191–200 of 231 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The state of the universe (including biological facts) has no intentions, i don't know what you are trying to say here or what else you would mean when you say "Intention". It sounds like the sayings of someone who believes in an higher order of things.
Once again, this absurdist interpretation of what I spelled out, based on taking one word out of context, is in bad faith.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The state of the universe (including biological facts) has no intentions, i don't know what you are trying to say here or what else you would mean when you say "Intention". It sounds like the sayings of someone who believes in an higher order of things.
Once again, this absurdist interpretation of what I spelled out, based on taking one word out of context, is in bad faith.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The state of the universe (including biological facts) has no intentions, i don't know what you are trying to say here or what else you would mean when you say "Intention". It sounds like the sayings of someone who believes in an higher order of things.
Once again, this absurdist interpretation of what I spelled out, based on taking one word out of context, is in bad faith.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your answer is recursive and sort of leaves the question unanswered, so my reply is kinda an repetition of what i already asked: How do we know what the normal function is? How do we know how things are intended to work? (Intended by whom ?)
> How do we know what the normal function is? How do we know how things are intended to work? (Intended by whom?) Is this intentionally obtuse to prove a point? In the case of these conditions, a specific receptor in the body is not working properly. The receptor exists to bind to androgens and trigger downstream activity. In people with this condition, the receptor isn't properly activating in the presence of androg…
> How do we know how things are intended to work? (Intended by whom?)
are very salient. Your reply talking about
> …a specific receptor in the body is not working properly.
just raises the same question again. What does it mean for something in our biology to be working "properly"? Who is deciding what is "proper"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe choose a more precise and less judgmental adjective than "real." The opposite of "real" is "fake," not "difficult to substantiate."
But “difficult to substantiate” isn’t what I mean? I mean something more like whether something is there independent of what people think of it. (“Reality is that which, when one stops believing in it, doesn’t go away.”) Distinctions between categories are often somewhat fuzzy, but in some cases there are processes independent of peoples’ opinions that behave largely like there are distinct buckets. Such as “has a le…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because there is absolutely no objective way to define races in their coloquial meaning. So they don't exist. This is a pretty controversial statement. Even studied anthropologists disagree with this.
Only in the sense that race is a type of caste system. There's really no biological reality to it.
I'll concede that much in the way of "race" is a social construct, but to claim there's no biology involved is categorically false.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If anything chromossomes would be the key determinant of sex, not gender. But even that's not how we attribute sex: biologically sex is attributed by the capacity to generate small or big gamete, which means that someone who doesn't produce either type, such as a child or elderly person has no sex.
This is absurd and offensive, and seems like something taken straight out of transsexual propaganda or fantasy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>this really looks like a spectacular lack of empathy No, fake kindness isn't empathy. This wasn't about me. Everybody is actually exactly the same in that we all should care about our bodies, nobody should care about the biochemical details of their genes. That doesn't change your body or your personality. Affirming someone's mistaken identity crisis because you want to show the world how nice you are is actually th…
Oh, this is just egocentrism then - then inability to see things from the point of view of another. Everybody is actually not exactly the same as you, as surprising as that apparently will be.
I can certainly understand the confusion of someone being faced with a diagnosis like this, that's empathy, but to pretend this means I need to affirm their insecurities even if grounded in nothing is not just not empathy, it's callous behavior to the detriment of the person involved.
If someone were to learn after 50 years of life, they've been adopted, and they voice something like "my life's a lie, are my parents even my parents?", you can voice empathy for their disorientation, but the actual answer as to the question is obviously, yes they're still your parents. It would in fact be sociopathic to advice anything else just out of "kindness".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We have somehow decided that chromosomal advantages are unfair That somehow was mostly because people with certain chromosomal characteristics were heavily disadvantaged in sports, but increasingly wanted participation in them. Because those people (who we called "women") would largely be unable to be competitive and/or would face considerable increased risk of physical harm if they played in/against the same teams…
> There are still places for pretty much everyone who wants to play if they look hard enough, even if not everyone is able to be a part of any team or division that they'd like to. This reads to me as "separate but equal" which I think is exactly what's wrong with sports divisions. Sports divisions play out the "separate is inherently unequal" at so many levels.
If a professional baseball player wanted to play in a little league tournament they'd do very very well, but it'd be unfair to a bunch of 7-12 year olds, so we don't allow that and the sport is "separate", but when a 9 year old kid wins the Little League World Series, while that's very exciting for the players, we still don't treat that win as being equal to winning the actual World Series.
Winning the actual World Series is a much bigger deal. Nobody treats them as being equal, but being inherently unequal doesn't mean that it's wrong. The Little League World Series can just be its own thing, because what actually matters is that the kids are having fun playing the sport they love and don't have to worry that some 30 year old with a batting average of .340 is going to ruin their good time.
There are times when "separate is inherently unequal" is actually the most fair.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The important thing to recognize is that fairness is a pretty fuzzy concept and a lot of the boundary between fair and unfair is defined by particular societal norms (socially constructed, if you will). All elite athletes have biological advantages not afforded to ordinary humans like us. People like Michael Phelps and Alex Honnold are specific examples of course, but even after years of training most people cannot p…
> All elite athletes have biological advantages not afforded to ordinary humans like us. Sure. Meanwhile there's no athletic record of anyone identified as a woman cracking the four minute mile. Not long after Roger Bannister, teenage boys started doing it. It's not unusual for sub 4 miles to be run by boys at high school track meets. Elite capability does not erase or conceal sex-related gaps. We have male and femal…
Most tracks aren't set up to properly measure the mile. It's easier to measure the 1,600 meters, still 9 meters short of a mile. It's not a standard track event but it does give a good estimate of the mile time.