On March 26, the International Olympic Committee announced that transgender women would be barred from women’s events at the Olympics, effective at the 2028 Los Angeles Games.
For what its worth, the recent polling by The Argument and the Searchlight Institute found opposition to trans participation in sports at around 60%, with more democrats in favor than not. That Ipsos poll from early last year was an outlier.
Let me put it this way : would MLK's approach have been successful without Malcom X?
If it's a losing position, so be it. It is the correct position. The fears of another war, paying more at the pump, losing jobs, and ICE far outweigh the damage that this issue has done to the cause.
While it may seem pragmatic to offer it as a trade, doing so actually weakens our position. Every compromise we ever made had been used against us.
Ari: ... International Olympic Committee announced that transgender women would be barred from women’s events at the Olympics ....
Not unreasonable since transwomen are most certainly NOT women, are NOT adult human females (sex, not gender). Transwomen are, at best, simply male transvestites, guys in drag, if they still have their nuts attached, and sexless eunuchs if they don't.
Guess you're not up on the past 15+ years of evolutionary biology & sex research, not to mention basic neuroscience. You're probably behind on a lot of stuff, and that's ok! BYH at least you have the courage to appear foolish. HTH :)
Though he and his tribe seem to be "lumpers" -- i.e., "people who assign examples broadly, judging that differences are not as important as signature similarities" -- whereas most reputable biologists and philosophers of biology -- including the authors of the Oxford Academic article I quoted earlier here -- tend to be "splitters" -- i.e., people who "make precise definitions, and create new categories to classify samples that differ in key ways":
Kinda think Bilboa and company -- the lumpers -- are kind of clueless about the philosophical and logical principles undergirding much of science. "scientism-ists" at best, play acting at science.
ICYMI, quite an illuminating article on the general problem from a well-regarded Belgian virologist, Van Regenmortel:
ResearchGate; Regenmortel: Sections 4–8 of this review followed a chronological presentation of recent developments in viral taxonomy which revealed that the field has been plagued by an uninterrupted series of conflicting views, heated disagreements and acrimonious controversies that may seem to some to be out of place in a scientific debate. The reason, of course, is that the subject of virus taxonomy and nomenclature lies at the interface between virological science and areas of philosophy such as logic, ontology and epistemology which unfortunately are rarely taught in university curricula followed by science students.
🙄 The features that every last male and female on the planet shares with every other male and female -- and for the last billion years or so -- are the quite distinct biological processes of either spermatogenesis -- in males -- or oogenesis -- in females. THOSE are the features that qualify as the necessary and sufficient conditions for sex category membership. If an organism exhibits spermatogenesis then it is a male, and if it exhibits oogenesis then it is a female. And if it exhibits neither then it is sexless:
Those ARE the standard biological definitions for the sexes -- found in most reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries -- and which reflect the brute facts that we all come with a standard complement of 2 arms, 2 legs, 2 eyes, 1 heart, 1 stomach, and 1 brain, but that some half of us come with testicles -- where that spermatogenesis happens -- and the other half come with ovaries -- where that oogenesis happens.
So Ari, and his other transwomen brethren were probably born with testicles which is what makes, or made them males. Though if they've chopped them off then they're sexless. But they won't EVER have any ovaries which is what it would take for them to say they've changed sex -- a medical and biological impossibility.
For what its worth, the recent polling by The Argument and the Searchlight Institute found opposition to trans participation in sports at around 60%, with more democrats in favor than not. That Ipsos poll from early last year was an outlier.
It should be noted that a few people will find out that they are intersex, they will be disqualified too
Idk if this strategy is actually a win.
Let me put it this way : would MLK's approach have been successful without Malcom X?
If it's a losing position, so be it. It is the correct position. The fears of another war, paying more at the pump, losing jobs, and ICE far outweigh the damage that this issue has done to the cause.
While it may seem pragmatic to offer it as a trade, doing so actually weakens our position. Every compromise we ever made had been used against us.
Ari: ... International Olympic Committee announced that transgender women would be barred from women’s events at the Olympics ....
Not unreasonable since transwomen are most certainly NOT women, are NOT adult human females (sex, not gender). Transwomen are, at best, simply male transvestites, guys in drag, if they still have their nuts attached, and sexless eunuchs if they don't.
HTH ...
Guess you're not up on the past 15+ years of evolutionary biology & sex research, not to mention basic neuroscience. You're probably behind on a lot of stuff, and that's ok! BYH at least you have the courage to appear foolish. HTH :)
You are stupid as hell, my dude.
Go read a book. Or three.
👍👌😉🙂
Though he and his tribe seem to be "lumpers" -- i.e., "people who assign examples broadly, judging that differences are not as important as signature similarities" -- whereas most reputable biologists and philosophers of biology -- including the authors of the Oxford Academic article I quoted earlier here -- tend to be "splitters" -- i.e., people who "make precise definitions, and create new categories to classify samples that differ in key ways":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters
Kinda think Bilboa and company -- the lumpers -- are kind of clueless about the philosophical and logical principles undergirding much of science. "scientism-ists" at best, play acting at science.
ICYMI, quite an illuminating article on the general problem from a well-regarded Belgian virologist, Van Regenmortel:
ResearchGate; Regenmortel: Sections 4–8 of this review followed a chronological presentation of recent developments in viral taxonomy which revealed that the field has been plagued by an uninterrupted series of conflicting views, heated disagreements and acrimonious controversies that may seem to some to be out of place in a scientific debate. The reason, of course, is that the subject of virus taxonomy and nomenclature lies at the interface between virological science and areas of philosophy such as logic, ontology and epistemology which unfortunately are rarely taught in university curricula followed by science students.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309889266_Classes_taxa_and_categories_in_hierarchical_virus_classification_a_review_of_current_debates_on_definitions_and_names_of_virus_species
🙄 The features that every last male and female on the planet shares with every other male and female -- and for the last billion years or so -- are the quite distinct biological processes of either spermatogenesis -- in males -- or oogenesis -- in females. THOSE are the features that qualify as the necessary and sufficient conditions for sex category membership. If an organism exhibits spermatogenesis then it is a male, and if it exhibits oogenesis then it is a female. And if it exhibits neither then it is sexless:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spermatogenesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oogenesis
You might try getting your head out of your nether regions and read this defining paper on the phenomenon:
QUOTE: "Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems." UNQUOTE
https://web.archive.org/web/20221214064356/https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990?login=false
Here's the JPG of those definitions in their glossary:
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!hmdL!,w_1272,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F9b85e6a4-eac4-4e0f-9984-7ed920a414ad_680x292.jpeg
Which is more or less exactly the way that President Trump’s Executive Order on Restoring Biological Truth to Government puts it:
QUOTE:
(d) “Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell [ova].
(e) “Male” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell [sperm] UNQUOTE
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/
Those ARE the standard biological definitions for the sexes -- found in most reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries -- and which reflect the brute facts that we all come with a standard complement of 2 arms, 2 legs, 2 eyes, 1 heart, 1 stomach, and 1 brain, but that some half of us come with testicles -- where that spermatogenesis happens -- and the other half come with ovaries -- where that oogenesis happens.
So Ari, and his other transwomen brethren were probably born with testicles which is what makes, or made them males. Though if they've chopped them off then they're sexless. But they won't EVER have any ovaries which is what it would take for them to say they've changed sex -- a medical and biological impossibility.
HTH ... 🙄
Bullshit. You are a lost soul.