2 groups. At the very least, there’s male female and other. That’s 3. 

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

My issue comes about when the chosen identity of a person qualifies them for competitive sporting categories where they would have a very clear physical advantage which undermines the category

No physical advantage has yet been demonstrated IINM. This assertion is at the heart of your stance, yet it’s still as of yet unfounded and unsupported. 

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

around the contradictions and hypocrisies that come about when a person demands that we define them as physical truth for something they are not.

Are not self aware enough to realize just how self-entitled you sound trying to demand that you have any say at all in how OTHER people are and are not allowed to identify THEMSELVES… as if you’re somehow the high arbiter of what’s allowed in context of self-identification in sex and gender?

“Sorry, Fred. I know you identify as a man, but I’m here to tell you I see an ovary on your scans so GTFOH with that shit and start calling yourself Lucy, you hypocrite!”

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

By what definitions are they using to make the distinction between male & female? 

If the distinction is arbitrary and rather often inaccurate and unhelpful, why does it matter? What shrine to the past are we protecting by rigidly and steadfastly sticking to outdated categories?

Do you also reject heliocentrism bc earth at the center of the universe is just “how it always was for majority of well educated people?”

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Since I'm being told that gender is not binary and rather a spectrum, then why does a person want to identify as one part of a binary definition?

Why don’t you ask the people most effected by this, those who are being excluded and targeted for violence and hatred and rejection and anger for simply trying to authentically be themselves? 

[dimreepr]

50 minutes ago, iNow said:

Why don’t you ask the people most effected by this, those who are being excluded and targeted for violence and hatred and rejection and anger for simply trying to authentically be themselves? 

because he doesn't want to hear the answers, they're not real enough to fit his universe... 

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I'm getting tired of been told that what I (along with the vast majority of people and plenty of well educated and very intelligent people) consider to be reality is not real and we should change our perception even though the physical factual evidence supports it. 

I have seen precious little discussion of the physical factual evidence in this thread. I see repetition of talking points, appeals to grade-school biology and plenty of hyperbole.

What you call reality seems to be a world view. 

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

My issue comes about when the chosen identity of a person

You probably identify as right- or left-handed. Why do you choose to do so?

[zapatos]

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I said "people" maybe i should have said "certain people"

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.

[CharonY]

10 hours ago, Intoscience said:

All fine, but humans come in 2 groups (male & female) who may share the typical features I described, but also have distinctive physical differences. Are you denying this?

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). 

 

[StringJunky]

21 minutes ago, CharonY said:

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 like this. I like the thinking that even though one tries to create limited categories, there is always a 'reject' category (outliers) for things that don't conform to the prescribed categories. It's basically saying life is probabilistic, with some determinism, and generally can only be described in statistical terms. Absolutist, arbitrary positions can't reflect nature.

Edited August 8, 2023 by StringJunky

[Intoscience]

Okay,

Rather than squabbling with you all (which I'm guilty of doing). Let me lay out my personal thoughts in (hopefully) a manner which is easy to understand and supports why I take the stance I do.

I see 3 models to which we are arguing over. 

Model 1. Socially constructed gender characteristics, tendencies, personalities and roles: This model includes multiple genders, each identifiable by each individual person. The construct of this model has two "extreme" parameters at either end, which are for as far as I know been in place 9in one way or another) throughout modern human history. At one end we have the Alpha male - a tough, strong, powerful human who enjoys fighting, competition, engineering, getting down and dirty etc... At the other end we have the Dainty female - A human who is soft, weak, tender, likes fluffy stuff etc...  you all get the drift. Between all this we have a spectrum presently around 8 billion people who can be easily mapped on this model, with over laps. This to me is the personality Identity model, where people are free to change/choose where they fit.

Model 2. Physically constructed gender model, similar to model 1 based on characteristics, tendencies and roles, but physical attributes rather than personality.  Again this will map quite easily with the 8 billion or so people and it will also map reasonably well with model 1. i.e the Alpha male, a big powerful, strong, fast, high muscle & bone density... the dainty female, small, weak, low density muscle and bone structure... again there is a wide spectrum and overlaps and people can easily identify with this physically. This to me is the physicality model, where people are somewhat restricted, but are still free to change/choose where they fit. 

Model 3. Evolutionary driven biologically constructed DNA characteristics, tendencies, roles: This model is the sticking point. This model starts with the basis of 2 distinct sexes - male & female. The distinction is built fundamentally into the biology of each person and though there maybe abnormalities or slight differences the fundamentals are set and unchangeable (at least post puberty). Unfortunately the set genetically characteristics no matter cannot be altered and thus those that standout as significant difference between male and female may play a part in advantageous/disadvantageous tendencies (elite sports levels). This model is not so easy to map onto the other models, especially so if a person wishes to identify way outside of their genetical makeup. 

My models are simplified versions of what I believe to be reality. they maybe flawed in detail. But in order for me to gain and understanding of the opposite stance i need to gain an understanding of what exactly does a biologically born male mean when they say they are a woman?

      

 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

i need to gain an understanding of what exactly does a biologically born male mean when they say they are a woman?

A good start would be to investigate the biology - beyond what chromosomes or visible reproductive parts one has - of what it means to be a man or woman.

[StringJunky]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

But in order for me to gain and understanding of the opposite stance i need to gain an understanding of what exactly does a biologically born male mean when they say they are a woman?

      

 

What is the exact wavelength of  the colour yellow?

Answer: It's a range between 570-585nm, but there is no clearly delineated line in to orange.

In case it's gone over your head, things get fuzzy and merged the more details/resolution we pursue.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 8/5/2023 at 12:18 PM, swansont said:

I’m not sure why you think I didn’t understand the context. On the contrary, I think perhaps you don’t understand the context of transgender bans occurring in the US. It’s not just telling kids they can’t compete. Almost a third of transgender youth live in states that have banned gender-affirming care.

I certainly don't understand how US states limiting access to access to health care justifies any XY inclusion in XX sports

Why do you feel international sports organizations should take that into account?