Page 8 of 19 FirstFirst ... 34567891011121318 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 371

Thread: Transgender Athletes

  1. #141
    Quote Originally Posted by WakeBored View Post
    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?
    What you are describing is rigid adherence to an insufficient model. The simple fact is, you are insisting on applying a binary model to a multi-state system. Just because the probability distributions of the multinomial favor two of the many possible states does not mean that the other probabilities are 0 or even negligible.
    Birds are real.

  2. #142
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    Quote Originally Posted by birdman View Post
    What you are describing is rigid adherence to an insufficient model. The simple fact is, you are insisting on applying a binary model to a multi-state system. Just because the probability distributions of the multinomial favor two of the many possible states does not mean that the other probabilities are 0 or even negligible.
    DAYUM!!! Did you have multiple expressos this AM? Going for the KO!!!

  3. #143
    nature is an amazing thing and this thread is a good laugh (as are most conservatives arguments against transgender people)...enjoy!




    lions that grow a mane, act like males and actually they find have increased levels of testosterone. this has also been found for lions in captivity.


    https://www.newscientist.com/article...ng-like-males/
    8645

  4. #144
    Quote Originally Posted by birdman View Post
    What you are describing is rigid adherence to an insufficient model. The simple fact is, you are insisting on applying a binary model to a multi-state system. Just because the probability distributions of the multinomial favor two of the many possible states does not mean that the other probabilities are 0 or even negligible.
    But in this case are they are statistically significant?

  5. #145
    Quote Originally Posted by wakephan09 View Post
    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
    Sometimes, feigned complexity is subturfuge for a policy-driven agenda designed to upset conventional wisdom. You, of all people, should know that just because an idea is new doesn't make it good.

  6. #146
    @WakeBored

    Quote Originally Posted by redwing42 View Post
    Still waiting on an explanation of the basketball one, aside from "look how big and scary and unfair."

  7. #147
    Quote Originally Posted by DistrictDeacon View Post
    But in this case are they are statistically significant?
    You'll have to define "statistically significant" before I can respond. I'm not an adherent to Fisher rules of p<=0.05 statistical significance, it's an old model of statistical inference that has been updated and adopted. You can alwys gather more and more data to try and get you SD's small enough but you're really just detecting a spurious relationship. Having said that, you can have very small probabilities that are "Statistically significantly different from 0." it is all dependent on the estimated variance. So for example you could have a probability of occurrence that is 0.0000004 with a SD 0.00000000002, and it's "statistically significantly different from 0."
    Birds are real.

  8. #148
    Quote Originally Posted by WakeBored View Post
    Sometimes, feigned complexity is subturfuge for a policy-driven agenda designed to upset conventional wisdom. You, of all people, should know that just because an idea is new doesn't make it good.
    This goes both ways though. Sometimes insistence on an outdated overly simplified model of a system as "conventional wisdom" is agenda driven. Just because it is an old idea doesn't make it a good one.
    Birds are real.

  9. #149
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    Quote Originally Posted by birdman View Post
    This goes both ways though. Sometimes insistence on an outdated overly simplified model of a system as "conventional wisdom" is agenda driven. Just because it is an old idea doesn't make it a good one.
    Wait, do you mean the "conventional wisdom" that smoking reefer would lead to sex crazed, serial killers was wrong?

  10. #150
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    Wait, do you mean the "conventional wisdom" that smoking reefer would lead to sex crazed, serial killers was wrong?
    Sure, but also remember that Galileo was excommunicated and Copernicus was forced to recant because conventional wisdom said they were wrong.

    There is no denying that some non-zero proportion of humans are born with or at some point there after develop deviations from the conventional binary sex determination model. The question is not whether those deviations are aberrant or real, the question is how much do you value those deviations from the mode a whether we build a society that accepts them or rejects them.
    Birds are real.

  11. #151
    Quote Originally Posted by birdman View Post
    You'll have to define "statistically significant" before I can respond. I'm not an adherent to Fisher rules of p<=0.05 statistical significance, it's an old model of statistical inference that has been updated and adopted. You can alwys gather more and more data to try and get you SD's small enough but you're really just detecting a spurious relationship. Having said that, you can have very small probabilities that are "Statistically significantly different from 0." it is all dependent on the estimated variance. So for example you could have a probability of occurrence that is 0.0000004 with a SD 0.00000000002, and it's "statistically significantly different from 0."
    Significantly significant to make the model insufficient.

