MxM111

I have no opinion whether trans women should be allowed or not to go through transition before. I would trust medical doctors about this (and not trans community and neither transphobic “community”, which are non-specialists).

But the fact is that the boxing organization does not even allow for trans people to participate in sport in category other than birth sex before age 18, so it assumes that the rules are applicable for those who transition after puberty, and I do see valid concern here from fairness to sic-women point of view. I personally do not have strong opinion here on how to balance fairness for cis-women with freeness to trans-women, but obviously it is not a clear cut question and any solution here would be a compromise with positive and negative sides.

But what amazes me is how quickly some people here get to calling me transphobe just for pointing this. Such extreme binary thinking does not serve community at all.

I am arguing that it should be given relatively high credence, not “trusted at face value”. Same as with Wikipedia, by the way. As an indication that likely things are true. On Internet forums it is much higher credence than most of the people supply. I am not writing scientific paper here, I am discussing topic with you. Would you rather me stating acts without any sources at all?

For this discussion if you have different opinion, with better argumentation and sources please do so, and I will change my view. This is what discussion on discussion board suppose to be.

And you can absolutely confirm the veracity (or not) of ChatGPT4 itself. You can ask the question yourself. You can collect statistics how likely it gives correct answers to similar questions, or find already published data about this topic. Based on that you can calculate probability that the statement is true. And it is much higher than 50%.

In short, don’t attack the messenger, attack the message.

Thanks, corrected.

I suggest you yourself test it, do not rely on me. It is experimentally can be shown as quite good predictor for these kind of questions. Don’t want to test yourself and don’t believe me? There a lot of tests were done of these models showing that they are already at the level to pass many exams. Your claim that it does not have any credibility is totally unfounded.

Also, I never claimed that it is a substitute for scholarly source, I would never use it in a scientific paper. But I would not use Wikipedia either. But we are on internet on discussion board, the standards here are different. At least I supplied a source, majority of posts here don’t do that, including your statements, by the way, implying that ChatGPT4 has no credibility.

I am not saying ChatGPT4 is fool proof, but neither is any source. And if I actually will try to understand the original sociological research paper, it may increase my chances of misunderstanding the data.

Let me put this this way - start asking ChatGPT4 (not 3.5) biological and medical questions and keep tally of correct answers. You would see how accurate it is. I would say with 95% probability it would answer such questions correctly. And this is how much credence I put in its answer.

So, when you say that I was providing the fact that may be right maybe not, yes, that’s correct. But it is not 50/50, far from it.

And if you do not want to provide rebuttal, it is your right, of course. But then, what’s the point of your post? We just need to believe your statement when you itself refuse to provide zero evidence?? You understand how it looks, right?

I suggest you to ask ChatGPT4 questions in medicine and biology, and keep tally. If you truly think ChatGPT4 is garbage, you will be surprised. I spent lots of hours interacting with it, and I understand its limitations and strengths. And these kind of questions it usually answers quite well.

You do not consider ChatGPT4 as any sort of evidence? Go ahead and ask it questions in medicine or biology and keep tally how many answers are right and are wrong.

I do admit that there is low probability that it is wrong, but simply dismissing it as no evidence at all is intentional dishonesty.

If your claim that what is posted is incorrect, then state so, and provide reasons. Otherwise, I do not understand why using tools such as ChatGPT4 you consider as something bad? Do you use search engines? They are tools too. Do you use wiki? That is a tool too. Or do you spit sarcasm on anyone who does not produce original research?

First of all, precisely because it is LLM, it is good to point out that it is a source.

Second, the LLM and chat GPT4 in particular can often summarize information quite well. Yes, there are cases when it hallucinate, but at this point it is very rare for GPT4. So, when I do not have hours and hours to spend on some topic like this, asking ChatGPT4 is a valid strategy to get reasonable probability correct answer, with much higher probability than random claims here in fediverse.

So, I will defend the method as reasonable, and will ask you, do you claim that what is stated is false?

I am not a specialist in this question, whether trans-women has inherit advantages, so I asked ChatGPT4. This is what I got:

The question of whether a transgender woman (male-to-female, transitioning after puberty) who has been on hormone therapy for four years has physical advantages is complex and can be addressed from multiple perspectives: biological, physiological, and in the context of sports performance.

Biological and Physiological Perspective:

• Skeletal Structure: Post-puberty, individuals assigned male at birth typically have larger bone structure, greater bone density, and different muscle-to-fat ratios compared to those assigned female at birth. Hormone therapy, even after several years, does not significantly alter bone structure. The potential advantage here could be in terms of leverage, strength, or mechanical efficiency. However, quantifying this advantage is challenging and varies significantly among individuals.
• Muscle Mass and Strength: Testosterone is a key factor in muscle development. Hormone therapy reduces testosterone levels, leading to a decrease in muscle mass and strength. Studies suggest a significant reduction in muscle mass and strength within the first year of hormone therapy, with continued but slower reductions over subsequent years. The extent of reduction can vary, but it’s reasonable to estimate that after four years of hormone therapy, a trans woman might retain some muscular advantages associated with male puberty, although significantly reduced.
• Cardiovascular and Respiratory System: Male puberty enhances the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood and lung capacity. Hormone therapy may not completely reverse these changes. This could impart some advantage in endurance-based activities.
  … (the rest is not relevant)

While I clearly would not support the language Boebert using, it looks to me that trans women do have advantages, which in sports, where fairness is one of the most important principles, may be considered unfair to the rest of women competitors. While I am strong supporter of transgender rights in general, I think that fairness in sports is something we need to consider too, and do not immediately call people transphobic if they are against participation of trans-women in women sports.

Hey! Some of us are not that old!

They probably needed to adjust costs for inflation, so not increasing the overall prime and instead increasing just the video portion is good in my book. People should not pay for services they do not use.

To be fair, coupling free shipment with video was strange to begin with. So, they are decoupling it a bit. I do not care about Amazon video, why should I pay for it at all?

He is aiming for VP under Trump

Those children should go and work for living since day 1 of their age.

Two love birds are having conversation:

• Dear, what are you thinking about?
• Same thing as you do.
• You are so lewd!

I would divide by two (floating point) and check the fractional part.

No, this is about NS. Natural Stupidity.

It’s survival of the fittest- permanent war.

Did you not recognize “Why not Zoidberg?” in my question?