What to call this thread?

[sear]

That's not what I mean. What sport says something like "Your body produces less than half the lactic acid a normal persons does so you can't compete"? [Note that if swimming did that Michael Phelps would have been banned a long time ago.]
And while they check women's testosterone levels they don't check men's - all they're concerned about is that men's T-levels didn't come out of a bottle.
That's my point

?
I would not, and still do not believe Olympics in ancient time, or our own, is a forum for discriminating against, penalizing athletic superiority. On contrary, to identify and reward it.
I have no rational reason to believe there's a malevolent, sadistic, punitive, destructive conspiracy against non-binaries. BUT !! I consider it a non-zero possibility. I can't rule it out.
I'm not sure it makes sense to assume it.

That's not what I mean. What sport says something like "Your body produces less than half the lactic acid a normal persons does so you can't compete"? [Note that if swimming did that Michael Phelps would have been banned a long time ago.]

& he's been richly rewarded for it.
To my knowledge, lactic acid is generated in the muscle tissue of men & women alike, it's not sexually dimorphic.
And thus, while a boon to Phelps, as it's not gender related, it's a non-issue here.

And while they check women's testosterone levels they don't check men's - all they're concerned about is that men's T-levels didn't come out of a bottle.
That's my point

Succinct.
I've wondered whether it makes sense to have a natural bio-chem. Olympics, and parallel
synthetic.
Problem there, where do you draw the line?
- Armstrong nailed Tour d'France on artificial steroids.
- Pistorias ran faster on artificial legs.
- countless etc.

Seems to me, at least for now, keeping it simple, meaning natural, makes sense.

"Everything that can be invented has been invented." Charles H. Duell: US Patent Office Commissioner 1899 (Charles Holland Duell)

nuh uh

Why not just stamp those passports with a pink triangle?

Juden

 

[Shiftless2]

To my knowledge, lactic acid is generated in the muscle tissue of men & women alike, it's not sexually dimorphic.
And thus, while a boon to Phelps, as it's not gender related, it's a non-issue here.

And men and women both have testosterone, albeit in different amounts.

But Phelps is a genetic freak so if you want to ban someone with natural genetic advantages (like a woman whose natural T-levels are higher than the norm) why not ban him.

 

[sear]

I'm not entirely comfortable attempting to interpret IOC standards. Truth is I'm profoundly ignorant on both the biochemistry, and the written IOC standards.

Seems to me discrimination is the issue here. Isn't that why the sexes are segregated in Olympic competition in the first place? That's not an argument about legitimacy. It's a guess about intent.
Corroborating that impression:
IF they're going to make that distinction, doesn't it make sense in such high-profile circumstance to split the baby equitably? To distinguish male from female to the best of their limited, imperfect ability? Got a better idea?
Let the contestants decide?

Alright.
Put it to a vote. Allow any Olympic competitor a ballot, and empower each competitor voter to determine the terms of their own competition.
Bad idea? Why?
Is it more sensible that the matter be decided @CV.us than by the athletes themselves?

And men and women both have testosterone, albeit in different amounts." S2 #422

I've never reviewed the data, but based on my limited experience with applied statistics I'd guess wildly they're overlapping bell-curves, meaning
like a Venn diagram intersection, the ostensible female with the most testosterone has higher concentration testosterone than the ostensible male with the least testosterone.

If so, identification / classification by testosterone level is not an ideal, inerrant quantification, but merely a generalized indicator that will be used to suffice, until a more specific identifier can be applied.

But Phelps is a genetic freak so

... so he wins Gold, because his athletic ability doesn't seem to be directly related to testosterone level, natural or artificial?

The Supreme Court eventually is going to have to confront the ultimately uncomfortable question ... the federal law which said separate but equal is not good enough ... eventually, the high court’s going to have to accept unisex toilets. Paul Harvey 03/03/10 didactic satire

 

[Shiftless2]

Thomas has already taken a pot shot at Brown saying it's one of the rulings he disagrees with.

 

[sear]

Thomas has already taken a pot shot at Brown saying it's one of the rulings he disagrees with. #424

Basically SCOTUS gets the cases it wishes to hear.