  12. #152
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    People (I was going to say "gentlemen", but who would be kidding whom on that one), you are out of your league trying to get past Bird on this type of issue.

  13. #153
    Quote Originally Posted by DistrictDeacon View Post
    Significantly significant to make the model insufficient.
    He just admitted it was nothing more than a value judgment.

  14. #154
    Quote Originally Posted by DistrictDeacon View Post
    Significantly significant to make the model insufficient.
    This line of questions is starting to look like subterfuge. Statistics can't tell us when there are a sufficient proportion of non-binary or trans people that we have to change our society to accept them and allow them to play sports. Only values, morals or principles can determine how we treat people that deviate from the mode. My point has been that hiding behind simplistic and ultimately inaccurate models of sex determination is not a reason persecute or exclude different types of people, it's a reason reconsider and update the models.
    Birds are real.

  15. #155
    Dickie Hemric
    sailordeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Liver than you'll ever be
    Posts
    13,892
    Quote Originally Posted by birdman View Post
    Sure, but also remember that Galileo was excommunicated and Copernicus was forced to recant because conventional wisdom said they were wrong.

    There is no denying that some non-zero proportion of humans are born with or at some point there after develop deviations from the conventional binary sex determination model. The question is not whether those deviations are aberrant or real, the question is how much do you value those deviations from the mode a whether we build a society that accepts them or rejects them.
    Galileo was not excommunicated and Copernicus was not forced to recant. Heavens, where do you get this stuff? Galileo was condemned of suspected heresy. Copernicus died a loyal son of the Roman Catholic church of which he was a canon.

  16. #156
    Quote Originally Posted by birdman View Post
    This line of questions is starting to look like subterfuge. Statistics can't tell us when there are a sufficient proportion of non-binary or trans people that we have to change our society to accept them and allow them to play sports. Only values, morals or principles can determine how we treat people that deviate from the mode. My point has been that hiding behind simplistic and ultimately inaccurate models of sex determination is not a reason persecute or exclude different types of people, it's a reason reconsider and update the models.
    The models that you admit, in the end, require a value judgment to interpret. Talk about burying the lede.

  17. #157
    Quote Originally Posted by sailordeac View Post
    Galileo was not excommunicated and Copernicus was not forced to recant. Heavens, where do you get this stuff? Galileo was condemned of suspected heresy. Copernicus died a loyal son of the Roman Catholic church of which he was a canon.
    You, as usual, are really focusing in on the important parts of the discussion. I learned in Middle school that Galileo was excommunicated and Copernicus recanted, so I guess it's time to update my model. Obligatory, 'my point still stands.'
    Birds are real.

  18. #158
    Quote Originally Posted by WakeBored View Post
    The models that you admit, in the end, require a value judgment to interpret. Talk about burying the lede.
    I'm not burying shit. You are trying to hide your prejudices behind an inaccurate model of sex determination and declaring it's basic biological fact and that exceptions prove that there are no exceptions. Own your prejudices and don't blame it on biology, especially when your biology is apparently based on middle school level inaccurate models.

    ETA: also, where did I say you need values to interpret the models...values determine what we do with the results, not what the results mean. You need values to make decisions and implement actions once the models help you describe and understand reality.
    Last edited by birdman; 03-15-2021 at 02:28 PM.
    Birds are real.

  19. #159
    Quote Originally Posted by birdman View Post
    I'm not burying shit. You are trying to hide your prejudices behind an inaccurate model of sex determination and declaring it's basic biological fact and that exceptions prove that there are no exceptions. Own your prejudices and don't blame it on biology, especially when your biology is apparently based on middle school level inaccurate models.
    And there we go again, for at least the second time in this thread. You disagree with me so you are prejudiced. Im beginning to think this is the only real argument liberals have in their quiver.

  20. #160
    Quote Originally Posted by WakeBored View Post
    And there we go again, for at least the second time in this thread. You disagree with me so you are prejudiced. Im beginning to think this is the only real argument liberals have in their quiver.
    still waiting on your explanation of why you posted the basketball team pictures. til then, we're going with prejudice as the reason.

Posting Permissions

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