Originally Posted by echappist

Thing is, Dr. McKinnon believes that there are sufficient evidence to have that discussion. For her, being allowed to compete by fiat from a governing agency is nice, but she really wants to argue (without sufficient evidence) that such a fiat is completely backed by science. That is to say, she thinks there is sufficient scientific evidence to demonstrate, beyond any reasonable doubt, that no advantage could be carried over. I'm not putting words in her mouth, as she said so as much, on this particular forum, a bit more than two years ago. Anybody with any training in debate or logic can spot the folly in trying to defend that position. But the best part is that someone supposedly an expert in epistemology (viz. Dr. McKinnon) cannot. And oh, one better agree with her view and withdraw all reservations, lest one wants to be labeled as blind to the facts or worse.



That, too, is logically indefensible. Anyone who hold this view should ask, if that were truly the case (which is to say that men don't get to dictate on policies affecting women, because only women have a say in such matters), how could women receive the right to vote in the first place? Or to draw a parallel, does the civil right and voting right acts have to be legislated and voted on solely by people of color in order to be legitimate? I will grant though, that men should spend more time to listen and understand women's positions in order to realize that there may be blind spots, but a blanket "gag order" would seem quite counterproductive