RugbyRebels

Donny osmond wrote:
As to why thats a contemplation thats in bad faith or a false equivalence, I dont know.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

morepork wrote:I think maybe because one is now known to be a product of the epigenetic developmental landscape and the other is what happens after you make Thriller?

Digby wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:
As to why thats a contemplation thats in bad faith or a false equivalence, I dont know.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

The argument that physical issues take such precedence over mental issues is an ongoing issue for the treatment of mental disorders the world over, and oddly a position that many arguing with you on this would normally object to (I assume)

Donny osmond wrote:

Digby wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:
As to why thats a contemplation thats in bad faith or a false equivalence, I dont know.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

The argument that physical issues take such precedence over mental issues is an ongoing issue for the treatment of mental disorders the world over, and oddly a position that many arguing with you on this would normally object to (I assume)

Sorry, the Spanish sun is scrambling my synapses. Are we not talking about mental health issues exclusively?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Mikey Brown wrote:We’re nearing a breakthrough here. I can feel it.

We’re all going to be glad we persisted with this thread.

Donny osmond wrote:

morepork wrote:I think maybe because one is now known to be a product of the epigenetic developmental landscape and the other is what happens after you make Thriller?

I say this without having a clue what epigenetic developmental landscape means, but is it inconceivable that the knowledge you've been born into the wrong body could apply across skin colour as well as gender?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Digby wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Digby wrote:

The argument that physical issues take such precedence over mental issues is an ongoing issue for the treatment of mental disorders the world over, and oddly a position that many arguing with you on this would normally object to (I assume)

Sorry, the Spanish sun is scrambling my synapses. Are we not talking about mental health issues exclusively?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Perhaps, I suppose I've been thinking if you want your toddler cut off or a banana stitched on there are some physical issues on the one side, whereas the other is more mental.

We could just go back to locking the lunatics in an asylum and going along to laugh at them

morepork wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

morepork wrote:I think maybe because one is now known to be a product of the epigenetic developmental landscape and the other is what happens after you make Thriller?

I say this without having a clue what epigenetic developmental landscape means, but is it inconceivable that the knowledge you've been born into the wrong body could apply across skin colour as well as gender?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

The sum of the environmental and genetic influences on the development of the unique thing that is you. The weird and wonderful interactions of genes and their environment. Personality and gender are two of the many complex traits that arise thereof. Skin colour is too, but it is much less of a fundamental biological function than the other two. Cultural identity, on the other hand is a complex manifestation of the mind. This is why psychiatry is a discipline and homeopathy is a massive bunch of shit.

Donny osmond wrote:

morepork wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:I say this without having a clue what epigenetic developmental landscape means, but is it inconceivable that the knowledge you've been born into the wrong body could apply across skin colour as well as gender?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

The sum of the environmental and genetic influences on the development of the unique thing that is you. The weird and wonderful interactions of genes and their environment. Personality and gender are two of the many complex traits that arise thereof. Skin colour is too, but it is much less of a fundamental biological function than the other two. Cultural identity, on the other hand is a complex manifestation of the mind. This is why psychiatry is a discipline and homeopathy is a massive bunch of shit.

Ok I think I'm lost in the vocabulary here. If gender in the above paragraph refers to being born biologically male or female is that the result of an interaction between genes and the environment?

If gender refers to identity in ones mind of being male or female is that not cultural identity?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

morepork wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

morepork wrote:

The sum of the environmental and genetic influences on the development of the unique thing that is you. The weird and wonderful interactions of genes and their environment. Personality and gender are two of the many complex traits that arise thereof. Skin colour is too, but it is much less of a fundamental biological function than the other two. Cultural identity, on the other hand is a complex manifestation of the mind. This is why psychiatry is a discipline and homeopathy is a massive bunch of shit.

Ok I think I'm lost in the vocabulary here. If gender in the above paragraph refers to being born biologically male or female is that the result of an interaction between genes and the environment?

If gender refers to identity in ones mind of being male or female is that not cultural identity?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Biology is telling us that gender is subject to tremendous evolutionary drivers so it is getting increasingly difficult to rigidly compartmentalise gender. Look at hermaphroditism in nature.There are millions of species that are naturally intersex. All biological phenomenon are the product of genes and environment, and that includes conciousness.

Donny osmond wrote: (An aside, been reading about ancient Greece who completely accepted a "3rd gender" including masculine women and feminine men, so our cultural interpretations are more modern failings?)

Donny osmond wrote:I introduced the idea of changing 'race' as a comparison, for that lady involved it wasn't just about skin colour but about cultural identity. Being a better dancer for one thing. Ahem... sorry. Is it more/less difficult to rigidly compartmentalize human gender than human "race"?

I'm not trying to be obtuse, bottom line is live and let live.... I just genuinely don't see why its a false comparison. Unless I'm being massively thick, which is always possible. But after all, you can actually compare apples and oranges, there are parallels. As Diggers pointed out, dismissing one desire for change but accepting another seems like trivializingor ignoring genuine mental health issues.

