That’s one more anecdote from a communist country than you’ve given.

Trans women were allowed to compete in the Olympics in 2004. That’s 21 years ago. Six olympics.

The Paris Olympics had 11,040 athletes. The Athens Olympics had 10,600. Let’s average those for 10,800 and say 64,8000 athletes competed in the Summer Olympics since trans women were allowed.

Only one transgender athlete has ever won an Olympic medal. Their name is Quinn, they’re a soccer player from Canada. And they were born female. They won two medals.

So the percentage of trans people in the general population is 1%, the percentage of Olympic athletes who are trans and won a medal is 0.0015%, and the percentage of Olympic athletes who were born male and won a medal in the women’s league is 0.0000%.

What you should be understanding from these figures is that trans women will never dominate sporting events of any kind. We suck at sports because we’re all big nerds. Any trans person who is good at sports is a freak.

I just don’t think it’s fair to women to compete against women who are stronger than them

So if someone calls you a git, and you say “I’m not a TRUE git”, is that a no true scotsman too?

Actually, I think this is a case of the fallacy fallacy

I just gave you a true scotsman 4 messages ago, genius. You pick those debate skills up at Harvard?

That is not what I am saying.

No, it is what you said. It’s just not what you mean. It’s not my fault the two are separate. It’s your responsibility to speak clearly if you don’t want the silly things you say to be mocked.

I don’t believe your country was ever under communism in the last two thousand years. I think you’re actually from a former USSR state. Not even Stalin ever dared to claim that the USSR had achieved communism, and he was an arrogant git who would have said it if he’d had a shred of evidence.

Problems like infant mortality, disease, manual labour, the human species evolved to deal with those. That’s why exercise releases endorphins. Your body is rewarding you for doing what you need to survive. It has strategies to soften those blows and keep you going. Because you have to.

There are no biological coping mechanisms for cars, city noise, pollution, and financial anxiety. These problems didn’t exist in the ancestral environment. Evolution hasn’t had time to protect us from them. They might not hit as hard in the moment, but we can’t heal from the losses they cause us. That’s why chronic stress, suicide, depression and anxiety are so common nowadays. This is worse. Maybe not in objective germs, but it’s worse for a human being. It hits us in our weak points.

Yeah but most humans didn’t have to live around cars. I’d give up running water to get rid of cars. Cars are worse than running water is good. Sign me up for carrying barrels from the river if I don’t need to worry about being run over.

That’s still capitalism, genius

I’ve read George Orwell’s account of life in Catalonia during the civil war when the nation was communist, and that’s not the picture he painted at all. He talked about music and art in the streets. People excited about the new economy. People who wanted to work, or to enlist as soldiers and fight the marxist-leninists

You’re right, it’s completely unfair for women to compete against women who are stronger than them. For the weightlifting they should test every woman’s strength, and only the weakest woman competes. That’s fair.

Oh, I see what the problem is. I was using the word “because” in the sense of evidence. As in, “Jack is the murderer because he has a bloody knife”. You were using the word “because” in the sense of causation. As in, “Jack is the murderer because he hated the victim”. So, I questioned your evidence sarcastically, and you misunderstood and engaged in a non-sequitor, swivelling the conversation from an evidence-based dialogue to hurling insults for no reason. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were still talking evidence, when I shouldn’t have. I should have understood that you were no longer having a discussion based on evidence, you were just being pointlessly mean. That’s my fault for assuming you were a mature adult.

Most insults aren’t the same thing as an ad hominem fallacy. An insult is only an ad hominem when it’s the entire substance of one’s argument. Like you’re doing right now, shit-for-brains.

Ah yes, I lack perception because I can see more things than you do, and they lead me to correct conclusions about the state of the world. That makes complete sense.

And Usain Bolt runs so fast because he has weak legs, obviously.

In the larger version of the picture, you can see three areas of glare on the right. One from the window, one from the top of the table, and one from the floor. The backs of the items closer to the door, and the edge of the table, are darker than these glare areas. There’s also a bright spot on the left. If you have good spatial intelligence, you can clearly tell the glare is coming from the sun based on how the light falls in the room.

I can see them with my own eyes right now. And the dress is black and blue, so I’m right. You just can’t see them, but don’t mistake your eyesight problems for objective truth.

It doesn’t lack visual cues. I could tell it’s overexposed and adjust for the lighting. You just can’t see the cues, and that’s the difference.

So you’re saying if there were a blue and black snake that bites with deadly venom, and a white and gold snake that’s harmless to people, you’d gain an evolutionary advantage from seeing the blue and black snake turn white and gold in the sun?

No, being able to see the same snake as the same colour by adjusting for ambient lighting conditions aids survival.