I explained how an alternative classification system might address the problems that exist in the current classification system (with reference to specific examples) in the discussion above.
(, Thu 1 Jul 2021, 14:59, Reply)
You really haven’t
You’ve simply said “you could use a combination of characteristics”
You haven’t said what that combinations entails, what it looks like in practice, nor how it addresses the fundamental point - and the reason for the Chesterton’s Fence analogy - how it would be better than segregating by sex.
You’ve offered nothing practical whatsoever.
And, as with everyone else arguing this nonsensical, self evidently ludicrous and unworkable idea that isn’t even specific enough to constitute an idea, you would almost certainly not want your porn categories to be determined by the nebulous, vague categorisation you mention here…
(, Thu 1 Jul 2021, 15:12, Reply)
I wrote "Define categories that classify competitors based on quantifiable physical characteristics (like weight, hormone levels, VO2 max, etc)"
a couple of days ago, and you replied to that comment!
(, Thu 1 Jul 2021, 17:01, Reply)
Define category based on bone density/tendon strength?
With this, no trans female would qualify as a female irrespective of weight, hormone levels, VO2 max etc.
Tad difficult to do, as it is usually done with samples from a corpse.
(, Thu 1 Jul 2021, 17:36, Reply)