What is a female??

[Kfox]

I don't know what the solution is for trans people wanting to play sports with the gender with which they identify -- and maybe in the end there really isn't one -- but just arbitrarily telling people to "stay where you belong" strikes me as one of the less considerate attempts.

How about instead of segregating according to gender, we segregate according to biology? Seems to me that would be a simple solution to this complicated problem; am I missing something?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What kind of proof are you looking for, and why do you need such proof?

Well, the problem is this. All human behavior is real by your standard or drugged. And now, I answer no and thus you declare without evidence at all that the only possible explanation is that I am drugged. Your model don't allow for anything else.

But the problem is that you are not an unique "I" and it also works in the other direction, so if you don't act like me, you are drugged. But you are not really that, right? But I am, right!!! That is your double standard in effect.

Note it is nothing to do with drugged. It also works for abnormal and all other words of in effect a negative.
The cognition is this:
I am correct for my subjectivity and since you are different, you are a negative. That is what you do here in effect for all one your negatives about other humans, so you can defend your subjective understanding of what a female is.
You defend your version of positive by declaring other humans a negative for how we ought to behave as humans. The problem is that it is false as per evidence and truth.
It is not that you are subjective as such. It is that you believe you are correct with evidence and truth. You are not and neither am I. I just know that is the case for us both and we can't move on, as long as you believe as you do. So we fight with words.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How about instead of segregating according to gender, we segregate according to biology? Seems to me that would be a simple solution to this complicated problem; am I missing something?

Because both solutions are social and not biology as objective facts. The problem is that you socially advocate that you are in effect objective and we are not, therefore your solution is objectively correct. That is the sum of your arguments.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So it's murder only because I attempted to alter your perceptions? How about if you altered your perceptions? Would that make killing you okay in your view?

Actually it's called "brain dead" not mind dead because it is the complete brain that is shut down; not just the thinking part.

What is it, exactly, that you are trying to prove with this stuff? That we have the right to kill trans people because they have incorrect perceptions about who they are? Or, if not kill, how about only relegate to the trash heap? Would that make you feel better?

Is diversity that scary to you?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How about instead of segregating according to gender, we segregate according to biology? Seems to me that would be a simple solution to this complicated problem; am I missing something?

You're not missing anything. You just don't care about people who, for reasons you can't understand, are at variance with their biology. (Which, by the way, may not be entirely true either. There are studies that are tending to show that the brains of trans-women are at least somewhat more like those of cis-women, and somewhat less like those of cis-men. Now, of course, you may suggest that the brain is not "biology," but I'd have little difficulty wrestling that suggestion to the ground.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How about instead of segregating according to gender, we segregate according to biology?

That's what we did, and it LEAD to rigid and restrictive gender roles that have pervaded society for hundreds of years and caused a myriad of social and cultural issues. Why not just NOT let our roles be determined by biology?

Seems to me that would be a simple solution to this complicated problem; am I missing something?

How about we just don't segregate people?

 

[wellwisher]

Not all females as adults produce eggs. Learn to check for the facts, since you are so hot for evidence and facts.

Eggs are produced when the unborn female is still in the uterus. The unborn female starts to make eggs nine weeks after conception. The female's lifetime supply of eggs is made before she is born. When she becomes sexually mature; puberty. her eggs are further processed and made ready for conception. Some women will run out of eggs sooner than others, due to many reasons.

Interestingly, males do not produce male gamete cells until after birth, with sperm cells made at puberty. Technically, only females, based on the simple criteria of female gamete cells; eggs, are aborted, since males are not fully differentiated in terms of male gamete cells until after birth.

If you look at the trans movement this has become a mainline fad, simply because it is now medically possible and legal to alter secondary sexual characteristics with medicines and surgery on a profitable scale. The same is true of abortion. Both see dollar signs. That makes these fads artificial.

If we take away the money making artificial additives and procedures, you end up with members of the two sexes, playing only secondary sexual characteristics cross dress up; apparel and makeup industries alone profit.

We live in shallow times, driven by the free market pitching goods and services for that shallow shell. Trans require way more goods and services than natural. It is a gold mine for the market place. However, we should not be pushing people to be engineered, even if this is a good business model and will make make a new generation of Lefty billionaires.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Eggs are produced when the unborn female is still in the uterus. The unborn female starts to make eggs nine weeks after conception. The female's lifetime supply of eggs is made before she is born. When she becomes sexually mature; puberty. her eggs are further processed and made ready for conception. Some women will run out of eggs sooner than others, due to many reasons.

Interestingly, males do not produce male gamete cells until after birth, with sperm cells made at puberty. Technically, only females, based on the simple criteria of female gamete cells; eggs, are aborted, since males are not fully differentiated in terms of male gamete cells until after birth.

If you look at the trans movement this has become a mainline fad, simply because it is now medically possible and legal to alter secondary sexual characteristics with medicines and surgery on a profitable scale. The same is true of abortion. Both see dollar signs. That makes these fads artificial.

If we take away the money making artificial additives and procedures, you end up with members of the two sexes, playing only secondary sexual characteristics cross dress up; apparel and makeup industries alone profit.

We live in shallow times, driven by the free market pitching goods and services for that shallow shell. Trans require way more goods and services than natural. It is a gold mine for the market place. However, we should not be pushing people to be engineered, even if this is a good business model and will make make a new generation of Lefty billionaires.

What ever.

 

[Kfox]

Well, the problem is this. All human behavior is real by your standard or drugged.

Actually drugged behavior is real as well

And now, I answer no and thus you declare without evidence at all that the only possible explanation is that I am drugged. Your model don't allow for anything else.

Perhaps you need to read what I said again because you are making claims about me that have nothing to do with anything I've said thus far.

 

[Kfox]

Because both solutions are social and not biology as objective facts.

No; my solution is biological hence segregating according to your biology.

 

[Kfox]

What is it, exactly, that you are trying to prove with this stuff? That we have the right to kill trans people because they have incorrect perceptions about who they are? Or, if not kill, how about only relegate to the trash heap? Would that make you feel better?

Is diversity that scary to you?

The only thing I am trying to prove is that our mind alone is not what determines what we are; there are other factors involved. Everything else is just a bunch of stuff you are attempting to bring into the conversation.

 

[Kfox]

You're not missing anything. You just don't care about people who, for reasons you can't understand, are at variance with their biology. (Which, by the way, may not be entirely true either. There are studies that are tending to show that the brains of trans-women are at least somewhat more like those of cis-women, and somewhat less like those of cis-men. Now, of course, you may suggest that the brain is not "biology," but I'd have little difficulty wrestling that suggestion to the ground.

Naaw just seems like a simple solution to me.

 

[Kfox]

That's what we did, and it LEAD to rigid and restrictive gender roles that have pervaded society for hundreds of years and caused a myriad of social and cultural issues.

Separating sports according to biology never did any of that.

Why not just NOT let our roles be determined by biology?

We're not talking about roles, we're talking about sports. Why do you have a problem with separating sports according to biology?

How about we just don't segregate people?

Because females wanna play sports as well; they just can't compete against men so we gave them their own sports league.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Naaw just seems like a simple solution to me.

Yes -- simple -- just so long as you don't mind that somebody's getting hurt by it.

(And I have learned at least that about humans -- a lot of us really don't care, so long as its not us.)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No; my solution is biological hence segregating according to your biology.

No, your solution is social, because you choose between several solutions. If you choice is objective then you can give evidence for that, but you can't. As long as in effect you claim that because you choice the objective you act as if that your choice is objective, we can't move on.

You have to understand that your choice to go with the objective, is for your choice not objective.
We will not get any further as long as you believe that because you chose to go with the objective, your choice is objective.
How do you observe between two choice that are possible as to what to do? You don't observe that, you make a choice in your brain as not objective.
And so do I.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Naaw just seems like a simple solution to me.

Yes, that is the operative word. That is a first person internal subjective choice. That is not objective and not with evidence. You admit it right there, but you don't notice it in effect.

 

[Viker]

Personally, I use female as an adjective simply meaning 'like a woman' or 'more womanly than manly'. For me this is an acceptable cultural term. One that I am most comfortable with and fits like a glove. I am bisexual or possibly multi sexual, my sexuality has nothing to do with my gender identity. I know I am not a born and physiological woman. This is why I let others know in advance that I am trans. I don't want to lie, misrepresent or bring any unwanted smoke back on me.

So, female in the noun sense of the word denotes biological womanhood. It's broader in the adjective sense and use if the word.

 

[Kfox]

Yes -- simple -- just so long as you don't mind that somebody's getting hurt by it.

(And I have learned at least that about humans -- a lot of us really don't care, so long as its not us.)

Hurt? How is separating male and female sports according to biology gonna cause more injuries'? Of anything having them playing against each other will cause more female injuries. I think you've got that backwards bruh

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Hurt? How is separating male and female sports according to biology gonna cause more injuries'? Of anything having them playing against each other will cause more female injuries. I think you've got that backwards bruh

Yes, I can see how you would not be able to see how the trans-female would be shut out from one side, and totally foolish-looking on the other, and therefore know with real clarity that "you are excluded because you don't belong anywhere."

Close mind, engage lock, throw away key. Easy-peasy.

 

[Callisto]

Yes, I can see how you would not be able to see how the trans-female would be shut out from one side, and totally foolish-looking on the other, and therefore know with real clarity that "you are excluded because you don't belong anywhere."

Close mind, engage lock, throw away key. Easy-peasy.

So the question becomes, what to do about biological women? Their needs and what is fair for them is routinely disregarded as irrelevant in the matter, secondary at best. What is important is that biological males have their way, men and trans women alike. Meanwhile with biological females history is repeating itself, they are secondary and barely consequential. Discussions next to never mention transmen because they are of no threat to men identifying males. And female athletes, well who cares?

Even so, perhaps the focus should shift to how to accommodate women since it doesn't look like a consensus on transwomen athletes is likely to happen anytime soon.

So, anyone? What to do about female athletes? The current situation obviously isn't working so there does need to be an alternative, they need to be placed somewhere.