Page 7 of 19 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111217 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 371

Thread: Transgender Athletes

  1. #121
    Nah, I understand that humans exhibit continuous variability beyond binomial distributions. You could probably model it as a multinominal/categorical distribution for sex but that is pretty simplistic for most aspects of animal biology.
    Birds are real.

  2. #122
    Never Murdered My FIL
    Deacfreak07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    'Murica
    Posts
    65,763
    Some of yall have never seen Love and Basketball and it shows.

  3. #123
    Think of it this way. We were all (probably) taught in middle school that Newtonian Physics were the core physical laws of the universe. Then in high school we were taught that Einstein uncovered "relativity" and that that was truly the laws of the universe. But, then some time in college, if you took a physics class, you learned about quantum physics and string theory, which explains things about particle motion and energy that even relativity can't explain. These are just models of the system that simplify things into understandable units and as our understanding, or ability or understand, or need to understand increases the models get more complicated. So, in human biology, a binary model of sex is where we start learning in middle school, it works ok, because the probabilities of being male or female add up to almost, but not, quite 1. In high school or maybe college you start to learn that binary sex is an insufficient model because there are a number of alternative states, chromosomal states (e.g., XXY, XYY, XXX, etc.), phenotypic states, and hormonal states that deviate from the binary model. This happens in birds too! It's a classic modelers mistake to hold on to a model even though the data show that it is wrong or insufficient to effectively explain observed patterns or variation. However, it is time to update your middle school level model of binary human sexuality with new data and information Junebug.
    Birds are real.

  4. #124
    Also, here is an intersex northern cardinal.

    Birds are real.

  5. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by birdman View Post
    Think of it this way. We were all (probably) taught in middle school that Newtonian Physics were the core physical laws of the universe. Then in high school we were taught that Einstein uncovered "relativity" and that that was truly the laws of the universe. But, then some time in college, if you took a physics class, you learned about quantum physics and string theory, which explains things about particle motion and energy that even relativity can't explain. These are just models of the system that simplify things into understandable units and as our understanding, or ability or understand, or need to understand increases the models get more complicated. So, in human biology, a binary model of sex is where we start learning in middle school, it works ok, because the probabilities of being male or female add up to almost, but not, quite 1. In high school or maybe college you start to learn that binary sex is an insufficient model because there are a number of alternative states, chromosomal states (e.g., XXY, XYY, XXX, etc.), phenotypic states, and hormonal states that deviate from the binary model. This happens in birds too! It's a classic modelers mistake to hold on to a model even though the data show that it is wrong or insufficient to effectively explain observed patterns or variation. However, it is time to update your middle school level model of binary human sexuality with new data and information Junebug.
    It's probably going to be hard to field enough players for the U-13 XXY rec soccer league team.

  6. #126
    You're on to something with the way modern education necessarily compartmentalizes concepts. Your model also explains why people with low levels of education are stuck believing facile and reductive explanations for complex ideas.

    Not sure junebug's excuse

  7. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by birdman View Post
    Think of it this way. We were all (probably) taught in middle school that Newtonian Physics were the core physical laws of the universe. Then in high school we were taught that Einstein uncovered "relativity" and that that was truly the laws of the universe. But, then some time in college, if you took a physics class, you learned about quantum physics and string theory, which explains things about particle motion and energy that even relativity can't explain. These are just models of the system that simplify things into understandable units and as our understanding, or ability or understand, or need to understand increases the models get more complicated. So, in human biology, a binary model of sex is where we start learning in middle school, it works ok, because the probabilities of being male or female add up to almost, but not, quite 1. In high school or maybe college you start to learn that binary sex is an insufficient model because there are a number of alternative states, chromosomal states (e.g., XXY, XYY, XXX, etc.), phenotypic states, and hormonal states that deviate from the binary model. This happens in birds too! It's a classic modelers mistake to hold on to a model even though the data show that it is wrong or insufficient to effectively explain observed patterns or variation. However, it is time to update your middle school level model of binary human sexuality with new data and information Junebug.
    Lol, I'm comfortable with a rule that is accurate for 99.98% percent of the population. The fact that chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex or phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female in only .02% of the population proves the rule, just like the fact that a small percentage of kids are born with more or less than 10 fingers and toes doesn't mean that is incorrect to say "human beings have 10 fingers and 10 toes." There is a rule, and then there are a small number of exceptions to it. That does not make it a continuum.

  8. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by birdman View Post
    Also, here is an intersex northern cardinal.

    It should be on the men's soccer team.

  9. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by WakeBored View Post
    Lol, I'm comfortable with a rule that is accurate for 99.98% percent of the population. The fact that chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex or phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female in only .02% of the population proves the rule, just like the fact that a small percentage of kids are born with more or less than 10 fingers and toes doesn't mean that is incorrect to say "human beings have 10 fingers and 10 toes." There is a rule, and then there are a small number of exceptions to it. That does not make it a continuum.
    Not to mention the fact that allowing transgender women to play women's sports has nothing (necessarily) to do with chromosomal states. We are allowing people with XY to compete against XX, plain and simple.

  10. #130
    "Something that disproves a rule, proves a rule."

    I'll need to fish out my "DesCartes for Dummies" guide to see where this bit of logic comes from.

  11. #131
    I feel like that 99.8% figure you quoted is about the same percentage of women's high school sports that are not affected by this problem

  12. #132
    but have you seen the pictures juice?

  13. #133
    Still waiting on an explanation of the basketball one, aside from "look how big and scary and unfair."

  14. #134
    Quote Originally Posted by WakeBored View Post
    Not to mention the fact that allowing transgender women to play women's sports has nothing (necessarily) to do with chromosomal states. We are allowing people with XY to compete against XX, plain and simple.
    Intentional or not, Im not sure, but you are only focusing on chromosomal states and as I said there are also phenotypic and hormonal variants that create other states. There are also genotype variants at the gene level not the chromosome level. For example an individual can have XY chromosomes but lack testosterone receptors at the cellular level and thus exhibit female characteristics.
    Birds are real.

  15. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by DeacHead View Post
    "Something that disproves a rule, proves a rule."

    I'll need to fish out my "DesCartes for Dummies" guide to see where this bit of logic comes from.
    It's older than Descartes. It originates from the latin phrase exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis. It has many ways it can be used, but I'm using it here to mean that the fact that there are only a very small number of deviations from the rule demonstrates that there is, in fact, a rule. If there were more deviations, we'd have to consider whether the rule is correct, but, because the number of deviations is small, that proves there is a rule.

    Do you understand now?

  16. #136
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    Chickenbug is hoping to be the legal counsel for the bathroom police to ensure only those born as a specific gender use the facilities he thinks they should.

  17. #137
    Rusty Larue
    DeaconSig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    God's Country
    Posts
    11,344
    chickenbug is such a stupid nickname.

  18. #138
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    But not nearly as stupid as being so afraid of a line from a movie. Which also happens to be part of the national vernacular. Almost everyone has "a guy".

  19. #139
    I mean, he could've always gone with poonbug. That rhymes and has the same sort of implications, only worse.

  20. #140
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    That would be misogynistic.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •