Political Randomness

[Blackhawk]

'Hate speech' is still protected, as are things like racist depictions, cultural appropriation, and so forth. And it should stay protected. It's part of the same lattice that allows us to criticize people for legitimate things without fear of legal retaliation.

It should be handled socially, not legally. And it is being handled socially. While 'cancel culture' sometimes goes too far (or acts on accusation rather than confirmation), it is an example of society acting against hate speech. And while silencing people won't change their thoughts, it does stifle their message.

[Blackhawk]

And it still doesn't mean that private organizations, such as OO, Facebook, or the grocery store, can't act against it.

[LawBeefaroni]

Is it just me or can you not yell racist things at designated people and be arrested for hate crimes? I.E. can I not yell racist things at minorities? (as long as I am not threatening them)

Hate crime is an add-on. There needs to be a "regular" crime first. Like say you beat someone up because they are black. Beating someone up is the crime, doing it motivated by race is the hate part. Yelling racial slurs is just evidence of the racist motivation. It's not illegal in and of itself.

If you don't commit a crime you don't have much of a chance of getting arrested for a hate crime.

[El Guapo]

Is it just me or can you not yell racist things at designated people and be arrested for hate crimes? I.E. can I not yell racist things at minorities? (as long as I am not threatening them)

Hate crime is an add-on. There needs to be a "regular" crime first. Like say you beat someone up because they are black. Beating someone up is the crime, doing it motivated by race is the hate part. Yelling racial slurs is just evidence of the racist motivation. It's not illegal in and of itself.

If you don't commit a crime you don't have much of a chance of getting arrested for a hate crime.

FWIW I think there are laws in some countries (Canada + some EU countries) that do punish straight hate speech. But yeah, not in the U.S.

[Alefroth]

Is it just me or can you not yell racist things at designated people and be arrested for hate crimes? I.E. can I not yell racist things at minorities? (as long as I am not threatening them)

Isn't yelling racist things at minorities threatening in itself?

[dbt1949]

I thought it worked that way but I'm always reading articles on the news media about such and such has been arrested of "hate crimes" but the neglect to say what the original crime was until the end of the article if even then.

[gbasden]

Physical competition is one place where we're hitting a roadblock, as it's almost entirely physical (which is affected by sex) vs social (which is affected by gender), but tying it to sex creates a social issue that I can 100% understand. It's a tough one to work around, and it's one of the few issues of this sort where there will have to be some sort of compromise from both sides.

Physical competition is already a genetic lottery, though. It's not like all males and all females are created equally. It's perfectly fine for the 6'4" linebacker type to have a massive advantage in football and wrestling, but be at a disadvantage in track and field or gymnastics. I doubt there are a lot of people who are truly upset because trans females have some sort of advantage compared to the number of people who are just intolerant of dealing with a trans athlete.

[Paingod]

Physical competition is already a genetic lottery, though. It's not like all males and all females are created equally.

We separate people out into weight classes for boxing for a reason. We prohibit performance enhancing chemicals, even if they provide a minor benefit, for a reason. We set standards and limits on some mechanized sports for a reason.

Sure, genetics play a role in sports when you have similar competitors. I don't doubt that Usain Bolt was made for running - and his training brought it forward - BUT - the difference between his record 100-meter speed and the 5th best is only 0.16 seconds. 5 places, 0.16 seconds separating them. That's about 1.7% of an advantage he has over the 5th place competitor. Tell me there wouldn't be some disruption if someone showed up with a 5% natural advantage. As it is, there's around a 9.5% difference between Mr. Bolt and the fastest female runner for the 100-meter.

Non-team individual sports are about proving yourself and pushing your genetic structure to the limit of its capability and demonstrating that ability against others in the same narrow band of abilities. Inviting someone who may naturally fall outside the narrow band shared by all the other competitors is an unfair advantage. Yes, a 6'4" man can train to shape his body to be either a linebacker or a lean runner - but he can't be both, and he has to choose. He can't succeed as a linebacker if he's lean, and he can't succeed as a runner if he's bulky. That choice puts him in the narrow band of competition for that sport. For reference, Usain Bolt is 6'5" tall. His height is not a disadvantage.

The male frame has a natural advantage over the female one in many individual physical sports. That advantage doesn't disappear just because you wake up and declare a gender change. It doesn't even vanish once you've finished hormone therapy, according to some studies. It can take years for it to diminish, and that's theoretical. I couldn't find a study that had been drawn out for years and years - just one that extended 2 years, and at 2 years there was still an advantage. That's 2 years of being completely transitioned and engaged with hormones. The only definitive thing they seemed to be able to find was that if a male chassis was transitioned before puberty, the performance difference was non-existent. The male hormones didn't get a chance to almost-irrevocably change the physical form.

