JK Rowling is one reward club sticker away from joining the Full Nazi fan club

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,036
7,964
136
She's really decided to go "all in" on this issue.


The bit of the story that really leaps out at me is Sunak declaring

"We believe in free speech in this country, and Conservatives will always protect it."

This from the head of a government that has been busily passing laws to suppress peaceful protests, particularly those over climate change and Palestine, who complains of 'mob rule' when people vote in ways he doesn't like, and who's Home Secretary did her best to encourage right-wing hoodlums to attack pro-Gaza-ceasefire marchers. People have been arrested for chanting "from the river to the sea", and these gangsters pose as protectors of 'free speech'? Elon Musk level hypocrisy.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
14,526
9,899
136
Ahh yes the canard that trans athletes are pretending because they want to win.

Classy
Lance Armstrong gave up a nut to win, then kept on cheating.

I think rules have gotten so strict for most sports now no one would do it. But I'm the days before rules, I wouldn't put anything past someone desperate enough to win.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
14,526
9,899
136
JK Rowling's entire argument regarding the holocaust centers on trans individuals. It is not way off topic. JK Rowling is TERF and states transgender individuals were not targeted in the holocaust. German Court says transgender people were a target of the holocaust. Can't get any more authoritative than that.

This is a little off topic, it bugs me when people talk about the Holocaust as if it was just the 6 million Jews who were killed as opposed to the full count including non-Jews.

Of course the Jews were by far the most systemically targeted and by far the most likely to be immediately sent to the gas chambers, but lots more were targeted and killed. According to Wikipedia, though, it was only Jews.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,036
7,964
136
Lance Armstrong gave up a nut to win, then kept on cheating.

I think rules have gotten so strict for most sports now no one would do it. But I'm the days before rules, I wouldn't put anything past someone desperate enough to win.

The answer to that seems simple to me. Just stop attaching so much importance to who wins (and stop rewarding them so much for doing so - thus remove the incentive to take extreme measures to win - whether it's changing gender or taking drugs or bribery).

Seems to me there are a few genuinely difficult issues around transgender topics.

The most difficult of all of them is probably prisons, followed by domestic violence shelters. (I don't care about pronouns - isn't it just an accident of linguistic history that we have gendered pronouns at all? We don't use different pronouns for different races or different hair-colours...though I bet there are languages that use different ones for different social classes...and as for bathrooms, most of the time that can be solved by just providing more of the damn things for everybody)

But I find it exasperating that so much political energy is expended on arguments around something as trivial and pointless as organised competitive sport.

The whole thing is intrinsically discriminatory, anyway. Despite the attempt to get round it with the para-olympics, that doesn't change the fact that it's inherently about inequality and hierarchies.

It remains the case that anyone who has been affected by chronic illness or disability is at an inherent disadvantage (the para-olympics has to invent - and then try and enforce - all these arbitrary categories to make it work, and not every disability, and certainly not chronic illness, fits into those categories). As is anyone who had no access to sports facilities and time to train when young, whether due to poverty or some other disadvantage.

Organised competitive sport is a marginal special-interest, and I find it annoying that it plays such a big role in a political controversy. It's as bad as religion in that respect.
 
Last edited:

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,864
2,066
126
She's really decided to go "all in" on this issue.


The bit of the story that really leaps out at me is Sunak declaring

"We believe in free speech in this country, and Conservatives will always protect it."

This from the head of a government that has been busily passing laws to suppress peaceful protests, particularly those over climate change and Palestine, who complains of 'mob rule' when people vote in ways he doesn't like, and who's Home Secretary did her best to encourage right-wing hoodlums to attack pro-Gaza-ceasefire marchers. People have been arrested for chanting "from the river to the sea", and these gangsters pose as protectors of 'free speech'? Elon Musk level hypocrisy.
Conservatives almost universally have no concept of irony or hypocrisy :D
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,359
5,112
136
The answer to that seems simple to me. Just stop attaching so much importance to who wins (and stop rewarding them so much for doing so - thus remove the incentive to take extreme measures to win - whether it's changing gender or taking drugs or bribery).

Seems to me there are a few genuinely difficult issues around transgender topics.

The most difficult of all of them is probably prisons, followed by domestic violence shelters. (I don't care about pronouns - isn't it just an accident of linguistic history that we have gendered pronouns at all? We don't use different pronouns for different races or different hair-colours...though I bet there are languages that use different ones for different social classes...and as for bathrooms, most of the time that can be solved by just providing more of the damn things for everybody)

But I find it exasperating that so much political energy is expended on arguments around something as trivial and pointless as organised competitive sport.

The whole thing is intrinsically discriminatory, anyway. Despite the attempt to get round it with the para-olympics, that doesn't change the fact that it's inherently about inequality and hierarchies.

It remains the case that anyone who has been affected by chronic illness or disability is at an inherent disadvantage (the para-olympics has to invent - and then try and enforce - all these arbitrary categories to make it work, and not every disability, and certainly not chronic illness, fits into those categories). As is anyone who had no access to sports facilities and time to train when young, whether due to poverty or some other disadvantage.

Organised competitive sport is a marginal special-interest, and I find it annoying that it plays such a big role in a political controversy. It's as bad as religion in that respect.
It seems like you're missing the point of competitive sports. It's not about being inclusive, it's about who is the best. Who is at the pinacol of their field. It celebrates training, determination and physical ability. It can't be fair, it can't be inclusive. The really odd thing here is that I don't care about sports at all. I have zero interest and think most of it is silly, but I do understand the point.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi and pcgeek11

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,036
7,964
136
It seems like you're missing the point of competitive sports. It's not about being inclusive, it's about who is the best. Who is at the pinacol of their field. It celebrates training, determination and physical ability. It can't be fair, it can't be inclusive. The really odd thing here is that I don't care about sports at all. I have zero interest and think most of it is silly, but I do understand the point.

Well, indeed, that does seem to be the point of competitive sports, but if you take that to its logical extent then you'd have no basis to object to transgender competitors. By your argument there's no reason to divide competition by sex at all.

And the fact that it's about who is "the best" is, in my opinion, why it's ridiculous. Competition is fine if it's in pursuit of something that has value in itself, that improves the world in some way, like being the best doctor or engineer.

Competition for its own sake is slightly absurd, especially when it's taken to the point where people choose to damage their long-term health by taking performance-enhancing drugs, for example, just to be 'the best' at running pointlessly round in circles.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,359
5,112
136
Well, indeed, that does seem to be the point of competitive sports, but if you take that to its logical extent then you'd have no basis to object to transgender competitors. By your argument there's no reason to divide competition by sex at all.

And the fact that it's about who is "the best" is, in my opinion, why it's ridiculous. Competition is fine if it's in pursuit of something that has value in itself, that improves the world in some way, like being the best doctor or engineer.

Competition for its own sake is slightly absurd, especially when it's taken to the point where people choose to damage their long-term health by taking performance-enhancing drugs, for example, just to be 'the best' at running pointlessly round in circles.
Would pit the top little league team against the world series winners? There is a reason for sports to be divided into different category's.
Some sports have to be divided by sex. Men are, generally speaking, bigger, faster, and stronger then women. If there was no division then there wouldn't be any point in women competing. A female in pro football would be risking her life. A dwarf in the NBA is never going to score a point. Me in the pole vault would result in a three foot vault and broken leg.

I agree that competition just for the sake of competition is of little value, but it's entertainment and in that respect no different than any other type of entertainment. Trying to make it fair to everyone is an absurd idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba and pcgeek11

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,036
7,964
136
Would pit the top little league team against the world series winners? There is a reason for sports to be divided into different category's.
Some sports have to be divided by sex. Men are, generally speaking, bigger, faster, and stronger then women. If there was no division then there wouldn't be any point in women competing. A female in pro football would be risking her life. A dwarf in the NBA is never going to score a point. Me in the pole vault would result in a three foot vault and broken leg.

I agree that competition just for the sake of competition is of little value, but it's entertainment and in that respect no different than any other type of entertainment. Trying to make it fair to everyone is an absurd idea.

Sure, but your comments here seem a bit contradictory - make it fair by having them divided by sex, but then it's absurd to make it fair for everyone?

The main point is that the incentives have gotten all-out-of-whack, if it's being seriously suggested that people might change gender purely to gain competitive advantage, in something that is just entertainment. The fact that drug use is such an issue suggests that people are already taking such 'entertainment' too seriously. Don't give people incentives to resort to extreme measures to 'win' and it will cease to be a problem.

Encouraging people, from childhood, to take competitive sports too seriously is already a big problem as far as I can see. It has all sorts of damaging consequences, from drug use to sports fans abusing rape victims because their accusations harmed their favorite team''s prospects.

Partly I'm just irritated that so much of the argument over a serious - and already tricky to resolve - socio-political issue like transgender politics gets repeatedly hijacked by the side-issue of competitive sports. Keep sport out of politics. Don't spoil the purity of politics with fractious arguments over sport.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,359
5,112
136
I don't think my position is contradictory at all. Sports is often delimited by sex, size, and age. Ability is often a factor as well. If Mike Tyson decided to enter women's boxing his opponents would be risking death.
People aren't all physically equal, the games we play recognize that and the logical divisions are sex, size, and ability.
Having men compete against women in top tier physical sports isn't political, it's absurd.

When I see a man beat a women in sport X, I don't see him as an amazing athlete, I see him as an asshole.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
31,552
9,920
136
I don't think my position is contradictory at all. Sports is often delimited by sex, size, and age. Ability is often a factor as well. If Mike Tyson decided to enter women's boxing his opponents would be risking death.
People aren't all physically equal, the games we play recognize that and the logical divisions are sex, size, and ability.
Having men compete against women in top tier physical sports isn't political, it's absurd.

When I see a man beat a women in sport X, I don't see him as an amazing athlete, I see him as an asshole.
So why not let sport governing bodies do their job and have everyone else STFU? Developing guidelines on participant eligibility is part of their job. Many sporting associations have or are developing guidelines.

There is no need for the state to get involved.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
26,094
23,968
136
So why not let sport governing bodies do their job and have everyone else STFU? Developing guidelines on participant eligibility is part of their job. Many sporting associations have or are developing guidelines.

There is no need for the state to get involved.
So much this.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,359
5,112
136
So why not let sport governing bodies do their job and have everyone else STFU? Developing guidelines on participant eligibility is part of their job. Many sporting associations have or are developing guidelines.

There is no need for the state to get involved.
I never suggested the state should get involved. Though my hunch is the courts will end up getting involved as there will absolutely be law suit's. At some point along the way the courts will have to decide what a woman actually is.
 
Nov 17, 2019
10,767
6,453
136
Having men compete against women in top tier physical sports isn't political, it's absurd.
There are a LOT of women out there who can beat the tar AND feathers out of many guys.

The answer to this whole thing is size and weight classes. Heavyweight Mikey can't get in a ring with a welterweight.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,359
5,112
136
There are a LOT of women out there who can beat the tar AND feathers out of many guys.

The answer to this whole thing is size and weight classes. Heavyweight Mikey can't get in a ring with a welterweight.
Nope. The answer is having biological women compete against biological women, the same for men, then you divide by size.
I'm absolutely contemptuous of any male that chooses to physically dominate a woman, that includes sports. I won't ever pretend it's acceptable and I sure as hell will never have any respect for the contemptable asshole that does it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcgeek11

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
26,094
23,968
136
Nope. The answer is having biological women compete against biological women, the same for men, then you divide by size.
I'm absolutely contemptuous of any male that chooses to physically dominate a woman, that includes sports. I won't ever pretend it's acceptable and I sure as hell will never have any respect for the contemptable asshole that does it.

simple answers for simple minds
 
Nov 17, 2019
10,767
6,453
136
Hey Greeney, which locker room? Which swim team?


Trans models: From decades of rejection to centre stage - BBC News



Caroline Cossey, la actriz trans que fue una chica Bond
 
  • Haha
Reactions: pcgeek11

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
14,526
9,899
136
Well, indeed, that does seem to be the point of competitive sports, but if you take that to its logical extent then you'd have no basis to object to transgender competitors. By your argument there's no reason to divide competition by sex at all.

And the fact that it's about who is "the best" is, in my opinion, why it's ridiculous. Competition is fine if it's in pursuit of something that has value in itself, that improves the world in some way, like being the best doctor or engineer.

Competition for its own sake is slightly absurd, especially when it's taken to the point where people choose to damage their long-term health by taking performance-enhancing drugs, for example, just to be 'the best' at running pointlessly round in circles.
Liberals used to be pro-title 9. Women deserve a chance to compete in sports. Within women, though, it'll still be the most talented, hardest working, and most genetically gifted that win in Elite sports.

I am fine with trans women competing as long as there is basis to show it doesn't create an unfair advantage. I think most sports have been trying to figure this out and have created decent guidelines. I also think men's sports should all be open, just like Chess has done forever. Anyone can compete in the men's bracket, but no men or "recent" trans women (recent being however that sport defines it.

The reason it gets so much coverage it's a huge wedge issue for liberals and liberals love being manipulated by right wing media.