Wait, what? What part of what Tyson said made sense to you?

@ChestRockfield Many people use the terms “sex” and “gender” interchangeably, but keep in mind that the two don’t have the same meaning.

As already stated, gender refers to the socially constructed roles and behaviors that are assigned to people. On the other hand, sex is referred as to the biological characteristics of a person, such as their sex organs, hormones, and chromosomes.

It’s safe to say that science recognizes three sexes: male, female, and intersex. However, gender is not made up of binary forms. Instead, it’s a wide spectrum.

People often use the terms “sex” and “gender” interchangeably, but this is incorrect. Sex refers to biological physical differences, while gender is how people identify.

“Sex” refers to the physical differences between people who are male, female, or intersex. A person typically has their sex assigned at birth based on physiological characteristics, including their genitalia and chromosome composition. This assigned sex is called a person’s “natal sex.”

Gender, on the other hand, involves how a person identifies. Unlike natal sex, gender is not made up of binary forms. Instead, gender is a broad spectrum. A person may identify at any point within this spectrum or outside of it entirely.

People may identify with genders that are different from their natal sex or with none at all. These identities may include transgender, nonbinary, or gender-neutral. There are many other ways in which a person may define their own gender.

@nogod4me None of that is in dispute, and I don't see how any of that has anything to do with the discussion.

@nogod4me
Also, Tyson is the one that's confusing sex and gender. One of the first things he said was, "maybe we don't compete by gender anymore". We were competing by sex. It's the attempt to move to competing by gender that people are fighting over.

@ChestRockfield You asked what Tyson said that made sense to me and I told you.

Actually, Tyson was trying to explain that this is new territory, that he didn't have all the answers, and suggested "maybe we don't compete by gender anymore but by hormone levels." This is America, most likely it will be determined by who will make the most money by being exploited.

@nogod4me Yeah, I don't like to defend others' words of I can help it. That's why in my subsequent comment I asked you what you thought of the points I raised. I don't really have a dog in this race. I'm not trans or an athlete, I don't have children, I don't really give a shit about sports, but I do like figuring out what makes the most sense and debating the merits of each point. As I stated above, I don't see how current hormone levels matter at all. To me, that's like judging how rich Warren Buffet is by only asking what his take home pay is from his current 9-5 job.

@ChestRockfield I know, some people can get entrenched and obsessed with matters that is none of their business or they can't actually relate to. They are usually stirred up by political jargon trying to distract from important matters. Bill Maher was raised Roman Catholic then became an atheist, you can still hear some indoctrination in his words. He made a mediocre film called "Religulous" where he makes fun of some religions and acts superior because he isn't a believer.

@nogod4me What makes something "none of somebody's business"? I said I don't have a dog in the race because it won't affect me personally, but that doesn't mean it's none of my business or that I can't or shouldn't care about the outcome. I don't have a uterus but I care about the outcome of the abortion rights battle.
But what does any of that have to do with my questions?
If you would be so kind as to answer these two direct questions:
Considering a lifetime of genetics/hormones determine height, weight, muscle mass, body composition, center of gravity, etc. that doesn't get undone by a relatively new change in hormones or pronouns, do you agree that current hormone levels are irrelevant?
Do you agree there's a difference between naturally occurring anomalies and drug-induced or trans-resultant advantages?

@ChestRockfield I was talking about Maher.

@nogod4me So no, you won't answer my questions?

@ChestRockfield The trans issue is relatively new, however, supplementing hormones has been happening for some time. Remember when Arnold Schwarzenegger denied taking steroids, then, years later admitted he did. I think everyone who competes should respect the rules. People will eventually work it out, hopefully with compassion, respect, and fairness of play.

@nogod4me Yes, supplementing hormones has been happening for a long time, and it's been illegal/ against the rules essentially the entire time as well. It is precisely for fairness of play that they do not allow this. It is for the same reason people shouldn't be allowed to compete with members of the opposite sex for sports that are divided by sex.
And it's not uncompassionate to prevent this. Sure, it may suck for the few kids that don't get to compete as the gender they are, but it sucks for everyone else in their division/ league if they do.

I don't know why this is a sticking point that's creating a rift in the democratic party. It should not be a difficult ask for people to admit that gaining a hormonal advantage via gender designation is at least as unfair as gaining a hormonal advantage via injections and shouldn't be allowed.

@ChestRockfield Yes, that's right. And that's why Tyson was offering an idea of hormone levels as a possibility. People will eventually figure out something.

I thought Tyson was making sense, but Maher was being very rigid and refusing to acknowledge what he was saying when Tyson said anything that didn't fit his preconceptions.

@snytiger6 Regardless of how rigid Maher was, how do you feel about the points I raised?

I agree. Early on I loved some of Mahers stuff. Then his bigoted side came out…..