People who Identify as WOMEN/TITANIC!!!

[ConfederateSS]

-----------------EVERYONE TODAY WOULD IDENTIFY AS A WOMAN, IF THE TITANIC SINKING HAPPENED TODAY....
------------------Everyone would look like Dylan Mulvaney(Bud Light)....Disney Cruise Ships...If one of them sank....Is it still woman and children 1st on the life boats today .....Or is it , who gets there 1st with the most money, famous name ... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

[Apatheist]

I take your transphobic point, but it wasn't as simple as "women and children first" - for example, they tended to put a crew member into each lifeboat to row it and help them survive afterwards. There are practical considerations as well as gender issues...and of course, we now have equality thanks to women's lib, so there's no particular reason for women to go first.
The Titanic was a rare exception - generally, men survived better than women in maritime disasters.
I suspect, in future, those called Karen might feel entitled to get on the boat first.

[Dukasaur]

I take your transphobic point, but it wasn't as simple as "women and children first" - for example, they tended to put a crew member into each lifeboat to row it and help them survive afterwards. There are practical considerations as well as gender issues...and of course, we now have equality thanks to women's lib, so there's no particular reason for women to go first.

Nonsense. The speed at which a species rebuilds after a disaster is limited by the number of available ova. A woman usually cranks out one egg per month, for about 30 years. A man cranks out a quarter billion sperm every day, for most of his life. One man and 100 women could rebuild the species (though it would be pretty badly inbred for a few dozen generations.) One woman and 100 men could maybe rebuild a palace, but the species would go extinct.

We protect the lives of women because their contribution to our Darwinian success is critical. Men, on the other hand, are literally a dime a dozen. A few million died in the Great War and the genome didn't even blink.

[jusplay4fun]

I take your transphobic point, but it wasn't as simple as "women and children first" - for example, they tended to put a crew member into each lifeboat to row it and help them survive afterwards. There are practical considerations as well as gender issues...and of course, we now have equality thanks to women's lib, so there's no particular reason for women to go first.

Nonsense. The speed at which a species rebuilds after a disaster is limited by the number of available ova. A woman usually cranks out one egg per month, for about 30 years. A man cranks out a quarter billion sperm every day, for most of his life. One man and 100 women could rebuild the species (though it would be pretty badly inbred for a few dozen generations.) One woman and 100 men could maybe rebuild a palace, but the species would go extinct.

We protect the lives of women because their contribution to our Darwinian success is critical. Men, on the other hand, are literally a dime a dozen. A few million died in the Great War and the genome didn't even blink.

Good point.

And we are talking about women who actually produce ova, NOT those that FEEL like a woman, right?

I think Duk gave us a new definition of a woman, one that I do not recall seeing (anywhere) in the debate about "trans" women. A woman produces ova.

A trans-woman is NOT a real woman, period. A real woman, btw, has a period. PERIOD.

[mookiemcgee]

I take your transphobic point, but it wasn't as simple as "women and children first" - for example, they tended to put a crew member into each lifeboat to row it and help them survive afterwards. There are practical considerations as well as gender issues...and of course, we now have equality thanks to women's lib, so there's no particular reason for women to go first.

Nonsense. The speed at which a species rebuilds after a disaster is limited by the number of available ova. A woman usually cranks out one egg per month, for about 30 years. A man cranks out a quarter billion sperm every day, for most of his life. One man and 100 women could rebuild the species (though it would be pretty badly inbred for a few dozen generations.) One woman and 100 men could maybe rebuild a palace, but the species would go extinct.

We protect the lives of women because their contribution to our Darwinian success is critical. Men, on the other hand, are literally a dime a dozen. A few million died in the Great War and the genome didn't even blink.

Good point.

And we are talking about women who actually produce ova, NOT those that FEEL like a woman, right?

I think Duk gave us a new definition of a woman, one that I do not recall seeing (anywhere) in the debate about "trans" women. A woman produces ova.

A trans-woman is NOT a real woman, period. A real woman, btw, has a period. PERIOD.