1226 WILLIAM AND MARY LAW REVIEW Vol. 53:1219
A. How the Court Chooses to Review Cases

By far, the vast majority of cases the Court hears and decides
each Term, at least these days, are cases it elects to hear via the certiorari
process. ...
The Court’s process for selecting cases begins when
a party in a lower court loses its case and petitions the Supreme
Court to review the offending decision. The petitioner who loses his
lower court decision will file a petition for certiorari with the clerk
of the Supreme Court. ...
There are no formal requirements that direct Justices to grant certiorari review. The
decision is entirely discretionary to the Court. ...

Supreme Court Rule 10
states simply that the Court is likely to hear cases that involve
conflicts among the lower courts, or cases that involve important
legal issues.25 All this is to say, then, that the agenda-setting
process the Court employs is rife with discretion, allowing Justices
to hear more, or fewer, cases as they wish.

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3424&context=wmlr

 

[Shiftless2]

 

[sear]

Australian court rules in landmark case that asked 'what is a woman?'​

Sofia Bettiza - Gender and Identity Correspondent, BBC World Service / Fri, August 23, 2024 at 11:43 AM EDT

Roxanne Tickle (centre) won a landmark discrimination case against a women-only social media app [EPA]
A transgender woman from Australia has won a discrimination case against a women-only social media app, after she was denied access on the basis of being male.
The Federal Court found that although Roxanne Tickle had not been directly discriminated against, she was a victim of indirect discrimination - which refers to when a decision disadvantages a person with a particular attribute - and ordered the app to pay her A$10,000 ($6,700; £5,100) plus costs.
It’s a landmark ruling when it comes to gender identity, and at the very heart of the case was the ever more contentious question: what is a woman?

In 2021, Tickle downloaded “Giggle for Girls”, an app marketed as an online refuge where women could share their experiences in a safe space, and where men were not allowed.
In order to gain access, she had to upload a selfie to prove she was a woman, which was assessed by gender recognition software designed to screen out men.
However, seven months later - after successfully joining the platform - her membership was revoked.
As someone who identifies as a woman, Tickle claimed she was legally entitled to use services meant for women, and that she was discriminated against based on her gender identity.
She sued the social media platform, as well as its CEO Sall Grover, and sought damages amounting to A $200,000, claiming that “persistent misgendering” by Grover had prompted “constant anxiety and occasional suicidal thoughts”.

“Grover’s public statements about me and this case have been distressing, demoralising, embarrassing, draining and hurtful. This has led to individuals posting hateful comments towards me online and indirectly inciting others to do the same,” Tickle said in an affidavit.
Giggle’s legal team argued throughout the case that sex is a biological concept.
They freely concede that Tickle was discriminated against - but on the grounds of sex, rather than gender identity. Refusing to allow Tickle to use the app constituted lawful sex discrimination, they say. The app is designed to exclude men, and because its founder perceives Tickle to be male - she argues that denying her access to the app was lawful.
But Justice Robert Bromwich said in his decision on Friday that case law has consistently found sex is “changeable and not necessarily binary”, ultimately dismissing Giggle’s argument.
Tickle said the ruling "shows that all women are protected from discrimination" and that she hoped the case would be "healing for trans and gender diverse people".
“Unfortunately, we got the judgement we anticipated. The fight for women’s rights continues,” Grover wrote on X, responding to the decision.
Known as “Tickle vs Giggle”, the case is the first time alleged gender identity discrimination has been heard by the federal court in Australia.
It encapsulates how one of the most acrimonious ideological debates - trans inclusion versus sex-based rights - can play out in court.

‘Everybody has treated me as a woman’​

Tickle was born male, but changed her gender and has been living as a woman since 2017.
When giving evidence to the court, she said: “Up until this instance, everybody has treated me as a woman.”
“I do from time to time get frowns and stares and questioning looks which is quite disconcerting…but they’ll let me go about my business.”
But Grover believes no human being has or can change sex - which is the pillar of gender-critical ideology.
When Tickle’s lawyer Georgina Costello KC cross examined Grover, she said:
“Even where a person who was assigned male at birth transitions to a woman by having surgery, hormones, gets rid of facial hair, undergoes facial reconstruction, grows their hair long, wears make up, wears female clothes, describes themselves as a woman, introduces themselves as a woman, uses female changing rooms, changes their birth certificate – you don’t accept that is a woman?”
“No”, Grover replied.
She also said she would refuse to address Tickle as “Ms,” and that “Tickle is a biological male.”
The article continues at:

Australian court rules in landmark case that asked 'what is a woman?'

