Dahobbs
-
Posts
14247 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by Dahobbs
-
-
4 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:
So you are saying there needs to be aÂ
purityÂÂ testosterone test? Hypothetically, if there were a benchmark that said "X level of testosterone disqualifies from competing in women's leagues irrespective of identified gender, but if said person could get to Y level (an acceptable amount) that is okay for a reasonable expectation of fairness in competition" that would be the logical solution here using your logic?So basically a transperson who identifies as a woman would have to deplete their body and system of as much testosterone as they can (whether through estrogen or other means) in order to qualify the same as in a weight class wherein a heavier person would have to shed weight to qualify for a lower weight competition?
That makes sense. I think we solved the problem. Next?
I would never require a female (sex) to compete with men unless there was some sort of hormone therapy involved. But I think the rest of your post seems reasonable.Â
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
9 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:I don't see how or why a transperson (male -> female variety) cannot play a female sport, ESPECIALLY if the logic is sound that people like bad_teammate spout when trying to reconcile orientation with his A, B, C, and D exercise he really enjoys diving deep into. if you identify as a woman you are a woman to society for all intents and purposes, a man, a man, etc. (as the logic goes, so I'm told. Why would this not apply in sports?)
Your logic is flawed. Ultimately, gender is a set of behaviors. And there is evidence that gender itself (like many behaviors) has a biological/developmental link (for instance exposure to certain hormones at critical times in development) and is established early in life. While the vast majority of males (sex) are born as men (gender) and thus have the behavioral attributes of men, some do not. The a similar pattern is true of females (sex). There is no harm in recognizing that same males are born as women and that some females are born as men, nor in using that taxonomy in social settings.
Sports are a different matter due to the importance of testosterone. While gender is a social classification, sex is indisputably grounded in biology, in particular the presence and level of the sex hormones. And the male sex is equipped with an abundance of testosterone, resulting in greater physical strength. Using sex as the primary classification for sports makes sense given that distinction. That doesn't obliterate the usefulness or necessity of using gender (as opposed to sex) in other social settings. Â
Â
- 10
-
3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:
All the muh Russia shit on this board. Â
Other than the copious of obvious amounts of actual evidence, indictments, and convictions surrounding the Russia stuff... sure I get the comparison.Â
-
1 hour ago, Iconoclast Texan said:
My contention is that quality of life in NY has gone down since I moved in 2007 versus now.
Counterpoint: you left NY, therefore quality of life there has improved. QED.
- 4
- 1
-
6 minutes ago, GRHorn said:
Nobody said that.Â
Â
Â
On 2/14/2019 at 7:27 PM, EMAWesome said:You really need to go back and retake a high school civics class. Circumstantial evidence is normally not allowed as presentable evidence in a court of law. This board is more out of touch with reality than the Flat Earth Society.
Â
Â
- 3
-
-
46 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:
Amazon should sue her ass for slander.Â
I am pretty sure her claims are at least partially true even, if exaggerated, based on what I've heard about the work environment from those that know. A slander (or libel) lawsuit would just open up that sort of stuff to discovery since truth is a defense. AOC seems to be the type that would love that.Â
- 1
-
1 hour ago, Kyle said:
You caught me. I'm Robert Mueller's sock.
Is it irony when you jump the gun on calling people out for jumping the gun?Â
-
Or maybe not, they were released without charge based on new evidence.Â
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/15/arts/television/smollett-suspects.html
Looks like Kyle was also too quick in jumping to his preferred conclusion.Â
Â
Â
Â
-
10 minutes ago, Kyle said:
Straw men are cute, but my position was pretty clear. Every 20th Centruy concentration camp was started by a Leftist. I realize I'm talking to someone who may pretend the Democratic Senate was not lead by a Klansman for generations, but who am I to call a racist a racist? It's cute you want to whitewash FDR's concentration camps, but fake news does fuel social media (and CNN).
Anyway, I did not mean to hijack the thread ... I'll let you chimps get back to throwing shit at Spanky and chasing windmills. I did not mean to still your play cinque ... feel free to pretend you one and scared me off with your amazing intellect and brilliant arguments.My father in law spouts this same nonsense. He sees some grand cross generational conspiracy by leftists everywhere in the world. Where do you pick up this stuff?
-
1 hour ago, GRHorn said:
Â
Â
To be fair, her Green New Deal proposal wasn't so much about subsidies as public investment (with the express requirement that the public retain an interest). In one scenario the government is just giving money to a private entity. In the other the government is investing in an asset that government will own (or partly own). She has also criticized the sale of drugs developed on the public dime with no interest retained by the public. I'm not sure it is wise policy to be so absolutist, but it I don't think it is evidence of inconsistency.Â
-
52 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:
I can’t comprehend this is because it’s arbitrary on a case by case argument that has no basis in reality. If I identify with Canadian culture, I cannot cross the border without a passport simply because I subjectively feel Canadian. I can refer to my live-in girlfriend as my “wife”, which is completely acceptable on a social level. But I am not legally recognized as being married for tax purposes or health benefits. (Yep, I get common law)
My argument has always been, since the begging of the thread, that I am perfectly fine calling a trans woman a “she”. I do not accept that she is actually a woman because she cannot change her biological data to be a woman. Based on your response, we are 99% in agreement on this. Where we disagree if that no one is arguing that your biological sex can be changed.
Can you understand that gender has a different definition than sex per the dictionary? Literally that is all I am asking you to concede. It is mind boggling to me that you cannot.
-
21 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:
If someone can explain to me how society "constructed" such differences in these infants' brains, or can debunk these findings, I'd be all ears.
You obviously haven't read anything. Words have meaning because we imbue them with meaning. Society has reached a consensus that gender and sex have different meanings. No one is arguing that one's biologic sex is changeable (again, absent extreme DNA manipulation). Why can't you comprehend this?Â
Look, if it makes you feel better about yourself, just use a different word. Every time you see one of us say "gender," replace it with "behavioral characteristics."Â
-
10 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:
I’ll work on my responses, but know your context before starting in on your tired ramblings towards me dude. Those items were discussed in another thread with the OP, which lead to the creation of this thread. There’s no reason to rehash the discussion as we had reached an impass on how we “feel”.
So fuck you, bigot.
This isn't a feelings issue. The words have different definitions. Sex refers to the biological differences associated with reproduction. Gender, while it can at times be a synonym for sex, in this context it refers to social behavior (see Merriam Webster, aka, the dictionary). If you're not willing to recognize the latter use of the word gender then there isn't anything we can discuss at all. No one in this thread (or anywhere that I'm aware of) disagrees with you regarding the biological nature of sex.Â
-
20 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:
Will look at and discuss this too. I disagree with your premise and will respond in kind with evidence.
Evidence? Of what? They are recognized and treated as distinct concepts by lay people and scientists. You can show all the evidence you want that sex is set at birth. That is apropos of nothing.Â
Words themselves only have meaning because of social consensus. Accordingly, the only real evidence that is relevant for this debate is how people use the terms. I've already provided you one scientific article demonstrating those differences (and actually discussing them). This very thread is evidence that many people disagree with your view of the terms. You've all been provided evidence from medical providers (e.g., Mayo Clinic) that recognize gender and sex as distinct concepts. And here are definitions from Merriam Webster:
"Definition of gender
 (Entry 1 of 2)
1a:Â a subclass within a grammatical class (such as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (such as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms
b:Â membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass
c: an inflectional form (see INFLECTION sense 3a) showing membership in such a subclass
2a: SEX the feminine gender
b:Â the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
c: GENDER IDENTITY Those seeking state driver's licenses in Massachusetts are closer to being able to designate their gender as "X'' instead of "male" or "female." The state Senate has overwhelmingly approved a bill that would allow for the nonbinary designation on licenses.— Steve LeBlancFacebook's message was clear when the social media network added new gender options for users on Thursday: the company is sensitive to a wide spectrum of gender identity and wants users to feel accommodated no matter where they see themselves on that spectrum.— Katy Steinmetz"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender
"Definition of sex
 (Entry 1 of 2)
1:Â either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures
2:Â the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females
3a:Â sexually motivated phenomena or behavior
b:Â SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
4:Â GENITALIA"
QED.
