On 3/30/25 7:00 PM, Kestrel Clayton wrote:
Intending no disrespect, I'm sympathetic to anyone with gender
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.
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.
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 08:04:13 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On 3/30/25 7:00 PM, Kestrel Clayton wrote:Agreed. All.
Intending no disrespect, I'm sympathetic to anyone with gender
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.
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.
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
<[email protected]>:
On 3/30/25 7:00 PM, Kestrel Clayton wrote:Agreed. All.
Intending no disrespect, I'm sympathetic to anyone with gender
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.
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.
On 31-Mar-25 02:00, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 22:00:04 -0400, Kestrel Clayton
<[email protected]> 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.
While I am sympathetic to your stated goal, I would feel even more
positive toward your OP if you made even a token effort to present it
in a way that's on-topic to T.O.; ex. document non-binary sexual
behavior in other species, or explain how transgender people provide
adaptive benefits to human societies.
I thought it might be of interest to the group generally, as
talk.origins has always had a secondary purpose of identifying and
countering authoritarian attempts to overrule science � the why of >creationism, so to speak, in addition to the how. The current >Administration's war on "gender ideology" is a cousin of creationism and >intelligent design; it's bread and circuses to keep the rubes distracted >while the oligarchs pick their pockets.
In addition, I've been posting here on and off for 30 years now, and
many of you feel like people I've known for a very long time. Perhaps
not friends, precisely, but long-time neighbors of whom I've grown very
fond. I thought you might be interested. My sincere apologies if the
general consensus is this is inappropriate for talk.origins.
On 2025-03-31 11:38 a.m., Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2025-03-31 16:19:18 +0000, Bob Casanova said:Sort of agreed, but re: sports, how exactly do you define 'biological
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 08:04:13 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On 3/30/25 7:00 PM, Kestrel Clayton wrote:Agreed. All.
Intending no disrespect, I'm sympathetic to anyone with gender
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.
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.
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.
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 13:34:39 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by DB Cates <[email protected]>:
On 2025-03-31 11:38 a.m., Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:The issue is regarding the difference between biological
On 2025-03-31 16:19:18 +0000, Bob Casanova said:Sort of agreed, but re: sports, how exactly do you define 'biological
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 08:04:13 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On 3/30/25 7:00 PM, Kestrel Clayton wrote:Agreed. All.
Intending no disrespect, I'm sympathetic to anyone with gender
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.
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.
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.
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.
On 2025-04-01 00:51:34 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 13:34:39 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by DB Cates <[email protected]>:
On 2025-03-31 11:38 a.m., Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:The issue is regarding the difference between biological
On 2025-03-31 16:19:18 +0000, Bob Casanova said:Sort of agreed, but re: sports, how exactly do you define 'biological
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 08:04:13 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On 3/30/25 7:00 PM, Kestrel Clayton wrote:Agreed. All.
Intending no disrespect, I'm sympathetic to anyone with gender
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Lia" Thomas isn't the worst example. I find it appalling that the International Olympic Committee found it perfectly OK to have a man
beating up a woman as a legitimate spectator sport.
On 01/04/2025 10:13, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2025-04-01 00:51:34 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 13:34:39 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by DB Cates <[email protected]>:
On 2025-03-31 11:38 a.m., Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:The issue is regarding the difference between biological
On 2025-03-31 16:19:18 +0000, Bob Casanova said:Sort of agreed, but re: sports, how exactly do you define 'biological
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 08:04:13 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On 3/30/25 7:00 PM, Kestrel Clayton wrote:Agreed. All.
Intending no disrespect, I'm sympathetic to anyone with gender
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.
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.
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. >>>>
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.
"Lia" Thomas isn't the worst example. I find it appalling that the
International Olympic Committee found it perfectly OK to have a man
beating up a woman as a legitimate spectator sport.
Have you been deceived by the misinformation spread about Imane Khelif?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imane_Khelif
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 17:43:16 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 17:24:37 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Kestrel Clayton >><[email protected]>:
On 31-Mar-25 02:00, jillery wrote:Don't worry about it; this group has posts about everything
On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 22:00:04 -0400, Kestrel Clayton
<[email protected]> 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.
