political correctness gone mad

[Ab]

it's like you didn't even read the thing you're quoting

[Lightspeed]

What do you think I missed?

I don't think the world is aiming for fairness, but rather equality, which sometimes is unfair. However the outcomes are better, as it allows diversity to thrive, and diversity is essential to maximising our ability to survive as a species.

Children and adults can compete is spelling bees. There are many children who would beat competent adults. If we can't do that in a way that carefully holds children, as should always be the case for children, then it's probably best we leave it out. Spelling bees, like soccer games and swim meets, aren't essential to life. If there are problems with those things alternatives are only limited by our imagination.

Of course, the reality is we plunge our children into the direst of circumstances so... the point seems very moot.

[Ab]

Thought experiment - imagine that it's a children's spelling bee with only 8 spots, so it's now one adult and seven children. Now imagine that missing out on being in that spelling bee will determine the course of child number eight's entire life. But yay diversity - a broader range of competitor ages! Trans children are children!

[Lightspeed]

That reminds me of "wholesome" posts on social media that are really just people finding small success while struggling with dystopia.

Children having their lives determined by such arbitrary circumstances is horrifying. I'm not going along with that. Fuck that.

[Ab]

Whatever you do, don't watch the documentary "Waiting for 'Superman'" sober.

[blynk]

Originally Posted by Ab

Thought experiment - imagine that it's a children's spelling bee with only 8 spots, so it's now one adult and seven children. Now imagine that missing out on being in that spelling bee will determine the course of child number eight's entire life. But yay diversity - a broader range of competitor ages! Trans children are children!

And what if that adult, has a disability and has the mind of an 8 year old. And all their life they have been an outcast, struggling with life because they are a full grown adult with a child's mind.
And that gives them the ability to fit in and have a feeling of just being kid, and participating with the people they feel comfortable with. It gives them a sense of belonging.

[[LvN]N3misiS]

Originally Posted by Ab

The moral issue here is that of fairness. We like to think that we are moving towards a society in which things are more fair. The fact that it is sport is not the key issue. If this were a spelling test and an adult were competing against a child -- and the adult's entry into the contest would change the course of children's lives -- we would be offended.

Don't worry Simon, the sporting bodies have implemented stringent requirements around testosterone levels... except those limits are actually set at double the maximum value of the normal range of testosterone for a biological woman.

[Ab]

Yes, but red herring: testosterone levels are proven to have fuck-all to do with the physical advantages that men have over women.

Any time someone brings up testosterone levels in a discussion of women's rights to fair competition, it means that person is either ignorant or trying to sabotage the discussion.

[Cyberbob]

Is there anything wrong with simply drawing the line at biological sex assigned at birth?
Doesn't that settle all gender orientated arguments?
Or am I not being #inclusive enough.

[Ab]

Because that would suggest that biological sexual is binary and immutable, which is of course true, but which is denied as a matter of religious faith by identity politics cultists. To have their religious beliefs disproven - even questioned - would cause them literal harm. The thoughts do violence.

[_indigo1]

I was thinking along the same lines as CB; except why not just remove gender all together as, and I'm probably naïve here, it seems to be mostly it's just a proxy for weight class?

Or something else unpinned from specific gender but more specific to body composition?

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Cyberbob

Is there anything wrong with simply drawing the line at biological sex assigned at birth?
Doesn't that settle all gender orientated arguments?
Or am I not being #inclusive enough.

The problem is that while people still measure sex assigned at birth as the sole determinant of being a woman, then taking this approach just perpetuates this. Not to mention it's possible to assess people transitioning on a case by case basis. We're slowly getting to a stage where people understand that gender is a valid consideration when determining if someone is a woman and once we're there I think that we'll see something like an open class where women who have been assessed as retaining too much unfair advantage can compete and so it's more about their athletic ability not their womanhood.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

Because that would suggest that biological sexual is binary and immutable, which is of course true, but which is denied as a matter of religious faith by identity politics cultists. To have their religious beliefs disproven - even questioned - would cause them literal harm. The thoughts do violence.

We live in a world of rapists, rapists enabled by the rapey. Those who keep their genitals and hands to themselves, but aren't opposed to systems that exert power over the vulnerable. Amongst rapey people are those who believe they can make true statements about the bodies of others.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by _indigo1

I was thinking along the same lines as CB; except why not just remove gender all together as, and I'm probably naïve here, it seems to be mostly it's just a proxy for weight class?