Thanks for your patience btw its appreciated.

Donny osmond wrote:Ok but would you say human race exists on a spectrum or as discrete entities, biologically?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

morepork wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Ok but would you say human race exists on a spectrum or as discrete entities, biologically?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

I need a metric. What do you mean by a spectrum of race? That makes no sense. Biologically, anthropological assignment, at least over time, can be defined by haplotype. This is neither a spectrum nor discrete, but the probability of shared characteristics based on inheritance patterns resulting from sexual recombination. Are you looking for me to say that race is fixed at birth, or what?

Puja wrote:

Donny osmond wrote: (An aside, been reading about ancient Greece who completely accepted a "3rd gender" including masculine women and feminine men, so our cultural interpretations are more modern failings?)

A third gender is found all over the world - Pacific Islands, Native Americans, First People in Canada, India, Greece as you mentioned. A lot of what we see as "normal" gender and sexuality was beaten into a lot of the world by the puritan values of the British Empire, the Victorians especially.

Puja wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:I introduced the idea of changing 'race' as a comparison, for that lady involved it wasn't just about skin colour but about cultural identity. Being a better dancer for one thing. Ahem... sorry. Is it more/less difficult to rigidly compartmentalize human gender than human "race"?

I'm not trying to be obtuse, bottom line is live and let live.... I just genuinely don't see why its a false comparison. Unless I'm being massively thick, which is always possible. But after all, you can actually compare apples and oranges, there are parallels. As Diggers pointed out, dismissing one desire for change but accepting another seems like trivializingor ignoring genuine mental health issues.

Thanks for your patience btw its appreciated.

I would say the difference is that "trans race" (for want of a better word) is largely a thought experiment. There isn't a historical record of people throughout the centuries needing to live in a race that's different to the one assigned at birth and the few examples noted are where someone has been immersed in the culture of that other race for most of their life (so a nurture, rather than nature argument).

If they existed, then yeah, I'd say it probably brooked discussion. But I call it a false equivalence because it's comparing real life documented people with a "Hey, imagine if this were the case."

Puja

Donny osmond wrote:

Puja wrote:

Donny osmond wrote: (An aside, been reading about ancient Greece who completely accepted a "3rd gender" including masculine women and feminine men, so our cultural interpretations are more modern failings?)

A third gender is found all over the world - Pacific Islands, Native Americans, First People in Canada, India, Greece as you mentioned. A lot of what we see as "normal" gender and sexuality was beaten into a lot of the world by the puritan values of the British Empire, the Victorians especially.

Right... isnt trans as in trans-woman short for transitioning? If non binary genders are the way life really is, why are we putting people thru massive amounts of surgery and drugs to get them to fit into these biologically incorrect boxes of male or female? Shouldnt we be celebrating their own unique identities?

Donny osmond wrote:

Puja wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:I introduced the idea of changing 'race' as a comparison, for that lady involved it wasn't just about skin colour but about cultural identity. Being a better dancer for one thing. Ahem... sorry. Is it more/less difficult to rigidly compartmentalize human gender than human "race"?

I'm not trying to be obtuse, bottom line is live and let live.... I just genuinely don't see why its a false comparison. Unless I'm being massively thick, which is always possible. But after all, you can actually compare apples and oranges, there are parallels. As Diggers pointed out, dismissing one desire for change but accepting another seems like trivializingor ignoring genuine mental health issues.

Thanks for your patience btw its appreciated.

I would say the difference is that "trans race" (for want of a better word) is largely a thought experiment. There isn't a historical record of people throughout the centuries needing to live in a race that's different to the one assigned at birth and the few examples noted are where someone has been immersed in the culture of that other race for most of their life (so a nurture, rather than nature argument).

If they existed, then yeah, I'd say it probably brooked discussion. But I call it a false equivalence because it's comparing real life documented people with a "Hey, imagine if this were the case."

Puja

Not that much of a thought experiment, there's all kinds of evidence of mixed race people feeling alienated by both of their parents communities, or not fitting neatly into a "cultural" box due to their genetic heritage. Fair enough the original comparison was daft, a white person wanting to be black. But how about a mixed race person who feels unaccepted?

Coco wrote:

morepork wrote:

Coco wrote:Wow... I called Cashead out earlier on his inability to refrain from abusive and racist remarks and he continued. Would be nice not to be attacked and verbally abused while trying to learn and have open dialogue with other posters that dont feel threatened by questions and differing views.

I am no shrinking violet but enough is enough. The guy has NO coping skills or self control much less TOLERANCE for anyone different thinking than him... ironic cos he preaches tolerance and equality out of the other side of his ass.

Anyone care to let me know why his verbal abuse is tolerated?

