From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Tue, 01 Apr 2025 09:44:02 -0700, Bob Casanova    
   wrote:   
      
   >On Tue, 01 Apr 2025 04:58:31 -0400, the following appeared   
   >in talk.origins, posted by jillery <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.    
   >>   
   >Which is why I was careful to specify "after puberty", which   
   >is when the difference kicks in.   
      
      
   Only if you focus exclusively on the majority.  Once again, the   
   problem isn't about the majority, but instead is about those whose   
   particular physiologies don't follow the majority pattern, and for   
   that reason only, are having their human rights threatened.   
      
      
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >There are indeed such individuals. Any data on their   
   >percentage of the population, which I suspect is quite low?   
   >I've read numbers in the 50k range for the US, but I'm open   
   >to correction.   
      
      
   Since you think it relevant, I'm sure you can look it up.  The   
   specific amount isn't relevant to the fact these people exist.  Some   
   people like to grab easy headlines by demanding that the rights of   
   transgender people be dismissed and legislated away on the basis of a   
   Biblical understanding of biological facts.   
      
      
   >My argument is that for the overwhelming majority,   
   >competition within sex is the better course if fairness is a   
   >concern. The (suspected) extreme minority you note can be   
   >handled on a case-by-case basis.   
      
      
   Incorrect.  Your expressed solution, based on XY sex assignment,   
   ignores the individuals I described above.  In fact, your expressed   
   solution, ignores the actual problem, of the majority denying the   
   human rights of a minority out of prejudice. Not sure how you think   
   that's "fair".     
      
   --    
   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)