If a bunch of oranges were having a firmness competition and an orange showed up with an apple's insides, it would be an unfair advantage. I'm fine with there being a league set up for oranges with apple insides so they can compete with each other.

[noxiousdog]

5%?

The difference in world records between men and women in sprinting is 10%.
In the long jump it's 16%.

The average height of a male pro soccer player is a 5' 11". Women? 5' 5".

More importantly is pure strength. In the clean and jerk, the world record is 78% higher for men.

In tennis, an average serve goes from 158km/hr to 184km/hr.

People consistently underestimate the innate physical differences between men and women. It's not fair, but it is what it is. The classic example is Billie Jean King. One of the 5 greatest women's tennis players of all time, in her prime, could barely beat a 55 year old Bobby Riggs. Riggs won a couple of Grand Slam tournaments, but he's never going to be mentioned as a great. He's way more famous for being an ass.

Perhaps more telling is how competitive even youth sports are. 40% of pro hockey players are born in the 1st quarter of the year. With age brackets defined by year, the slightly bigger/faster players get more playing time and the advantage never goes away.

[Paingod]

5%?

The difference in world records between men and women in sprinting is 10%.

Tell me there wouldn't be some disruption if someone showed up with a 5% natural advantage. As it is, there's around a 9.5% difference between Mr. Bolt and the fastest female runner for the 100-meter.

I know.

[LawBeefaroni]

It all comes down to how sacred we regard records and competition.

Personally I view them as the reason we have sport. I would be against trans athletes "cross competing" because it would upset the validity of records in those sports that are divided down gender lines. I have no issue with trans athletes per se.

I'd welcome competition not divided by gender. Unisex track and field, for example. Unisex basketball or volleyball or hockey.

[Carpet_pissr]

I'd welcome competition not divided by gender. Unisex track and field, for example. Unisex basketball or volleyball or hockey.

Love this, on first, superficial thoughts.

[noxiousdog]

We have that already. "Women's" sports is protected. "Men's" isn't really limited to men. It's open. While there are cultural biases, there are a number of occasions where women have played in "men's" divisions.

[LawBeefaroni]

We have that already. "Women's" sports is protected. "Men's" isn't really limited to men. It's open. While there are cultural biases, there are a number of occasions where women have played in "men's" divisions.

Football and baseball, sure. But there are no women's leagues (university/amateur level). Has there been any controversy of trans participation in either of these sports?


Not so with basketball or volleyball or track & field. Tennis. There are explicit men's and women's leagues/divisions.

[malchior]

Last night, the Women's Flat Track Derby Association posted an article on their Facebook feed.

The headline was

Trans women are women. In sport and literally everywhere else.

This lit off a "spirited discussion" that brought a good amount of the TERFs out. And when I distill down their argument I believe they do have valid points when it comes to competitiveness. And I think WFTDA and adherents to inclusivity have a valid point as well. However, there is real polarization here between people who value inclusion above all things and people who value competitiveness in sports. And the inclusion people don't see it as a trade off at all which isn't helpful. There are also the folks who often go straight to 'you're a bigot' as well.

[noxiousdog]

We have that already. "Women's" sports is protected. "Men's" isn't really limited to men. It's open. While there are cultural biases, there are a number of occasions where women have played in "men's" divisions.

Football and baseball, sure. But there are no women's leagues (university/amateur level). Has there been any controversy of trans participation in either of these sports?


Not so with basketball or volleyball or track & field. Tennis. There are explicit men's and women's leagues/divisions.

I suspect that if Serena Williams could qualify for the ATP, she would have not only been allowed, but encouraged to participate. There's already a model for it in Annika Sörenstam and Michelle Wie.

There's already history of this when "white people's" sports were integrated. Winning >> All.

[Blackhawk]

So, what about opening up men's sports for women to try out and compete? If they're up to snuff, any woman - genetics aside - could play.

/edit - disclaimer: I'm a very non-competitive person. Being better than the person next to me isn't that important. As such, my understanding of sports is minimal (it's not lot of fun following sports when you really don't care who wins.)