Just for clarity, are you claiming you have been a target of racism from this poster? This thread is entirely about tolerance of difference and the understanding thereof. Do you feel Cashead has redirected the narrative towards a criticism of you personally? He is offering an informed perspective, albeit profane, of the subject matter at hand. Are you representative of the minority group originally resented by this thread or are you claiming that your majority status is threatened by the discussion? Would you rather your view of the actual minority group be the template for debate? You seem to be sailing towards a logical fallacy low tide. I accept that being verbally abused is not on, but I am concerned at the implication of you being the victim here.

Cashead's comment presuming the race and gender of board members of the IAAF or CAS were not "informed" perspectives... they were presumptions. He accused the board/panel of denying Ms. Semenya on the basis of her race... and gender. If he bothered to inform himself and actually look at the legal documents from The Court of Arbitration for Sport, with regard to Caster Semenya's requests for arbitration, he would have understood that the President of the panel was a woman - The Hon. Dr. Annabelle Bennett AO SC. Since she is female, I am going out on a limb here that she is not a racist white man. Second of the 4 on the panel was The Hon. Hugh L. Fraser (ret). Here is his picture:

fraser-hugh-900x1080.jpg

Does he look like a old white man to you?

My so-called majority status was not even part of the discussion, and Im not sure how I would feel it was being threatened. Maybe you can elaborate what you are insinuating.

A template for a debate sort of defeats the benefits of dialogue.

As far as you saying "this thread is entirely about tolerance of difference and the understanding thereof" with a straight face, while continuing to look the other way when Cashead incessantly crosses the line is rich.
My opinion of course.

I love you Porkster, but nowhere in my rant was I trying to claim to be a victim. I was pointing out that Cashead's verbal abuse crosses the line of being "profane", as you call it, and goes beyond. That it has been tolerated this long is disappointing. The tolerance of difference and understanding thereof only applies to some, apparently.

So, up to 2015, the body of information available to the IOC comprised four studies showing that transwomen even five years past transition and their testes long gone retain more muscle mass and remain much stronger than reference females.

Since 2015, there have been eight published studies assessing aspects of transwomen physiology. Two focussed solely on bone health. Four confirmed previously-observed data on body composition. That is, transwomen gain a fair bit of body fat and lose a small amount of lean body mass.

The final two, both published last year, tracked the effects of transition in around 100 males before or shortly into puberty, to around 20 years of age. Males as young as 12 were treated with puberty blockers, followed by hormone treatment at 16 years old, with some opting for gonadectomy after 18 years of age. Attained height was male-typical. Body fat was female-typical. Lean body mass and grip strength was lower than in reference males and in males transitioning as adults, but still, despite the early intervention, remained far higher than in age-matched reference females.

Donny osmond wrote:Not to reopen old scores, but going back to Eugenes post... here are some excerpts and a link to a talk given by Dr Emma Hilton recently, that seem to contradict what has been said in this thread about transwomen athletes...

So, up to 2015, the body of information available to the IOC comprised four studies showing that transwomen even five years past transition and their testes long gone retain more muscle mass and remain much stronger than reference females.

Since 2015, there have been eight published studies assessing aspects of transwomen physiology. Two focussed solely on bone health. Four confirmed previously-observed data on body composition. That is, transwomen gain a fair bit of body fat and lose a small amount of lean body mass.

The final two, both published last year, tracked the effects of transition in around 100 males before or shortly into puberty, to around 20 years of age. Males as young as 12 were treated with puberty blockers, followed by hormone treatment at 16 years old, with some opting for gonadectomy after 18 years of age. Attained height was male-typical. Body fat was female-typical. Lean body mass and grip strength was lower than in reference males and in males transitioning as adults, but still, despite the early intervention, remained far higher than in age-matched reference females.

Maybe the science actually, as far as it can, paints a different picture to what has been presented in this thread?

https://fairplayforwomen.com/emma_hilton/

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:Not to reopen old scores, but going back to Eugenes post... here are some excerpts and a link to a talk given by Dr Emma Hilton recently, that seem to contradict what has been said in this thread about transwomen athletes...

So, up to 2015, the body of information available to the IOC comprised four studies showing that transwomen even five years past transition and their testes long gone retain more muscle mass and remain much stronger than reference females.

Since 2015, there have been eight published studies assessing aspects of transwomen physiology. Two focussed solely on bone health. Four confirmed previously-observed data on body composition. That is, transwomen gain a fair bit of body fat and lose a small amount of lean body mass.

The final two, both published last year, tracked the effects of transition in around 100 males before or shortly into puberty, to around 20 years of age. Males as young as 12 were treated with puberty blockers, followed by hormone treatment at 16 years old, with some opting for gonadectomy after 18 years of age. Attained height was male-typical. Body fat was female-typical. Lean body mass and grip strength was lower than in reference males and in males transitioning as adults, but still, despite the early intervention, remained far higher than in age-matched reference females.

Maybe the science actually, as far as it can, paints a different picture to what has been presented in this thread?

https://fairplayforwomen.com/emma_hilton/

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk