Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

https://f7td5.app.goo.gl/QwfBS

Sent via @updayUK

Originally posted by Putinbot1
https://f7td5.app.goo.gl/QwfBS

Sent via @updayUK

How is it more complex with this particular individual? She has traits that less than 1% of the population exhibit.

Originally posted by snowdragon
How is it more complex when this particular individual falls into that less than 1% of the population with certain traits? Because that's 1 in a 100 people. I interact with more than that a day. Don't you? For this person, they csn't compete with either male or female fairly.

It's a population the size of the UK worldwide.

1% of the population is still over 70.000.000 people... Regardless of how many people are intersex or not, it's still a complex topic and it always will be.

Originally posted by MythLord
1% of the population is still over 70.000.000 people... Regardless of how many people are intersex or not, it's still a complex topic, and it always will be. It's a population the size of the UK worldwide. And it's just one metric.

Ironic that her name contains the word semen.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Because that's 1 in a 100 people. I interact with more than that a day. Don't you? For this person, they csn't compete with either male or female fairly.

It's a population the size of the UK worldwide.

So are we using the gender is a social construct but biology determines your sex?

The issue with his individual is biology and doesn't have much to do with being described as a woman or man as a society might view them or even how they view themselves.

So create a new category for individuals to compete in?

Originally posted by snowdragon
So are we using the gender is a social construct but biology determines your sex?

The issue with his individual is biology and doesn't have much to do with being described as a woman or man as a society might view them or even how they view themselves.

So create a new category for individuals to compete in? She's still a female biologically. If 1 in a 100 has this particular metric, oh how the number invreases as other metrics are used.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
She's still a female biologically. If 1 in a 100 has this particular metric, oh how the number invreases as other metrics are used.

Create new categories lulz I can imagine it now, the woman's high testosterone category

Interesting Info

4% physically may have some kind of intersectionality; I'm no expert on things like brain chemistry and predisposition. I would expect to add these metrics before we even add psychological syndromes we may be up to 7-10%. Then factor in Xenobiotic Oestrogens etc., and we have maybe 1 in 10 this is a guess.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
4% physically may have some kind of intersectionality; I'm no expert on things like brain chemistry and predisposition. I would expect to add these metrics before we even add psychological syndromes we may be up to 7-10%. Then factor in Xenobiotic Oestrogens etc., and we have maybe 1 in 10 this is a guess.

Sure but some/most of those are going to have minimal if any impact on athletics as it relates to the original individual you cited.

The topic of gender SEEMS to be more of a societal structure as opposed to the biological term of sex, like many biological systems we aren't put together like a bunch of legos with perfect right angles defining the edges of our shapes.

The issue with individuals like the mentioned in your article is that not only do they make up a small percentage globally it's easier to gloss over their problems due to their distribution and diversity of "issues."

Originally posted by snowdragon
Sure but some/most of those are going to have minimal if any impact on athletics as it relates to the original individual you cited.

The topic of gender SEEMS to be more of a societal structure as opposed to the biological term of sex, like many biological systems we aren't put together like a bunch of legos with perfect right angles defining the edges of our shapes.

The issue with individuals like the mentioned in your article is that not only do they make up a small percentage globally it's easier to gloss over their problems due to their distribution and diversity of "issues." You see, I think from this thread alone we've witnessed biologically significant numbers. I agree we have a scale and we are diverse organisms within a genus. I think obviously gender is a social construct with which we take into account and try to give interpretation to our biological and psychological imperfections. It is also imperfect and in need of a more critical application of Science and a more nuanced political stance.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
https://f7td5.app.goo.gl/QwfBS

Sent via @updayUK

You spend a lot of time on gender studies in your late life, did you miss those classes in school?

I thought gender was down to how you identify where as sex is biological. So this really only means some biological females have abnormal characteristics which provide a physical advantage. I do think she should be able to compete as a female though since some people will always have inherent physical advantages over others.

Originally posted by mike brown
I thought gender was down to how you identify where as sex is biological. So this really only means some biological females have abnormal characteristics which provide a substantial advantage. I do think she should be able to compete as a female though since some people will always have inherent physical advantages over others.
It's a bit broader as I tried to explain, but generally yes, many metrics, scientific, cultural, social could affect a persons gender role. As we have seen from this biological sex is also a spectrum to a point Mike, and I agree she should be able to compete for the reasons you stated.

Nobody told Kareem Abdul-Jabbar he was too tall to play basketball. Aren't they sort of putting a label on this woman by preventing her from competing? Women in general for that matter. "Oh, you don't meet our criteria for what a woman is so off you go."

Originally posted by Putinbot1
It's a bit broader as I tried to explain, but generally yes, many metrics, scientific, cultural, social could affect a persons gender role. As we have seen from this biological sex is also a spectrum to a point Mike, and I agree she should be able to compete for the reasons you stated. I think calling it a spectrum gives the impression that most people fall somewhere along the middle... Which isn't true. The vast majority of people fall into one of the two binary sexes... And the majority of people who don't are peculiar only in so far as they have some of the characteristics of both sexes. It's still essentially a bimodal system if not a strictly binary one. And tbh I think that to a lesser extent the same is basically true of gender.

Originally posted by samhain
Nobody told Kareem Abdul-Jabbar he was too tall to play basketball. Aren't they sort of putting a label on this woman by preventing her from competing? Women in general for that matter. "Oh, you don't meet our criteria for what a woman is so off you go."

Pretty much. She was born a women and is a woman, not her fault she's got an advantage.

Might as well set a testosterone limit for male athletes while where at it for men born with higher levels so it's "fair" to others with lower levels.

Originally posted by mike brown
I think calling it a spectrum gives the impression that most people fall somewhere along the middle... Which isn't true. The vast majority of people fall into one of the two binary sexes... And the majority of people who don't are peculiar only in so far as they have some of the characteristics of both sexes. It's still essentially a bimodal system if not a strictly binary one. And tbh I think that to a lesser extent the same is basically true of gender.

You see Mike if we set a spectrum up with ultra-masculine and ultrafeminine traits at each end you will have two overlapping binomial distribution curves i suspect.

@Sam and Rob, I agree totally.

I think that one argument in favor of trans athletes is that they could finally make women's sports worth watching.

Nah, it's not really complex at all. It's actually pretty black and white: you have a penis, you're a male. Don't have one, you're a female. Period.

Originally posted by mike brown
I think that one argument in favor of trans athletes is that they could finally make women's sports worth watching. haha, I enjoy watching female beach volleyball.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
You see Mike if we set a spectrum up with ultra-masculine and ultrafeminine traits at each end you will have two overlapping binomial distribution curves i suspect.

@Sam and Rob, I agree totally. I mean I see how you could technically frame it as a spectrum I just think it leads to a somewhat misleading picture. The people who aren't strictly male or female are aberrations that have one or more traits that are more common to the opposite sex. It's still basically true that in essence there are two sexes functionally speaking.

Here's the thing though, if we have no problem with males competing in women's sports because people have differences in physical ability from person to person anyways... why have separate men's and women's sports?

Originally posted by Putinbot1
haha, I enjoy watching female beach volleyball. For the sport or just for the women?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Here's the thing though, if we have no problem with males competing in women's sports because people have differences in physical ability from person to person anyways... why have separate men's and women's sports? Cause men are better than women at sports and am integrated league would probably just be a male league. But this person in question is biologically a female so why should she be excluded?

Originally posted by mike brown
I think that one argument in favor of trans athletes is that they could finally make women's sports worth watching.

Worth a read

https://mashable.com/article/gender-definition-science-trump/

A lot of credible Scientists like to look at it as a spectrum, the majority in fact.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Here's the thing though, if we have no problem with males competing in women's sports because people have differences in physical ability from person to person anyways... why have separate men's and women's sports? This is true there has to be a cut off point. I agree.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Nah, it's not really complex at all. It's actually pretty black and white: you have a penis, you're a male. Don't have one, you're a female. Period.


I totally agree, if you have a penis you are a male, if you have a vagina, you are a female, but what are you if you have both? Or neither for that matter?

Originally posted by samhain
I totally agree, if you have a penis you are a male, if you have a vagina, you are a female, but what are you if you have both? Or neither for that matter?




Those make up a very tiny percentage of overall births. They are simply birth defects due to mutations. It's like someone being born with an extra finger or something similar. As for what we call them, I think, iirc, those born with both are called hermaphrodites. Not sure what those are called with neither but they are probably even more rare than those born with both.



Radical authoritarian leftists basically want to force us to ignore reality because of something that happens so rarely that it's really not even worth talking about.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Yeah, it's where the bulk are but read on, like I say it's not strictly that simple. I read the whole article.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Nah, it's not really complex at all. It's actually pretty black and white: you have a penis, you're a male. Don't have one, you're a female. Period.
What about intersex people? Technically, they have a vagina, but also a penis so they're male.

And people with Turner's Syndrome? They have neither, so does that make them female? Is gender's basis the absence or presence of the penis? Is the vagina unimportant? Or is it maybe just a lot more complicated than just your genitals and trying to claim otherwise is clinging to desperate ignorance that's been outdated?

Also, the lives of over 70 million people isn't worth talking about? There's almost as much intersex people in the world as there are natural red-heads.

Originally posted by MythLord
Also, the lives of over 70 million people isn't worth talking about? There's almost as much intersex people in the world as there are natural red-heads.

Bingo.

Originally posted by MythLord
Also, the lives of over 70 million people isn't worth talking about? There's almost as much intersex people in the world as there are natural red-heads. Agreed matey.

@ Mike, I know you Snow Nd Sam get it too. I think for a change we are broadli in agreement

Originally posted by MythLord
What about intersex people? Technically, they have a vagina, but also a penis so they're male.

And people with Turner's Syndrome? They have neither, so does that make them female? Is gender's basis the absence or presence of the penis? Is the vagina unimportant? Or is it maybe just a lot more complicated than just your genitals and trying to claim otherwise is clinging to desperate ignorance that's been outdated?

That's cool! So how about this:

Unless you're intersex: if you have a dick you're a male and a vagina you're female and feelings do not change this. If your entire issue with this is intersex people this statement should be fine with you.

Also has an intersex person ever once been born with a working set of...both genitals? Or is it usually one or the other? I'm 99% sure they have never been born with a set of both, but there could be something out there I didn't hear about.

Originally posted by Surtur
That's cool! So how about this:

Unless you're intersex: if you have a dick you're a male and a vagina you're female and feelings do not change this. If your entire issue with this is intersex people this statement should be fine with you.

Also has an intersex person ever once been born with a working set of...both genitals? Or is it usually one or the other?




Well said.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Those make up a very tiny percentage of overall births.


Jack The Ripper only killed a very tiny percentage of prostitutes yet there are dozens of books and films about the subject. The overall question I was leading to is, if a person cannot be adequately described as being male or female then what's the term we use?

I just hope people realize intersex people have zero to do with trannies, etc.

Anyways, now that I've stated this fact, continue

Originally posted by Surtur
That's cool! So how about this:

Unless you're intersex: if you have a dick you're a male and a vagina you're female and feelings do not change this. If your entire issue with this is intersex people this statement should be fine with you.
When have I ever framed it as just an issue with Intersex people? Gender is a much broader issue and it's differentiated from sex. Intersex people are just an example of how genitalia doesn't always define gender.
There's a lot more differences between men and women in the body other than a penis and a vagina.
Originally posted by Surtur
Also has an intersex person ever once been born with a working set of...both genitals? Or is it usually one or the other? I'm 99% sure they have never been born with a set of both, but there could be something out there I didn't hear about.
There's some intersex people born with a working set of both genitals. Some are born with both genitals ineffective. Some are born with no genitalia at all. Some with ambiguous genitalia. Some with no vagina, but ovaries connected to the penis. Some are born with two penises one growing over another. Etc etc
Originally posted by Surtur
I just hope people realize intersex people have zero to do with trannies, etc.

Anyways, now that I've stated this fact, continue
You do realize a lot of people that transition are actually intersex people who remove the unwanted or unfunctioning genitals, right? The two aren't the same thing, but they do overlap.

Originally posted by MythLord
When have I ever framed it as just an issue with Intersex people? Gender is a much broader issue and it's differentiated from sex. Intersex people are just an example of how genitalia doesn't always define gender.
There's a lot more differences between men and women in the body other than a penis and a vagina.

