All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[hyped78]

I'm pretty sure Obama's not a racist POS.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/u...l-culture.html

Apparently to many on this thread, he is! And others like him.

[Mister Mets]

Maliciousness is maliciousness, whether it's maliciously wanting a law to fail and complying with it or filibustering it/killing it in committee/declaring it unconstitiutional or whatever. You always seem to assume that those on the left side of thing secretly want to take guns, open all borders, and now kill a clearly bigoted law when they are protecting their own asses from GoP retribution. The Right however couldn't possibly want things like Gay Marriage taken away like they are saying day & night as it's too popular and the only ones claiming it are outliers like the ones who are in elected positions or sit in courts that can literally kill it dead.

I think you're inferring something from the use of a phrase that you were unfamiliar with.

A difference between us may be that I don't think all people within the parties are the same. I certainly don't think all Democrats want open borders, or an Australia style gun confiscation policy. But it does seem some do.

A close friend is Hungarian. I can assure you that while “there may be fewer “internal targets” there a fair degree of racism. And any discrimination tends to drift onto other targets. Tattoos…for example…really aren’t welcome.

There's a Hungarian guy I knew because we were flatmates on a college program.

The first day we met he asks me if I think the world is going to end. I said no. Later, he asks if I think the white race is going to die out. I probed further, and found that he was really concerned about the Romani taking over, which exposed me to the prejudice against gypsies.

Last time we talked on Facebook, he posted about how the election was stolen from Trump. I sent him links I came across here, and then he kept changing the goalposts.

Seeing some of this here in this thread...

Who is the equivalent of a Nazi here?

I am one of the dont play nice crowd. But there is a huge jump between not playing nice and attacking people over their records and statements and attacking someone over their race or gender or sexual orientation religion etc.. The problem is some people like this ass clown dont see the difference. And in the long run he is hurting the Democrats even more because they do have an issue with Latino voters and this will just anger them even more and rightly so. Now the Democrat party is has to speak out against him. And if they diont then they are painted rightfuly so as being oaky with this type of thing. Or if they dont speak our fast enough or give a half assed statement they will be accused of paying lip service. I made the big thing with Mets. The GOP needs to speak out against their racist base and elected officials for psoing and supporting hate groups and hate. if the Dems cant do that also they are talking out of their ass in a big way and also need to be called out on it.

And you are right had a GOP done this we would be losing our minds here.

I can understand the argument that Republicans should speak out more against asshats on their side, although some of the calls for that are over the top and opportunistic.

One thing that would be important to figure out is the limiting principle for when it is necessary to respond to something. We should also strive to avoid encouraging people to respond to situations before the facts are in.
Obviously, whatever rules apply to Republicans should also apply to Democrats. Should we insist that every Democrat be on the record criticizing Biden about fistbumping the Saudi Crown Prince?
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/...n-sotu-vpx.cnn

If Republicans should criticize conservative bigots, Democrats should denounce BS claims of bigotry from progressives of equal stature, and that does not seem likely to happen.

I will note some voters don't want Republicans to apologize. A podcast I listened to had an interview with Lis Smith, a Democratic consultant who was happy about how she used Twitter to distract the Romney campaign by exaggerating a comment made by one of his campaign surrogate. In another discussion, one conservative commentator said that a lot of people on the right were pissed at the sense that Romney didn't fight enough with the media, that he accepted a flawed correction by Candy Crowley, and that this is part of Trump's appeal.

Another complicating factor is the way that the Democratic party sometimes appears to be driven by left-wing Twitter. This sometimes hurts the party, as that's not helpful in responding to swing voters in Georgia, Pennsylvania or New Hampshire.

[Tendrin]

"You're transphobic!", "your transphobia!". Ah, the legendary tolerance of the far left! "If you don't agree with me, you must be an evil bigot!"

You're advancing a transphobic argument, so yes, I'm going to call it transphobic. You're the one who went in on 'pronouns'. You're the one who brought up trans women. You're the one who's advocating for a ban. I'm going to call it like I see it.

OK, let me put it another way: do you agree with the IOC rules, that state transgender women do NOT have to reduce their testosterone levels to compete?
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...ioc-guidelines

Anti-androgens, Testosterone blockers, are a standard part of the current rules *and* is usually a standard part of HRT. Notably, this is not a ban. Nowhere did I say that I was opposed to lowering testosterone. In effect, all this rule does is ensure that a trans-women competitor is taking anti-androgens as part of their HRT.

While studies show things such as "Trans women retain 12% edge in tests two years after transitioning"
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...y-be-too-short

Again, this is about an adjustment period. Not a ban. You're the one advocating a ban. A ban is, in fact, transphobic. When you say 'trans women have no business in women's sports', you're being transphobic. Those are your words. Not mine. Not the IOCs.

