but a supervisor now would need to approve holding a device for more than five days. Any copies of information taken from travelers' machines would be destroyed within days if there were no legal reason to hold the information
.
"A supervisor." Not a judge or someone who has had formal training in law, but a coworker.
"if there were no legal reason to hold the information." They'll just claim they haven't had time to investigate it yet. Or "national security reasons", which is the same as not giving any reason at all. Legal reasons can be manufactured as needed -- our laws are sufficiently complex and vague that a reason can always be found to arrest, detain, and then jail someone. Laws exist to enable authorities to silence or remove people they don't like -- YOU can't enforce the law on someone else, after all.
I'd be sold, except for the fact that your math doesn't work. I have six female friends that either bought [insert product here] as an anniversary or birthday present and they all broke up with their boy/girl friends within 8 months! That's almost certainly true for anyone who has at least 8 female friends.
Sure, but did they all blame the same thing, without talking to each other first?
World of Warcraft: Destroying relationships with girls since... well, the day it came out.
-- No. I mean this. I've got about six female friends that either bought it as a anniversary or birthday present, or their boyfriend bought it... and the relationship has always ended within eight months after that fateful purchase. My last friend got so fed up that she took the laptop (with the CD still in it) and smashed it in the driveway, drove over it a few times, then hit it with a hammer. Then she called all her friends and went to have ice cream. That game is pure evil -- it makes boys think dating a high level elf huntress is better than having a real girlfriend.
Legions of geeks coming to the defense of the game in 5...4...
Man in the middle attacks have a classic solution: Encryption and non-repudiation in the authentication protocols. Encrypt everything between the client and server (as IPv6 allows for) and the amount of damage a rogue ISP can do (or any peer point) is greatly reduced.
Why should ISPs foot the bill to protect rights holders IP?
Because they want to keeping getting the profits from raping people with their licensing agreements, but don't want to lose those profits in legal proceedings they are obligated to undertake in order to continue to have a valid claim on the copyrighted work. If they don't do something about this, a lot of copyrighted works could fall into the public domain because the derived income is less than the cost of legal proceedings to protect it. So all these manipulations of the copyright law will be for nothing. They've already increased penalties to the point of insanity, but the problem is the average file sharer can't compensate them for a fraction of even just the legal costs -- so it's a net loss for them.
So they've done the only thing left to them: Coerce other businesses. ISPs typically operate on narrow margins and don't have a lot of spare funds to combat these coersive attempts, and the Recording Industry is hoping for a few quick victories and the rest will fall into line -- and of course, it won't be long before they add in the disclaimer "We won't ask for the money as long as you install XYZZY Anti-Everything Appliance."
The Recording Industry has a tried and true formula for winning -- they pick on the weak, build legal precidents, and then go after larger targets where the real profits lay -- relying on previous legal precidents to force a settlement. They know they can't win in a full-on fight, but they make sure before they file it won't be in the other parties financial best interests to test them. Slimy, unethical, and it corrupts the entire justice system -- but it's very effective.
You know, I keep hearing the phrase "illegal file-sharers" -- but in truth, what's left to share that's still legal? Upload it to a website and they now likely own the copyright via some license you didn't read. Transfer it over the internet, and the ISP can claim it has certain rights to it. It seems like almost anything that can be made digital is now controlled by some corporation rather than the original creator of the work -- and anything introduced into almost any distribution medium is gobbled up by those corporations via a network of complex laws. The only network left that doesn't have this insanity is sneaker-net.
Some double standards are, at heart, sexist (in both directions, actually). Many are not. There are a lot of "double standards" in this world. In fact, deconstruction makes it possible to uncover "double standards" in all sorts of interesting places.
Okay, so I'm probably overreacting. I'm very protective of my fangirls. ^^ And I'm not a huge twilight fan -- the characters don't evolve, the plot is predictable, and by page 50 of the first book I hated Bella. By the second book, I wanted to burn effigies of her and the author. It's just one cliche after another. I liked the Anita Blake novel series, which is in the same genre and I think it was done far better.