There's some intersex people born with a working set of both genitals. Some are born with both genitals ineffective. Some are born with no genitalia at all. Some with ambiguous genitalia. Some with no vagina, but ovaries connected to the penis. Some are born with two penises one growing over another. Etc etc

You do realize a lot of people that transition are actually intersex people who remove the unwanted or unfunctioning genitals, right? The two aren't the same thing, but they do overlap. he knows all this, his prejudices just prevent him from looking at things objectively. Good post btw.

1. The women athletes she's competed against: do they feel she has an unfair advantage? Have they complained?

2. If a male athlete with myotonic hypertrophy dominated, say, weightlifting, would he be treated similarly?

3. In general: should rare but advantageous genetic conditions be considered unfair overall, in any endeavor? Eg, what about employment?

Originally posted by Mindship
1. The women athletes she's competed against: do they feel she has an unfair advantage? Have they complained?

2. If a male athlete with myotonic hypertrophy dominated, say, weightlifting, would he be treated similarly?

3. In general: should rare but advantageous genetic conditions be considered unfair overall, in any endeavor? Eg, what about employment? Agreed, you could and I have argued on this very board that all top athletes are genetically unusual, look at a distance cyclists resting heart rate. Most of us would be dying at 30 - 40bpm

Personally, I think sports shouldn't be gender segragated. Just divided into categories of heavyweight, lightweight, pro, amateur, etc.

Originally posted by MythLord
When have I ever framed it as just an issue with Intersex people? Gender is a much broader issue and it's differentiated from sex. Intersex people are just an example of how genitalia doesn't always define gender.
There's a lot more differences between men and women in the body other than a penis and a vagina.

You haven't, I just felt the need to point it out and your comment gave an opportunity.



I guess I phrased my question wrong, since I suppose technically you could have both genitals working and it wouldn't mean you can get a woman pregnant, but also be impregnated.



I'd be curious as to a number when it comes to the percentage of trannies that are just intersex. If it truly is "a lot" of intersex people doing it, I'd then be curious as to their specific suicide rates and how they compare to non-intersex trannies. And how many of those intersex transitions had two sets of working genitalia would also be a good thing to know.

Originally posted by Surtur
You haven't, I just felt the need to point it out and your comment gave an opportunity.
You said, to me specifically, "If your entire issue with this is intersex people this statement should be fine with you". And I'm just noting my issue isn't entirely dedicated just to intersex people.
Originally posted by Surtur
I'd be curious as to a number when it comes to the percentage of trannies that are just intersex. If it truly is "a lot" of intersex people doing it, I'd then be curious as to their specific suicide rates and how they compare to non-intersex trannies. And how many of those intersex transitions had two sets of working genitalia would also be a good thing to know.
That number I am actually unsure of. The majority of transgender people are people who suffer from Gender Dysphoria. But Intersex people do take up a solid percentage themselves.

The suicide rates among the Transgender community also almost always only takes into account male-to-female or female-to-male transitions, not neccessarily intersex body modifications so once again that number is uncertain. Although, interestingly: the suicide rate amongst transgenders who are accepted by their family is around 4-5% whereas when they are rejected by their surroundings it hops up to almost 50%...

Originally posted by MythLord
Personally, I think sports shouldn't be gender segragated. Just divided into categories of heavyweight, lightweight, pro, amateur, etc. Absolutely, a natural heavyweight of 220+ pounds before they lift a weight is going to be much stronger than someone who does not have the natural levers.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Agreed, you could and I have argued on this very board that all top athletes are genetically unusual, look at a distance cyclists resting heart rate. Most of us would be dying at 30 - 40bpm


It's the difference between a natural evil, and a moral one (To borrow phraseology from a debate about murder, vs simply allowing one to die if intervention could prevent said death.)


The fact that people are born with advantages is unfair, but something we live with because it's not something we have control over.


Taking performance enhancing drugs is something we DO have control over, so we ban that from competitive sports.



Transgender athletes blurs the distinction. A man who becomes a woman may have an advantage, or may not (Both sides have reason to exaggerate to their advantage, as in all debates with any real skin to it), but however you slice the argument, there is no "Oh well, they were just born that way" resignation. No "act of God" shrug of the shoulders.