Or something else unpinned from specific gender but more specific to body composition?

A man has nearly twice the punching power of a woman of equal weight. A man puts nearly 50% more power into the pedals of a bike than does a woman of equal weight. Etc etc so on and so on. Male and female bodies are built differently, which is why "female" has traditionally (and should be) a protected class of competition. Because fairness.

[Lightspeed]

There is no such thing as an average man or woman.

There is unfairness everywhere. A significant volume of which is generated by strict gender norms.

It's cool you like sport. Weak justification for imposing yourself on others.

[Cyberbob]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

The problem is that while people still measure sex assigned at birth as the sole determinant of being a woman, then taking this approach just perpetuates this. Not to mention it's possible to assess people transitioning on a case by case basis. We're slowly getting to a stage where people understand that gender is a valid consideration when determining if someone is a woman and once we're there I think that we'll see something like an open class where women who have been assessed as retaining too much unfair advantage can compete and so it's more about their athletic ability not their womanhood.

How does that work though?
It's not a matter of case by case, because you're talking about international sport. Who chooses the deciding factor. Heck even if you're talking about high school rugby, who chooses the deciding factor? Susan can play, but Sarah can't because she's a bit better oh and was also a male last term.
It would be a matter of time until all open class women sports are dominated by transitioned women that were born male.
Or is it fine, as long as they're a bit shit and don't win any medals.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Cyberbob

Or is it fine, as long as they're a bit shit and don't win any medals.

Roviel Detenamo at age 19 would have been Nauru's first ever Olympic women's weightlifting representative. Instead she watched the games on TV, because she was pushed off the list of qualifiers from Oceania for Tokyo 2020 when NZ man Laurel Hubbard took a spot.

it's not just about the winning.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Cyberbob

How does that work though?
It's not a matter of case by case, because you're talking about international sport.

I think it is case by case because there's no typical transgender athlete, and with different sports the type of athleticism can vary.

I assume it would work similar to how sports bodies do it now but ironically with more consideration of whether an athletes circumstances & performance makes them more suited to the open rather than women's division.

Factors considered would probably include length, age started & type of transition. Athletes age, height, weight, body fat %, hormone levels. And yeah, if they're consistently performing above the top level for that sport.

Originally Posted by Cyberbob

It would be a matter of time until all open class women sports are dominated by transitioned women that were born male.

The proposed divisions are women's and open.

[Ab]

Vivian Ware, Diversity & Inclusion Manager, Walt Disney Parks & Resorts: the company has eliminated all mentions of "ladies," "gentlemen," "boys," and "girls" in its theme parks.

Video

Silence on Uyghur genocide though. Can't upset that Chinese market!

[Ab]

Australia’s top health bureaucrat has been slammed for refusing to provide a definition of the word “woman”.

Liberal Senator Alex Antic posed the question to Health Secretary Brendan Murphy during Senate Estimates on Wednesday, after last week failing to get a response from the Workplace Gender Equality Agency.

“Can someone please provide me with a definition of what a woman is?” he asked.

The question was met with uncomfortable silence.


https://www.news.com.au/technology/s...66563d7f60ac7d

[Lightspeed]

SLAMMED!!!

Sky News host Rita Panahi slammed Dr Murphy for his “dumbfounded” response to a simple question “a child could answer”.

Which child, grown up in which household? What about children who couldn't answer this question? Or if they answered differently than expected?

I wonder what it's like having a theoretical gender experience. Lucky there are people so eager to make sure it's clear what actual experiences are.

[fixed_truth]

Yep. As a society we are slowly progressing past our archaic biocentricm towards a definition that includes people who live as woman.

[Ab]

That's the thing about objective reality, it doesn't care what people believe. That sex is binary and immutable is just... true. The freaky bit about the parliamentary exchange quoted above is that the Health Secretary was obviously too scared to even attempt an answer.

[Lightspeed]

Indeed, all truth is God's truth.

That's what this is about right? The bible and many other ancient texts seem clear what a man and a woman are right? That's what the GOP wants to hear when it asks for a definition. When a white man is challenging a black woman on the definition of a woman, he's thinking about what the bible tells him.

Now I don't see it, Bible don't read that way to me. And I've had way too many experiences with various kinds of gender experiences, my own and others, to think anything so naive that men are men and women are women.

But I get it's super-hard to see outside of what you've been raised in.