"A groundbreaking new study on transgender athletes has found trans women retain a 12% advantage in running tests even after taking hormones for two years to suppress their testosterone. The results, researchers suggest, indicate the current International Olympic Committee guidelines may give trans women an “unfair competitive advantage” over biological women."

'may give an unfair competitive advantage' is doing a lot of work based on the actual evidence of trans-runners competing against trans women. Harper's study, may I remind you, indicates a relative lack of this kind of performance.

If you don't agree with IOC, then "you must be a transphobe".

It sounds like I agree with the IOC more than you do and you want to ban transwomen, while I'm suggesting that a lot of the fearmongering about 'advantages' hasn't actually been born out in practice in allowing trans athletes to compete, where they decidedly do not win. For all the bloviating about the trans-lady weightlifter, Laurel Hubbard, she was DNF at the olympics.

[worstblogever]

hyped78 seems to be making some Republican points in ways that some people supporting Democrats talk, and the response is aggressive and personal, even if he hasn't said anything on the level of the nastiest things people here say about Republicans.

Y'know, if Republicans showed some empathy these days, it would probably cut down on people accusing them of being monstrous fanatics.

That will happen when you fail to respect people's gender identity, human rights, right to marry who they love, right over their bodily autonomy, right to survive, or what have you, as they celebrate locking children in cages, and explaining why when their party's members commit rape or child sex trafficking why they should get to remain in office, and the party that does all these things should get to remain in power.

If that hurts their fee-fees, I don't think anyone should lose sleep over calling them out on it.

[hyped78]

You're advancing a transphobic argument, so yes, I'm going to call it transphobic. You're the one who went in on 'pronouns'. You're the one who brought up trans women. You're the one who's advocating for a ban. I'm going to call it like I see it.



Anti-androgens, Testosterone blockers, are a standard part of the current rules *and* is usually a standard part of HRT. Notably, this is not a ban. Nowhere did I say that I was opposed to lowering testosterone. In effect, all this rule does is ensure that a trans-women competitor is taking anti-androgens as part of their HRT.



Again, this is about an adjustment period. Not a ban. You're the one advocating a ban. A ban is, in fact, transphobic. When you say 'trans women have no business in women's sports', you're being transphobic. Those are your words. Not mine. Not the IOCs.




'may give an unfair competitive advantage' is doing a lot of work based on the actual evidence of trans-runners competing against trans women. Harper's study, may I remind you, indicates a relative lack of this kind of performance.



It sounds like I agree with the IOC more than you do and you want to ban transwomen, while I'm suggesting that a lot of the fearmongering about 'advantages' hasn't actually been born out in practice in allowing trans athletes to compete, where they decidedly do not win.

See, you wrote "transphobic" four times in five or six sentences, as if that gives you some sort of moral high ground or upper hand haha (as if I care). You should take a deeeeeep breath and relaaaaaax

And you're obviously not able to understand what I'm writing (sad). I didn't say a lifetime ban, I said do not allow them to compete until there is definitive scientific evidence (which doesn't exist right now, no matter how you try to slice it or imagine things to fit your narrative/ dogma) to say that they do not have an unfair advantage over women, which is something that can even be decided on a sport vs. sport basis. Is this easier to understand now?

(I'm going to get another "transphobic!" rant in 5, 4, 3, ...)


You also seem to not understand the IOC rules:
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-...-athl-rcna5775

"Athletes will NO LONGER be required to undergo “medically unnecessary” hormone treatments to compete, the IOC said"
"Tuesday's framework replaces guidelines the IOC released in 2015, which put a limit on athletes' testosterone levels that required some of them to undergo treatments the IOC now describes as "medically unnecessary.""

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/18/10567...=1658325347412
"Testosterone levels WON'T determine transgender athletes' eligibility, IOC says"


"For all the bloviating about the trans-lady weightlifter, Laurel Hubbard, she was DNF at the olympics"
Ah, using anecdotal evidence to prove a narrative. It's the same as if I say "Lia Thomas! Lia Thomas!" as some irrefutable proof (which it isn't, either way).

[Tendrin]

Y'know, if Republicans showed some empathy these days, it would probably cut down on people accusing them of being monstrous fanatics.

That will happen when you fail to respect people's gender identity, human rights, right to marry who they love, right over their bodily autonomy, right to survive, or what have you, as they celebrate locking children in cages, and explaining why when their party's members commit rape or child sex trafficking why they should get to remain in office, and the party that does all these things should get to remain in power.

If that hurts their fee-fees, I don't think anyone should lose sleep over calling them out on it.

I mean, people have been *way* less mean to this guy than Mets is implying anyway.

[worstblogever]

I mean, people have been *way* less mean to this guy than Mets is implying anyway.

I guess we're just failing to see who the real victims are, the party they support that is "unfairly" castigated and "insulted" because it remains indifferent to thousands of people dying in ways they insist we do nothing to prevent, and that party also is taking affirmed rights away from marginalized groups.

[Tendrin]

See, you wrote "transphobic" four times in five or six sentences, as if that gives you some sort of moral high ground or upper hand haha (as if I care). You should take a deeeeeep breath and relaaaaaax

And you're obviously not able to understand what I'm writing, this is sad. I didn't say a lifetime ban, I said do not allow them to compete until there is definitive scientific evidence (which doesn't exist right now, no matter how you try to slice it or imagine things) to say that they do not have an unfair advantage over women, which is something that can even be decided on a sport vs. sport basis. Is this easier to understand now?

(I'm going to get another "transphobic!" rant in 5, 4, 3, ...)

Again, you're asking for a ban with transphobic reasoning, as trans women are not all built the same, either, anymore than anyone else is. If the science is *unclear*, as you say, and the evidence indicates that they are *not* dominating on a practical level-, why is a ban preferable to simply letting them -- especially kids who are *not* at the cutting edge of athletic competition -- play? These bans also have a social, cultural, and mental cost. Why is harming trans women acceptable to you for the sake of 'maybe' protecting a spot that might go to someone not trans? Why is cleaving them acceptable? Your willingness to harm *real* trans women to protect 'womens sports' isn't even a battle most women athletes (I said most, not all) are asking you to fight.
The reason I call this transphobic *is because it is*. It is an opinion rooted in ignorance and fear of some harm coming to someone somewhere while ignoring the real harm you will do trans women athletes who want to compete now.

I mean, you sit here and preen your faux-moderation, but the very GOP governor of Utah doesn't agree with you either.

[Mister Mets]

Haha, and why is that bigotry? I am not saying that Trans people don't have rights or shouldn't exist, but they shouldn't compete with women, at least until there is further research and/ or evidence in different sports and use cases. Simple.

So the goalpost here is that you believe further research and/ or evidence is necessary.

This seems disprovable if a lot of research has been done, largely pointing to a conclusion that there's no advantage in any sport.

...bottom surgery isn't even needed! Androgen blockers and already existant rules require a trans woman to have well below the testosterone in their system than that of their cisgender competitors. If trans women were a threat to women's sports, their track record of perfomance in them doesn't bear that out at all. Bone density in trans women pre-HRT is typcially lower than that of their cisgender males, and actually improves once they got on HRT, for example, which means that the image of the 'hulking man in a dress' is typically incredibly accurate. A trans woman's athletic performance measured before and after HRT, over a period of time, shows *drastic* reductions in capacity compared to before HRT.

The only reason to believe that trans women shouldn't compete in women's sports is if you believe they aren't women, and if you believe they're not women, you don't really believe that trans people are real and deserving of full participation in society. Moreover, it ignores the vast variety of athletic bodies, skills, and more that exist in Cis women, and moreover, how bodies that don't match a misogynistic ideal of 'woman' will be discriminated against, particular ones of color, in an effort to stop the 'threat' of trans women.

This is really giving you more attention than you deserve, at this point, as no one asked for the transphobic opinion you ventured in the thread, but we all knew it was coming, like I said.

The goalpost here is whether the only reason to believe that trans women shouldn't compete in women's sports is if you believe they're not women.

This would seem to be disprovable if there was any advantage. And it does seem there are some advantages that trans women have over cis women.

https://www.webmd.com/fitness-exerci...ave-advantages

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/22/s...etes-fina.html

The metric at the moment isn't about what side is correct, but whether there is disagreement.

The argument shouldn't be about defining what it means to be a woman any more than a ban on former NFL platers in college football is about defining what it means to be a scholar.

One interesting comment on these questions was about what the point of women's sports is. Is it allowing athletes to compete with people who have similar attributes, the same way in boxing we don't typically pit lightweights against heavyweights? Is it trying to encourage young girls to have the same athletic opportunities as boys? Is it about changing society for the better? The way we approach the issue may result in different policies.

[Tendrin]

So the goalpost here is that you believe further research and/ or evidence is necessary.

This seems disprovable if a lot of research has been done, largely pointing to a conclusion that there's no advantage in any sport.

The goalpost here is whether the only reason to believe that trans women shouldn't compete in women's sports is if you believe they're not women.

This would seem to be disprovable if there was any advantage. And it does seem there are some advantages that trans women have over cis women.

https://www.webmd.com/fitness-exerci...ave-advantages

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/22/s...etes-fina.html

The metric at the moment isn't about what side is correct, but whether there is disagreement.

The argument shouldn't be about defining what it means to be a woman any more than a ban on former NFL platers in college football is about defining what it means to be a scholar.

One interesting comment on these questions was about what the point of women's sports is. Is it allowing athletes to compete with people who have similar attributes, the same way in boxing we don't typically pit lightweights against heavyweights? Is it trying to encourage young girls to have the same athletic opportunities as boys? Is it about changing society for the better? The way we approach the issue may result in different policies.