"...which reflects the most emetic of the artwork plastered over teenage girls' MySpace pages"
Ever since Twilight came out and fangirling became mainstream, the response by so many boys has been dismissive and derisive. But in a room full of boys talking about World of Warcraft nobody flinches. It's a double standard.
Are you just a poorly designed AI that spits out buzzwords more or less at random? Because your posts get steadily more confused and less connected with reality.
Yes, and the slashdot moderators are also part of the AI, which is why I always get high marks. The matrix has you man. Better start running.
Over the course of this young century, the case you make will become all the more apparent to everyone else. I don't know what will happen in the middle of it, but by the end of the century, the Olympics, if they are still practiced, will be more akin to F1 racing than Hellenistic sport -- there will be a single human who pilots her body, but that body will bear the labor of a whole team of skilled engineers.
The greatest advances of this century won't be in science or technology, but in an expanding definition of what it means to be human. I suppose it's only logical when realizing that human beings have spent most of its brief history on this planet trying to bend the environment to its will. It will be the pinacle of our achievements when we can manipulate not only our environment, but our mortal bodies as well. And I'm scared for the day that comes. We are social creatures. We're supposed to care about (and for) each other. I worry that in the future, such guilty and shameful feelings that hold us back will be recognized as such and surgically removed, and by our own material improvement we will have all but eliminated the most salient characteristic of an individual human being: The capacity for love, which is dependent on the ability to feel guilt for our own actions.
Even now, in this little microcosm... Not one person in all the voices on this forum has anyone asked "Well, how does she feel about this?" It's a sign of things to come.
I think the collapse of the US middle class is in large part the fault of the middle class itself.
Blaming the victim has rarely been a useful argument. It also happens to be a meritless one in this case. The middle class has disintegrated because the middle class has become a victim of a sudden change in market dynamics, brought on by decisions by our politicians and business leaders to initiate those changes. The labor market, like any other, is dictated by the laws of supply and demand. Demand remains constant but when we allowed companies to use labor outside this country -- to ship jobs overseas and goods back to us, we suddenly and dramatically increased supply but without a corresponding bump in demand -- those third world countries that the jobs went to aren't as economically developed as ours are. They lack the purchasing power parity necessary to create a corresponding demand to maintain the price point of labor.
Net result? The cost of labor in almost every market has fallen through the floor. It means big profits for companies that have infrastructure developed with our dollars and taxes, but relying on a labor pool several times larger. We sacrificed a short term profit gain for a long term loss -- infrastructure is no longer being maintained and America is now rotting from the inside out.
We didn't do this to ourselves -- a few people who wanted to make a few extra bucks in the short term did, and it's cost us our future.
here is your biggest problem - doomers like yourself who are still claiming the sky is falling when their are CLEARLY signs of recovery worldwide.
I'm not all doom and gloom... Forty years ago we had a middle class. We don't anymore. We have rich people, and we have poor people... Just like the countries we've been shipping our jobs out to. One of the things that made America what it was is a strong middle class. That's vaporized now under the heat of globalization, and this is something that's come about because of the current economic crisis. Yeah, the economy as a whole may recover, but our quality of life will never be the same. For many people -- there will be no recovery.
Bullshit. We are not near the poverty levels of the Great Depression, and the impact of poverty is greatly mitigated nowadays.
History disagrees with your assessment; We're circling the drain. Sequence of events in the Great Depression:
1. Debt liquidation and distress selling 2. Contraction of the money supply as bank loans are paid off 3. A fall in the level of asset prices 4. A still greater fall in the net worths of business, precipitating bankruptcies 5. A fall in profits 6. A reduction in output, in trade and in employment. 7. Pessimism and loss of confidence 8. Hoarding of money 9. A fall in nominal interest rates and a rise in deflation adjusted interest rates.
Let's compare that with now --
1. Debt liquidation and distress selling July 2007: loss of confidence by investors in the value of securitized mortgages causes liquidity crisis. (Housing Bubble goes pop)
2. Contraction of the money supply as bank loans are paid off In January 2008, a tax rebate is introduced as part of a "stimulus package" intended to stimulate consumer spending. But several months later, all economic indicators say that the average consumer used the majority of their tax rebate to pay off debt.
3. A fall in the level of asset prices Housing bubble has now popped. In September 2008, stock markets around the world crash. The subprime mortgage market drags several banks to their death and liquid assets all but disappear from the market. Retail outlets start to go out of business, even with deep cuts in pricing.
4. A still greater fall in the net worths of business, precipitating bankruptcies Early in 2009, a series of goverment-funded bailouts are issued to financial and automotive firms. Many businesses close up.
5. A fall in profits Pretty sure we've passed this point.
6. A reduction in output, in trade and in employment. National unemployment currently hovers at 9.7%, the highest ever recorded.
7. Pessimism and loss of confidence Check!
8. Hoarding of money 9. A fall in nominal interest rates and a rise in deflation adjusted interest rates.
This is the last step in the fall of our economy, and so far the interest rate hasn't deflated -- but everything else on this timeline has been met.
People are surprised by this? Our inner cities are rotting. Our economy is in shambles. People are living squallor and poverty on an unprecidented scale in this country. We're a breeding ground now for all manners of disease, both social and medical.
That may be so, but has nothing to do with the point.
The point isn't what you think it is. Most of this discussion is based on an irrational fear that if we start questioning what it means to be a man or a woman that social chaos will reign. While we argue about genetics on the surface, deep down what we're really looking for is validation of our own worldviews. We make the decision about whether someone is a man or a woman in the blink of an eye -- and put considerable mental effort into discerning which category to place others when it's ambiguous. It is the first social decision we make about another person -- before we even say hello, preconceptions, values, and scripts are already forming about how to treat this other person. Anything that challenges that automatic response is going to be fought tooth and nail, even by otherwise intelligent and well-meaning people.
This isn't about science, because science has already proven there are edge cases that existing models and definitions simply cannot account for. And wherever we draw the line, it's certain to leave someone on the wrong side of it. Rather than confront the social consequences of doing so, we're hiding behind technical and medical definitions as a way to soothe our conscience from taking personal responsibility for the pain and anguish that our prejudices cause them when they are placed on the wrong side of that line.
And this case about an Olympic runner is just the proving grounds, a focal point for all of our unspoken fears and prejudices. And our inability to take responsibility.
I realise you don't buy into that definition, which is fine, but it is a waste of time asking a stupid question that has nothing to do with what he was saying.
Maybe I just think a lot of people here would be frightened to learn how many babies are assigned a sex based on a coin flip by a doctor. How sure are YOU that you weren't born intersexed? A lot of people are never told.
Kick them in the nuts really hard. If they don't fold over in pain and whimper an octave higher, they're female.
Hey, getting kicked in the crotch hurts us girls too. Although we're not usually crying, screaming, and curled up in a little ball for four hours after like the last guy who tried that test...
If you ever posted here, you know you are not a REAL female. You may even look like one, but you know, deep inside, you have big question mark lingering. Don't you!
Nope. Still got tits. I think the problem is on your end.
In a world where people can change their identities at will (transsexualism, etc.),
*face palm* 30 seconds on Google will tell you that the medical and scientific communities generally agree that people who are transsexual/transgender/whatever have a fixed identity. They don't choose it, it's what they are. Now, how the hell they got that way is a subject of much debate.
Assuming you're right (and I don't know either way), I imagine that such a rule would disappear quickly if these transgendered women started *winning* against the `real' women consistently. They would only allow something like that if it didn't actually make a difference. Once it made a difference, people would argue it was unfair and it would be thrown out.
I'd have to say the entire idea of athletic competition is a farce. We say genetics don't matter, but 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. Arguing over who is more 'real' than others is an argument that goes against nature; Questions about how 'real' they were would never come up if they weren't in a competition. If they weren't being reduced from human beings into objects for us to cheer, dissect, and comment about.
We're creating an arbitrary line in the sand -- telling people they can't take certain drugs, or that their hormone levels need to be a certain way, or that they need to be born in just such a fashion, or raised just so -- in order to pass for "real". Most of the debate on this forum is not intellectual discourse but a mere re-arrangement of our prejudices.
A female is an organism that can produce an ova to create young during its lifespan.
So women who have their ovaries removed become men? Or what about women born without reproductive organs? Are they not women anymore?
A male is an organism that can create sperm to fertilize said Ova during its lfiespan.
So if I chop your nuts off, you become a woman? Do you forget a lifetime of experiences being male? Do you have to change the little 'M' on your driver's license to an 'F'?
This is not arbitrary -- this is the scientific definition from biology.
This is an abuse of science when we have clear and documented cases where your definitions are inadequate, yet you continue to insist they are correct. Your definition, your model, is in error. Scientifically speaking -- science takes all available evidence into consideration, not just the parts you agree with.
Any organism that can do neither of those two during its lifespan is neuter, and any that can do both is hemaphroditic (sic).
Again, your definition is in error: A hermaphrodite is an organism that has both male and female reproductive organs. Nowhere in that definition is "Ova" or "sperm" included -- it is possible to have both male and female reproductive organs and have either, both, or neither, of those conditions met. Neuter is a an adjective that refers to either a lack of gender (a social construct, not physical), or the lack of reproductive organs.
ANY OTHER DEFINITION is cultural, subjective, non-scientific crap.
The very definition of gender is cultural, subjective, and very much not scientific. You're attempting to use science to advance your own religious or personal beliefs about how the world "should be", not how it is. Science is about how things ARE not how they SHOULD be. The moment you start saying "should", you've left the realm of science.
because it's already based entirely on the assumption that to be "fair", we ought to first do some genetic segregation
They allow M2F transgendered persons to compete as women provided they've been on hormone therapy continuously for two or more years -- because it's been proven that hormones have a far greater role in athletic performance than genetics. So genetics is really not the issue here.
Genitalia isn't determined by the Y chromosome, but by something called the "Testes Determining Factor". It is possible to have XY females and XX males. And even when it is present, that's not what causes differentiation, but rather a hormonal surge during about the 6th week of pregnancy -- which is environmentally mediated. Back to the drawing board you go.
Slashdot Mirror
but a supervisor now would need to approve holding a device for more than five days. Any copies of information taken from travelers' machines would be destroyed within days if there were no legal reason to hold the information
.
"A supervisor." Not a judge or someone who has had formal training in law, but a coworker.
"if there were no legal reason to hold the information." They'll just claim they haven't had time to investigate it yet. Or "national security reasons", which is the same as not giving any reason at all. Legal reasons can be manufactured as needed -- our laws are sufficiently complex and vague that a reason can always be found to arrest, detain, and then jail someone. Laws exist to enable authorities to silence or remove people they don't like -- YOU can't enforce the law on someone else, after all.
I'd be sold, except for the fact that your math doesn't work. I have six female friends that either bought [insert product here] as an anniversary or birthday present and they all broke up with their boy/girl friends within 8 months! That's almost certainly true for anyone who has at least 8 female friends.
Sure, but did they all blame the same thing, without talking to each other first?
World of Warcraft: Destroying relationships with girls since... well, the day it came out.
-- No. I mean this. I've got about six female friends that either bought it as a anniversary or birthday present, or their boyfriend bought it... and the relationship has always ended within eight months after that fateful purchase. My last friend got so fed up that she took the laptop (with the CD still in it) and smashed it in the driveway, drove over it a few times, then hit it with a hammer. Then she called all her friends and went to have ice cream. That game is pure evil -- it makes boys think dating a high level elf huntress is better than having a real girlfriend.
Legions of geeks coming to the defense of the game in 5...4...
Man in the middle attacks have a classic solution: Encryption and non-repudiation in the authentication protocols. Encrypt everything between the client and server (as IPv6 allows for) and the amount of damage a rogue ISP can do (or any peer point) is greatly reduced.
Why should ISPs foot the bill to protect rights holders IP?
Because they want to keeping getting the profits from raping people with their licensing agreements, but don't want to lose those profits in legal proceedings they are obligated to undertake in order to continue to have a valid claim on the copyrighted work. If they don't do something about this, a lot of copyrighted works could fall into the public domain because the derived income is less than the cost of legal proceedings to protect it. So all these manipulations of the copyright law will be for nothing. They've already increased penalties to the point of insanity, but the problem is the average file sharer can't compensate them for a fraction of even just the legal costs -- so it's a net loss for them.