[Ab]

I keep coming back to that previous thought experiment about achieving a Banks Culture-esque level of biotech where we COULD change sex. "What are you doing over the holidays?" "I'm lying low, getting my 23rd chromosome pair repaired and transitioning back to female, gonna be growing breasts and waiting for my testicles to get reabsorbed" "cool"

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

we are slowly progressing past our archaic biocentricm towards a definition that includes people who live as woman.

yet strangely we aren't allowed to hear what women have to say on this topic

[Lightspeed]

We can hear about what individuals have to say. We can't hear what women in general are concerned about because there's no such generalisable phenomenon.

Awkward huh?

This is what grappling with reality is like. It transcends us.

It's only by abstracting from reality can we come up with neat and tidy definitions. So insisting we live by our tidy definitions, without leaving space for what we know inevitably won't fit, leaves us out of step with reality. And the longer we stay out of step with reality, the harsher the correction will be.

What we're facing right now is a correction. And it hurts, hence all the tears. But the grown ups amongst us, those who enjoy their positions thanks to decades of demonstrated competence aren't going to placate us with some new cooked up definition. They're letting us sit with the discomfort, because we're going to have to get used to it.

[Ab]

"What are women saying about this?"

"Well, there's no real consensus as to what 'women' are, or even if they exist in a meaningful sense"

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Ab

That's the thing about objective reality, it doesn't care what people believe. That sex is binary and immutable is just... true.

So? Sex is no longer the sole factor in deciding who we get to call woman.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

"What are women saying about this?"

"Well, there's no real consensus as to what 'women' are, or even if they exist in a meaningful sense"

Exactly. That's true for men as well.

We could make an evidenced based guess on what the consensus is. And, especially if we're relying on appropriate robust evidence, we would likely be able to find problems with that consensus, see how that consensus impacts on people. Dramatically. How it perpetuates systems of power over people. Large volumes of people. And how that power is very often exploited to traumatic effect.

Which is bad for the economy. Seriously. Altruism provides some small pressure, but economic sense is the driving force.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

So? Sex is no longer the sole factor in deciding who we get to call woman.

The Health Secretary - the man responsible for administering the healthcare that his nation provides - was too afraid to even say that.

[fixed_truth]

Well he kinda did in a politicking way.

“I mean there are obviously biological definitions but there are definitions in terms of how people identify themselves, so we’re happy to provide our working definition on notice.”

Society is progressing but yeah, there are gonna be some biological fundamentalists demanding people label themselves a certain way.

[Know me.]

How is society progressing when the health system scans 100% of the population for breast or testicular cancer?

[Know me.]

Yes its uncomfortable, I feel light I'm being gaslighted. Its a horrible feeling.

Human beings can be whatever they want to "be" but a rose by any other name still smells the same way.

[Lightspeed]

The difference is a doctor pronouncing to their patients they're either a man or a woman and they're this. And that pronouncement resonating far beyond the privacy of a medical clinic.

Or a doctor explaining to their patients their model of biology and for the purposes of xyz this model understands these things about your physiology, something which will be kept in strict medical confidence. And that confidence being maintained. Freeing people to participate in society the way they choose, rather than being compelled to adhere to biological models, enduring all that society hangs on these things, so that sport is fair.

It's made out like it's all about gender swapping. When the great volume of flexibility people would benefit from would be being their own kind of man, their own kind of woman. But that's not possible while there's an absolute about what men and women are.

As it is, if I'm your boss, your daughter's oncologist, a cop asking for your license, the council officer approving your build, you're unconsciously adjusting yourself to fit what you imagine my gender expectations to be. And you should be, if you want things to go easily for you, which is why you do it.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Know me.

How is society progressing when the health system scans 100% of the population for breast or testicular cancer?

People with breasts will still get mammograms and people with testicles will still get an ultrasound.

Originally Posted by Know me

Human beings can be whatever they want to "be" but a rose by any other name still smells the same way.

You've still asserting that biological sex determines a social category that varies between cultures and over time and you're still denying that gender is a legitimate consideration.

[Ab]

Women who have been beaten and raped by men should have -- what's the term? -- safe spaces where they can seek help without men around. Crazy cultural consideration, I know.

[Lightspeed]

You've got much experience with places that offer safety for the beaten and raped? Gender dysphoria and other related concerns have the trained and experienced stumped?

[Ab]

I think all victims of beatings and rapings need support and protection. All lives matter.

[Lightspeed]

Oh, you're doing a bit.