[gbasden]

Sure, genetics play a role in sports when you have similar competitors. I don't doubt that Usain Bolt was made for running - and his training brought it forward - BUT - the difference between his record 100-meter speed and the 5th best is only 0.16 seconds. 5 places, 0.16 seconds separating them. That's about 1.7% of an advantage he has over the 5th place competitor. Tell me there wouldn't be some disruption if someone showed up with a 5% natural advantage. As it is, there's around a 9.5% difference between Mr. Bolt and the fastest female runner for the 100-meter.

And how many billions of people in the world start off being uncompetitive against the natural talent of Usain Bolt? I could have trained every day for my entire life and still never been able to touch his performance. Or been as good at football as most NFL players. If Usain Bolt decided to transition as a teen then sure, that could have been disruptive. Is the average trans athlete going to have that impact? Is that enough to basically ban them from sport all together? I highly doubt there are enough trans students in most schools to have a separate league for most activities.

[Blackhawk]

Before this gets heated, I do want to step in and say that I think both sides of the arguments have valid points. Most of the issues that come up regarding trans people are pure prejudice with made up 'consequences' that have no basis in reality. Those make it easy to figure out where to stand. This is something where the status quo has a real negative impact on some people, but the obvious change has real negative impacts on others. It makes it into a much more complex issue, and I'm still struggling to figure out where I stand.

I don't see any good solutions. Someone gets screwed regardless.

[Unagi]

(it's not lot of fun following sports when you really don't care who wins.)

/tongue in cheek.

Try being a Bears fan... you will find joy watching the games where you don't care who wins.

[Smoove_B]

I highly doubt there are enough trans students in most schools to have a separate league for most activities.

Exactly. So you either create hard-line distinctions with no exceptions and then expect additional leagues/teams/organizations to spring up that will never be "legitimate" in the eyes of the "true fans".

I really think that's the core issue here - the desire for humans to need to label the best [person] at [sport]. And unless [person] fits into a narrow description of whatever conditions have been agreed upon (born with a penis / born without a penis), then whatever effort they put forth in [sport] is illegitimate (to some). There's no ability to just recognize skill or athleticism in isolation - it always has to be defined/framed in some specific condition.

[Paingod]

And how many billions of people in the world start off being uncompetitive against the natural talent of Usain Bolt? I could have trained every day for my entire life and still never been able to touch his performance.

I don't get how this is relevant to the subject. The discussion isn't about every couch potato in the world, it's about those people who want to compete against each other and put in the time and effort to achieve their peak physical capabilities. The division isn't about how you identify. It's about physical differences between XX and XY.

There is a thin margin at the top of the scale in athletic competitions for peak human potential. It has historically been divided between men and women because there's a substantial divide between their two peaks. If all of humanity - the billions of people - are the back of the blade, people like Usain Bolt and Florence Griffith-Joyner are at the razor's edge on top of their respective blades. They work fucking hard to get there. Harder than most people are willing to. I don't want to do anything to diminish that effort and achievement.

If a trans athlete came along in the women's arena and displaced Griffith-Joyner's record by a solid 0.5 seconds because that trans athlete still retains some capability from starting out XY in life, is that fair to Griffith-Joyner and other women?

That's the simplest form of the question for me, and it comes down to a Yes or No answer.

[malchior]

I highly doubt there are enough trans students in most schools to have a separate league for most activities.

Exactly. So you either create hard-line distinctions with no exceptions and then expect additional leagues/teams/organizations to spring up that will never be "legitimate" in the eyes of the "true fans".

I really think that's the core issue here - the desire for humans to need to label the best [person] at [sport]. And unless [person] fits into a narrow description of whatever conditions have been agreed upon (born with a penis / born without a penis), then whatever effort they put forth in [sport] is illegitimate (to some). There's no ability to just recognize skill or athleticism in isolation - it always has to be defined/framed in some specific condition.

I agree and I think that was the point that Paingod made well above. I'll try to be careful because I respect it is a sensitive subject to some, when you get into testosterone-based physiology versus not there are some activities where there is no ability to hide the impact of physiology. Power or Olympic lifting is an example. If you want to have true competitiveness you have to solve this problem in these sports. There are other sports that are far more skill-based with a physical component. Those are much harder to figure out.

In my mind, it comes down to what is the role of *sports*. And there isn't one answer. At a youth level is it physical fitness, confidence, socialization? If so, then the math is clear. Inclusivity wins. If the idea of the sport or level of sport is to explore peak competitiveness (Olympics/Professional sports) then the math is much more dismal for inclusivity.

Another interesting aspect is this mostly runs in one direction. It generally affects women's sports which adds another layer of complexity. Men's roller derby for example has been gender inclusive since its existed. I can't think of one trans athlete who has dominated Men's Derby. However, several of the best Women's Derby players are trans players. Which is why there is a firestorm about this every time it comes up. However, there are outsized amounts of trans people in that community*. Which is why the debate is worthwhile and leans towards inclusivity.

Edit: * I'm not aware of any definitive studies on trans representation in society so that is best described as anecdotal. I saw far more openly trans people on a regular basis in that community than I have met in every other community I've participated in combined.

[LawBeefaroni]

There's already a model for it in Annika Sörenstam and Michelle Wie.

Not sure what you mean. Sorenstam criticizing Wie for playing in the PGA? Her points seemed valid, win a few LPGA majors before you insist on moving to the PGA via sponsors' exemption.

There's already history of this when "white people's" sports were integrated. Winning >> All.

Sure, so let's integrate sport.

[Blackhawk]

Another thing that keeps popping into my mind is collegiate sports scholarships. There are tens of thousands given every year for women's sports. Would this (and I'm asking, not arguing) effectively block those born female from any sports scholarships where the a born male would have advantages?

[malchior]

Another thing that keeps popping into my mind is collegiate sports scholarships. There are tens of thousands given every year for women's sports. Would this (and I'm asking, not arguing) effectively block those born female from any sports scholarships where the a born male would have advantages?

This is a major pain point. Some schools are dealing with Title IX issues around this. Complete with activists calling on the NCAA to ban teams from major tournaments when the school's program is seen are not inclusive (at all or enough).

[Daehawk]

The only way I see sports of the future working out is coed teams. And rough sports would hurt the female members Im sure much more than males.

[gbasden]

And how many billions of people in the world start off being uncompetitive against the natural talent of Usain Bolt? I could have trained every day for my entire life and still never been able to touch his performance.

I don't get how this is relevant to the subject.

As Nox noted, people who happened to be born in the first part of the year have a big advantage in making it to the pro hockey leagues. We don't wring our hands over why those November babies are under such a handicap. We already accept that some people are more competitive than others.

I guess it depends on what you think the purpose of sports are? If the only measure of sports is generating the best set of raw numbers, then yeah, it's a problem. If the purpose of sports, especially in school where this argument is most often raging, is to foster physical fitness and teamwork then to me inclusion wins out.

To be fair, I'm very much like Blackhawk. I don't watch a lot of spectator sports and generally don't care much about the outcomes. I enjoy playing sports as a recreational activity, but I've never been super invested watching others. That, combined with the grossness of some of the arguments around trans folx, has me skewed to one side of the argument.

[LawBeefaroni]

And how many billions of people in the world start off being uncompetitive against the natural talent of Usain Bolt? I could have trained every day for my entire life and still never been able to touch his performance.

I don't get how this is relevant to the subject.

As Nox noted, people who happened to be born in the first part of the year have a big advantage in making it to the pro hockey leagues. We don't wring our hands over why those November babies are under such a handicap.

It's a rules based "handicap." You can't have month of birth divisions. You have to pick a cutoff. Same with weight class in other sports.

Sure there's a range within a year. Just like there are ranges within gender. And you might let the 13 year-old play up in the 14 yo league. But you don't let the 14 yo play down in the 13 yo league. They would have a distinct physiological advantage attributable specifically to the rules where their competition would be a bunch of 13 yos.

Is gender a spectrum? Maybe. But we picked a cutoff. And playing "down" would give someone a distinct physiological advantage by getting around the rule. Change the cutoff or abolish it. That's fine.

[Daehawk]

You see where that My Pillow guy is saying Trump will be back in office in August now? That boy can really carry them goalposts. His mommy should be proud.

[noxiousdog]

There's already a model for it in Annika Sörenstam and Michelle Wie.

Not sure what you mean. Sorenstam criticizing Wie for playing in the PGA? Her points seemed valid, win a few LPGA majors before you insist on moving to the PGA via sponsors' exemption.

Both already competed in PGA events because it's not "mens" golf.

There's already history of this when "white people's" sports were integrated. Winning >> All.

Sure, so let's integrate sport.

Right.

It already is. If women can physically compete, they do. As evidenced by the two I mentioned and the Vanderbilt kicker this year.

It's not like this hasn't been tried. Every co-ed league in the world has rules about the man/woman ratio. That's not about men getting more playing time.

[LawBeefaroni]

It already is. If women can physically compete, they do. As evidenced by the two I mentioned and the Vanderbilt kicker this year.