So they've done the only thing left to them: Coerce other businesses. ISPs typically operate on narrow margins and don't have a lot of spare funds to combat these coersive attempts, and the Recording Industry is hoping for a few quick victories and the rest will fall into line -- and of course, it won't be long before they add in the disclaimer "We won't ask for the money as long as you install XYZZY Anti-Everything Appliance."
The Recording Industry has a tried and true formula for winning -- they pick on the weak, build legal precidents, and then go after larger targets where the real profits lay -- relying on previous legal precidents to force a settlement. They know they can't win in a full-on fight, but they make sure before they file it won't be in the other parties financial best interests to test them. Slimy, unethical, and it corrupts the entire justice system -- but it's very effective.
You know, I keep hearing the phrase "illegal file-sharers" -- but in truth, what's left to share that's still legal? Upload it to a website and they now likely own the copyright via some license you didn't read. Transfer it over the internet, and the ISP can claim it has certain rights to it. It seems like almost anything that can be made digital is now controlled by some corporation rather than the original creator of the work -- and anything introduced into almost any distribution medium is gobbled up by those corporations via a network of complex laws. The only network left that doesn't have this insanity is sneaker-net.
Some double standards are, at heart, sexist (in both directions, actually). Many are not. There are a lot of "double standards" in this world. In fact, deconstruction makes it possible to uncover "double standards" in all sorts of interesting places.
Okay, so I'm probably overreacting. I'm very protective of my fangirls. ^^ And I'm not a huge twilight fan -- the characters don't evolve, the plot is predictable, and by page 50 of the first book I hated Bella. By the second book, I wanted to burn effigies of her and the author. It's just one cliche after another. I liked the Anita Blake novel series, which is in the same genre and I think it was done far better.
"...which reflects the most emetic of the artwork plastered over teenage girls' MySpace pages"
Ever since Twilight came out and fangirling became mainstream, the response by so many boys has been dismissive and derisive. But in a room full of boys talking about World of Warcraft nobody flinches. It's a double standard.
Article summary: Apple points the finger at AT&T, AT&T points the finger at Apple. All the consumer gets is the finger.
Are you just a poorly designed AI that spits out buzzwords more or less at random? Because your posts get steadily more confused and less connected with reality.
Yes, and the slashdot moderators are also part of the AI, which is why I always get high marks. The matrix has you man. Better start running.
Over the course of this young century, the case you make will become all the more apparent to everyone else. I don't know what will happen in the middle of it, but by the end of the century, the Olympics, if they are still practiced, will be more akin to F1 racing than Hellenistic sport -- there will be a single human who pilots her body, but that body will bear the labor of a whole team of skilled engineers.
The greatest advances of this century won't be in science or technology, but in an expanding definition of what it means to be human. I suppose it's only logical when realizing that human beings have spent most of its brief history on this planet trying to bend the environment to its will. It will be the pinacle of our achievements when we can manipulate not only our environment, but our mortal bodies as well. And I'm scared for the day that comes. We are social creatures. We're supposed to care about (and for) each other. I worry that in the future, such guilty and shameful feelings that hold us back will be recognized as such and surgically removed, and by our own material improvement we will have all but eliminated the most salient characteristic of an individual human being: The capacity for love, which is dependent on the ability to feel guilt for our own actions.
Even now, in this little microcosm... Not one person in all the voices on this forum has anyone asked "Well, how does she feel about this?" It's a sign of things to come.
I think the collapse of the US middle class is in large part the fault of the middle class itself.
Blaming the victim has rarely been a useful argument. It also happens to be a meritless one in this case. The middle class has disintegrated because the middle class has become a victim of a sudden change in market dynamics, brought on by decisions by our politicians and business leaders to initiate those changes. The labor market, like any other, is dictated by the laws of supply and demand. Demand remains constant but when we allowed companies to use labor outside this country -- to ship jobs overseas and goods back to us, we suddenly and dramatically increased supply but without a corresponding bump in demand -- those third world countries that the jobs went to aren't as economically developed as ours are. They lack the purchasing power parity necessary to create a corresponding demand to maintain the price point of labor.