While I am sympathetic to your stated goal, I would feel even more
positive toward your OP if you made even a token effort to present it
in a way that's on-topic to T.O.; ex. document non-binary sexual
behavior in other species, or explain how transgender people provide
adaptive benefits to human societies.
I thought it might be of interest to the group generally, as
talk.origins has always had a secondary purpose of identifying and >>>countering authoritarian attempts to overrule science � the why of >>>creationism, so to speak, in addition to the how. The current >>>Administration's war on "gender ideology" is a cousin of creationism and >>>intelligent design; it's bread and circuses to keep the rubes distracted >>>while the oligarchs pick their pockets.
In addition, I've been posting here on and off for 30 years now, and
many of you feel like people I've known for a very long time. Perhaps
not friends, precisely, but long-time neighbors of whom I've grown very >>>fond. I thought you might be interested. My sincere apologies if the >>>general consensus is this is inappropriate for talk.origins.
from Flat Earth and Expanding Earth nutters to serious
issues of astrophysics and cosmology, with no complaints. A
post such as yours is not a problem.
Unless your opinion is that the OP would not be more interesting when >presented in a topical way, then your comments above are non sequitur.
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 17:51:34 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 13:34:39 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by DB Cates <[email protected]>:
On 2025-03-31 11:38 a.m., Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:The issue is regarding the difference between biological
On 2025-03-31 16:19:18 +0000, Bob Casanova said: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
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 08:04:13 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On 3/30/25 7:00 PM, Kestrel Clayton wrote:Agreed. All.
Intending no disrespect, I'm sympathetic to anyone with gender
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.
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.
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.
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.
On 2025-04-01 00:51:34 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 13:34:39 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by DB Cates <[email protected]>:
On 2025-03-31 11:38 a.m., Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:The issue is regarding the difference between biological
On 2025-03-31 16:19:18 +0000, Bob Casanova said:Sort of agreed, but re: sports, how exactly do you define 'biological
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 08:04:13 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On 3/30/25 7:00 PM, Kestrel Clayton wrote:Agreed. All.
Intending no disrespect, I'm sympathetic to anyone with gender
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Lia" Thomas isn't the worst example. I find it appalling that the >International Olympic Committee found it perfectly OK to have a man
beating up a woman as a legitimate spectator sport.
On Tue, 01 Apr 2025 09:47:53 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2025 05:28:20 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 17:43:16 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>My comment was a matter of fact regarding historical posting
wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 17:24:37 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Kestrel Clayton >>>><[email protected]>:
On 31-Mar-25 02:00, jillery wrote:Don't worry about it; this group has posts about everything
On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 22:00:04 -0400, Kestrel Clayton
<[email protected]> 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.
While I am sympathetic to your stated goal, I would feel even more >>>>>> positive toward your OP if you made even a token effort to present it >>>>>> in a way that's on-topic to T.O.; ex. document non-binary sexual
behavior in other species, or explain how transgender people provide >>>>>> adaptive benefits to human societies.
I thought it might be of interest to the group generally, as >>>>>talk.origins has always had a secondary purpose of identifying and >>>>>countering authoritarian attempts to overrule science � the why of >>>>>creationism, so to speak, in addition to the how. The current >>>>>Administration's war on "gender ideology" is a cousin of creationism and >>>>>intelligent design; it's bread and circuses to keep the rubes distracted >>>>>while the oligarchs pick their pockets.
In addition, I've been posting here on and off for 30 years now, and >>>>>many of you feel like people I've known for a very long time. Perhaps >>>>>not friends, precisely, but long-time neighbors of whom I've grown very >>>>>fond. I thought you might be interested. My sincere apologies if the >>>>>general consensus is this is inappropriate for talk.origins.
from Flat Earth and Expanding Earth nutters to serious
issues of astrophysics and cosmology, with no complaints. A
post such as yours is not a problem.
Unless your opinion is that the OP would not be more interesting when >>>presented in a topical way, then your comments above are non sequitur.
data, plus my opinion regarding the relevance of that to his
apology,
As were my comments, so no difference there.
but your opinion is noted.
