good and with that your argument collapses

My argument was never against this in the first place so explain how it has collapsed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

because of religion, the same religion that is allowing men to fight as women in ufc

http://www.advocate.com/sports/2014/09/22/ufc-womens-champ-refuses-fight-trans-athlete-fallon-fox

your religion is winning its changing society and it is having the desired impact of making people buy into the lie that men and women are the same

but that has nothing to do with science

Religion? It's because of science! Did you not read why these bans are being suspended?

I'm not saying you are one but you are talking like a legit conspiracy theorist. You seriously think society is changing because of people buying into a lie that men and women are the same? OK...

I'm not saying men and women are the same, I'm saying men and women can have the same psychological states. You put so much extremety into the context of what I'm saying, effectively blowing it out of proportion.

I'm not advocating the direction of response towards individuals I'm simply pointing something out. I have backed up my claims that women can have testosterone in the male range and you simply don't want to accept that.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 i did acknowledge in the same sentence that it happens and said that it results in ambiguity with regards to gender, which is why people were banned to begin with

Bannings underwent through the approval of the IAAF due to the ambiguous nature of 'certain' female athletes. We all know transgender individuals exist but not all ambiguity leads to one conclusion. It's because of science that the bannings have been suspended since not all women who were banned are considered ambiguous.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i think that in all your stupid assertions you are beginning to lose sight of what my argument was, which is that physiology and psychology are linked, but in doing that i acknowledged that exceptions do exist but ultiamtely we have to generalise to make sense of things

which is why i asked you if humans are a bipedal species which you agreed to... obviously even though there are cases where people are born with more legs we still default back to the generalisation when we discuss human beings as a group for obvious reasons

also you hilarious proved my point about the links between psychology and physiology more than once by yourself

Just because I point out that psychology and physiology interact with one another does not mean I have proved your point. I said that psychology and physiology are not linked in the manner that you proposed, but you are close enough and what you said is socially standard so I'm willing to see eye to eye. And speak for yourself, I don't have to generalize in order to make sense of things, that's how you end up with mixed results. But hey, in my eyes it's acceptable to generalize, just don't sell it as fact like this video does.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

so what's your take on his question? since when have you seen a man have pms? i wasn't going to bother acknowledging such a stupid question because even though i've been replying to a lot i do have a limit and if this religion of yours has weakened your perception of reality that badly then there really is no point 

No there is no point if your best example is PMS (lol) since PMS is a syndrome that refers to emotional symptoms such as depression, food cravings, anxiety and stress to name just a few. All these are things that men psychologically experience on a constant basis.

Welp I still believe our biology influence psychology, and you agree that on generic terms men and women have psyco differences and I agree that yes no psyco trait is exclusive even if generally more inclined one way or another, so perhaps if you direct quote  o_0.Q he would understand it as well.

"My argument was never against this in the first place "

" I don't have to generalize in order to make sense of things"

The first quote is in reference that my argument was never against the scientific understanding. The second quote was in relation to the social understanding as in I don't have to generalize, lets say...a woman in order to make sense of her. Taking my quotes out of context and improperly planting my statements in a way that makes it seem like I'm contradicting myself is not a necessary form of discussion.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

calling humans a bipedal species as you have acknowledged yourself is a generalisation... this is exactly why i used this example but i could've used a 1000 more since we generalise things constantly as we go through our daily routine

it is indeed the only way to make sense of things but i suppose you probably don't understand why yet... all i can say is think on it for a while and if it doesn't click then just forget it

Any mathmetician or physicist would disagree with you on that notion but oh well if you want to think that the only way to make sense of something is to generalize then we will just have to agree to disagree.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

to this all i'll say is that at some point in your life you'll have to make the decision as to whether you want to start thinking for yourself and making your own conclusions about the world around you regardless of the social consequences

And now you're spewing nonsense, this discussion is so intelligent! lol. Just for the record I did not state that you were a conspirer; only that you were talking like one. Seeing as you try to make it seem like you know me I am going to assume I struck a nerve, sorry about that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

in my opinion if you let your thoughts be governed by what you think others will think of you then you aren't much better than a slave

You know me so well. Teach me the ways, oh wise one.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ironically i think this is why you made that remark earlier about religious people because you have the impression that they are to some extent manipulated, but people tend to forget that the funny thing about manipualtion is that it happens to everyone

Not only do people tend to forget that manipulation happens to everyone but they view manipulation as a negative. Religious manipulation is a whole other topic but no, that is not what I made that remark about earlier.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

we've been through this and while said that this appears to be true i also said that there is clearly a difference with regards to the frequency at which certain psychological states are possessed by both men and women

this is what results in different behavioral patterns between men and women also

We agree.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

this is analogous to a girl being born with 3 legs, still doesn't mean humans are not a bipedal species and by extension it still doesn't happen often enough to be considered to be a trait of women, which is why i still disregard it when discussing male and female characteristics

You're right , it isn't considered to be a trait of a woman but women can still obtain those characteristics, that was my only point. So I'm assuming we agree.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and as i illustrated earlier it actually is difficult to differentiate between women who have this condition and men ( no offense to caster semenya

because as i've been saying testosterone is responsible for making certain masculine features more prominent

Difficult in most cases but not impossible. Yes, testosterone is a building block for the male musculatory system and is more prominent, we agree.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

well so far you haven't actually disproved my claim so yeah that sucks

The brain sends signals to the body all the time but this may or may not affect the body or mind psychologically. You made it seem as though if someone has more testosterone then they will be more aggressive and this simply isn't the case although testosterone does have an effect on aggression levels; everyone's levels are different.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

they are psychological states that are brought on as a direct result of a physiological condition that is not present in men and as a result behavior is also impacted causing differences in behavioral patterns... how you aren't making these connections is amazing to me

It's irrelevent that these emotions are brought on by a physiological difference because men can still have anxiety and stress to the levels of women with PMS. I don't care about the physiological differences when those differences aren't negating my argument. You would have a point if I was arguing for the cause of these emotions but I am not.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It just occured to me that yes pms probably isn't a very good answer for this so lets go about this another way with a ridiculous example to a ridiculous question

when you're doing your girl who penetrates who?...  there you go that's an example

A physiological example...wow...this is a worse example than PMS. You literally don't have an answer do you? So why not just agree? If you can't answer a ridiculous question then what does that say about your argument? It's not like the question is a trick question or anything, it's pretty straight forward. So yeah, we've agreed on many levels but I don't see this conversation proceeding in an intelligent manner. It was fun. I'll let you have the last word.