Roxanne Tickle has won a landmark case which questioned who can legally claim to be a woman.

news.yahoo.com

© 2024 Yahoo. All rights reserved.

Segregation is understandable in brick-&-mortar environments. Should discrimination standards be relaxed @cyber?

Show me where Jesus says, "Love LGBTQ people." I'll wait. #426

Excellent. And as is customary, it's best if you hold your breath the entire time. Merry Christmas

 

[Shiftless2]

Whatever you do, DON'T share this email address with the public.​

No, really. I do not advise sharing this email with the public. They might get signed up for all kinds of subscriptions, or just receive a ton of spam in general

 

[sear]

"Texas" "will no longer accept amended birth certificates or court orders" #428

And what is the legal basis on which Texas DMV can over-rule a court order?
If a law court order is not legally binding, why is it issued?

note:
I don't know what an "amended" birth certificate is.
If it's appended, meaning stapling a page #2 updated information onto the original, to reflect a change in status, fine.
I'm not sure the practical equivalent of erasing the original information, and replacing it is wise.

Indulging personal identity may be Constitutionally penumbral. But revising history, falsifying fact raises questions about the limitations of government.

Bottom line, if a $tax $paying voter in good standing has a substantiatable (meaning sincere) preference for a particular sex identification on driver's license, that's worth considering. Historic revisionism? Bad idea.

 

[Shiftless2]

In this case "amended" means a new certificate is issued with the gender marker changed from M to F or vice versa.

 

[sear]

In this case "amended" means a new certificate is issued with the gender marker changed from M to F or vice versa.

That is the adversity I anticipated. It's a needless distraction to conflate opposition to revising history with opposing identity justice.
Changing a driver's license is one thing. In fact, it's routine. A young citizen not requiring corrective lenses to meet the State's minimum visual acuity requirements may via aging, develop a need for corrective lenses,
or have a change of address. The DMV routinely updates such information.

How does that apply to birth certificate information?

Brunette: "When's your birthday?"
Blonde: "August 8th."
Brunette: "What year?"
Blonde: "Every year!"

 

[Shiftless2]

And that isn't as far fetched as you might think - remember

After the success of a number of Black women in athletics events in 1948, according to “Coming on strong: gender and sexuality in twentieth-century women’s sport” by Susan K. Cahn p 111

…Olympic governing bodies of the 1950s once again considered eliminating several women’s track-and-field events because the competitors were “not truly feminine”.
In the discussions that followed, Olympic Official Norman Cox sarcastically proposed that rather than ban women’s events, the IOC should create a special category for the unfairly-advantaged “hermaphrodites”, who regularly defeated “normal” women, those less-skilled “child-bearing” types with “largish breasts, wide hips [and] knocked-knees.”

This wasn't based on chromosomes, or hormone levels, it was based on Race. He was talking about Black women. It was based on them not appearing feminine enough by the white standards of the time. Competitors were complaining.

 

[sear]

disclaimer: I've never read a Harry Potter book.

"women ... are expected to conform to impossible standards." bh #432

Both men's & women's legs naturally grow hair. We're mammals. BUT !!
Our culture doesn't pressure men to shave their legs.
A woman that doesn't shave her legs, but shows it (at the beach or whatever) is a fright.

"Double-standard."

bh may make an embarrassingly sharp point here. BUT !!
Why blame jk rowling?

"... one bottle of gin away from saying ..." Gr #432

Bad form. It's a style of disparagement that undermines Gr more than jk.

 

[Shiftless2]

 

[sear]

"There are six katyotype sexes ..." Chuck Dodson #434

And in American English there are forms of address for only a third of these:
- Sir & M'am
- Or Mr & Ms
Thus we are all victims of these rare biological diversities.

Not entirely clear to me which is the higher priority:
- whining about discrimination, or
- creating constructive alternatives

I don't get extra points for mis-addressing the other 2/3. But English protocol creates a problem.

What are the 2/3 doing to fix this?