That because football doesn't have a women's league. You don't think there's a women's softball player that can compete on a men's baseball team at the collegiate level? Basketball? Won't happen because there are women's leagues.

Pros are a bit different but still, where there are divided leagues you probably won't see crossover.

As for Sörenstam and Wie, the PGA isn't a men's league (much like the NFL or MLB). Sörenstam was by far the best golfer on the LPGA tour. She didn't make the cut in her one PGA event. Wie was just a media darling and never made the cut either. Both required a sponsorr's exemption. But that's not that important since the first woman qualified for, and played in, a PGA tournament over 80 years ago. The same woman made the cut (only woman ever to do so) over 75 years ago.

[noxiousdog]

That because football doesn't have a women's league. You don't think there's a women's softball player that can compete on a men's baseball team at the collegiate level? Basketball? Won't happen because there are women's leagues.

Women are playing baseball.

But to answer your question, maybe? I know that colleges want to win so badly they desegregated. I can't imagine it would be any different with women.

As for Sörenstam and Wie, the PGA isn't a men's league (much like the NFL or MLB). Sörenstam was by far the best golfer on the LPGA tour. She didn't make the cut in her one PGA event. Wie was just a media darling and never made the cut either. Both required a sponsorr's exemption. But that's not that important since the first woman qualified for, and played in, a PGA tournament over 80 years ago. The same woman made the cut (only woman ever to do so) over 75 years ago.

So, even though there's two leagues, they still played....

[LawBeefaroni]

That because football doesn't have a women's league. You don't think there's a women's softball player that can compete on a men's baseball team at the collegiate level? Basketball? Won't happen because there are women's leagues.

Women are playing baseball.

But to answer your question, maybe? I know that colleges want to win so badly they desegregated. I can't imagine it would be any different with women.

As for Sörenstam and Wie, the PGA isn't a men's league (much like the NFL or MLB). Sörenstam was by far the best golfer on the LPGA tour. She didn't make the cut in her one PGA event. Wie was just a media darling and never made the cut either. Both required a sponsorr's exemption. But that's not that important since the first woman qualified for, and played in, a PGA tournament over 80 years ago. The same woman made the cut (only woman ever to do so) over 75 years ago.

So, even though there's two leagues, they still played....

Played? 4 women over 100 years, only two qualified for their spot, only one made the cut. None were on the tour. It's like a Rhéaume taking the ice.

[Blackhawk]

That, combined with the grossness of some of the arguments around trans folx, has me skewed to one side of the argument.

I can see that. Initially I was the same way. But then it bothered me when I started seeing the other side's counterpoints (not the absurd counterpoints about locker rooms or whatever, the real concerns about the impact on those born female) and realized that I'd backed one side of the argument without listening to the other side, so I stepped back a little. I'm still undecided.

What I don't want is a scenario where we have those born as little girls saying, "Mommy, I want play basketball when I grow up!" and mommy replying, "You can't, hon. That's just for people who were born as boys." I don't understand the issue enough to know how much of a concern that really is. But if it is a possibility, then that's just trading one exclusion for another.

Unfortunately, sports are such a "boy's club" that I'm not sure that reasonable solutions (whatever they are) will ever be accepted, and legislated solutions tend to like swatting flies with nukes.

[Jaymann]

Chess, which is 90%+ mental is interesting because females have almost no chance against the top male players. But even though there are women's tournaments, others are open to anyone. Judith Polgar only played in open tourneys and was consistently in the world top 10 players. Meanwhile her sister Susan became Women's World Champion. I haven't heard of any trans women playing in women's events, but I don't think it would lend any significant advantage.

[Holman]

G. Gordon Liddy died today.

The world is a little less ugly.

[noxiousdog]

Played? 4 women over 100 years, only two qualified for their spot, only one made the cut. None were on the tour. It's like a Rhéaume taking the ice.

Huh. So it's almost like they are at a huge physical disadvantage. I'm sure adding trans women wouldn't hurt their sports at all.

[Carpet_pissr]

Chess, which is 90%+ mental is interesting because females have almost no chance against the top male players. But even though there are women's tournaments, others are open to anyone. Judith Polgar only played in open tourneys and was consistently in the world top 10 players. Meanwhile her sister Susan became Women's World Champion. I haven't heard of any trans women playing in women's events, but I don't think it would lend any significant advantage.

Obviously you haven’t read/watched “Queen’s Gambit”.

[Carpet_pissr]

Is gender a spectrum? Maybe. But we picked a cutoff.

Cutoff: a penis?