So if I'm otherwise a male - have a penis, for instance - but cannot produce sperm at all due to a physical abnormality, I'm not a male?
According to the idiotic definition of the GP, the answer is indeed that you're not. Even if somebody has an active sexual life, produces sperm or ovulates, but does not produce an offspring, it's still unclear whether that person is a man or a woman. Definition clearly says that you only need to be able to produce offspring, potentially. Well, exactly this potentiality, which is a metaphysical concept, is problematic--how do speak scientifically about it?
The only certainty this definition gives is when you have an offspring, and thus in effect passes some of the oldest stereotypes as (biological) science, namely the identification: Man = Father, Woman = Mother and Neuter = Offspring without its own offspring = Child.
You never, ever, EVER presume that just because someone is smart and intelligent they should agree with you -- or that, just because someone disagrees with you, they're either not smart or not intelligent.
Exactly: You are not intelligent.
A female is an organism that can produce an ova to create young during its lifespan. A male is an organism that can create sperm to fertilize said Ova during its lfiespan. This is not arbitrary -- this is the scientific definition from biology.
Ok, so let's try logic. I know that in your case logical reasoning is hopeless because of your lack of intelligence, but I'll go and say it anyways: if a person has no offspring during "its" lifetime, then sex of that person is a pure speculation, biologically speaking? Impotent man is not man then? Etc.
we've got demonstrated proof that certain clusters of genes lead to better physical performance -- and that almost without fail, the athletes in the top 0.01% of their sport have some or all of those genetic markers.
[italics added]
You mean: some of those top athletes do not have these genetic markers?
May I propose, not as a matter of philosophical or moral matters which I leave just like you aside, but as a practical matter of common sense and politics, that you be the one who measures amount of femaleness in people? I propose this because you obviously know what you are talking about.
DNA testing is just an extrapolation of an existing process.
This innocuous "just" you're trying to slip us carries a lot of weight: imagine an engineer or scientist or politician saying: these results/legislation we give is just an extrapolation of existing results/legislation.
If one wants to compete, they have to take a test. If they don't consent, they don't compete. This is not a violation of rights because there is no necessity or right to compete.
That's better than a DNA sequence b/c you're only looking at what her chromosomes are, not what her actual genes are--and it's a hell of a lot more private than asking her to show people her genitals.
So you're saying that showing her chromosomes is less private than showing her genitals. How is that possible? Anyhow, let me remind you at the words of her coach:
We understand that people will ask questions because she looks like a man. It's a natural reaction and it's only human to be curious. People probably have the right to ask such questions if they are in doubt. But I can give you the telephone numbers of her roommates in Berlin. They have already seen her naked in the showers and she has nothing to hide.
As humiliating as it can be, would this satisfy as least you?
I have to point out that in the context of this discussion (and by virtue of being Anonymous Coward) GP may be male or female, and independently of that be or not be a dick.
Seriously though, we live post-Genome Project, is it REALLY that difficult to just sequence her DNA to see if there exist two X Chromosomes without a freaking political scandal?
If that would not be a political scandal, I don't know what would. Now imagine that your test shows that she indeed has two X chromosomes. What then?
To begin with, the mass is not lying on top of the space, it's inside space.
What are you talking about? If you're talking about the general theory of relativity, then, basically, Einstein's whole approach was to dispose of the mass altogether, and instead speak about space-time curvature. Matter curves the space-time. In short: No mass, Einstein genius, me Tarzan, you Jane.
Intelligent Design has theories? What, if anything, does it predict?
That is actually the wrong criticism of ID. ID can certainly predict things. If the 'designers' are a bunch of bored aliens that like to do anal probes, you could predict that the aliens will cause changes in animals DNA such that they tend towards having ass holes.
Slashdot Mirror
No, my point was that Planesdragon gave a pretty clear and rational definition of a "man" or "woman".
What point?
So if I'm otherwise a male - have a penis, for instance - but cannot produce sperm at all due to a physical abnormality, I'm not a male?
According to the idiotic definition of the GP, the answer is indeed that you're not. Even if somebody has an active sexual life, produces sperm or ovulates, but does not produce an offspring, it's still unclear whether that person is a man or a woman. Definition clearly says that you only need to be able to produce offspring, potentially. Well, exactly this potentiality, which is a metaphysical concept, is problematic--how do speak scientifically about it?
The only certainty this definition gives is when you have an offspring, and thus in effect passes some of the oldest stereotypes as (biological) science, namely the identification:
Man = Father, Woman = Mother and Neuter = Offspring without its own offspring = Child.