Since you completely ignored my opinion, a reasonable conclusion is
you have no idea what is my opinion, as usual.
On Tue, 01 Apr 2025 09:44:02 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2025 04:58:31 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 17:51:34 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Which is why I was careful to specify "after puberty", which
wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 13:34:39 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by DB Cates <[email protected]>:
On 2025-03-31 11:38 a.m., Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:The issue is regarding the difference between biological
On 2025-03-31 16:19:18 +0000, Bob Casanova said: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. >>>>>
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 08:04:13 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On 3/30/25 7:00 PM, Kestrel Clayton wrote:Agreed. All.
Intending no disrespect, I'm sympathetic to anyone with gender >>>>>>>> dysphoria.� It's probably a conclusion that you and others have reached
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.
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.
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.
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 whoseThere are indeed such individuals. Any data on their
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.
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".
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 17:24:37 -0400, Kestrel Clayton ><[email protected]> wrote:
On 31-Mar-25 02:00, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 22:00:04 -0400, Kestrel Clayton
<[email protected]> 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.
While I am sympathetic to your stated goal, I would feel even more
positive toward your OP if you made even a token effort to present it
in a way that's on-topic to T.O.; ex. document non-binary sexual
behavior in other species, or explain how transgender people provide
adaptive benefits to human societies.
I thought it might be of interest to the group generally, as
talk.origins has always had a secondary purpose of identifying and >>countering authoritarian attempts to overrule science � the why of >>creationism, so to speak, in addition to the how. The current >>Administration's war on "gender ideology" is a cousin of creationism and >>intelligent design; it's bread and circuses to keep the rubes distracted >>while the oligarchs pick their pockets.
In addition, I've been posting here on and off for 30 years now, and
many of you feel like people I've known for a very long time. Perhaps
not friends, precisely, but long-time neighbors of whom I've grown very >>fond. I thought you might be interested. My sincere apologies if the >>general consensus is this is inappropriate for talk.origins.
Please don't let other posters sway you into thinking that I wrote
anything which criticized your opinions or diminished your right to
post them to T.O.
Indeed, these posters regularly misrepresent what I--
post to the point of lying about it, apparently just to exercise their
inner trolls.
On Wed, 02 Apr 2025 09:08:02 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2025 06:28:43 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2025 09:44:02 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Nope. read it again.
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2025 04:58:31 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 17:51:34 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>wrote:Which is why I was careful to specify "after puberty", which
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 13:34:39 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by DB Cates <[email protected]>:
On 2025-03-31 11:38 a.m., Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:The issue is regarding the difference between biological
On 2025-03-31 16:19:18 +0000, Bob Casanova said: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. >>>>>>>
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 08:04:13 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On 3/30/25 7:00 PM, Kestrel Clayton wrote:Agreed. All.
Intending no disrespect, I'm sympathetic to anyone with gender >>>>>>>>>> dysphoria.� It's probably a conclusion that you and others have reached
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. >>>>>>>>>>>
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.
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.
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 whoseThere are indeed such individuals. Any data on their
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.
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,
<sigh> To refresh your convenient amnesia, the following are your
comments from the quoted text above: >***********************************************
The issue is regarding the difference between biological
males (generally XY) and biological females (generally XX) >************************************************
ignores the individuals I described above. In fact, your expressed >>>solution, ignores the actual problem, of the majority denying theIt's not prejudice, and I was referring to those individuals
human rights of a minority out of prejudice. Not sure how you think >>>that's "fair".
who express differently despite their genetics.
<double sigh> To refresh your convenient amnesia, the following are
your comments from the quoted text above: >********************************************
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,
*********************************************
Trump's ban specifically limits Title IX competition to "biological
females" aka those with the "correct" XX genes. That is YOUR
expressed solution. YOUR solution unnecessarily and irrationally
eliminates from competition those individuals as I described.
But since
I'm sure you don't understand, even though I clearly stated
it, that any further discussion would be futile.
Clearly you know yourself well enough. I have no doubt you will
continue to lie about what you and I posted, as usual.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 714 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 133:51:08 |
| Calls: | 12,087 |
| Files: | 14,997 |
| Messages: | 6,517,349 |