Transgender man wins women's 100 yd and 400 yd freestyle races.

When people are giving serious discussion to banning certain athletes from an entire class of sports, (and no less using the force of law to do it) it is necessary though.

Just because it didn't affect the everyday life for the vast majority of us non-blacks to know their legal definition actually included the right vote, integrate into social activities, etc. and doesn't mean that it wasn't an important conversation to be having, just because 'we' were not the target of the discrimination, or it didn't effect 'most of us in our every day lives.'

I assume you meant, these stories people fret over in sports recently have only sometimes become legal disputes. Because of course, the law applies in all cases, not just certain cases. If the NCAA decides the competitor is cheating at their game they can choose to expel them for that. Haven't heard an argument from the NCAA or its refs that was the case though.

The thread remains ever still about sport. ›Transgender man wins women's 100 yd and 400 yd freestyle races.

If we can't define a woman how do we approach legislating one?

yes, they are.

how do you think Katie Taylor would fare against Floyd Mayweather or Manny Pacquiao, at the same weight?

I didn't say "We can't". I said I don't know the legal definition but I can still tell the difference between a man and a woman in 99% of cases. Same as with most other male and female animals.

Or, same as I can't prove that the earth is not 6000 years old, but I still know it isn't.

Ha

So when trans begins to include testicle-transplants... then what, Dude? :)

"Are you saying a Haitian and a Somalian are neither distinguishably black or white? That's simply not true."

"simply not true" how? They are neither XX or XY. Rep. Madison Cawthorn spoke on the floor of Congress recently and bellowed that a Man was definitively, XX chromosomes, and a "tallywacker" so if you are XXY, and you have a tallywacker, no, Lawmakers don't think that you are a man. Your response to Cawthorn's definition?

Or, alternatively, you’ve tied yourself up in knots because you’re trying to find arguments to defend something that fundamentally doesn’t make sense.

(I’d given up on this place after the software changeover some months back - I was hoping it had settled down now but I’m still struggling with it. Have the rest of ye learned how to use it or is it really as unwieldy as I’m finding it?)

I gave a definition in my last post. Anyone with one or more Y chromosomes in their cells is male. Anyone without Y chromosomes is female. That's not an arbitrary definition either because it's the presence of a Y chromosome that distinguishes male and female. I didn't think we were still clinging to the 'more than two genetic makeups' stuff. Genetic sex is binary.