You never, ever, EVER presume that just because someone is smart and intelligent they should agree with you -- or that, just because someone disagrees with you, they're either not smart or not intelligent.
Exactly: You are not intelligent.
A female is an organism that can produce an ova to create young during its lifespan. A male is an organism that can create sperm to fertilize said Ova during its lfiespan. This is not arbitrary -- this is the scientific definition from biology.
Ok, so let's try logic. I know that in your case logical reasoning is hopeless because of your lack of intelligence, but I'll go and say it anyways: if a person has no offspring during "its" lifetime, then sex of that person is a pure speculation, biologically speaking? Impotent man is not man then? Etc.
It's more like: "insert floppy".
Have you even looked at female athletes, especially swimmers and weight-lifters? They have no breasts.
I've looked, and can testify that they do have breasts. I can't even imagine someone without breasts.
If you weren't born a runner, you're not going to even come close to Usain Bolt.
Except he's not born runner: he's too tall to be sprinter, for starters.
we've got demonstrated proof that certain clusters of genes lead to better physical performance -- and that almost without fail, the athletes in the top 0.01% of their sport have some or all of those genetic markers.
[italics added]
You mean: some of those top athletes do not have these genetic markers?
Here is some logic for you: If it ain't hanging, it ain't Hungus.
Male, as I already stated.
But they have no male genitals, Hungus.
[...]anyone who is not 100% female [...]
May I propose, not as a matter of philosophical or moral matters which I leave just like you aside, but as a practical matter of common sense and politics, that you be the one who measures amount of femaleness in people? I propose this because you obviously know what you are talking about.
[...]your average Slashdot user is a worthless fatbody.
"[...]your average Slashdot user is a worthless fatboy."
Here, fixed that for you.
well you could just get rid of the men woman divisions and do it by physical aspects such as strengt
Great idea. Why not then just give them medals based on your measurements of their strength?
Who said it's the government? It amazes me how many "libertarians" equate business with government.
Who said it's business?
DNA testing is just an extrapolation of an existing process.
This innocuous "just" you're trying to slip us carries a lot of weight: imagine an engineer or scientist or politician saying: these results/legislation we give is just an extrapolation of existing results/legislation.
If one wants to compete, they have to take a test. If they don't consent, they don't compete. This is not a violation of rights because there is no necessity or right to compete.
The question here is: what test?
That's better than a DNA sequence b/c you're only looking at what her chromosomes are, not what her actual genes are--and it's a hell of a lot more private than asking her to show people her genitals.
So you're saying that showing her chromosomes is less private than showing her genitals. How is that possible?
Anyhow, let me remind you at the words of her coach:
We understand that people will ask questions because she looks like a man. It's a natural reaction and it's only human to be curious. People probably have the right to ask such questions if they are in doubt. But I can give you the telephone numbers of her roommates in Berlin. They have already seen her naked in the showers and she has nothing to hide.
As humiliating as it can be, would this satisfy as least you?
I have to point out that in the context of this discussion (and by virtue of being Anonymous Coward) GP may be male or female, and independently of that be or not be a dick.
As opposed of being a pussy?
Seriously though, we live post-Genome Project, is it REALLY that difficult to just sequence her DNA to see if there exist two X Chromosomes without a freaking political scandal?
If that would not be a political scandal, I don't know what would. Now imagine that your test shows that she indeed has two X chromosomes. What then?
The first clue was when she kept leaving the toilet seat up.
You must be one of those kids inexperienced about facts of life.
What about now? How would you characterize the validity of Einstein's general theory of relativity nowadays?
To begin with, the mass is not lying on top of the space, it's inside space.
What are you talking about? If you're talking about the general theory of relativity, then, basically, Einstein's whole approach was to dispose of the mass altogether, and instead speak about space-time curvature. Matter curves the space-time. In short: No mass, Einstein genius, me Tarzan, you Jane.
Wow, where did you find inspiration for such a funny comment?
it's a particle that waves from a float in a parade
Yeah, it's just like the parade in your dad's hometown.
Well played sir. I'd mod you funny but I'm a little pissed off about the coffee dribbling down my screen.
You sir karma-whore you. Wink-wink-nudge-nudge.
The statement comes from Popper, and, yes, slashdot is the eagle's nest of eager Popperians. So go read a little bit and stuff.
Intelligent Design has theories? What, if anything, does it predict?
That is actually the wrong criticism of ID. ID can certainly predict things. If the 'designers' are a bunch of bored aliens that like to do anal probes, you could predict that the aliens will cause changes in animals DNA such that they tend towards having ass holes.
Sir, your analogy runs deep.