Oh dear more ramblings from the guy who wants laws in place to require this person to use the same bathroom as his wife and daughters.

Click image to enlarge.

[Apatheist]

I take your transphobic point, but it wasn't as simple as "women and children first" - for example, they tended to put a crew member into each lifeboat to row it and help them survive afterwards. There are practical considerations as well as gender issues...and of course, we now have equality thanks to women's lib, so there's no particular reason for women to go first.

Nonsense. The speed at which a species rebuilds after a disaster is limited by the number of available ova. A woman usually cranks out one egg per month, for about 30 years. A man cranks out a quarter billion sperm every day, for most of his life. One man and 100 women could rebuild the species (though it would be pretty badly inbred for a few dozen generations.) One woman and 100 men could maybe rebuild a palace, but the species would go extinct.

We protect the lives of women because their contribution to our Darwinian success is critical. Men, on the other hand, are literally a dime a dozen. A few million died in the Great War and the genome didn't even blink.

Nonsense yourself. We're talking about a disaster that affects a few hundred people, not an extinction-level event. If you want someone to row a boat to a support ship, or navigate to a nearby island in heavy seas, you need a fit athletic seafarer (all of whom would have been male at the time, Grace Darling notwithstanding), not a delicate crinoline-covered lady.
Obviously to repopulate a species both are necessary, with a higher proportion of women, but that's not the issue here.

As for "a woman produces ova"...ever heard of the menopause? Oophorectomy? There are plenty of women out there who don't produce ova. That's nowhere close to a satisfactory definition, which is why you haven't seen it in the debate.

[jusplay4fun]

I take your transphobic point, but it wasn't as simple as "women and children first" - for example, they tended to put a crew member into each lifeboat to row it and help them survive afterwards. There are practical considerations as well as gender issues...and of course, we now have equality thanks to women's lib, so there's no particular reason for women to go first.

Nonsense. The speed at which a species rebuilds after a disaster is limited by the number of available ova. A woman usually cranks out one egg per month, for about 30 years. A man cranks out a quarter billion sperm every day, for most of his life. One man and 100 women could rebuild the species (though it would be pretty badly inbred for a few dozen generations.) One woman and 100 men could maybe rebuild a palace, but the species would go extinct.

We protect the lives of women because their contribution to our Darwinian success is critical. Men, on the other hand, are literally a dime a dozen. A few million died in the Great War and the genome didn't even blink.

Nonsense yourself. We're talking about a disaster that affects a few hundred people, not an extinction-level event. If you want someone to row a boat to a support ship, or navigate to a nearby island in heavy seas, you need a fit athletic seafarer (all of whom would have been male at the time, Grace Darling notwithstanding), not a delicate crinoline-covered lady.
Obviously to repopulate a species both are necessary, with a higher proportion of women, but that's not the issue here.

As for "a woman produces ova"...ever heard of the menopause? Oophorectomy? There are plenty of women out there who don't produce ova. That's nowhere close to a satisfactory definition, which is why you haven't seen it in the debate.

so we should help old ladies across the street?

OKAY, why not: Persons who can, did, or will produce ova? to cover women (females) before puberty and after menopause?

[ConfederateSS]

----------Sports ...You will get this one.........THEY WILL HAVE "CUP" CHECKS AT THE LIFEBOATS... ... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

[Apatheist]

I take your transphobic point, but it wasn't as simple as "women and children first" - for example, they tended to put a crew member into each lifeboat to row it and help them survive afterwards. There are practical considerations as well as gender issues...and of course, we now have equality thanks to women's lib, so there's no particular reason for women to go first.

Nonsense. The speed at which a species rebuilds after a disaster is limited by the number of available ova. A woman usually cranks out one egg per month, for about 30 years. A man cranks out a quarter billion sperm every day, for most of his life. One man and 100 women could rebuild the species (though it would be pretty badly inbred for a few dozen generations.) One woman and 100 men could maybe rebuild a palace, but the species would go extinct.

We protect the lives of women because their contribution to our Darwinian success is critical. Men, on the other hand, are literally a dime a dozen. A few million died in the Great War and the genome didn't even blink.