 

[sear]

"What are the 2/3 doing to fix this?" s #435

Good question s #435. Here's one answer:

Vermont urges everyone to replace ‘son' and 'daughter' with 'gender-neutral' terms in schools​

The Vermont Department of Health called for more 'inclusive' language when talking about family
By Aubrie Spady Fox News / Published August 29, 2024 2:41 pm EDT

Fox News

my.foxnews.com

 

[sear]

I want to know which burns more calories:
- bicycling 20 miles in under 2 hours, or
- walking 4 miles in under 1 hour
That's how I found this:

Which Burns More Calories: Walking or Biking? | Livestrong.com

Walking vs. cycling muscles yield a similar workout. But a comparison between cycling and walking shows that one activity burns more calories than the other.

www.livestrong.com

Not quite sure what to make of it.

 

[sear]

Personal identity is about as basic as it gets.
Gender differentiated personal pronouns (he / she) amplify the social pressure to self-categorize.

The following is not the last word, but is the latest word, from earlier this morning:

Top US surgeon cautions against administering gender-affirming care to minors: 'Not enough evidence'​

By Taylor Penley Fox News / September 10, 2024

Dr. Steven Williams joined 'Fox & Friends First' to discuss why he 'won't even entertain' gender surgeries for minors and some of the possible risks associated with kids getting the procedures.

One of America's top surgeons cautioned against administering gender-affirming care for minors on Monday, telling Fox News the long-term effects are still unknown.
"The real issue here is, as physicians, we're driven by evidence, and our care also involves compassion and interaction with patients. But we have to really look to the evidence when we're thinking about what the appropriate care is for patients, and this is a newly-developing field. For adolescents right now, the evidence, there's just not enough of it yet," Dr. Steven Williams, president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, explained on "Fox & Friends First," Monday.
Gender-affirming care can involve hormonal or surgical treatments that help the patient's physical appearance or hormonal makeup more closely align with the gender identity they choose.
...
Transgender activists and certain members of the medical community insist gender-affirming care is essential to a child's well-being.
Some who sought out gender-affirming care in their youth have since attempted to reverse the changes, including detransitioners Chloe Cole and Prisha Mosley, who have been outspoken in warning others of the potential consequences of gender-affirming care procedures.

Top US surgeon cautions against administering gender-affirming care to minors: 'Not enough evidence'

Dr. Steven Williams of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons is exercising caution against administering gender-affirming care to minors without more studies to support its use.

www.foxnews.com

There's no compelling reason for individuals to live in misery, suffering under sexual identity mismatch.
But this Penley article reports some that have transitioned have later attempted to "detransition".

The message here is not - I told you so - .
Instead, it may make more sense to candidly present to society in the way most comfortable,
while minimizing risks of the irreversible.

 

[Shiftless2]

Dr. Williams should know better - surgery isn't performed on minors.

And withholding hormone blockers is an irrevocable decision - the result is a boy with breasts and a period or a girl with facial hair, deep voice, an Adams Apple, and so forth.

For the record, hormone blockers are widely used in cases of precocious puberty and the effects are reversible - just stop administering them and puberty restarts as per normal. But they do give the individual (together with their parents and the team of doctors and psychologists monitoring them) additional time (years actually) to decide what, if anything, should be done next.

 

[sear]

Dr. Williams should know better - surgery isn't performed on minors.
And withholding hormone blockers is an irrevocable decision - the result is a boy with breasts and a period or a girl with facial hair, deep voice, an Adams Apple, and so forth.
For the record, hormone blockers are widely used in cases of precocious puberty and the effects are reversible - just stop administering them and puberty restarts as per normal. But they do give the individual (together with their parents and the team of doctors and psychologists monitoring them) additional time (years actually) to decide what, if anything, should be done next.

iirc what you've posted on this in the past reflects that.
fine

I'm curious:

just stop administering them and puberty restarts

"restarts"?
Or resumes?

Either way Williams seemed to me to be addressing the issue of "detransitioners". Reversing the reversal.

<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>

- however -
I confess I'm not entirely comfortable with the stench of Kool-aid here.
The suggestion seems to be EVERYone must conform to binary gender norms. Why?

In the 1950's my Mom had a pair of blue jeans. It might have seemed too butch for her to wear men's trousers.
But the zipper on her jeans was on the hip. Difficult for me to imagine the planet would have burned down if the zipper in those jeans were located elsewhere.