Â
-
Just now, Spankytoes said:
I’ll look at it tonight more in-depth, as I’m about to get off the train, but that’s not really what I’m looking for at first glance. I don’t need a list of definitions of what all these terms are defined as, according to the Mayo Clinic. I’m looking for a scientific study showing that a biological man can become a biological woman.
No one has said that sex is changeable, although I assume theoretically possible with sufficiently advanced DNA editing. And, as I said earlier, it isn't even clear that gender is changeable. The issue is that gender and sex aren't the same concepts, although they are often related.Â
-
6 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:
Great. Show me the evidence so we can discuss it. A report, a statistic...anything really. As long as it’s not part of a news story or reflects your arbitrary statement that “you’re wrong, I’m right” I’m interested. I will do the same when we have an actual discussion going on. That’s how this sort of thing works.Â
Here is an interesting read:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5824932/
But I'm not sure what evidence you want to discuss. Gender and sex are recognized as a distinct concepts for humans by pretty much anyone who studies either. You want to ignore that distinction because . . . I guess you find it inconvenient? I don't really understand your reasoning, but it makes discussion impossible.Â
-
41 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:
I'm not interested in the semantics of using "sex" and "gender" interchangeably to demonstrate whether or not they are social constructs. (We won't agree). Nor am I interested in discussing bigotry based on a more open and candid discussion I have on a message board that doesn't reflect my actual life. I am not actively making a trans person's life miserable. Frankly, it's not an issue I think or care about frequently.Â
Hey guys, I'm open to learning about how the solar system works. But I don't want to hear anything about a "heliocentric" model or whether the Earth circles the sun (we won't agree). I just want to hear about the things I already believe regardless of evidence.
Anyway, gender is a social construct as it is primarily about identity and behavior within a group. Group being the key word there. It isn't about an individual in isolation, but an individual within a group. Thus, social construct. We make an assumption at birth that a person's gender will correspond with the behavioral characteristics most commonly associated with their sex, but this is just an assumption. It is empirically not true for all individuals, which is why gender has been heavily studied among the social sciences. It is also the reason many governments allow you to change your gender classification.Â
Sex is biologically driven and is the term we use when discussing "hard science." Until DNA modification becomes legal and more advanced, you're sex is set at birth. Interestingly, I believe the emerging consensus is that gender is set at birth too. The fundamental difference is that sex is easily discernible at birth, whereas we are making an educated guess at gender based on population wide statistics. Actual gender doesn't become obvious until later development.Â
- 1
-
3 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:
My point exactly.
Life doesn't start at conception: Scientifically incorrect.
A person's gender is malleable: Scientifically incorrect
Two widely different responses. Fuck that though, emotion is at play.
Got it
Gender is a sociological construct, not a biological one. A person's biological sex isn't malleable, at least not currently. A person's gender is, legally so in fact in most countries.Â
- 2
- 1
-
3 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:
So if I disagree that a biological boy can't be a girl, I'm free to express my opinion without being labeled a biggot?Â
You're free to be a bigot. Others are free to criticize you for it.Â
-
Ugh, lob to hayes fails again
-
Haha, probably counts in the NBA. I like good Roach.Â
-
Jesus roach.Â
-
6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:
Percentage of Americans with a smartphone that can stream porn anywhere in the world >>>>>> percentage of Americans with 1x salary in savings.Â
I'm concerned for those that have smartphones that can't stream porn. Where did they buy those phones? And why?Â
- 1
Martina Navratilova is a Hateful Bigot
in Daily Texan
Posted
🙄