The odds are that you have little to no Neanderthal DNA, while I have slightly more than an average amount of Neanderthal DNA (determined in a lab) for someone of European ancestry. Therefor you are slightly more human than me. The founders obviously didn't know about that when the opined about the 3/5. I've been waiting for this argument.
The odds are that you have little to no Neanderthal DNA, while I have slightly more than an average amount of Neanderthal DNA (determined in a lab) for someone of European ancestry. Therefor you are slightly more human than me. The founders obviously didn't know about that when the opined about the 3/5. I've been waiting for this argument.
The thought that evolution is an ongoing process, and we are not a finished product is one I've often had. The idea that environmental adaptation is both cultural and that it makes its way into the genome is both fascinating and somewhat reasonable.
In keeping with the Steve's commentary article, sexual androgyny is less common than racial ambiguity since interracial reproduction dilutes race where I'm uncertain that such a path exists concerning sex, at least as quickly. At the same time people visually passing, racially and sexually is a thing for some. It is easier for passing people to enter a culture and/or subculture than for those do not pass if they choose to. It is unfortunate for those who don't when their appearance does not match their self-image.
I do think that a demand for as radical as accepting that a trans-woman is a woman where you can drop the prefix is a tough idea to sell. Especially when it comes to sports. No playing field is completely level, but the separation of men's and women's sports is an honest effort at providing women with a chance to participate in sports without facing the very large disadvantage they would face competing against men in sports where those attributes have large impact.
The odds are that you have little to no Neanderthal DNA, while I have slightly more than an average amount of Neanderthal DNA (determined in a lab) for someone of European ancestry. Therefor you are slightly more human than me. The founders obviously didn't know about that when the opined about the 3/5. I've been waiting for this argument.
"The 3/5ths compromise was about representation."
Yeah, you're right. My tongue was wedged pretty firmly in my cheek. I was just having too much fun at that point. ЁЯШБ
That depends upon which experts you agree with.
https://carlzimmer.com/are-neanderthals-human/
I did write that in jest, kinda sorta.
The thought that evolution is an ongoing process, and we are not a finished product is one I've often had. The idea that environmental adaptation is both cultural and that it makes its way into the genome is both fascinating and somewhat reasonable.
In keeping with the Steve's commentary article, sexual androgyny is less common than racial ambiguity since interracial reproduction dilutes race where I'm uncertain that such a path exists concerning sex, at least as quickly. At the same time people visually passing, racially and sexually is a thing for some. It is easier for passing people to enter a culture and/or subculture than for those do not pass if they choose to. It is unfortunate for those who don't when their appearance does not match their self-image.
I do think that a demand for as radical as accepting that a trans-woman is a woman where you can drop the prefix is a tough idea to sell. Especially when it comes to sports. No playing field is completely level, but the separation of men's and women's sports is an honest effort at providing women with a chance to participate in sports without facing the very large disadvantage they would face competing against men in sports where those attributes have large impact.
Thank you for that link. As I read, thoughts rushed. Hopefully a thoughtful reply will follow later.