Nonsense yourself. We're talking about a disaster that affects a few hundred people, not an extinction-level event. If you want someone to row a boat to a support ship, or navigate to a nearby island in heavy seas, you need a fit athletic seafarer (all of whom would have been male at the time, Grace Darling notwithstanding), not a delicate crinoline-covered lady.
Obviously to repopulate a species both are necessary, with a higher proportion of women, but that's not the issue here.

As for "a woman produces ova"...ever heard of the menopause? Oophorectomy? There are plenty of women out there who don't produce ova. That's nowhere close to a satisfactory definition, which is why you haven't seen it in the debate.

so we should help old ladies across the street?

Yes, of course, if they need and want help. Also old men, children, disabled, blind - anyone who needs help. Strange question.

OKAY, why not: Persons who can, did, or will produce ova? to cover women (females) before puberty and after menopause?

Just ignore all the women with physical disorders who don't ovulate normally, shall we?

This is why the debate rages on - it's never 100%, there are always exceptions.
To avoid confusion: I believe there are situations where identification does not overrule biology - such as changing rooms, toilets, prisons, sports where men and women compete separately. Equally I've known people who have always seen themselves as women and weren't comfortable in their own bodies, and it seems harsh to punish and marginalise them in places where the person's body is not an issue.
I'm always mindful of the way gay people were treated, as though they were in need of "correction", rather than accepted as just individuals with a difference - and of course how non-white people, and even women as a whole, were seen as somehow less than the ruling white male class. Other groups have become accepted (by the majority, more or less); I think both pro and anti-trans need to find a way to be inclusive without excluding bio women. I think it's for bio women to say what they will accept in terms of who is allowed into women's spaces, and men don't get a say. It's for sports scientists to say when it's an unfair advantage; whilst the rest of us can of course hold opinions, I don't think it's for us to make the decisions or to promote one ideal or the other.

[2dimes]

One breeding pair can rebuild a species it just takes longer. Check out the moose in Newfoundland. They’re all from one pair.

[HitRed]

“Introduction — Four moose were introduced to Newfoundland in 1904 to protect caribou.
Population Growth — The moose population has exploded to an estimated 150,000, making it one of the highest densities in the world.”

[jusplay4fun]

I take your transphobic point, but it wasn't as simple as "women and children first" - for example, they tended to put a crew member into each lifeboat to row it and help them survive afterwards. There are practical considerations as well as gender issues...and of course, we now have equality thanks to women's lib, so there's no particular reason for women to go first.

Nonsense. The speed at which a species rebuilds after a disaster is limited by the number of available ova. A woman usually cranks out one egg per month, for about 30 years. A man cranks out a quarter billion sperm every day, for most of his life. One man and 100 women could rebuild the species (though it would be pretty badly inbred for a few dozen generations.) One woman and 100 men could maybe rebuild a palace, but the species would go extinct.

We protect the lives of women because their contribution to our Darwinian success is critical. Men, on the other hand, are literally a dime a dozen. A few million died in the Great War and the genome didn't even blink.

Nonsense yourself. We're talking about a disaster that affects a few hundred people, not an extinction-level event. If you want someone to row a boat to a support ship, or navigate to a nearby island in heavy seas, you need a fit athletic seafarer (all of whom would have been male at the time, Grace Darling notwithstanding), not a delicate crinoline-covered lady.
Obviously to repopulate a species both are necessary, with a higher proportion of women, but that's not the issue here.

As for "a woman produces ova"...ever heard of the menopause? Oophorectomy? There are plenty of women out there who don't produce ova. That's nowhere close to a satisfactory definition, which is why you haven't seen it in the debate.

so we should help old ladies across the street?

Yes, of course, if they need and want help. Also old men, children, disabled, blind - anyone who needs help. Strange question.

OKAY, why not: Persons who can, did, or will produce ova? to cover women (females) before puberty and after menopause?

Just ignore all the women with physical disorders who don't ovulate normally, shall we?

