From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Wed, 02 Apr 2025 09:08:02 -0700, Bob Casanova    
   wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
      
    To refresh your convenient amnesia, the following are your   
   comments from the quoted text above:   
   ***********************************************   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)