Net result? The cost of labor in almost every market has fallen through the floor. It means big profits for companies that have infrastructure developed with our dollars and taxes, but relying on a labor pool several times larger. We sacrificed a short term profit gain for a long term loss -- infrastructure is no longer being maintained and America is now rotting from the inside out.
We didn't do this to ourselves -- a few people who wanted to make a few extra bucks in the short term did, and it's cost us our future.
here is your biggest problem - doomers like yourself who are still claiming the sky is falling when their are CLEARLY signs of recovery worldwide.
I'm not all doom and gloom... Forty years ago we had a middle class. We don't anymore. We have rich people, and we have poor people... Just like the countries we've been shipping our jobs out to. One of the things that made America what it was is a strong middle class. That's vaporized now under the heat of globalization, and this is something that's come about because of the current economic crisis. Yeah, the economy as a whole may recover, but our quality of life will never be the same. For many people -- there will be no recovery.
Bullshit. We are not near the poverty levels of the Great Depression, and the impact of poverty is greatly mitigated nowadays.
History disagrees with your assessment; We're circling the drain. Sequence of events in the Great Depression:
1. Debt liquidation and distress selling
2. Contraction of the money supply as bank loans are paid off
3. A fall in the level of asset prices
4. A still greater fall in the net worths of business, precipitating bankruptcies
5. A fall in profits
6. A reduction in output, in trade and in employment.
7. Pessimism and loss of confidence
8. Hoarding of money
9. A fall in nominal interest rates and a rise in deflation adjusted interest rates.
Let's compare that with now --
1. Debt liquidation and distress selling
July 2007: loss of confidence by investors in the value of securitized mortgages causes liquidity crisis. (Housing Bubble goes pop)
2. Contraction of the money supply as bank loans are paid off
In January 2008, a tax rebate is introduced as part of a "stimulus package" intended to stimulate consumer spending. But several months later, all economic indicators say that the average consumer used the majority of their tax rebate to pay off debt.
3. A fall in the level of asset prices
Housing bubble has now popped. In September 2008, stock markets around the world crash. The subprime mortgage market drags several banks to their death and liquid assets all but disappear from the market. Retail outlets start to go out of business, even with deep cuts in pricing.
4. A still greater fall in the net worths of business, precipitating bankruptcies
Early in 2009, a series of goverment-funded bailouts are issued to financial and automotive firms. Many businesses close up.
5. A fall in profits
Pretty sure we've passed this point.
6. A reduction in output, in trade and in employment.
National unemployment currently hovers at 9.7%, the highest ever recorded.
7. Pessimism and loss of confidence
Check!
8. Hoarding of money
9. A fall in nominal interest rates and a rise in deflation adjusted interest rates.
This is the last step in the fall of our economy, and so far the interest rate hasn't deflated -- but everything else on this timeline has been met.
People are surprised by this? Our inner cities are rotting. Our economy is in shambles. People are living squallor and poverty on an unprecidented scale in this country. We're a breeding ground now for all manners of disease, both social and medical.
That may be so, but has nothing to do with the point.
The point isn't what you think it is. Most of this discussion is based on an irrational fear that if we start questioning what it means to be a man or a woman that social chaos will reign. While we argue about genetics on the surface, deep down what we're really looking for is validation of our own worldviews. We make the decision about whether someone is a man or a woman in the blink of an eye -- and put considerable mental effort into discerning which category to place others when it's ambiguous. It is the first social decision we make about another person -- before we even say hello, preconceptions, values, and scripts are already forming about how to treat this other person. Anything that challenges that automatic response is going to be fought tooth and nail, even by otherwise intelligent and well-meaning people.
This isn't about science, because science has already proven there are edge cases that existing models and definitions simply cannot account for. And wherever we draw the line, it's certain to leave someone on the wrong side of it. Rather than confront the social consequences of doing so, we're hiding behind technical and medical definitions as a way to soothe our conscience from taking personal responsibility for the pain and anguish that our prejudices cause them when they are placed on the wrong side of that line.
