From: nospam@buzz.off   
      
   On Wed, 02 Apr 2025 06:28:43 -0400, the following appeared   
   in talk.origins, posted by jillery <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,   
   >   
   Nope. read it again.   
   >   
   >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".   
   >   
   It's not prejudice, and I was referring to those individuals   
   who express differently despite their genetics. But since   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)