I will point out that I've never said that there can't be rules governing transition with regards to elite athletic competition. We are talking *specifically* about bans here. If you believe trans women ought to be banned from women's sports and have no business being in women's sports, that's a transphobic opinion rooted in the belief that they *aren't women*,and are 'inherently male'. A trans girl athlete who started hrt at a young age is going to be different than someone who started it at 40. This is why we advocate for blockers/HRT in teens, for example, who come out as trans.

We are also talking largely about a very specific, very narrow group of trans athletes, who transition in close to their own peak condition and *may* maintain a couple of advantages (but advantages that can be shared by cis women athletes, who have inherently higher-t, longer arms, different builds, more efficient use of hemoglobin than other cis-women) but were unable or not allowed, or simply didn't realize they were trans, until later in life to transition early enough to avoid all aspects of a male puberty.

Point is, cis women are a pretty diverse group themselves, and if trans women were to maintain as many advantages as destractors say, well ... we'd see it in their actual performance.

Instead, we don't.

[Username taken]

I’m not totally convinced. China for example could be counted as predominantly mono racial…but 2 things happen. First equivalent divisions occur to racism (e.g. divisions based on religion, sexual orientation, speech, etc) exist, and as soon as some one “different” appears, it’s revealed that racism is there.

A close friend lived there for years and visited a fair number of remote villages…and he certainly experienced racist behaviour from people who had not come across some one from a different race before.

And I’d guess you’d accept that tribalism and racism aren’t fundamentally different?

The net effect of tribalism and racism is generally negative.

A case in point is the ethnic cleansing in Rwanda. They're all the same race but divided by tribal lines.

My point is a little more pedantic because I was focusing on the textbook definition of racism. Tribalism/religious discrimination/racism all have negative consequences, the degree of these consequences obviously differ but they are there nonetheless.

[hyped78]

Again, you're asking for a ban with transphobic reasoning, as trans women are not all built the same, either, anymore than anyone else is. If the science is *unclear*, as you say, and the evidence indicates that they are *not* dominating on a practical level-, why is a ban preferable to simply letting them -- especially kids who are *not* at the cutting edge of athletic competition -- play? These bans also have a social, cultural, and mental cost. Why is harming trans women acceptable to you for the sake of 'maybe' protecting a spot that might go to someone not trans? Why is cleaving them acceptable? Your willingness to harm *real* trans women to protect 'womens sports' isn't even a battle most women athletes (I said most, not all) are asking you to fight.
The reason I call this transphobic *is because it is*. It is an opinion rooted in ignorance and fear of some harm coming to someone somewhere while ignoring the real harm you will do trans women athletes who want to compete now.

I mean, you sit here and preen your faux-moderation, but the very GOP governor of Utah doesn't agree with you either.

It's OK. I'm not in Utah and I wouldn't vote for the GOP anyways?

"faux-moderation" - love that expression. Will try to use it sometimes. Again, a character attack, you just can't help it

Letting trans compete in kids sports or amateur sports etc.? Sure, I have zero problem with that right now.

But when I meant "sports" - and I should have been more clear - I meant professional sports, Olympic sports, sports that women make a living from.

At the end of the day, I'm not here to try to change your mind or whatever, I am just conveying that you do not own the absolute truth on this topic, that it's clearly, clearly not as clear cut as you are trying to make it seem, and that - yes, there are bigots out there - but that not everybody criticizing "trans in women's sports" is a bigot. I am sorry but that's the reality, as much painful as that might be to you and others who think the world is polarized and just has two sides.

[worstblogever]

Oh yeah, the Maryland GOP nominated a known Neo-Confederate to be the next attorney general of Maryland last night.

And of course, a Trump-endorsed candidate was nominated to be the guy to take over for Larry Hogan.

[JackDaw]

There's a Hungarian guy I knew because we were flatmates on a college program.

The first day we met he asks me if I think the world is going to end. I said no. Later, he asks if I think the white race is going to die out. I probed further, and found that he was really concerned about the Romani taking over, which exposed me to the prejudice against gypsies.

Last time we talked on Facebook, he posted about how the election was stolen from Trump. I sent him links I came across here, and then he kept changing the goalposts.

The Hungarian government..concerned with falling populations, and not wishing to replenish stocks via immigration encourages fertility via a series of very generous financial incentives.

One of the more endearing Hungarian boasts is “We are super tough, we descended from the Huns”. (Pretty sure it’s not founded on any credible historical fact.)

[hyped78]

Look at all these "bigots":

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/19/11061...nsgender-women

"The world swimming body effectively bans transgender women from women's events"

"FINA said it may also develop an "open" category in future swimming competitions for people who don't meet the criteria for either the men's or women's events." - I don't disagree with this