Biological Male Wins NCAA Women’s Track Championship

[Gtrips07]

What part of it isn't a perfect system do you not understand? You aren't going to bait me into debating climate change on here though..good try.

I am debating that you seemed to jump on a high horse and try to say because you have published a peer reviewed paper and or papers your judgement was superior.

I don't need to publish a paper to know there are two chromosomes x and y

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[_MIA_]

I am debating that you seemed to jump on a high horse and try to say because you have published a peer reviewed paper and or papers your judgement was superior.

Yes my judgement regarding the peer review process is superior when I have published over 40 journal articles and review at least 5 to 10 papers a year. Just like your judgement regarding everyday tasks in your job would be superior to mine.

I don't need to publish a paper to know there are two chromosomes x and y

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I was responding to this specific comment in post #56
"Science is every bit as politically biased." That is not true 99% of the time.

If this country wants to go down the anti-science route they are going to be in for a rude awakening sooner rather than later.

 

[justanotherguy]

I was responding to this specific comment in post #56
"Science is every bit as politically biased." That is not true 99% of the time.

If this country wants to go down the anti-science route they are going to be in for a rude awakening sooner rather than later.

Pattar,
I think there are two things here that are worth mentioning. First, in politically charged issues like this, you're going to absolutely have scientists on both sides of an isle that have an extreme bias. Surely you can agree that bias is one of the largest issues affecting the credibility of a peer review. Second, time after time after time over the years scientific thought on a specific subject changes when new knowledge becomes available. I'm actually seeing a current movement that's putting into doubt Einstein's theory of relativity. I'm no expert on the subject, but I find it fascinating and enjoy the read. I definitely think we've moved off the subject a good bit. This very much needs to go in the "off topic" forum that doesn't exist yet.

 

[_MIA_]

Pattar,
I think there are two things here that are worth mentioning. First, in politically charged issues like this, you're going to absolutely have scientists on both sides of an isle that have an extreme bias. Surely you can agree that
bias is one of the largest issues affecting the credibility of a peer review.

Of course, again I was responding to the general comment that science is politically biased. AGAIN IN MOST CASES THIS IS NOT TRUE...

Second, time after time after time over the years scientific thought on a specific subject changes when new knowledge becomes available.

Sure, doesn't mean the science is bad or biased, just incomplete. At its core, science and engineering are supposed to be used to improve the world we live in. Even an incomplete theory, if it can be used for this goal, is useful. The airplanes you fly in are designed even though we still do not have a good understanding of how to model the hydrodynamic turbulence (a problem which was worked on by Einstein among others) which effects airplane performance. Tissue engineering is a burgeoning field even though we still do not have a good understanding of how to model tissue remodeling. If the world waits for a perfect understanding of every subject then very little would get done...

 

[justanotherguy]

Of course, again I was responding to the general comment that science is politically biased. AGAIN IN MOST CASES THIS IS NOT TRUE...

Sure, doesn't mean the science is bad or biased, just incomplete. At its core, science and engineering are supposed to be used to improve the world we live in. Even an incomplete theory, if it can be used for this goal, is useful. The airplanes you fly in are designed even though we still do not have a good understanding of how to model the hydrodynamic turbulence (a problem which was worked on by Einstein among others) which effects airplane performance. Tissue engineering is a burgeoning field even though we still do not have a good understanding of how to model tissue remodeling. If the world waits for a perfect understanding of every subject then very little would get done...

I 100% agree with you Pattar. That's why you can't take anything as "The gospel truth" like anyone does on either side of the political isle. A politician once said, "The science is settled". Well, that's complete and utter BS. No science is ever settled. There are just things you take with more weight vs others a grain of salt. When an issue is politically charged though, I'm holding every piece of "science" with a bit of pessimism.

 

[_MIA_]

I 100% agree with you Pattar. That's why you can't take anything as "The gospel truth" like anyone does on either side of the political isle. A politician once said, "The science is settled". Well, that's complete and utter BS. No science is ever settled. There are just things you take with more weight vs others a grain of salt. When an issue is politically charged though, I'm holding every piece of "science" with a bit of pessimism.

Right but there are people who have to choose a side in order to get things done and then the question is what are the positives and negatives of choosing one side vs. the other.How one views the world, and their place in it, effects what they perceive as positives and negatives and this is where the politics comes in ...

 

[Momo'sDad]

If the world waits for a perfect understanding of every subject then very little would get done...

"Perfect is the enemy of good." Agreed. But what the naysayers are objecting to is not "good". You're condemning cherry-picking - which is not a reasonable accusation, given the small sample size of the entire trans-athlete population - and suggesting that "the science is right" because of "peer review", and then condescendingly throwing out the "you're anti-science" pejorative, despite the fact that the evolutionary differences in post-pubescent males and females was taught to us by science.

Just 25 years ago, the "League Of Their Own" mindset was part of a cultural moment leading to an exponential increase in the rise and fair(er) treatment of girl's and women's sports. And now, the very same people who largely championed that movement are not wanting to support the same for trans athletes.

If there are enough trans athletes to warrant an official set of guidelines by a recognized authority, then surely there are sufficient athletes to support sanctioned events for them.

If a trans woman had hit the game-winning home run last night, I would not see that as a victory or any sort of progress, regardless of the NCAA's arbitrary guideline. If a trans man threw a perfect game to win the men's baseball championship, I'd probably say "cool" and then go on about my day.

Final point, because I've been too long-winded and gotten way off the topic of softball - we do not choose our biological sex, however, we do choose our gender identity. FAIR sporting competition ought to be based on the former, not the latter. That's science.

 

[Gtrips07]

Yes my judgement regarding the peer review process is superior when I have published over 40 journal articles and review at least 5 to 10 papers a year. Just like your judgement regarding everyday tasks in your job would be superior to mine.


I was responding to this specific comment in post #56
"Science is every bit as politically biased." That is not true 99% of the time.

If this country wants to go down the anti-science route they are going to be in for a rude awakening sooner rather than later.

At one point scientists said the earth was flat. At one point scientists said the earth was entering and ice age. At one point scientists said that New York would be under water by the year 2000.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[OsDad]

At one point scientists said the earth was flat. At one point scientists said the earth was entering and ice age. At one point scientists said that New York would be under water by the year 2000.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

A scientist saying New York will be under water is not synonymous with consensus in the scientific community, and I'd be interested to know which credible scientists said that the Earth was flat, seeing as how it's been understood that the earth is spherical for literal millennia.

What is it that you're actually getting at? Are you advocating that we just abandon science entirely and go back to warding off evil spirits when someone sneezes?

 

[Gtrips07]

At one time the consensus was the earth was flat. I am saying I would throw caution to using consensus as a basis for scientific fact. Consensus is not Scientific fact. And I'd be more skeptical when a consensus is reached that is at the whim of who is paying for the scientific research.

The consensus was that fatty foods caused high cholesterol. The consensus was funded by companies that would benefit from producing cholesterol drugs.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk