this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

news

24519 readers
709 users here now

Welcome to c/news! We aim to foster a book-club type environment for discussion and critical analysis of the news. Our policy objectives are:

We ask community members to appreciate the uncertainty inherent in critical analysis of current events, the need to constantly learn, and take part in the community with humility. None of us are the One True Leftist, not even you, the reader.

Newcomm and Newsmega Rules:

The Hexbear Code of Conduct and Terms of Service apply here.

  1. Link titles: Please use informative link titles. Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed.

  2. Content warnings: Posts on the newscomm and top-level replies on the newsmega should use content warnings appropriately. Please be thoughtful about wording and triggers when describing awful things in post titles.

  3. Fake news: No fake news posts ever, including April 1st. Deliberate fake news posting is a bannable offense. If you mistakenly post fake news the mod team may ask you to delete/modify the post or we may delete it ourselves.

  4. Link sources: All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. If you are citing a Twitter post as news, please include the Xcancel.com (or another Nitter instance) or at least strip out identifier information from the twitter link. There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance, such as Libredirect or archive them as you would any other reactionary source.

  5. Archive sites: We highly encourage use of non-paywalled archive sites (i.e. archive.is, web.archive.org, ghostarchive.org) so that links are widely accessible to the community and so that reactionary sources don’t derive data/ad revenue from Hexbear users. If you see a link without an archive link, please archive it yourself and add it to the thread, ask the OP to fix it, or report to mods. Including text of articles in threads is welcome.

  6. Low effort material: Avoid memes/jokes/shitposts in newscomm posts and top-level replies to the newsmega. This kind of content is OK in post replies and in newsmega sub-threads. We encourage the community to balance their contribution of low effort material with effort posts, links to real news/analysis, and meaningful engagement with material posted in the community.

  7. American politics: Discussion and effort posts on the (potential) material impacts of American electoral politics is welcome, but the never-ending circus of American Politics© Brought to You by Mountain Dew™ is not welcome. This refers to polling, pundit reactions, electoral horse races, rumors of who might run, etc.

  8. Electoralism: Please try to avoid struggle sessions about the value of voting/taking part in the electoral system in the West. c/electoralism is right over there.

  9. AI Slop: Don't post AI generated content. Posts about AI race/chip wars/data centers are fine.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"It is a complicated issue. It is truly a complicated issue, with a wide range of views, truly a wide range of views," Jean-Pierre said. "There is no 'yes or no' answer to this, it is complicated. There is a rule that the Department of Education [DOE] has put forward, and we're going to let that process move forward, and again, we want to make sure that while we establish guardrails with this rule, we also prevent discrimination, as well, against transgender kids. But again, a complicated issue with a wide range of views, and we respect that."

"Absolutely no reason for the Biden admin to do this," New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrote. "It is indefensible and embarrassing. The admin can still walk this back, and they should. It's a disgrace."

"Honestly, this move by Biden to push a rule on trans kids in sports is not only a backwards betrayal, it [forces] us to have to spend our time dealing with god d*** sports instead of criminal bans on our healthcare," Alejandra Caraballo, a civil rights attorney and LGBTQ+ advocate, wrote. "He could have just done nothing. This is legitimizing transphobia."

The mOsT PrOgReSsIvE Administration in History™ funny-clown-hammer "A complicated issue with a wide range of views, and we respect that" funny-clown-hammer Fuck off out of here with that "centrist" nonsense. There's nothing complicated about it, and it's not an issue unless you want to turn it into one and want to appeal to people's emotions like Republicans are doing. It was only a matter of time before they'd start throwing trans people under the bus. I guess with the coming elections it's as good a time as ever.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] IzyaKatzmann@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Wholeheartedly agree, I have yet to see this take in person

[–] buckykat@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What stands out to me is that the people worrying the most about trans people in womens' sports are the same ones who were making fun of womens' sports specifically right up until they realized they could use it to attack trans people.

[–] IzyaKatzmann@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

The way I always interpreted it was that any artificial environment necessitates artificial constraints which will always 'sample' from a 'population'. Sports are an artificial environment actively ensured to be such for some purpose. Whether that be entertainment, social bonding, profit, etc.

The sampling can have methods of organizing, say in a simple ordering of individuals based on skill with certain qualities. Think weight classes in boxing and the ranking of within them. It doesn't need to be so, and it seems that it tends to be the case to make it easier to conceptualize the relationships between the people who participate.

Of course in such an artificial environment certain traits like physical strength, coordination, flexibility, endurance, or whatever, in isolation or combination determine the likelihood one may succeed according to the artificial constraints. Are we to be surprised individuals who have been the primary enjoyers and participants, i.e. men, perform 'better'? It's what would be expected if the conflict of interest of fascicle chauvinism is accounted for rather than ignored for reasons of self-interest.

What I never understood was, say there are participants of some group in some sport who are overwhelmingly unlikely to win. This would be true for the participants, what about the coaches? If you open up the artificial environment from some small scale to something bigger, say at the level of winning teams, where are the differences then? In the case of owners of teams, where the amount of risk or investment the owner wants to take is then the primary metric? As you move further and further away from the artificial environment to the real world, the differences matter less and less.

Sure, my wife is not as tall as me, if I am around I'll help grab something on top of the fridge. That isn't the only environment she finds herself in. We have a step stool she uses to get stuff, she can rearrange things to bring it lower, or find some alternative item. There are any number of solutions or strategies one can take outside of an artificially constrained environment.

It's really as though these individuals want to hate women and trans people, or any marginalized group, then find the environments which may be hostile, make them actively hostile, and then when their plan succeeds and they have oppressed or disadvantaged these groups enough they claim victory due to their perceived superiority.

There's a quote from Catch-22 I think of when this sports talk comes up:

"Like Olympic medals and tennis trophies, all they signified was that the owner had done something of no benefit to anyone more capably than everyone else."