Conquer Club

Apatheist wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2026 11:11 am 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.

Dukasaur wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2026 8:17 pm

Apatheist wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2026 11:11 am 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 wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2026 10:47 pm

Dukasaur wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2026 8:17 pm

Apatheist wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2026 11:11 am 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.

Dukasaur wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2026 8:17 pm

Apatheist wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2026 11:11 am 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.

Apatheist wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2026 3:57 am

Dukasaur wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2026 8:17 pm

Apatheist wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2026 11:11 am 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 wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2026 5:09 am

Apatheist wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2026 3:57 am

Dukasaur wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2026 8:17 pm

Apatheist wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2026 11:11 am 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?

Apatheist wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2026 6:00 am

jusplay4fun wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2026 5:09 am

Apatheist wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2026 3:57 am

Dukasaur wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2026 8:17 pm

Apatheist wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2026 11:11 am 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.

HitRed wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2026 9:40 pm “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.”