Transgender man wins women's 100 yd and 400 yd freestyle races.

which legal action exactly are you accusing of being “the problem?” Clear as mud.

you’re being deliberately obtuse. How is being a zoologist relevant? Why was that mentioned? If that can be mentioned and called up in the appeal to the authority of their background why not their eugenicism, which itself is also concerning the field of biology? Cop on. Trans athletes aren’t giraffes.

We're on about sports, an activity that is tied to athleticism of the human antomy, Professor Richard Dawkins being a highly esteemed Biologist is very in keeping with the topic. Not sure how a lengthy debate about Down Syndrome is relevant?

You are very quick to invoke the Nazis… very strange.

and?

I don’t see what’s unfair of trans athletes if they choose to exercise their rights to be protected by workplace discrimination laws. But for some reason you seem to find doing so disqualifying, even as cis woman attempt to do the same thing with the same basic class of laws protecting people from discrimination.

So you can't refute his point?

We're done.

If I’m being obtuse then you are just being naive or flat out silly. Biology isn’t just about giraffes, which I hope you know, and I do hope you’re aware that humans are animals as well…

And you’re throwing in eugenics again, not much of an argument you have going here.

you’re saying nothing of any consequence to the topic here, just offering juvenile commentary like “oooh you just got eviscerated bro”

what is your argument exactly?

His “extensive knowledge” doesn’t discount that he believes Down’s syndrome persons should be aborted or that we should look to Hitlers views on eugenics for how to ‘breed athletes.’ What was his argument again? “Flat != round?” Relevance? He’s not an etymologist. What does that have to do with biology?

Speaking of 'nothing there' there is literally nothing to this 'argument' of yours that 'it is a problem'

What problem, is it exactly? A problem for who? I genuinely do not understand.

"If the legal action is a continuation of your argument [about fairness and safety, it turns out] it's not a problem.

"If the legal action is because your argument about fairness and safety has failed than it is a problem."

Meaningless riddles. Who decided when the argument, in the second line, failed? And you're supposing that the plaintiffs in the first line didn't also have an argument that similarly failed, before they took legal action??? There appears to be no clear logic to follow from your argument, and I don't see what problem you are trying to illustrate, but you seem to think it is there somewhere and you're getting frustrated and personal about it, so I guess we will leave it at that instead and agree we are not understanding one another, that's fine.

What is he saying though?

We have an opinion of his (direct appeal to authority fallacy),

He is to put it quite bluntly, aghast at what is going on in sports, and rightly points out that it is unfair for Women to compete against Men.

emphasis: "it is entirely possible that the opinion of a person … of authorrity is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person … holds does not have any intrinsic bearing on whether their claims are true or not." It doesn't matter that he is 'aghast' at what is happening in sports at all, it has no bearing. His opinion that it is "unfair" for women to compete against men is also, similarly and for the same reasons, also without bearing.

and we have his argument that … the word flat is not the word round. Which has no relation to this topic, which itself is a red herring.

His damning point was that changing the mean [sic] of a word doesn't change reality, his example was if we change the word 'round' to mean 'flat', we would then call the Earth flat... however it doesn't mean the Earth is indeed flat, as that would be preposterous.

I would put it back to you to "grow up" for such juvenile remarks as "someone with extensive knowledge like Dawkins knows more about biology than you, and it opens up your argument like a fish being gutted."

You’re just twisting and twisting here. It’s pathetic and you’re just not engaging in good faith in the slightest.

whatever his belief is or isn’t in Down’s syndrome, you’re just trying to use that to smear his expertise in evolutionary biology, which would give him pretty good insights about the evident advantages that males posses over females in activities…such as sport.

See #7491.

If you don't think I'm arguing in good faith, you can just ignore me.

This topic isn't evolutionary biology. I have said nothing to impugn his accreditation in the field of evolutionary biology. Now who is twisting. I do however question his mere opinions about competition in sports as it relates to this topic, which has nothing to do with the field he is an expert of - that being evolutionary biology and zoology. Instead we have his "aghast" opinions about competition between men vs. women (not an evolution matter) and some strange etymological argument about the meaning of the word flat.

You seemingly don't wish for your previous argument about 'when legal action is a problem or not' to be understood, that's fine.