And this case about an Olympic runner is just the proving grounds, a focal point for all of our unspoken fears and prejudices. And our inability to take responsibility.
I realise you don't buy into that definition, which is fine, but it is a waste of time asking a stupid question that has nothing to do with what he was saying.
Maybe I just think a lot of people here would be frightened to learn how many babies are assigned a sex based on a coin flip by a doctor. How sure are YOU that you weren't born intersexed? A lot of people are never told.
Driving test.
Speeding ticket.
Kick them in the nuts really hard. If they don't fold over in pain and whimper an octave higher, they're female.
Hey, getting kicked in the crotch hurts us girls too. Although we're not usually crying, screaming, and curled up in a little ball for four hours after like the last guy who tried that test...
If you ever posted here, you know you are not a REAL female. You may even look like one, but you know, deep inside, you have big question mark lingering. Don't you!
Nope. Still got tits. I think the problem is on your end.
In a world where people can change their identities at will (transsexualism, etc.),
*face palm* 30 seconds on Google will tell you that the medical and scientific communities generally agree that people who are transsexual/transgender/whatever have a fixed identity. They don't choose it, it's what they are. Now, how the hell they got that way is a subject of much debate.
Assuming you're right (and I don't know either way), I imagine that such a rule would disappear quickly if these transgendered women started *winning* against the `real' women consistently. They would only allow something like that if it didn't actually make a difference. Once it made a difference, people would argue it was unfair and it would be thrown out.
I'd have to say the entire idea of athletic competition is a farce. We say genetics don't matter, but 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. Arguing over who is more 'real' than others is an argument that goes against nature; Questions about how 'real' they were would never come up if they weren't in a competition. If they weren't being reduced from human beings into objects for us to cheer, dissect, and comment about.
We're creating an arbitrary line in the sand -- telling people they can't take certain drugs, or that their hormone levels need to be a certain way, or that they need to be born in just such a fashion, or raised just so -- in order to pass for "real". Most of the debate on this forum is not intellectual discourse but a mere re-arrangement of our prejudices.
A female is an organism that can produce an ova to create young during its lifespan.
So women who have their ovaries removed become men? Or what about women born without reproductive organs? Are they not women anymore?
A male is an organism that can create sperm to fertilize said Ova during its lfiespan.
So if I chop your nuts off, you become a woman? Do you forget a lifetime of experiences being male? Do you have to change the little 'M' on your driver's license to an 'F'?
This is not arbitrary -- this is the scientific definition from biology.
This is an abuse of science when we have clear and documented cases where your definitions are inadequate, yet you continue to insist they are correct. Your definition, your model, is in error. Scientifically speaking -- science takes all available evidence into consideration, not just the parts you agree with.
Any organism that can do neither of those two during its lifespan is neuter, and any that can do both is hemaphroditic (sic).
Again, your definition is in error: A hermaphrodite is an organism that has both male and female reproductive organs. Nowhere in that definition is "Ova" or "sperm" included -- it is possible to have both male and female reproductive organs and have either, both, or neither, of those conditions met. Neuter is a an adjective that refers to either a lack of gender (a social construct, not physical), or the lack of reproductive organs.
ANY OTHER DEFINITION is cultural, subjective, non-scientific crap.
The very definition of gender is cultural, subjective, and very much not scientific. You're attempting to use science to advance your own religious or personal beliefs about how the world "should be", not how it is. Science is about how things ARE not how they SHOULD be. The moment you start saying "should", you've left the realm of science.
because it's already based entirely on the assumption that to be "fair", we ought to first do some genetic segregation
They allow M2F transgendered persons to compete as women provided they've been on hormone therapy continuously for two or more years -- because it's been proven that hormones have a far greater role in athletic performance than genetics. So genetics is really not the issue here.
Genitalia isn't determined by the Y chromosome, but by something called the "Testes Determining Factor". It is possible to have XY females and XX males. And even when it is present, that's not what causes differentiation, but rather a hormonal surge during about the 6th week of pregnancy -- which is environmentally mediated. Back to the drawing board you go.