This is why the debate rages on - it's never 100%, there are always exceptions.
To avoid confusion: I believe there are situations where identification does not overrule biology - such as changing rooms, toilets, prisons, sports where men and women compete separately. Equally I've known people who have always seen themselves as women and weren't comfortable in their own bodies, and it seems harsh to punish and marginalise them in places where the person's body is not an issue.
I'm always mindful of the way gay people were treated, as though they were in need of "correction", rather than accepted as just individuals with a difference - and of course how non-white people, and even women as a whole, were seen as somehow less than the ruling white male class. Other groups have become accepted (by the majority, more or less); I think both pro and anti-trans need to find a way to be inclusive without excluding bio women. I think it's for bio women to say what they will accept in terms of who is allowed into women's spaces, and men don't get a say. It's for sports scientists to say when it's an unfair advantage; whilst the rest of us can of course hold opinions, I don't think it's for us to make the decisions or to promote one ideal or the other.

Of course there are (basically) NO Absolutes. Of course, there are Exceptions.

Some of us can handle the Exceptions and the Ambiguities of Life.

[2dimes]

“Introduction — Four moose were introduced to Newfoundland in 1904 to protect caribou.
Population Growth — The moose population has exploded to an estimated 150,000, making it one of the highest densities in the world.”

Huh, mandala effect? I thought I was told it was just a pair. Four is twice as much as a pair.

I mean Duke definitely made a compelling point. It would most certainly be better to have ten guys and at very least 15 women instead of too many guys. Repopulating with two breeding pairs would take much longer. Particularly to get past that inbreeding cycle.

Also if you had the bleak situation with 100 men and one woman. How many of the guys are well equipped doctors? She might not even be able to birth more than one child. If it’s a male… game over.

[HitRed]

On Pitcairn Island too many men and not enough women led to issues.

[Pack Rat]

I think the real problem is this. Republicans are worried that the lady they pick up at the club just might have a bigger dick than they have.

It's called big dick envy.

[Pack Rat]

Speaking of Dicks.

The Republicans are crashing GRINDR app site at their convention in Texas last night.

[Dukasaur]

I take your transphobic point, but it wasn't as simple as "women and children first" - for example, they tended to put a crew member into each lifeboat to row it and help them survive afterwards. There are practical considerations as well as gender issues...and of course, we now have equality thanks to women's lib, so there's no particular reason for women to go first.

Nonsense. The speed at which a species rebuilds after a disaster is limited by the number of available ova. A woman usually cranks out one egg per month, for about 30 years. A man cranks out a quarter billion sperm every day, for most of his life. One man and 100 women could rebuild the species (though it would be pretty badly inbred for a few dozen generations.) One woman and 100 men could maybe rebuild a palace, but the species would go extinct.

We protect the lives of women because their contribution to our Darwinian success is critical. Men, on the other hand, are literally a dime a dozen. A few million died in the Great War and the genome didn't even blink.

Nonsense yourself. We're talking about a disaster that affects a few hundred people, not an extinction-level event.

Human behaviour is not based a mathematical analysis of the situation. Sure, the death of a couple thousand people is not an extinction-level event. But our responses to it have been trained by extinction-level events in the past. We protect our women because our species has learned through millions of years that the tribe lives or dies by the preservation of its women.

If you want someone to row a boat to a support ship, or navigate to a nearby island in heavy seas, you need a fit athletic seafarer (all of whom would have been male at the time, Grace Darling notwithstanding), not a delicate crinoline-covered lady.
Obviously to repopulate a species both are necessary, with a higher proportion of women, but that's not the issue here.

As for "a woman produces ova"...ever heard of the menopause? Oophorectomy? There are plenty of women out there who don't produce ova. That's nowhere close to a satisfactory definition, which is why you haven't seen it in the debate.

I've mentioned it previously, but that's of little importance. It's in any genetics textbook you care to pick up.

And course women only produce ova during a portion of their lives. 30 or 40 years at best, when their overall lifespan may be two or three times that. You could say the same of anything we do. We are defined by what we do in our prime, not what we do in childhood or in retirement.