From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 17:51:34 -0700, Bob Casanova    
   wrote:   
      
   >On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 13:34:39 -0500, the following appeared   
   >in talk.origins, posted by DB Cates :   
   >   
   >>On 2025-03-31 11:38 a.m., Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:   
   >>> On 2025-03-31 16:19:18 +0000, Bob Casanova said:   
   >>>    
   >>>> On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 08:04:13 -0700, the following appeared   
   >>>> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson   
   >>>> :   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 3/30/25 7:00 PM, Kestrel Clayton wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The last day of March is the Transgender Day of Visibility, a day to   
   >>>>>> improve awareness of transgender people, to draw attention to the   
   >>>>>> challenges and oppression we face, and help people understand us    
   >>>>>> better.   
   >>>>>> The TDoV is more important than ever in 2025, as the Trump   
   >>>>>> Administration has put us squarely in its target sights.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> One of the ways I can fight for my existence, and that of several of my   
   >>>>>> friends and loved ones, is by being visible as myself, answering   
   >>>>>> questions, and demystifying trans people.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I am a transgender woman. I am visible. Ask me anything.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>> Intending no disrespect, I'm sympathetic to anyone with gender   
   >>>>> dysphoria.  It's probably a conclusion that you and others have reached   
   >>>>> only after some serious introspection.  That's your business, not mine,   
   >>>>> and doesn't disturb me in the slightest.  I do object to biological   
   >>>>> males competing in women's sports, and I think it's a very bad idea for   
   >>>>> minors to do anything irrevocable before their brains are at least   
   >>>>> soft-boiled.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>> Agreed. All.   
   >>>    
   >>> Agreed. All.   
   >>>    
   >>>    
   >>Sort of agreed, but re: sports, how exactly do you define 'biological    
   >>male' and how would you plan to enforce it? And yes, it is a bad idea    
   >>for minors to do anything irrevocable. The cases I know of are in late    
   >>adolescence with a long history of really knowing what they want and    
   >>decisions made by doctor/parent in cases of infants with ambiguous or    
   >>damaged genitalia. I'm okay with the first but dead against the second.   
   >>   
   >The issue is regarding the difference between biological   
   >males (generally XY) and biological females (generally XX)   
   >in upper-body strength after puberty; if it weren't a   
   >problem such athletes as "Lia" Thomas wouldn't go from   
   >underperforming in men's sports to record breakers in female   
   >sports, and the records would be comparable between males   
   >and females. But they aren't. Titlele IX was passed for a   
   >reason. If you have no interest in fair competition, fine,   
   >but at least recognize that there *is* a difference.   
      
      
   As I pointed out the last time this was raised on T.O., it's not as   
   simple as looking at the genes.  The important difference for physical   
   development is not in the genes, but in the individual physical   
   responses to the sex hormones.  There are some individuals whose   
   bodies simply don't respond to them, and so develop as physically   
   female even though they are genetically XY.  Your argument above   
   discriminates against them, one of the problems with simplistic   
   solutions.   
      
   --    
   To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)