• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Transgender Athletes

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.
 
Some of y’all have never seen Love and Basketball and it shows.
 
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.
 
Also, here is an intersex northern cardinal.

190205-rare-cardinal-mn-1742_0b97393dffaeda6f9675f6fb74ab49f9.fit-760w.jpg
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
"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.
 
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
 
Still waiting on an explanation of the basketball one, aside from "look how big and scary and unfair."
 
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, I’m 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.
 
"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?
 
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.
 
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".
 
I mean, he could've always gone with poonbug. That rhymes and has the same sort of implications, only worse.
 
Back
Top