The End Of Girls' And Women's Sports
"The fastest female sprinter in the world is American runner Allyson Felix, a woman with more gold medals than Usain Bolt. Her lifetime best for the 400-meter run is 49.26 seconds. Based on 2018 data, nearly 300 high-school boys in the U.S. alone could beat it."
That's a quote from Abigail Shrier's piece in the WSJ about Biden's executive order that "rigs competition by requiring that biological boys be allowed to compete against girls":
Amid Inauguration Day talk of shattered glass ceilings, on Wednesday President Biden delivered a body blow to the rights of women and girls: the Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation. On day one, Mr. Biden placed all girls' sports and women's safe spaces in the crosshairs of the administrative state.The order declares: "Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the rest room, the locker room, or school sports. . . . All persons should receive equal treatment under the law, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation." The order purports to direct administrative agencies to begin promulgating regulations that would enforce the Supreme Court's 2020 decision Bostock v. Clayton County. In fact, it goes much further.
In Bostock, the justices held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited an employer from firing an employee on the basis of homosexuality or "transgender status." Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for a 6-3 majority, took pains to clarify that the decision was limited to employment and had no bearing on "sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes"--all regulated under Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments. "Under Title VII, too," the majority added, "we do not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind."
The Biden executive order is far more ambitious. Any school that receives federal funding--including nearly every public high school--must either allow biological boys who self-identify as girls onto girls' sports teams or face administrative action from the Education Department. If this policy were to be broadly adopted in anticipation of the regulations that are no doubt on the way, what would this mean for girls' and women's sports?
"Finished. Done," Olympic track-and-field coach Linda Blade told me. "The leadership skills, all the benefits society gets from letting girls have their protected category so that competition can be fair, all the advances of women's rights--that's going to be diminished."
Though this applies to schools receiving federal funding, once the team from the public school with kids born with boyparts competes with the private school team, well, what girl would want to remain on the private school team to compete against someone who has vastly more testosterone and muscle mass (and thus physical power) than she does?
This is like humans competing against some super-strong space things or an adult playing checkers to win with a 6-year-old. We call this a "no-win" situation.
Sports are important for many reasons for girls: learning teamwork and building self-worth, for example. Biden takes all of this away from girls and women with a stroke of his pen, in the name of "equality" that is anything but.
People seem to have forgotten the adage, “Be careful what you ask for, you might just get it.”
Jay at January 24, 2021 1:48 AM
I've wondered for a while now if it would just be better overall to separate out competitors based off of a system analogous to what is done in chess.
The Elo rating system is self correcting and let's people of similar abilities compete against one another regardless of their biology.
It really doesn't matter if the folks with the highest Elo rating in basketball tend to be biological men any more than the fact that the folks with the highest Elo rating will also tend to be tall.
In such a system biological women would never have to worry about being put into direct competition with biological men that outclass them physically.
We would just end up with people competing against others of similar ability as they work their way up the ranks.
Teams could then be comprised of individuals within a particular range of more or less matched ability levels.
Artemis at January 24, 2021 3:11 AM
All the Karens and self-righteous suburban wokesters who sneered at conservatives and voted OrangeManBad out are getting exactly what they asked for. Good and hard.
Too bad that precious (gender-neutrally named) Jaden/Taylor/Skylar won't be able to list the lacrosse team on zher college application...
Remember the a-hole poseurs who Twittered "burn it down!" until BLM came to *their* neighborhoods? Bidarris is going to jolt awake the fools that Trump couldn't reach...
Israeli army officer saying: those who can't learn with their heads learn with their feet...
BenDavid at January 24, 2021 4:57 AM
> Good and hard.
✔
Crid at January 24, 2021 5:33 AM
Not being from our country, Orion believes basketball fans will pay to support every division of height, admiring the 60"-and-under players just as actual Americans admire Jordan and James… Giant men of nonetheless balletic grace who dispatch all challengers without qualification.
But that ain't how it works: Americans want to know who's best, without quibbling. At the end of the game, we look at the scoreboard, not the bracket.
Or perhaps — from a wheelchair behind the Great Firewall — Orion only intends that our girls have the meaning of the contest stripped from their athletics.
But it's more likely that Orion is merely doubling down on the 'participation trophy' nonsense, and presuming that American blog readers find it irresistible.
Mostly this comment betokens Orion's practice of always replying but never responding. The actual loss Shirer is describing is invisible to Orion, whose first consideration is always Am I saying something an American COULD POSSIBLY say? Well, perhaps so, but it's nothing an American *would* say.
When, in China or any in other such lesser nation, you play only "against others of similar ability," you aren't competing— You're being given busywork by a power structure that has other plans for you.
But Americans ain't playin.'
Crid at January 24, 2021 6:06 AM
I somewhat support this change.
"The fastest female sprinter in the world is American runner Allyson Felix, a woman with more gold medals than Usain Bolt. Her lifetime best for the 400-meter run is 49.26 seconds. Based on 2018 data, nearly 300 high-school boys in the U.S. alone could beat it." ~Shrier
People in the US appear to be largely ignorant of this and other differences between men and women. Even the people who should be most aware of physical differences (people in Olympic or world sports) also appear unaware. After all it is every few years you hear about women stars in various sports losing to high school men's teams.
We've spent decades destroying men's sports in the misguided call for equality. As Ben David says some people have to learn the hard way. Integrating the sports may be the only way for most people to learn.
Ben at January 24, 2021 6:57 AM
I don't support this idiocy, but—
> Integrating the sports may be
> the only way for most people
> to learn.
There's nothing like a pyre in the village square to remind people about which furnishings are readily-burned timber and which are heirlooms. (Even the young pieces, like competitive girl's sports.)
Surprised to feel so grateful for having Martina in our public life.
Crid at January 24, 2021 7:42 AM
I suspect that the idiocy represented by the Biden EO and the entire transsexuals in sports accommodations will backfire.
If they want to generate hostility to them and their cause, this is exactly how to go about doing it. Which is a shame, because it's taken centuries to tamp down the social reflex to be hostile towards mental illnesses. But this is how one goes about being perceived as a social danger.
ruralcounsel at January 24, 2021 7:55 AM
True, but for the people like Allyson Felix, it won't be a lesson, but a travesty. She'll go from the top-ranked women's sprinter to 400th in the world overnight. All the training in the world won't restore her to the top ranks. She'll be an overnight has been.
==========
That's why the WNBA is the ratings powerhouse that it is.
The games are dull. Shorter, less-muscular, and less-athletic players means games featuring lots of dribbling, passing, and defense. The shots are layups with no slam dunks or long three-point shots.
It's basically a playground game being televised. Even men's college basketball features better players and more-exciting games.
==========
✔︎
Conan the Grammarian at January 24, 2021 8:02 AM
> The games are dull.
I was going to make a point about that in the earlier comment, and suggest that it would be interesting to see if Nadal could take on Serena and Venus at the same time. But I looked it up and he's 34, while they're both ~40ish. So it wouldn't be fair anyway.
And so I was going to switch to another, younger female athlete BUT COULDN'T THINK OF ONE. Nobody GAF about female athletes. (Besides, people who watch the sport closely say Serena's probably juiced out of her skull. For some reason, nobody wants to make an issue out of it.)
People want to see the best, which is why football players are (regrettably) over 300 pounds. I've thought-experimented an NFL with a weight ceiling of 200 pounds… Nobody would buy tickets. In that parallel universe, Arena Football would be regnant.
As a small and clumsy kid it never mattered, but now that it's the Old Guy sweepstakes, I've never looked forward to NFL division championships as much as this afternoon's games.
It's critically important that the Older Old guy (Brady) defeat the Younger Old Guy (Rodgers), because that's the whole point.
Either way, the NFC *must* defeat the AFC. I'd prefer that Brady/Rodgers (/ButBradyReally) not have to face Mahomes, for three reasons:
- Mahomes is a sweet kid who suffered a considerable wallop to his neurology just a few days ago, and even if I stop watching the sport after Brady retires, which is probable, I don't like seeing young men maimed.
- Brady/Rodgers would probably lose to Mahomes.
- I particularly admire sports outcomes which humiliate Boston.
So a 7th ring for Brady is what's best for everyone. He's old and still looks great, much like I do. He's the champion Americans can agree on!Crid at January 24, 2021 8:44 AM
Watching sports implode because of transgender.
True in concept but not in practice. Transgender is very rare, and it would have to be M-> F, in the age range for sports competition, and the person have the desire to compete. All adds up to it being extremely rare.
At first it will be talked as the rare celebration (The first Trans to win X or break some record) After 2 years the press won't even mention it. Sure it will really suck for those who are directly competing against them, but that is what? a few 1000 people.
At worst say if a team in the WNBA has 2 trans players and so completely sweeps the season, so it is obvious it's wrong. All that would care are the WNBA fans. That ratings powerhouse.
The kneeling and leftist slogans on football jerseys will have much more of an impact to sports.
Joe J at January 24, 2021 9:58 AM
Private schools and public schools don't compete against each other.
But otherwise, yes.
Artemis, I've also had that thought, but ultimately I think there's an interest that the spectators have in knowing who the best female runner that they won't have in knowing who the best runner in class C is.
NicoleK at January 24, 2021 11:03 AM
Shrier podcast. Haven't heard it yet.
Crid at January 24, 2021 12:22 PM
> All adds up to it being
> extremely rare.
Well, the breakpoint's at the top of each pyramid. I'd never heard of Allyson Felix, but it's easy to imagine that she means a lot to people who care about the Olympics. Sight unseen, I'm guessing she's black, and her fans will not be happy, especially if it's a *white* transsexual who takes down her records.
You're right that the State Regionals in gymnastics or whatever will probably be unaffected. But threatening the integrity of so many sports this way shows that the WokeBidens of this world have no clue what sports ever meant to girls anyway.
> The kneeling and leftist slogans
> on football jerseys will have much
> more of an impact to sports.
Might be true… Will have to think about it.
But to this quickly-aging liberal, it is all of a piece.
Crid at January 24, 2021 12:49 PM
Categorizing athletes by size and skill is an arrangement that can work in individual sports but falls short in team sports. Teams are built by balancing the strengths of the players.
Conan the Grammarian at January 24, 2021 12:50 PM
Male trans-jacking will become the new sport.
Sam at January 24, 2021 1:20 PM
Private schools and public schools don't compete against each other.
I don't know where that's true, but it isn't universal. It is certainly not true in Florida.
I R A Darth Aggie at January 24, 2021 1:23 PM
I had a similar thought this morning, that if everyone's evenly matched, there's no point in having coaches or trades, or any of the other management drama which makes professional sports interesting.
Even in Formula 1, one of the most rarefied, finely-filtered selectors of individual talent in the world, all that off-track intrigue is an essential source of fan interest. (And, remarkably, this gap between the 2020 and 2021 seasons is full of chatter.)
How many girls would be excited about going to the prom if they were all going to be wearing the same dress?
Crid at January 24, 2021 1:29 PM
"she means a lot to people who care about the Olympics."
But the USA is not the Olympics. They have their own rules especially about female athletes and male hormones. I have not heard what, if any, stance they have on it.
Frankly with a global pandemic the Olympics happening is more the question for them.
Joe J at January 24, 2021 2:16 PM
> with a global pandemic the Olympics
> happening is more the question
If they cancel outright, it's okay with me. There are people who say the handshake is lost to us for a least two generations; I'd miss that a lot more.
Crid at January 24, 2021 2:42 PM
Crid Says:
"But that ain't how it works: Americans want to know who's best, without quibbling. At the end of the game, we look at the scoreboard, not the bracket."
If you had the slightest clue how Elo ratings work you would know how ridiculous your objection is.
An Elo ranking tells you instantly which player is ranked higher than another.
There is no confusion about it.
Someone with an Elo rating of 2000 will utterly destroy someone with an Elo rating of 1000 in more than 99 out of 100 competitive matches.
This system had been working well for decades.
You are just ignorant as usual.
Artemis at January 24, 2021 3:00 PM
NicoleK Says:
"Artemis, I've also had that thought, but ultimately I think there's an interest that the spectators have in knowing who the best female runner that they won't have in knowing who the best runner in class C is."
There doesn't seem to be much confusion as to who the best female players in chess are.
I still feel like this solves the main real objection here.
There is a good reason not to put a 100 pound woman up against a 240 pound man in a wrestling match... but Elo style rankings would make this kind of match up essentially impossible.
We could still see who the best player is across any demographic one could cook up.
Artemis at January 24, 2021 3:04 PM
Conan Says:
"Categorizing athletes by size and skill is an arrangement that can work in individual sports but falls short in team sports. Teams are built by balancing the strengths of the players."
There is good reason to believe you are wrong:
https://towardsdatascience.com/rating-sports-teams-elo-vs-win-loss-d46ee57c1314
Win-loss records are crude and subject to massive variation.
Things like Elo scores (or other associated metrics) are vastly superior to identifying who the best individual player or team happens to be.
It is likely a better system overall and has been working out well for decades in many areas.
Yes it would be something new... but in this case new is probably better because the current system is actually quite terrible at picking out who the best individual player or team happens to be.
Artemis at January 24, 2021 3:11 PM
Replies, not responses.
Doesn't matter.
The Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Tom Brady are going to the Super Bowl!
When you pay attention to who's best rather than who's evenly matched, interesting & wonderful things can happen.
Orion would be better prepared for all this if living in United States time zones.
Crid at January 24, 2021 3:23 PM
"Massive variation." Nightmare!
Crid at January 24, 2021 3:24 PM
Crid,
Just because you are incapable of understanding something doesn't imply that there is a lack of response.
There is no confusion whatsoever in chess who the best player is.
That best player is Magnus Carlsen and has a FIDE rating of 2862.
He is ranked #1 in the world without any ambiguity or confusion... everyone recognizes him as the world champion.
The current top female player is Yifan Hou with a FIDE rating of 2658.
Again, there is no confusion here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIDE_world_rankings
Based on how the rankings work, Magnus would be expected to defeat Yifan most of the time.
No one thinks Yifan is a better player than Magnus.
The rankings are clear and unambiguous.
At the same time if Yifan were to play a similarly ranked man... they would be evenly matched.
Artemis at January 24, 2021 3:30 PM
Crid Says:
""Massive variation." Nightmare!"
It is is you are actually interested in knowing who the best player or team happens to be.
Look... the math seems to be way over your head here.
Here is the reality though. When we are talking about the Super Bowl, it is objectively true that the best team often does not win.
You just admire the idea of crowning the inferior team as champion... which is shall we say... quaint.
Artemis at January 24, 2021 3:34 PM
> It is is you are actually
> interested in knowing who
> the best player or team
> happens to be.
That's a communist presumption.
I want to know who won.
Crid at January 24, 2021 3:36 PM
Crid,
Are you seriously arguing that in chess people don't know who won?
You just sound stupid.
Artemis at January 24, 2021 3:37 PM
Sports, Artie, about more than Elo scores and "who's best." Sports is an endurance test.
If we just Elo scored every team, there'd be no playoffs, no tournament; no excitement, no drama. No test of endurance. None of the things for which people watch sports.
It's revealing that you prefer a clinical evaluation of which team or player is "best" over a playoff or even a crude win-loss record.
Sports are about the gut punch you feel when your team loses a game you were sure it would win; that moment when "Mighty Casey" struck out. It's the feeling of joy when your team wins a game you were sure it would lose.
What would you do, Artie, have each team run some drills at the beginning of the year and evaluate them on that, since the win-loss record is "crude and subject to massive variation?"
In sports, as in chess, "the winner of the game is the player who makes the next-to-last mistake" (hat tip to Savielly Tartakower), and that is not always "the best" player.
=========
Your obsession with rankings and "the best team" is telling, and not in a flattering way.
You're right about one thing, the Super Bowl is not a determinant of which is the "best" team. It's about finding out which team has the stamina and the heart over the long run to win the games it has to win to claim the championship.
Conan the Grammarian at January 24, 2021 5:43 PM
Conan Says:
"If we just Elo scored every team, there'd be no playoffs, no tournament; no excitement, no drama. No test of endurance. None of the things for which people watch sports."
And yet we have things like chess tournaments.
You could and would have playoffs, and tournaments, and excitement... in fact there is every reason to believe that there would be *more* excitement as there is nothing more boring than a complete blow out of mismatched opponents.
People tune out when one team is up by some enormous amount.
I've been to baseball games where people literally walk out of the stadium when by the 7th inning one team is completely dominating the other.
Excitement is in the competitive nature of the game... that there is a real chance either side could lose.
None of your objections strike me as real from the perspective of how one could design the system to work.
They do strike me as items one wants to keep in mind when designing a system such that one can preserve and even maximize the competitive excitement.
What I am saying here Conan is that I think there is a very real possibility we could do better if someone put in the work... it has happened before.
The Elo system was created by Arpad Elo and adopted back in 1970. It has been used to great effect and great success.
There is no good reason to think something similar couldn't be applied to other competitive arenas.
"What would you do, Artie, have each team run some drills at the beginning of the year and evaluate them on that, since the win-loss record is "crude and subject to massive variation?""
I think this is where the problem is Conan. This statement demonstrates that you don't really understand how the Elo system functions.
Each and every game that is played causes one teams ranking to improve and the other teams ranking to decrease.
It is a constantly updating and self correcting system.
It isn't some number that stays static.
What this kind of system corrects for is that a win against a well ranked opponent is worth *more* than a win against a poorly ranked opponent.
The reason out current win-loss record system isn't so great is that it counts a win against the best team in the league as worth exactly the same as a win against the worst team in the league.
I hope that the problem with that system is obvious to you and why an Elo style system is superior for determining which player/team is actually the best.
Artemis at January 24, 2021 7:26 PM
I’m well aware of the Elo system, it’s designer, and it’s application, Artie. I taught all my nephews to play chess and did quite a bit of research on the game for my own curiosity, but thanks for the condescension there. I had almost forgotten how annoying you can be.
As for using it in pro sports, you’d have a hard time getting fans to go for a system in which a division could be left out of the playoffs because of a ratings system, even if it meant better teams in the playoffs. Regional rivalries being what they are.
Conan the Grammarian at January 24, 2021 8:20 PM
"Male trans-jacking will become the new sport. "
This hole thing is getting ridiculous.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at January 24, 2021 10:48 PM
Conan,
If you are so familiar with how the Elo system works in practice why would you question if it was compatible with tournament play?
That isn't a slight error on your part.
You just cannot seem to ever acknowledge being unfamiliar with something.
It's great that you taught your nephews to play chess... that doesn't mean you are a ranked player or understand the mathematics behind the ranking system.
Your claim is no different than asserting that every little league player and coach is in some sense familiar with sabermetrics... and that even if they have heard the term before that they also understand the mathematical underpinnings behind how the analysis works.
Simply put, if you were familiar with the Elo system and how it worked you could not have possibly objected on the grounds that tournament play would not be possible:
"If we just Elo scored every team, there'd be no playoffs, no tournament; no excitement, no drama."
No one who actually understands how an Elo style system works could say this.
Artemis at January 24, 2021 10:52 PM
Conan Says:
"As for using it in pro sports, you’d have a hard time getting fans to go for a system in which a division could be left out of the playoffs because of a ratings system, even if it meant better teams in the playoffs. Regional rivalries being what they are."
Since you absolutely despise it whenever anyone explains something to you, let's try a different approach.
Can you think of a way that this concern could be addressed?
From my perspective this concern is handled without much difficulty, but I don't want you to feel like I am talking down to you, so I'll let you figure out the solution on your own and then you can share it with us.
Artemis at January 24, 2021 11:34 PM
Artemis, how does it work with scholarships in chess? If the top female player is ranked 400th... does that mean there are no scholarships for her? (Are there even chess scholarships for anyone?)
A transwoman is still likely to be ranked far higher than the highest ranked woman in most sports... so he would still get the scholarship even if there was one specifically for women, wouldn't he, unless this issue is addressed?
I'm not sure how shuffling things around would help, but perhaps you see a way?
NicoleK at January 25, 2021 12:44 AM
NicoleK Says:
"Artemis, how does it work with scholarships in chess? If the top female player is ranked 400th... does that mean there are no scholarships for her? (Are there even chess scholarships for anyone?)"
I don't believe that things like chess scholarships are nearly as plentiful as scholarships for things like college football (but let's be honest... woman aren't really getting those anyway).
However there are chess scholarships available for women despite them being on average ranked at a lower level than men.
A great example would be Alexandra Botez:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Botez
"Botez won the U.S. Girls Nationals at the age of 15. She represented the state of Oregon twice in the SPF Girls’ Invitational. Qualifying for the North American Girls Under-18 Championship, Botez achieved the Woman FIDE Master title norm.
After attending high school in Oregon, Botez earned a full chess scholarship for the University of Texas Dallas, but instead decided to study International Relations with a focus on China at Stanford."
So yes... she was awarded a full ride scholarship for chess... but opted to attend Stanford instead because it was a more prestigious university.
I guess what I am saying here is that I think there are ways to address all of these concerns and that examples exist where these types of issues have been addressed elsewhere.
Whether or not anyone makes an earnest attempt to think things through and try to be fair to everyone is another matter entirely.
I am not saying anyone is going to bother trying to take a thoughtful and measured approach to any of this... I'm just saying I believe it is possible to do so if someone wanted to put in the effort.
Artemis at January 25, 2021 1:39 AM
Right, but if transwomen are competing with women for those scholarships, it doesn't really solve the fundamental problem does it? The scholarships will still go to transwoman atheletes, screwing over the women and girls.
NicoleK at January 25, 2021 5:27 AM
Biden will make most fair minded people miss Trump very soon. He's already done more damage in 4 days than Trump did in 4 years.
And all the shallow minded doofs say: "But but but Trumps' tweets"
Trust at January 25, 2021 6:22 AM
Here's the thing I want to know: Is there any kind of psychological evaluation taking place in these instances of biologically male athletes wanting to compete as women? If someone really, truly identifies as a woman, I don't have a major problem with them competing as a woman. But there's got to be a way of weeding out those who just want to win in competition so badly they don't care what anyone thinks.
Fayd at January 25, 2021 7:59 AM
Not just athletes. Even in chess there has never been a woman champion and only one woman has ever been ranked in the top ten, Judit Polgar who was ranked at number 8 in 2005. Without a specific gender separation, even chess scholarships would overwhelmingly go to male players, or to transwomen players.
Interestingly enough, to me at least, a woman with whom I used to regularly play chess was a math major in college and very astute at the game. I've found over the years that math majors usually make good players. It's probably spatial - the ability to visualize objects and manipulate them mentally. She was a much better player than I was.
Contrary to Artie's assertion, I never claimed to be a ranked player, nor ever aspired to be one - merely an enthusiast who researched, taught, and played the game for my own enjoyment.
Title IX wrecked less popular men's sports at the collegiate level. With proportionate scholarship representation required across the board, men's athletics had to cut sports because football, a high revenue sport, eats up the lion's share of men's scholarships and there is not women's equivalent.
A 2005 paper describes the wreckage:
==========
As I pointed out, league revenue sharing, salary caps, and fan bases are going to make that difficult to implement.
The American NBA has a developmental league that struggles for viewers and fans. Even minor league baseball, with its fan-friendly parks and promotions, averages fewer than 5,000 fans per game. No one wants to watch the B-team.
The NBA and NHL playoffs are done in a tournament style with seeding based on regular season performance. Both leagues have been criticized for over-long playoffs; that the tournament practically replicates a regular season with too many teams making the playoffs despite mediocre regular seasons. The NFL and MLB at least require a team to place well in its division before making the playoffs.
That division structure can lead to some anomalies, such as the 2011 Seattle Seahawks going to the playoffs with a losing regular season record. Nonetheless, those 2011 Seahawks won their first round game, to the delight of their fans.
In American football, teams are given power rankings and players at skill positions (i.e., quarterback) are ranked based on an algorithm few fans understand. The system does not, and cannot, measure the intangibles which often affect the out come of a game and the success of a season.
So yes, Artie, ranking systems abound in professional sports, but championships are still decided on the field, driven by those "crude" won-loss records with their "massive variation."
Leagues generally try to make it possible for poor-performing teams to improve over time with draft picks and free agents. Some leagues succeed at this better than others.
In the draft system, only the NFL seems to have internalized the lesson that the real competition is not between the teams for fans and revenue, but between the league and whatever else the fans could be doing with their time; that a competitive league draws fans, that "on any given Sunday" means an enthusiastic fan base for every team, not just the Lakers and the Yankees. The league's smallest fan base - Green Bay, Wisconsin - has watched its team play in 10 NFL championships and 3 Super Bowls since 1936.
The Packers, in fact, might be one of the best-managed teams in the league. With no owner's ego to placate, the team has built a corporate reserve fund of over $275 million. With community ownership, the fans know the team is never moving, so their fan-ship is unconditional - and rabid.
Conan the Grammarian at January 25, 2021 8:03 AM
"Is there any kind of psychological evaluation taking place in these instances of biologically male athletes wanting to compete as women? If someone really, truly identifies as a woman, I don't have a major problem with them competing as a woman." ~Fayd
Why does it matter how you feel? If a 300lb of muscle guy feels like a 100lb woman it doesn't change the fact he has 300lb of muscle. To some extent feelings don't matter. You may feel like your lights should work. But if you don't pay your electrical bill it doesn't matter what you feel. With no power the lights won't turn on.
Beyond that issue you are asking for mind reading to be able to tell the difference between those who truly feel like a woman vs those who only claim to feel like a woman. That technology is currently unavailable.
Ben at January 25, 2021 9:03 AM
You folks do realize that the 'trans women' you're talking about will not have undertaken any significant change to their physiology - i.e. they'll simply be men who've decided to declare themselves women.
That's what Biden's order sets into motion, because the criteria of 'gender identity' are self declared. That means that no diagnosis of gender dysphoria, or medical criteria such as hormone therapy are relevant any longer. This is what the latest SCOTUS ruling on this matter has established.
I'm all for dysphoric trans people getting the care and recognition they're entitled to, but what's actually happening is quiet different. They're being used as a foil to socially engineer a new 'gender neutral' paradigm of rights and identity recognition. The current generation of Trans young people are simply 'gender non-conforming'. They are not clinically dysphoric and do not experience the harms or risks associated with that diagnosis. The public is being deliberately deceived to force changes in society that they aren't aware of and will not want once they've been established.
nephron at January 25, 2021 9:15 AM
as nephron said, trans athletes do NOT need to have undergone hormone treatment or surgery under Biden's EO (the olympics ironically limit the testosterone level to be called a female). This also applies to gyms and high schools, where a physical male can now use the girl's restrooms and locker rooms with no restrictions.
cc at January 25, 2021 12:41 PM
NickoleK says:
"Right, but if transwomen are competing with women for those scholarships, it doesn't really solve the fundamental problem does it? The scholarships will still go to transwoman atheletes, screwing over the women and girls."
On what basis can you make this assertion?
You specifically asked if in chess women get scholarships despite competing against men.
The answer was yes.
That runs contrary to your argument... not in favor of it.
You have not actually established that scholarships can or should be distributed on the basis of gender as opposed to biological sex.
If this is your concern then it can actually be dealt with in a variety of ways that don't involve telling people which bathroom they should feel comfortable peeing in.
Artemis at January 25, 2021 1:41 PM
Conan Says:
"Not just athletes. Even in chess there has never been a woman champion and only one woman has ever been ranked in the top ten, Judit Polgar who was ranked at number 8 in 2005. Without a specific gender separation, even chess scholarships would overwhelmingly go to male players, or to transwomen players."
You have not supplied evidence that generating scholarship pools based on biological sex is in any sense incompatible with letting transgender people compete in sports.
Let's get down to brass tacks and ask the following questions.
1 - Should transgendered individuals be able to compete in sports?
2 - Can we decide where those individuals compete based on ability level as opposed to chromosomes?
3 - Can we choose to offer scholarships on the basis of biological sex if we wish to despite gender identification?
The answers to all three of these questions should be yes.
Whether or not people will operate this way is a different question than what we could choose to do.
"I've found over the years that math majors usually make good players. It's probably spatial - the ability to visualize objects and manipulate them mentally. She was a much better player than I was."
It's pattern recognition... not spatial reasoning.
And yes... people with mathematical mindsets tend to be better at chess. They tend to be better at most things involving problem solving and pattern recognition. Mathematical ability is correlated with all sorts of games and puzzles.
"Contrary to Artie's assertion, I never claimed to be a ranked player, nor ever aspired to be one - merely an enthusiast who researched, taught, and played the game for my own enjoyment."
My only claim is that you clearly did not understand how Elo rankings work based on how you were discussing them.
I taught my children how to speak... that doesn't make me a linguist. You taught your nephews how to play a board game... that doesn't mean you understand the scoring details at the professional level.
Based on this conversation your understanding of that aspect of the game is very limited despite the fact that I have no doubt that you understand a bishop moves on the diagonals and the horse moves in an "L" pattern.
"As I pointed out, league revenue sharing, salary caps, and fan bases are going to make that difficult to implement."
We are talking about college sports Conan..
All of your talk about the NBA, the NFL, the NHL, and MLB is more or less completely besides the point here.
Those are dominated by men anyway. How are you concerned that transgendered women are going to drive biological women out of the NBA, the NFL, the NHL, and MLB when they don't really have a presence there to begin with.
It's not like you seem all that interested in trying to protect women's professional sports... this is what you had to say about the WNBA earlier:
"That's why the WNBA is the ratings powerhouse that it is.
The games are dull. Shorter, less-muscular, and less-athletic players means games featuring lots of dribbling, passing, and defense. The shots are layups with no slam dunks or long three-point shots."
So you are deeply concerned that transgender women will drive out biological women in the WNBA and make the games more exciting... with taller, more muscular, and more athletic players?
Your own arguments are more or less self defeating.
There are no concerned with men being displaced in professional male sports... and you already have expressed disdain for professional female sports so any arguments you might make to protect them will forever fall flat.
This is a college sports issue anyway... professional sports cut biological women out a long time ago.
Artemis at January 25, 2021 2:03 PM
We're not even 1 week in and we've already got people screaming that the sky is falling.
It sure would have been nice if people here cared as much 10 months ago about social distancing and mask wearing during a viral pandemic that has since caused the deaths of over 400,000 American citizens.
I suppose that just wasn't as important as worrying about who was peeing in which bathroom.
I believe that NickoleK actually cares about women's sports and the impact this might have on young women.
Many of the rest of you obviously couldn't really care less if women were able to play basketball or any other sport on a college team.
If women's collegiate sports disappeared tomorrow I believe NickoleK would actually be bothered by it... many others here wouldn't lose one wink of sleep and still others might be happy because apparently women's sports are "dull" anyway.
Artemis at January 25, 2021 2:22 PM
We're not even 1 week in and we've already got people screaming that the sky is falling.
They’re just getting warmed up.
JD at January 25, 2021 3:10 PM
Artie, you're asking the wrong questions. It's not a matter of whether transgendered people should be allowed to compete in sports, but of what guidelines we should follow in allowing them to compete.
The first question is, does a biological man have an advantage in athletics and other competitive endeavors over a biological woman? The records books would indicate the answer is "yes."
If that's the case, do we allow biological men with denser musculature and larger lung capacity to compete directly against biological women simply because these men say they identify as women? Or do we require some sort of physical transition treatment before allowing direct competition?
Should universities award scholarships based on a stated identity as a woman? Would providing scholarships to people who say they identity as a woman reduce or drastically curtail scholarships for biological women as biological men seek to use these avenues to obtain scholarships for themselves? Would a significant number of biological men use such avenues to obtain scholarships they would otherwise be unable to obtain for themselves?
Would organizing teams based on competition classes (i.e., Elo scores for sports) instead of gender result in lower viewership and attendance for lower-rated competition tiers? Would the lower audience interest result in universities eliminating such lower tier teams? Would biological men claiming to identify as women dominate even the lower-tier teams to the point of driving women out of collegiate sports?
Would driving women out of collegiate sports have an adverse impact on women overall, depriving them of the leadership and competition opportunities collegiate sports offer? Is that a risk we, as a society, are prepared to take? Do we have an obligation to protect our wives, daughters, sisters, etc.? Do we have that same obligation to biological men who state that they identify as women, but have not undergone any physical transition treatment?
Additionally, we should be concerned about the potential for violence and abuse in opening women's private spaces to men who say they identify as women, but cannot offer any confirmation of that claim. Should such proof be demanded - or even demand-able - when people make a claim of being transgendered?
Conan the Grammarian at January 25, 2021 3:42 PM
Conan Says:
"Artie, you're asking the wrong questions. It's not a matter of whether transgendered people should be allowed to compete in sports, but of what guidelines we should follow in allowing them to compete."
I have presented a solution to this problem.
The guidelines should be that people complete based on ability level and those ability level.
For whatever reason you keep objecting on the basis of silly things like league revenue sharing and salary caps.
None of those concerns actually have anything to do with the problem under consideration.
It's just more of your Gish Gallop nonsense where you jump all over the place instead of sticking to the issue at hand.
"If that's the case, do we allow biological men with denser musculature and larger lung capacity to compete directly against biological women simply because these men say they identify as women? Or do we require some sort of physical transition treatment before allowing direct competition?"
No Conan... you have them compete based on their ability level.
If those transgender men have the denser musculature and lung capacity advantages an Elo system would prevent them from competing against physically disadvantaged women.
I've presented a solution already.
You then object based on financial concerns of professional sports franchises.
This isn't actually a difficult problem to solve if one wants to find a place for transgender individuals to compete without hindering women's participation.
"Additionally, we should be concerned about the potential for violence and abuse in opening women's private spaces to men who say they identify as women, but cannot offer any confirmation of that claim. Should such proof be demanded - or even demand-able - when people make a claim of being transgendered?"
Gross.
Artemis at January 25, 2021 4:53 PM
Conan Says:
"Would organizing teams based on competition classes (i.e., Elo scores for sports) instead of gender result in lower viewership and attendance for lower-rated competition tiers?"
You've already denigrated professional women's sports in this very conversation by sarcastically referring to it as a "ratings powerhouse" and calling it dull.
You don't have any credibility at this stage trying to advance arguments that women's sports might suffer in terms of viewership... from your perspective you've made it clear that it already isn't worth watching even at the professional level.
Artemis at January 25, 2021 5:03 PM
Conan,
I'll also point out that I offered 3 questions which you summarily dismissed as unimportant... only to follow up with 14 questions that I've either already provided a substantive resolution for... or that are really bigoted.
You voted twice for the "grab them by the pussy" President... and then ask if "we should be concerned about the potential for violence and abuse" of women by transgendered folks.
So the guy who has been accused of rape multiple times, has made derogatory comments about women for decades, has walked into dressing rooms of women to "inspect" what was going on... that guy you voted for to be president of the United States.
However, people who you've never met before we should presume without any evidence of wrongdoing are dangerous criminals out to violate women?
The only think you know about them is that they are transsexual... and that is enough for you to infer they are dangerous and we should be concerned about their potential for violence and abuse of women.
It is reasonable to want to have a plan to address issues like having an even competitive playing field for biological women... but the issues you are bringing to the table demonstrate you aren't operating in good faith with your questions.
But what else is new.
Artemis at January 25, 2021 5:43 PM
"It sure would have been nice if people here cared as much 10 months ago about social distancing and mask wearing during a viral pandemic "
I know! And then they kicked those babies. In the head. With a boot. An IRON BOOT!
My god, white Americans just suck so bad.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at January 25, 2021 6:10 PM
Gog,
It's hardly "white Americans" that are the problem here.
It is just a certain segment of conspiracy minded loons who cannot tell the difference between manufactured issues and real issues.
The pandemic was and is a real problem... transgendered individuals running women out of sports and out of scholarships and threatening to violently assault them in their "private spaces" is a manufactured issue.
It is no different than the hamster wheel they got conservatives running on with regard to Obama taking all of the guns... it was a manufactured controversy.
The only thing surprising to me about this at all is how quickly they've got you running on the outrage machine over hyperbolic nonsense.
Most white Americans do not fall for this shit... just the Fox, NEWSMAX, OANN zombies.
Artemis at January 25, 2021 6:37 PM
You still haven't explained how your "solution" will have teams "compete based on ability level," Artie. You've ignored that completely. Ability levels on teams differ widely among players and positions, especially at the collegiate level.
Like all your "solutions," this one is half baked, poorly thought out, and generally unworkable in reality. It comes from the perspective of someone who thinks because he's well-educated in one field, he has advanced expertise in any field on which he chooses to comment.
Nor have you explained how these B- and C-tier teams will not be overpopulated by men saying they're women to gain scholarships - how this won't end up crowding biological women out of collegiate athletics altogether.
In fact, all you've actually done is insist that you've "presented a solution already" despite your so-called "solution" having so many holes in it that it whistles when the wind blows.
==========
Yes, Artie, it is "gross" that a man could (and would) lie about being transgendered to get access to women's private spaces and commit sexual assault - as a repeat sexual offender did in a Toronto women's shelter in 2013.
And it's also "gross" that we, as a society, would be so afraid of not being woke enough that we would put no protections in place to keep this from happening, instead opening the gates to sexual predators and giving them an easy way in.
==========
Speaking of "gish gallops," Artie, I barely have time to respond to one of your posts before you've posted half a dozen more, each with lots of words, but no point.
Conan the Grammarian at January 25, 2021 6:42 PM
Orion's not living behind the Great Firewall, whatever the native language. This kid's genuinely autistic, which takes the fun out of ridicule.
Ben's fair game, except that he's been sane lately. As has Patrick.
Would someone PLEASE say something purely stupid???
Crid at January 25, 2021 6:54 PM
The comment was about the WNBA and not women's sports in general. You, Artie, extrapolated it to apply all professional women's sports.
By the way, Artie, the WNBA is frightfully dull, for all the reasons I laid out.
Women's basketball, collegiate and professional, has come a long way from the days when Cheryl Miller was practically the only player worth watching. However, it has has not surpassed even lower-tier men's basketball in terms of overall excitement and athletic skill.
Conan the Grammarian at January 25, 2021 7:09 PM
Anybody remember Flo Hyman? Was stunned to read that she'd passed so long ago, and so young.
Crid at January 25, 2021 8:12 PM
Conan Says:
"You still haven't explained how your "solution" will have teams "compete based on ability level," Artie. You've ignored that completely. Ability levels on teams differ widely among players and positions, especially at the collegiate level."
No... I haven't ignored it at all. I even provided a link explaining it.
https://towardsdatascience.com/rating-sports-teams-elo-vs-win-loss-d46ee57c1314
The problem is either you failed to read it, or you read it and didn't understand what was written.
"The Elo rating system is a very simple yet extremely effective ratings system. It was originally developed for Chess, but nothing about it is Chess-specific. Elo, in its original form, can be used for any head to head game. Arm wrestling, Scrabble, Pong, you name it. One can also treat teams, such as basketball teams, as “players” facing off against each other.
Each player or team has their own Elo rating. It is convention that new players start with a rating of 1500, but 1500 is somewhat arbitrary. When two players play, they automatically each “wager” some of their Elo points before the game. The size of this wager is known as the K-value. The winner is awarded points after the match and the loser loses points after the match. The amount of points awarded depends on the relative difference in initial ratings. For example, if a 1700 skill player beats a 1300 skill player, not many points are awarded — this outcome was expected. On the other hand, if the 1300 level player beats the 1700 level player, almost the entire pool of wagered points is awarded to the 1300 level player and deducted from the 1700 level player."
I didn't ignore anything Conan. The article I linked you to explains how this all works.
Furthermore, if you were actually familiar with how the Elo system functions in chess as you keep insisting none of this would be mysterious or surprising.
It can only be confusing to you if the following things are true:
1 - You do not actually have an understanding of how the Elo system works in practice
2 - You either didn't read the link provided or you read it and didn't understand the mathematical underpinnings behind how it works.
Your lack of understanding doesn't mean I failed to explain it to you.
It is possible this bit of mathematics if over your head.
That is fine, but unfortunately you're not one to ever admit you don't understand something or are confused.
Artemis at January 25, 2021 9:05 PM
Conan Says:
"Like all your "solutions," this one is half baked, poorly thought out, and generally unworkable in reality. It comes from the perspective of someone who thinks because he's well-educated in one field, he has advanced expertise in any field on which he chooses to comment."
I don't recall claiming that I've worked out a system in detail to solve all problems.
I didn't realize that this was the buy in for blog comments.
As a matter of fact I explained this in detail to NickoleK before:
"I guess what I am saying here is that I think there are ways to address all of these concerns and that examples exist where these types of issues have been addressed elsewhere.
Whether or not anyone makes an earnest attempt to think things through and try to be fair to everyone is another matter entirely.
I am not saying anyone is going to bother trying to take a thoughtful and measured approach to any of this... I'm just saying I believe it is possible to do so if someone wanted to put in the effort."
My only statement is that there is good reason to believe that the concerns with regard to biological women being in some sense pushed out of sports entirely by transgendered folks can be resolved with known mathematical techniques.
This is not fundamentally new territory and is therefore a tractable problem.
It isn't the least bit "unworkable" as you insist because it has already been demonstrated to work in other competitive arenas.
The point is Conan that your inability to understand something does not count as evidence that it is "unworkable". There are many problems in life you do not understand that people solve on a regular basis.
Artemis at January 25, 2021 9:15 PM
Conan Says:
"Yes, Artie, it is "gross" that a man could (and would) lie about being transgendered to get access to women's private spaces and commit sexual assault - as a repeat sexual offender did in a Toronto women's shelter in 2013."
When we are talking about college scholarships what we are talking about is high school kids.
When we are talking about college sports we are talking about students that have been accepted to University.
These are not people with massive rap sheets of criminal offenses.
It is the very fact that you are likening some 14 year old kid who is going through a difficult time with understanding who they are to a person with repeated criminal convictions is what is gross.
But hey... that is how bigots think.
Artemis at January 25, 2021 9:32 PM
Conan Says:
"Speaking of "gish gallops," Artie, I barely have time to respond to one of your posts before you've posted half a dozen more, each with lots of words, but no point."
Not to put too fine of a point on it Conan... but the reason I divide my responses to you into separate posts is precisely because of your tendencies to use the Gish Gallop.
Just to remind you what the Gish Gallop is since you don't seem to understand:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
"The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort."
See that... you just keep throwing nonsense arguments at the wall that each require individual rebuttal... and then you complain when I take the time to actually refute each of them individually.
If you want a focused response from me on a singular subject then we have two options:
1 - Present a focused case that isn't all over the place with several weak or illogical arguments
2 - I can just pick out the one argument you make that in my estimation requires the strongest rebuttal and we can agree that the rest can just be ignored because of your historical behavior with regard to the Gish Gallop
Artemis at January 25, 2021 9:38 PM
Conan Says:
"The comment was about the WNBA and not women's sports in general. You, Artie, extrapolated it to apply all professional women's sports.
By the way, Artie, the WNBA is frightfully dull, for all the reasons I laid out."
Right... then it would stand to reason by the arguments you laid out that in your opinion the WNBA would be improved by the presence of transgendered players with greater physical ability... right?
This is why your argument is self defeating.
On the one hand you argue that professional team sports with only biological female players are essentially not worth watching because of the lack of physical ability.
On the other hand you argue that viewership of women's sports might be negatively impacted by the incorporation of transgendered folks.
Those two arguments are logically incompatible.
Hence this is an area where you no longer have credibility in this conversation. You are clearly willing to argue anything... even mutually exclusive things.
Focus on areas where you haven't contradicted yourself.
Artemis at January 25, 2021 9:44 PM
An IRON BOOT!!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at January 25, 2021 9:58 PM
Conan Says:
"Like all your "solutions," this one is half baked, poorly thought out, and generally unworkable in reality. It comes from the perspective of someone who thinks because he's well-educated in one field, he has advanced expertise in any field on which he chooses to comment."
I've decided to just put an end to your nonsense with a simple example.
First of all this isn't "my solution"... secondly it isn't "unworkable in reality"... thirdly I am not suggesting this because I am erroneously applying expertise from my own background to other areas.
This has already been done for a team sport with massive appeal:
https://www.starsandstripesfc.com/2018/6/12/17451472/fifa-change-system-elo-ranking-mens-teams
"FIFA has announced it is changing the way it will rank men’s international teams. The new method is based on the Elo rating system which FIFA currently has in place for the women’s national teams, and is the way the International Chess Federation rates their players. It is almost certainly superior to the odd method they’ve used for the men for a long time."
I am suggesting this as a solution because this kind of solution has already been applied elsewhere and it is touted as being "superior" to previous methods.
Simply put... you don't know what you are talking about Conan.
This is a tractable problem with an existing solution path.
You can keep pretending that it is some unsolvable quagmire, but that is a position that isn't backed up by the very real evidence that this has already been done.
It is time for you to come to terms with the fact that you are wrong.
Furthermore, if folks like you were in charge FIFA would still be doing things their old inferior way because you lack the understanding and imagination to solve real world problems.
Keep pretending it is "unworkable" though... you're like the guy staring at a Boeing 747 in the air insisting that it isn't possible to build a flying machine.
Artemis at January 26, 2021 12:07 AM
DNA testing provides a solution which preserves competitive balance without offending the woke.
It's the Y chromosome which confers an advantage in upper body strength, foot speed, and other sports-related attributes to those who have it compared to those who don't. So they could re-label "men's" and "women's" sports to "open" and "X only". Anyone who wanted to compete in the X only division would have to submit a DNA sample proving that zhe didn't have a Y chromosome.
Rex Little at January 26, 2021 5:58 AM
I wonder if a dance program could count as women's sports under Title IV... a very successful dance company could indeed bring renown, glory and cash to a school.
There are lots of sports where people prefer to watch women.... figure skating for example. Sure there are popular men, but it's the women people tend to remember more. Gymnastics.
And I do think dismissing this issue as "where you pee" is disingenuous.
First, I think it's OK for women not to want to share pee spaces with men.
Second it isn't just bathrooms and sports, it is everything. Locker rooms. Showers. Prisons. Homeless shelters. Rape crisis shelters. Who pats you down at the airport. Which nurse examines you. There are so many places where people can ask for a person of the same sex, and they should be able to do that.
Rape victims are the most obvious example of people who should be able to say no to intimate situations with the opposite sex, but you don't have to be a rape victim to want modesty and not want an opposite sex person patting you down, examining you intimately, sharing nude or sleeping space, etc. I think that's a legit ask for anyone.
As for transing, no, I do not believe transwomen are women or transmen are men. Can I see a situation in which some individuals might be allowed exceptions in some situations? Perhaps... but it would be a privilege and not a right. No rapists or other violent criminals should be allowed to change their names. And in situations where people are allowed to request same-sex services, as in certain hospital or rooming situations, they should always be allowed to say no to an opposite-sex person no matter how that person identifies.
NicoleK at January 26, 2021 6:01 AM
> a solution which preserves
> competitive balance
You guys sound like the wokies, prattling on about 'equity.'
Someone once said that in Japanese culture, the best possible outcome to a team sport is that both teams play their brains out and the score is tied when everybody goes home.
I like America, where people play to win.
But golly, yes, there's a difference between boys and girls. If someone's going to take advantage of that, perhaps they shouldn't be permitted to..
We can be glad that girls are playing competitive sports, learning how to win and how to lose... important life skills.
Chatter about other "solutions" is inane.
crid at January 26, 2021 6:38 AM
“Someone once said that in Japanese culture, the best possible outcome to a team sport is that both teams play their brains out and the score is tied when everybody goes home.”
They like to pretend that this is so, but from first hand experience, the Japanese like winning as much as anybody else.
You manipulate the rules of a good game to the point where everything is scrupulously fair, and appropriately handicapped, it quickly loses joy and meaning.
Next on the agenda, forced participation, so you can feel like you are part of the *team* whether you want to be, or not.
Isab at January 26, 2021 7:20 AM
Nailed it.
==========
Artie, your proposal was to schedule games and determine playoff eligibility based on a modified Elo score, not just rank teams. That scheduling aspect is what I called "generally unworkable."
There are already Elo-style systems for ranking teams in most American professional sports. They are used for informational (and gambling) purposes. Many sports leagues use a ranking system to seed playoff teams - e.g., the NBA and the NHL. Even the NFL uses a ranking system to break ties in playoff eligibility. The NCAA uses a ranking system to seed teams in its various annual tournaments.
The truth is that most teams in American professional sports leagues do not vary that much in terms of overall level of play - mostly by design.
FIFA, on the other hand, has to consolidate teams and leagues of widely varying skill levels around the world. The teams in FIFA's member leagues play opponents of widely-varying skill levels. A win-loss record for a team does not necessarily indicate the team's actual level of play vs. teams in other leagues and other countries. On the other hand, in the American professional sports leagues, a win-loss record is actually indicative of a team's level of play as most teams are fairly evenly matched.
It's the same with FIDE's use of its Elo system to rank players from around the world. Players from around the world will not have the same level of ability or skill, even though they may dominate their own national federations and have a winning record in tournaments and matches.
So, while the Super Bowl does not determine the "best" team in the NFL (that was your original objection to a win-loss playoff system), it does determine the team with a high enough level of endurance and skill to claim the championship.
Conan the Grammarian at January 26, 2021 7:25 AM
That would be Brady & the Bucs.
Crid at January 26, 2021 7:47 AM
Coney, have you read "Moneyball"? Strong movie of an outstanding book. That Lewis kid has a future.
Crid at January 26, 2021 7:51 AM
I did read that. Very good book. Living in SF Bay Area during the era covered in the book, it brought back memories. I always felt the A's got the short end of the stick in Bay Area baseball, in every way playing second fiddle to the richer and more glamorous Giants.
If you like non-fiction sports books, The Best Game Ever by Mark Bowden is also pretty good. It's about the 1958 NFL championship game between the New York Giants and the Baltimore Colts. A game that, due to no other sports being televised that day, attracted the NFL's largest TV audience to date. Fortunately for the NFL, it turned out to be an outstanding game.
Conan the Grammarian at January 26, 2021 9:08 AM
Self-defeating? You just proved my point in your attempt at a rebuttal.
The WNBA game might be improved, but the opportunities for biological women to play professional and collegiate sports would not. The elimination of opportunities for biological women through the eligibility of transgendered athletes and those who say they are was the point of this entire bloody thread, Artie.
A gender-neutral Elo system, too, would have the same effect, creating second- and third tier ranks comprised almost entirely of men. It would effectively cut off biological women's access to sports and athletic scholarships in all but a few sports - i.e., the ones NicoleK identified as requiring a feminine grace that even post-op transgendered women would have difficulty manifesting, figure skating and gymnastics.
Conan the Grammarian at January 26, 2021 11:05 AM
NicoleK Says:
"First, I think it's OK for women not to want to share pee spaces with men."
Lots of things are okay Nicole.
I think it is okay for people not to want to share bathrooms with others at all.
The question isn't what it is okay for people to want or not to want... personal preferences are not always accommodated.
So let's turn this around a bit... you think it is okay for biological women not to share a bathroom with biological men.
Do you also think that it is okay for transgender individuals not to want to share a bathroom with men?
Or are their preferences unimportant?
If they are unimportant then you are acknowledging that you don't think preferences always need to be taken into account.
If they are important, what do you propose to do for these folks?
"Second it isn't just bathrooms and sports, it is everything. Locker rooms. Showers. Prisons. Homeless shelters. Rape crisis shelters. Who pats you down at the airport. Which nurse examines you. There are so many places where people can ask for a person of the same sex, and they should be able to do that."
The executive order in question only specifically discusses sports, workplace, and healthcare discrimination.
You are smuggling in things like rape crisis shelters and homeless shelters when they aren't even mentioned in the order.
The fact that you have to go to these examples and ignore all of the arguments in favor of making space for this small population of people for school sports suggests that you've given up on that argument.
"As for transing, no, I do not believe transwomen are women or transmen are men."
This right here is the crux of the issue Nicole.
The question really isn't simply about what you believe.
The fact that atheist's don't believe a god exists isn't a reason to shut down all of the churches for those who do believe.
Similarly, the fact that you don't believe a transwoman is a woman isn't a reason for force them to live as you dictate.
You are trying to force your personal preferences onto other people for how they should live their life because you don't believe what they believe about themselves.
There are ways we can be thoughtful and reasonable about all of this... but only if we are interested in finding a solution that takes everyone into account.
You're whole comment about "rights" versus "privileges" indicates that the fundamental problem is that you do believe these folks should be able to be discriminated against.
Hence this was clearly never about sports for you. It was never really about any specific part of the executive action except the general comment that we shouldn't be discriminating against these people.
Artemis at January 26, 2021 11:56 AM
Coney Says:
"Artie, your proposal was to schedule games and determine playoff eligibility based on a modified Elo score, not just rank teams. That scheduling aspect is what I called "generally unworkable.""
No Conan... you play the regular season and the top ranked teams go to the playoffs.
There is nothing "unworkable" about any of this... it's already been done.
You are just backpeddling at this point because it is plainly obvious that you were/are wrong.
"There are already Elo-style systems for ranking teams in most American professional sports."
I know this Conan... which is why earlier when you objected to Elo-style systems being employed for ranking teams it was already a ridiculous objection:
"If we just Elo scored every team, there'd be no playoffs, no tournament; no excitement, no drama. No test of endurance. None of the things for which people watch sports."
Isn't it amazing how in just a day or two you went from saying that we couldn't possibly generate Elo scores for the teams to saying that we already do this for most sports.
That is precisely the argument I've been making from the very beginning.
This is essentially a solved problem.
It seems to me what is really going on is some folks just don't want to solve the issues they bring to the table despite a solution path already existing.
"The teams in FIFA's member leagues play opponents of widely-varying skill levels. A win-loss record for a team does not necessarily indicate the team's actual level of play vs. teams in other leagues and other countries."
Which sounds a great deal like the kinds of problems we are talking about with regard to how to properly place transgendered folks in sporting competitions.
This is literally the problem we are trying to address.
The existence of widely-varying skill levels and how to create fair matches in sporting events.
Again... this problem has already been solved despite you insisting for days that it is "unworkable"... that it is "half-baked", etc...
All of a sudden it is obvious... but only after I point out that it is already being used in practice on a world-wide competitive sport that is immensely popular.
As I have been saying since the very beginning of this thread. An Elo-style ranking system could be used to handle issues associated with transgender athletes being allowed to participate fairly and competitively without causing problems for biological women.
There are no conceptual difficulties here... similar problems have already been solved using this method.
Artemis at January 26, 2021 12:14 PM
Conan Says:
"A gender-neutral Elo system, too, would have the same effect, creating second- and third tier ranks comprised almost entirely of men."
A gender-neutral Elo system hasn't driven women out of chess Conan.
Your concern is manufactured.
There are no conceptual barriers to ensuring that biological women have fair representation in an Elo-style ranking system.
Artemis at January 26, 2021 12:19 PM
Artemis,
"A gender-neutral Elo system hasn't driven women out of chess"
That's the point. We don't want gender neutered sports where speed and muscle mass are advantages. If women are forced to compete against men, they will become discouraged. Why would you be so cruel?
Rex Little's X/Y league is a much stronger suggestion.
Spiderfall at January 26, 2021 12:56 PM
Spiderfall Says:
"That's the point. We don't want gender neutered sports where speed and muscle mass are advantages. If women are forced to compete against men, they will become discouraged. Why would you be so cruel?"
The fact that you don't actually understand how the Elo system functions is not a valid reason to object.
The whole point of that system is it would prevent people with drastic differences if physical capability of competing head to head.
I've explained this several times already but I will make this very simple.
In the same way that you will never be placed into direct competition with an Olympian in a tournament because they vastly outclass you in terms of ability... so to would an Elo system prevent a 100 pound women from ending up in a wrestling match against a 200 pound musclebound person.
At this point I feel like I am trying to explain addition to cats... this isn't really that difficult to understand.
Artemis at January 26, 2021 1:41 PM
Spiderfall Says:
"Rex Little's X/Y league is a much stronger suggestion."
Also... so you're cool with subjective every high school participant in any sport to genetic testing?
It's amazing to me the kinds of invasive things some of you are perfectly fine with... but the very idea that someone with a penis might pee in a closed stall next to someone with a vagina that is where you draw the line.
Yet at the same time you guys come from the same group that was against mask mandates.
Homogeneity in local bathroom anatomy behind closed doors is a right... mask mandates are an infringement on your rights... but mandatory genetic screening of children before they can play a sport in school, that doesn't concern you in the least.
In fact it is preferable to you over a market based competitive solution.
Artemis at January 26, 2021 1:52 PM
Chess isn't exactly gender-neutral, Artie.
There's a separate women's ranking and championship. At 2658, the top woman player isn't even in the Top 20 overall. Without a separate women's category, she'd rank somewhere near the 64th in the world, where she was ranked in 2018.
There are separate scholarships for women in chess. Once those scholarships start being awarded to biological men who identify as women, it's entirely possible that women will be shut out of chess scholarships.
The argument, Artie is not about direct competition. It's about the diminishment of women in sports, exiling them a third-tier sport.
The whole point of that system is it would prevent people with drastic differences if physical capability of competing head to head.
I've explained this several times already but I will make this very simple.
It's not about what's happening today, but about what will likely happen when Biden's poorly-thought-out executive order takes its full effect.
==========
Artie, you're not listening to what people are trying to explain to you. Stop reading to respond and read to understand.
Wrestling already does not pit a 200-pounder against a 100-pounder. There are weight classes. My nephew wrestles in high school - in a low-weight class - and often has no opponents because the other team has no one in that weight class.
Even with weight classes, when you pit a 100-pound woman against a 100-pound man, the man still has physical advantages over her, assuming both work out and are in peak condition. And if you adjust her ranking for those advantages, you push her down to an even lower tier.
A ranking system will ensure she doesn't have to play against an opponent with massive physical advantages, but in being consigned to a lower tier due to physical limitations, you've permanently exiled her to the undercard.
As NicoleK put it, "I think there's an interest that the spectators have in knowing who the best female runner that they won't have in knowing who the best runner in class C is."
==========
But you're not actually addressing it. You're pontificating about ranking systems as if that solves everything without addressing concerns about the diminishment of biological women as athletes and competitors.
Even if biological women are only competing against evenly-matched opponents, you're taking them from the top level of competition in their league to a middle level. You're diminishing them in favor of trans-women or men who simply claim to be trans. You've installed no safety rails.
Right now, trans-folks are a very small percentage of the population. There's very little advantage in it. However, if you start making it advantageous to claim to be a member of a protected group - and possible to claim it without question - you've opened the flood gates. Just ask Rachel Dolezal, Elizabeth Warren, or Jessica Krug how that works.
==========
First, it's "backpedaling."
Second, arguments evolve, Artie. You don't, but arguments do.
I appreciate what you're trying to argue, Artie, I really do. But you're not considering the unintended consequences, and Biden's EO is fraught with them.
The whole trans issue is fraught with unintended consequences and should be approached with more caution than you "wokies" are showing in their headlong rush to burnish your progressive credentials.
Conan the Grammarian at January 26, 2021 2:52 PM
Artemis,
Maybe this will appeal to your math wizardry: If you have a roster of six Title IX players dressed in pink, and you add three blue ones, how many pink ones will sink into despair and end up in an ice-cream-induced coma?
It's a trick question. All six. They know that other schools will be recruiting drag queens off Sunset Boulevard in order to boost their playoff chances. They know they will be playing against men for their whole collegiate careers.
Three high-school women from Connecticut have filed suit to prevent what you are advocating for:
Alannis Smith, plaintiff:
" "Mentally and physically, we know the outcome before the race even starts. That biological unfairness doesn't go away because of what someone believes about gender identity. All girls deserve the chance to compete on a level playing field."
The X/Y league sorting could only be invasive if you can't tell the difference between a boy and a girl. Maybe that's you.
Spiderfall at January 26, 2021 4:24 PM
Conan Says:
"Chess isn't exactly gender-neutral, Artie.
There's a separate women's ranking and championship. At 2658, the top woman player isn't even in the Top 20 overall. Without a separate women's category, she'd rank somewhere near the 64th in the world, where she was ranked in 2018."
Dear lord this conversation is getting silly... you are just quiting things I've already said at this point.
I literally pointed all of this out back here when I was explaining to Crid that there is no confusion about who the best male and female players in chess are:
"That best player is Magnus Carlsen and has a FIDE rating of 2862.
He is ranked #1 in the world without any ambiguity or confusion... everyone recognizes him as the world champion.
The current top female player is Yifan Hou with a FIDE rating of 2658." Artemis at January 24, 2021 3:30 PM
Needless to say, I know all of this Conan, I'm the one who brought all of this up... you're way behind.
Since you do not seem to actually be aware of this. Woman do play men in chess all the time.
Now here is where the magic happens with the Elo system.
When women play men, the men they end up playing are evenly matched to their skill level.
In other words... there is no risk of a woman ending up in a game where she is completely out of her league against an opponent where she does not stand a chance.
That is precisely the concern we are talking about here.
We are concerned that female competitors would be discouraged from competing because they would end up in matches against men who are much more physically capable than they are.
The Elo system by design prevents this kind of thing from occurring. That is precisely where the Elo system shines.
Women would only face off against men if the men were of similar physical ability as the woman. That by definition doesn't disadvantage female participants... it can't disadvantage them as the playing field is leveled by a self-correcting scoring system.
Now what happens in chess is that after all this is said and done... you can still rank players by any demographic you like for which you've gathered information.
You can find out who the best player is in Finland... you can find out who the best female player is in Finland... if one had bothered to collect the relevant demographic information you could find out the best player the world over with brown hair and green eyes.
This entire process is completely trivial.
"There are separate scholarships for women in chess. Once those scholarships start being awarded to biological men who identify as women, it's entirely possible that women will be shut out of chess scholarships."
If you've been tracking the scores you already know who has been identifying by what gender for as long as they have been playing.
I assure you that no one in chess competitions is busy taking the players somewhere for a medical exam before they sit down to play.
The problem you are so deeply concerned about hasn't driven women out of chess and hasn't deprived women of chess scholarships despite the fact that they aren't stripping them down before tournament play.
In other words... this great concern you have doesn't manifest and no one is doing skirt checks.
"It's not about what's happening today, but about what will likely happen when Biden's poorly-thought-out executive order takes its full effect."
Sorry Conan... but the solution I've put forth already exists and doesn't have any of the problems you keep harping on about.
The only thing here that is "poorly-thought-out" is your nonsense slippery slope argument that has no real evidence to back it up.
You have no basis to say that your "sky is falling" scenario is likely to come to pass.
Furthermore, you're ability to discern likely future events is and should be in serious question.
You failed to correctly predict the Republicans would lose the house in 2018... you failed to correctly predict that Republicans would lose the Senate and the Presidency in 2020... you made a nonsense prediction about Biden not being able to string coherent sentences together in the Presidential debate last summer... you then failed to predict some debilitating mental collapse that has yet to occur 6 months later despite you arguing that the degeneration would be quick and obvious... you failed to correctly predict that Trump's strategy for coronavirus was going to result in a massive death toll of US citizens... for heaven's sake you failed to predict that we should have any concern at all for Trump's authoritarian nature because you claimed he didn't have a devoted base of followers willing to do violence on his behalf.
You are quite literally wrong about every single thing you ever predict about the future. By contrast, I've been correct about each of those things... in fact we argued about them at the time.
Back then you also insisted that you knew what you were talking about and my arguments didn't hold water.
Enough is enough Conan... you are never right about anything when it comes to figuring out what is likely to occur in the future.
Your track record is the worst I have ever seen.
If we were to have an Elo score for predicting likely future events you wouldn't be evenly matched with a coin at this point. At least the coin would be correct half of the time... you on the otherhand are always wrong about these kinds of things.
I'll give you one more chance though.
Actually present evidence that your "sky is falling" scenario is "likely" to happen... actual evidence... do you have data from another country perhaps where women have been completely driven out of competitive sports by transgendered individuals?
I've already shown evidence of systems where this doesn't occur and those systems have been running strong for 50 years.
You haven't earned the credibility to just claim anything is likely to occur in the future without substantial evidentiary support... your track record is just too horrible. If anything we should presume that for any prediction you make the opposite will occur if it is just based on your word... that is how poorly you have performed at this kind of thing.
You have a burden of proof here Conan and you have yet to meet that burden.
Artemis at January 26, 2021 5:17 PM
Conan Says:
"Even if biological women are only competing against evenly-matched opponents, you're taking them from the top level of competition in their league to a middle level. You're diminishing them in favor of trans-women or men who simply claim to be trans. You've installed no safety rails."
The "safety rails" you are asking for already exist in chess.
After all of the rankings are tabulated (including matches between men and women) they can then separate out the men and the women into their prospective lists of top ranked players based on the Elo scores.
Surely if your concern was legitimate we could go right now and discover that some substantial number of the top ranked female players are transgendered players.
What do you believe is preventing this from happening in chess?
Artemis at January 26, 2021 5:25 PM
Artie, have you ever actually played a sport at any seriously competitive level? Your frame of reference for this discussion is a contest that requires no physical ability whatsoever.
You ignore the physical requirements in order to squeeze the debate into your frame of reference, rather than accepting the input of people who clearly know more about sports than you seem to.
Chess requires no physical ability. There are no feats of strength in chess - in "chess-tivus" but not in chess. There is no test of endurance in chess, unless one of the players drinks a vent cappuccino too soon before the contest.
And what a nice reference to baseball games there, sport.
They "literally" walked out, eh? How else do you think they would have gotten out of the stadium if they hadn't "literally" walked out?
Conan the Grammarian at January 26, 2021 8:12 PM
Conan,
I note that you didn't bother to address the elephant in the room.
If transgendered folks are just ready and waiting to usurp women in competitive arenas so they can scoop up all of the highly ranked spots and the scholarship money... why hasn't it happened in chess?
No one is checking the genitals or the chromosomes at chess tournaments... no one is running medical exams.
There is scholarship money available for the taking.
And yet we still see women playing and winning the scholarships.
If your hypothesis was correct this shouldn't be the case. Most of those top ranked women should be transgendered folks if you were right.
You have no evidence that your "sky is falling" is "likely" to occur.
It's just a poorly constructed slippery slope argument without examples to back it up.
"Chess requires no physical ability."
So what?... why wouldn't transgendered competitors try to seek an edge for scholarships and international titles if they were all just ready and waiting to pounce on such an opportunity?
What is it that is preventing this from happening if there are no "safety rails" as you call it?
These should be easy questions for you to answer Conan. The reason they aren't is because in order to answer these questions you either have to acknowledge that sufficient "safety rails" are already present.... or that transgendered folks do not really have an interest in doing what you are saying is "likely" to occur... or you must assert that in reality those female champions are and have been transgendered folks for nearly 50 years and no one has been aware.
Those are your options and none of them bode well for your argument.
"They "literally" walked out, eh? How else do you think they would have gotten out of the stadium if they hadn't "literally" walked out?"
I always can tell when you have nothing useful left to say when you start looking to nitpick nonsense to make yourself feel better.
It is like watching you suck your thumb to comfort yourself.
Yes Conan... they "literally" walked out... it is a word that is used for emphasis.
Are you one of those people who reserves the word "literally" for times when you really mean "figuratively" like some sarcastic valley girl?
Or are you one of those people who have decided that no one can use the word "literally" anymore for anything because it is either used in an obvious way or in an incorrect way?
It's a word for emphasis Conan. None of this is that challenging to understand.
Artemis at January 26, 2021 11:53 PM
This debate is not about what is happening now. The EO Biden signed will have an effect going forward.
Pre-EO NCAA rules stated, "A trans female (MTF) student-athlete being treated with testosterone suppression medication for Gender Identity Disorder or gender dysphoria and/or Transsexualism, for the purposes of NCAA competition may continue to compete on a men’s team but may not compete on a women’s team without changing it to a mixed team status until completing one calendar year of testosterone suppression treatment."
The EO Biden signed could allow a biological male to compete on a women's team simply by stating he identifies as a woman and without undergoing "one calendar year of testosterone suppression treatment." The effect that will have is what is being debated here.
The EO was just vague enough to be confusing. Even Snopes rates this a "mixture." It really depends upon how states and the courts implement it.
==========
To be honest, Artie, I did not know there was even such a thing as a college chess scholarship. So that was interesting to learn.
Apparently those scholarships don't pay much, since the woman in your example rejected UT-Dallas in favor of Stanford. Although, let's be honest, if I had to choose between the two, I'd pick Stanford, too, even if that choice meant rejecting a full ride at UT-D.
==========
And I can always tell when you have nothing useful left to say when you make a big deal out of a throwaway comment in an effort to distract readers.
==========
Are you emphasizing that they walked? How else would they have left the stadium? What if they had figuratively walked?
Artie, I'm mocking your use of "literally" because it's an over-used word. So over-used, in fact, that Rob Lowe was able to effectively mock it repeatedly in Parks and Recreation, complete with a pronunciation of "Lit'rally."
"Literally" is properly used to let others know the speaker is serious and not exaggerating or being metaphorical. As in, "the game was so bad the fans literally ran for the exits." See the difference between that and "literally walked?"
According to Forbes: "It’s becoming hard to imagine this word being used correctly, because it’s often placed next to words that are being used figuratively. You did not literally blow a gasket. You figuratively blew a gasket. The reason that you used literally is that you were grasping for a qualifier or intensifier, but you grabbed the wrong one."
Conan the Grammarian at January 27, 2021 6:41 AM
Here's a Munk great podcast. Orion doesn't speak or comprehend English and can't respond to it.
Crid at January 27, 2021 8:18 AM
Conan Says:
"This debate is not about what is happening now. The EO Biden signed will have an effect going forward."
You don't get to tell me what this debate is about when I'm the one who made the 2nd comment in the thread that has been driving this discussion.
You only want to talk about your poorly defined slippery slope argument after it became clear that what was actually written in the EO doesn't discuss things like rape crisis centers.
The only things discussed in the EO are discrimination in education, the workplace, and in healthcare.
You've gone way beyond the EO in developing your slippery slope argument.
Along the way you have not actually demonstrated the necessary links in the chain that lead from one step to the next in a logically coherent way that is backed up by evidence.
That is the burden of proof you have to establish that your slippery slop is actually realistic. Outside of that it is just your own personal fantasy.
"The EO Biden signed could allow a biological male to compete on a women's team simply by stating he identifies as a woman and without undergoing "one calendar year of testosterone suppression treatment." The effect that will have is what is being debated here."
No Conan... you have asserted without proof or evidence that these are the things that are likely to happen.
Now you are saying what "could" happen.
Well lots of things "could" happen Conan... but decent people don't choose to discriminate against people because they think it is possible something bad "could" happen.
What decent people do is they look at the concerns and then provide solutions that also protect people from being discriminated against.
It is valid to be concerned that a woman might end up in a competitive environment where she is physically outmatched. So I presented a possible solution to this problem.
You've already agreed that Elo-style rankings are good at preventing this from happening in other competitive arenas... that is what Elo-style rankings are designed to do.
So we have a potential solution on the table already.
Outside of that you have not articulated any other legitimate concerns to be addressed with regard to this EO... and by legitimate I mean concerns that you have evidence are likely to occur and/or are a natural logical consequence of the EO.
"The EO was just vague enough to be confusing. Even Snopes rates this a "mixture." It really depends upon how states and the courts implement it."
Okay... so as I have been saying from the start... your slippery slope argument is nonsense.
The EO as it presently exists could be implemented without issues.
There are solutions available.
To put it simply... the sky isn't falling.
Artemis at January 27, 2021 8:31 AM
Conan Says:
"Artie, I'm mocking your use of "literally" because it's an over-used word."
So I can't use the word "literally" because it is "over-used"... and I can't use the term "Gish Gallop" because you believe it is archaic despite it being coined in the 1990's.
How about you provide a certified list of all of the words everyone on the blog is allowed to use?
""Literally" is properly used to let others know the speaker is serious and not exaggerating or being metaphorical. As in, "the game was so bad the fans literally ran for the exits." See the difference between that and "literally walked?""
Conan... it seems to me that you are not at war with me on language usage... but rather you are at war with the dictionary.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
"used to emphasize the truth and accuracy of a statement or description"
Here was what I said earlier:
"I've been to baseball games where people literally walk out of the stadium when by the 7th inning one team is completely dominating the other."
I was emphasizing the truth and accuracy of the statement that people walk out of the stadium when the opposing teams are clearly mismatched.
If you have an issue take it up with the dictionary because you are not a recognized authority in English usage.
Based on my experience you always seem to be at odds with the dictionary.
Aren't you the one constantly complaining about rigidity in thinking?... you complain about this when it comes to science where you don't understand what is going on and want to be free to disregard well established scientific findings.
It is really funny that for you language is some extremely rigid structure where people either use language as you demand or they are "wrong"... and the dictionary is something you readily ignore.
But for you matters of science are in some sense fuzzy and subjective.
That you seem to think matters of science are more subjective than matters of word use... it says something about you... and what it says is not good.
Artemis at January 27, 2021 8:47 AM
You can use any word you like, Artie. And I can call your bullshit on it when you do.
That they walked out of the stadium needed emphasis because...? Did you think people wouldn't believe that people walked out of a one-sided baseball game in the 7th inning? Did you think no one would believe that you've actually been to a baseball game? What needed emphasis in that statement?
Artie, you can use "literally" in any way and as often as you'd like. I'll continue to mock you for it. Learn other words to better express yourself.
As Richard Lederer, an actual recognized authority in English usage, puts it, "Dictionaries instruct people, but they also reflect people." The over-use of "literally" may have made it into the dictionary, but people who over-use it sound like they're grasping for an intensifier but just don't have the vocabulary chops to express themselves with any sophistication. Literally.
By the way, Artie, I won't even go into your lack of commas in that baseball sentence.
Conan the Grammarian at January 27, 2021 9:42 AM
Artemis, it isn't about transwomen -not- wanting to get naked with men, because whenever third bathrooms or other alternatives are offered, they do not take them. They want the validation of getting naked with women.
The reality is they are not women, and getting naked with the opposite sex is not an inherent human right. In fact I'd say that the ability to say no to getting naked with men is pretty fundamental to women's rights.
You are right to compare it to religion, their belief they have female souls or female minds or whatever is a religious one. While it is kind to humor them, it should not be legally mandated.
Women do not exist to validate men's feelings. (Nor the opposite). I'm sorry that these men feel bad about themselves, but it's not my job to make them feel better, and certainly not by letting them into intimate spaces. That is too big of an ask.
NicoleK at January 27, 2021 11:44 AM
Conan Says:
"You can use any word you like, Artie. And I can call your bullshit on it when you do."
Conan... you can suck your thumb all you like for comfort.
I'm just pointing out that you look ridiculous and childish when you do this.
It just demonstrates that you are weak and insecure.
There is nothing "bullshit" about telling you when you are using the Gish Gallop... and there is nothing "bullshit" about using the word literally to emphasize the truth and accuracy of a statement.
You must be the kind of guy who walks up to people to criticize their choice of toppings on a pizza.
No one cares and you look like an idiot when you do it.
Now... back to the actual topic.
What evidence do you have that would provide sufficient warrant that your slippery slope argument holds water?
Based on your behavior I have to conclude the answer is nothing.
Artemis at January 27, 2021 2:59 PM
> getting naked with the opposite
> sex is not an inherent human right
I heart Nic even though she's a Yalie or whatever.
Crid at January 27, 2021 3:27 PM
> Women do not exist to validate
> men's feelings. (Nor the opposite).
No, seriously: This is some genuinely adult insight, the kind that used to be all over this blog and now comes mostly from the hostess who puts up with us.
Crid at January 27, 2021 3:31 PM
Rating athlete/teams is not the issue. It's the shear gap between boys and girls that is the problem. Take cross country, so just pure timing, our state (PA) championship top girl's time was 18:28. 218 boys beat that, just in the field that ran (the field was significantly smaller due to COVID, limited to district champions only, so there were plenty more boys in the state who could have beat that time but didn't qualify). When she won her district to qualify, 118 boys in that district beat her time, in a combined field she wouldn't have qualified for the finals in the first place. And she was the top girl in the state by 18 seconds.
So sure, you could expand the state championships to 1000 runners and maybe get a dozen girls who could finish in the bottom quarter, but why on earth would you do that instead of just having a boys and girls class?
phwest at January 27, 2021 4:22 PM
Team sports are just as bad. My daughters played AAU/High School basketball seriously. I've watched hundreds of girls games at the high school level and even the very best teams would be beat handily by a half decent boys JV squad. Watch an NCAA D-I women's team that's at the bubble level for the tourney - the post play would be embarrassing in a decent boys HS game. All a ranking system would do is split the teams into a boys half and a girls half anyway, with maybe a tiny overlap in the middle consisting of tiny rural schools that barely have enough boys to form a team.
These aren't rec leagues. There aren't a few hundred casual boys teams out there for the better girls to have competitive games with. You have to have girls-only leagues or they might as well not play.
phwest at January 27, 2021 4:44 PM
Having said all that, I'm not all that concerned about trans athletes at the HS level. There simply aren't that many of them, and balancing the proper treatment of kids with genuine gender issues against the occasional injustice on the medal stand is at least arguable in my mind. I wouldn't want to see it wrestling for safety reasons.
Once money starts getting involved it gets messier, but that's not the issue here.
phwest at January 27, 2021 5:03 PM
NicoleK Says:
"getting naked with the opposite sex is not an inherent human right."
Getting naked with people of the same sex is not an inherent human right either.
We are talking about conventions here Nicole.
How many teenage kids are forced to change with other people when they may not want to?
Just because they are of the same sex doesn't make that okay.
All you are arguing for here is private spaces for everyone.
Just because you are a woman doesn't give you any right to look at other women naked.
Just because someone is a man doesn't give them a right to look at other men naked.
"In fact I'd say that the ability to say no to getting naked with men is pretty fundamental to women's rights."
Do you believe women have the right to say no to getting naked with other women is pretty fundamental to women's rights?
It seems like you think you have the right to get to examine other women naked... otherwise what is all this talk about rights in relation to this discussion?
"You are right to compare it to religion, their belief they have female souls or female minds or whatever is a religious one."
Okay... so then you are on board with atheists if they want to shut down all of the churches and claim that Christians do not have a "right" to their religious beliefs.
Even if in your view theirs is a belief akin to religious faith, that doesn't help you unless you are also on board with discriminating against people on the basis of religion.
This is a much more complicated issue than you are giving it credit and it seems to be born out of your own belief set.
Biology and psychology simply are not as cut and dry as you seem to believe.
What are we to do with folks like Caster Semenya for example?
She was born with external female genitalia and internal male sexual organs. In other words... her outward appearance was that of a girl, but she had internal testicles.
She was raised as a girl all her life... she had no idea that she had this condition. She ended up in the Olympic games when it was discovered she had higher than normal testosterone for a woman.
At first they thought she might be taking steroids and accused her of drug use... it was later found out she has a completely natural condition from the moment she was born.
What kind of a person would you be to insist that she is really a man... that she just has some "religious" belief that she is a woman... and that she should go change in the men's locker room.
You have to be able to make space for these people in society.
It isn't sufficient to just classify them as "freaks" and toss them to the side as unimportant.
Biology is a messy business... it is much more complicated than you are acknowledging in this conversation and with the way you are talking about this subject.
If Conan or Crid were to take a chromosome test they might suddenly discover that they are XXY and not even the traditional XY for males... who should they compete against then?
They would be too strong for the typical female and too weak for the typical male.
The most fair way to handle things is to set people into competition by ability level and to create spaces where everyone can feel comfortable... even people who you might have antipathy for.
Artemis at January 27, 2021 5:14 PM
Phwest Says:
"Having said all that, I'm not all that concerned about trans athletes at the HS level."
Thank you for the breath of sanity.
The folks pretending that there is some massive quantity of high school kids ready to push biological women completely out of sports by coming out as transgender is ridiculous on its face.
Asserting that this is "likely" to happen is just fearmongering.
Artemis at January 27, 2021 5:17 PM
You dream of me when I'm away... As well you ought.
Crid at January 27, 2021 5:19 PM
Crid,
When people think of you while they are asleep it is called a nightmare.
Artemis at January 27, 2021 5:44 PM
I feel bad about that.
But I knew it was a possible outcome when claiming command at the 𝐍𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥™.
Crid at January 27, 2021 6:54 PM
Schools will be out recruiting to spice up their volleyball teams. And to be honest, that might be worth watching. Though, women's volleyball will always be a favorite.
Spiderfall at January 27, 2021 7:58 PM
No, wait. There will have to be a limit. Say, two to a roster. This sets up a cadre of villanous tag-teams across NCAA competitions. Ratings, ratings, ratings. Pay-per-view. Artemis, you'd pay $12.99 for that, wouldn't you?
Spiderfall at January 27, 2021 9:52 PM
I'm getting into the fake boob business, stat.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at January 27, 2021 11:15 PM
Crid,
Are you by chance mandated to wear a protective helmet everywhere you go?
Artemis at January 27, 2021 11:45 PM
You dream of me in interesting clothes.
Crid at January 28, 2021 5:27 AM
No we don't. It is not up to society to make space for anyone who demands accommodation for their deviances from its norms - but for anyone who wants accommodation for their deviances from societal norms to make themselves useful and valuable to society such that accommodating those deviances matters less than securing their continued participation in society.
No one in this thread is advocating that, Artie.
The discussion is whether the accommodation demanded will adversely affect the rights of people previously accommodated and disrupt those accommodations made for them.
That some are advocating tossing them aside is entirely a viewpoint you've created in your head to justify your refusal to consider discussion points that don't align with your own view on the matter.
Conan the Grammarian at January 28, 2021 10:08 AM
Conan Says:
"No we don't. It is not up to society to make space for anyone who demands accommodation for their deviances from its norms"
This is why you are a bigot.
I hate to break it to you, but "norms" are a convention. They change all the time.
At one point it was a "norm" to not allow black folks to drink from the same drinking fountains as white folks.
Yours is not an argument based off of logic, reason, or acknowledgment of shared human dignity.
Yours is an argument that you want to define what is "normal" and what isn't "normal" and then beat other folks over the head.
These people exist.
Yes, we need to make space for them.
That is the norm... and by your logic we don't have to even consider or accommodate your deviation from it.
"The discussion is whether the accommodation demanded will adversely affect the rights of people previously accommodated and disrupt those accommodations made for them."
There is absolutely no need to "adversely affect the rights" of anyone.
What you are arguing is the equivalent of someone arguing that white people had the "right" to not share drinking fountains with folks of a skin color they didn't like.
That wasn't and isn't a "right".
Go ahead and tell me what precisely defined right of anyone is being violated here.
I guarantee you that whatever you present it will turn out is driven by some bigoted exception as opposed to a universal rule.
For example... one might have a "right" to choose who they change clothes in front of.
But they certainly don't have a "right" to choose who they change clothes in front of except for people with the same set of chromosomes.
The inclusion of that exception demonstrates we aren't talking about a "right"... we are talking about something else.
If you or anyone wants to argue that people have a right to privacy I am all ears... but that "right" would extend to everyone without exception.
So go ahead, tell the group what "rights" are being violated that aren't already being violated with the current system.
Artemis at January 28, 2021 8:32 PM
Your time zone must be Moscow or Teheran or Dubai.
Crid at January 28, 2021 8:42 PM
Crid,
You are never correct about anything... for months you were accusing me of being from China.
Now you assert that I'm either from Russia, Iran, or the UAE.
Why not just cut to the chase and acknowledge that you think I am an omnipresent being that exists everywhere and nowhere in specific at the same time.
Artemis at January 28, 2021 10:01 PM
Nobody loves you enough to make accusations.
Crid at January 29, 2021 4:58 AM
Crid,
Don't be ridiculous, my spouse and children love me... as someone whose divorced you can't exactly say the same.
You're getting too old for this, I think it is time for you to retire and relocate to live under a bridge in Florida or something.
Artemis at January 29, 2021 5:28 AM
No marriage, no kids. You describe no life experiences; you don't discuss people you've known or books you've read, and you've never been on a field of play. Comments here are your only topic. Coney's close attention appears to be unprecedented.
Crid at January 29, 2021 8:12 AM
“Don't be ridiculous, my spouse and children love me... as someone whose divorced you can't exactly say the same.”
That is “who’s “ which is the contraction for “who is”
In my 60 plus years on this planet, I have never been conceited enough to say this. Makes me wonder what kind of person would.
Clearly someone not from this culture. Malignant Narcissist?
Not a loving parent, that’s for sure. Because if you were, your love would go exclusively in the other direction.
We know you have figured out how to mimic what most people genuinely feel. But we can spot the fakery a mile away.
Isab at January 29, 2021 8:36 AM
Artie, I never said anything about violating the rights of people. What I said was when someone starts demanding new rights or that society reconfigure itself to accommodate them, it's up to them to show why that should happen.
Women fought long and hard for athletic opportunities, for their athletics to have equal footing with men's. Now, trans women want to be accounted as women, without any transition efforts, and participate in those opportunities.
It's up to trans-women to show why that benefits society, it's not up to society to simply step aside to placate a small, but vocal minority's demand to let them piggy-back on a hard-won goal.
If you want trans-women to be able to compete against biological women, go out there and put your daughter on the track team and tell her that the biological boy who beat her has a right to compete as a girl, even if it means she'll never win a track meet and has no chance to, in fact.
Put her on the girls basketball team to play against a team of 200lb bruisers who claim they're girls. Tell her those biological boys have a right to compete as trans-girls and that she just needs to try harder to win.
Tell her about Billie Jean King and Florence Joyner. Tell her about Babe Didrikson. And do it quickly because the biological boys competing as women are gonna erase those women from the record books, and from history.
==========
I wondered when you'd compare it to that. In fact, I think I won the office pool on it.
It would be nice if a society could turn on a dime and accept deviations from its norms immediately, but that's not how it works. That's not how it's ever worked, human nature being what it is.
You cannot simply order acceptance of deviations as if from a buffet. The people who want those deviations to be accepted into a new societal norm have to fight for it, have to convince a reluctant society to change.
Many have fought in the past and many have won. They've shown that society is better off accepting the deviators than in fighting to uphold outdated norms.
So far, trans folks have only been screaming about getting into sports, locker rooms, bathrooms, and dating as if they're the gender they claim to be, without showing society why it should accept such claims, why it would benefit society more to accept them into those spaces than to bar them, or why charging a centuries-old norm is the right thing to do.
By the way, Artie, just because you're demanding acceptance of a new norm does not automatically put you on the side of right and justice. That's why it behooves the people demanding acceptance of a new norm to prove to society that the acceptance being demanded is warranted, and is the right thing to do.
Is gender dysmorphia a condition that society should accommodate, or is it a psychological condition that needs treatment rather than enabling? Does accepting non-transitional biological boys and men into women's and girls' sports provide a benefit to society greater than any potential harmful impact to the existing and hard-won women's and girls' sports?
It's not in your nature to consider all sides of an issue, so I don't expect you to be able to answer these considerations, or even that you'll think much about them.
Conan the Grammarian at January 29, 2021 8:37 AM
(I think these are Orion's time-zone blackout hours. Hope fellow Americans are enjoying this glorious Friday!)
Crid at January 29, 2021 9:22 AM
Well it is 0130 roughly in Beijing right now. Makes sense.
Isab at January 29, 2021 9:28 AM
Early morning in Manila, Seoul, Singapore... Orion usual returns with full bitterness after 10p est.
It's a gorgeous afternoon here in America, as the thick but unthreatening snow from two days ago is photogenically melting in the afternoon sun... I got some pictures of deer behind the house yesterday.
Crid at January 29, 2021 10:10 AM
Isab Says:
"Not a loving parent, that’s for sure. Because if you were, your love would go exclusively in the other direction."
Are you mental?
Love isn't a one way street. Of course you love your children... and presuming you do a good job they also love you.
Maybe there is a reason you believe love in a parent child relationship only goes one way... and it isn't because you did a good job.
As for this part:
"In my 60 plus years on this planet, I have never been conceited enough to say this. Makes me wonder what kind of person would."
You've been saying absolutely disgusting things to years here... right along with Crid.
Why is it that for you thin skinned folks everything is a one way street?
You'll dish out the insults... but you cannot take them... you'll love your kids... but apparently they don't love you in return.
Isab, here is a clue. If your kids don't or didn't love you, it is because you probably didn't establish a loving relationship with them.
That is on you.
Artemis at January 29, 2021 10:30 AM
Conan Says:
"Artie, I never said anything about violating the rights of people."
What you said was that it would "adversely affect the rights of people". It is right here:
"The discussion is whether the accommodation demanded will adversely affect the rights of people previously accommodated and disrupt those accommodations made for them."
If you want to argue that adversely affecting the rights of people isn't violating their rights then you are quibbling... if someone adversely affects your rights by definition they have been violated.
For example, if I adversely affect your right to vote... then I have violated your right to vote.
This kind of thing has already been adjudicated with when we abolished poll taxes.
"Women fought long and hard for athletic opportunities, for their athletics to have equal footing with men's. Now, trans women want to be accounted as women, without any transition efforts, and participate in those opportunities."
We've already been through this Conan.
This is not anything you have presented evidence for.
This is just you being a bigot and speculating.
It is really no different than the folks who threw a fit when homosexuals were allowed to get married... they speculated this was some slippery slope to people marrying animals.
They were wrong of course, but that is the equivalent of what you are doing here.
Fearmongering and bigotry do not make for a well constructed argument.
"If you want trans-women to be able to compete against biological women, go out there and put your daughter on the track team and tell her that the biological boy who beat her has a right to compete as a girl, even if it means she'll never win a track meet and has no chance to, in fact."
Elo ratings prevent people of vastly differing abilities from competing head to head.
I feel like I am talking to a gold fish.
We've been over this already.
None of your objections or concerns hold water because there are reasonable ways to address them.
No one needs to demonstrate to you that they are worthy of human dignity and consideration.
You aren't that important.
Artemis at January 29, 2021 10:42 AM
Conan Says:
"By the way, Artie, just because you're demanding acceptance of a new norm does not automatically put you on the side of right and justice."
It isn't a new norm Conan... the norm is that you treat all people with human dignity.
No one needs to prove or demonstrate that to you to get your buy off or approval.
That has been the norm for a while now. Bigots just haven't gotten the message.
You would fit right in with folks from generations past that decided that Jews weren't allowed to live in certain sections of the city and instead pushed into ghettos... or with folks who decided that black folks were inherently inferior to white folks.
Their arguments are essentially identical to your own.
All forms of discrimination are ultimately defended on the grounds of "tradition" or maintaining some "norm".
Such arguments are always to be dismissed because they aren't rational.
It is called an appeal to tradition:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Tradition
Your reasoning is fallacious... and bigoted.
When you are ready to present a logical argument accompanied with evidence it can be considered. Until then you don't have anything worthy of discussion.
Artemis at January 29, 2021 10:50 AM
> That is on you.
Isab: Orion means "that's"… Working from outside, idioms and vernacular together are a like a minefield.
Crid at January 29, 2021 11:30 AM
Read for comprehension, Artie. That's not even close to what I said.
And this is just you calling people names because your sole debate tactic is to declare yourself right and argue from that basis.
And here we go off on an Artie tangent.
Conan the Grammarian at January 29, 2021 11:36 AM
Conan,
Just to help you understand what you sound like in this discussion, here is an except from an article written in 2012 in response to some conservative objections to gay marriage:
https://theconversation.com/the-flawed-logic-of-bernardis-slippery-slope-why-not-marry-a-corporation-9708
"One response to that “slippery slope” argument – that same sex marriage will be followed by laws allowing you to marry your favourite dog, cat, budgerigar or ferret – is to say “so what?”."
When all you have are fallacious slipper slope arguments and arguments from tradition (which are always fallacious), why do you presume that anyone should consider those "sides" as you put it here:
"It's not in your nature to consider all sides of an issue, so I don't expect you to be able to answer these considerations, or even that you'll think much about them."
The only sides that need be considered are rational positions that are based on logic and evidence.
Your fundamental problem is that you haven't actually presented an argument worthy of serious consideration.
You fail on the merits.
I'm always open to reasonable arguments... the failure is that you don't present them.
As suggested in the linked article, slippery slopes and arguments from tradition should be responded with "so what?".
We should not try to have society operate in a manner to accommodate your flawed reasoning and bigotry.
Present a real reason why we shouldn't be making space for our fellow human beings in society and I am happy to hear you out... whatever that reason is, it cannot rely on tradition or unjustified slippery slopes. Such arguments can and should be rejected instantly because they are by definition unreasonable.
Artemis at January 29, 2021 11:38 AM
Conan Says:
"What you said was that it would "adversely affect the rights of people". ~ Artemis at January 29, 2021 10:42 AM
Read for comprehension, Artie. That's not even close to what I said." - Conan the Grammarian at January 29, 2021 11:36 AM
Um... Conan... it is exactly what you said:
"The discussion is whether the accommodation demanded will adversely affect the rights of people previously accommodated and disrupt those accommodations made for them." - Conan the Grammarian at January 28, 2021 10:08 AM
I want to know exactly what "right" you are saying will be violated (rights that have been adversely affected have been violated by definition).
I quoted you directly.
That you cannot articulate exactly what "right" this is indicates you do not have an argument.
Artemis at January 29, 2021 11:45 AM
Conan Says:
"And this is just you calling people names because your sole debate tactic is to declare yourself right and argue from that basis."
When we are talking about anti-discrimination policies and your argument is about "norms"... that is a bigoted argument.
All you are essentially arguing is that if these folks have been mistreated historically we should continue to do so unless they can prove they shouldn't be mistreated anymore.
That isn't "name-calling" Conan... it isn't name-calling anymore than saying that people who argued Black folks should drink from separate drinking fountains because that was the "norm" was a bigoted argument.
I am asking you to present an argument that isn't fallacious.
I've been waiting for one for days... and it does not appear to be forthcoming.
Artemis at January 29, 2021 11:51 AM
> That is on you.
Isab: Orion means "that's"… Working from outside, idioms and vernacular together are a like a minefield.
Crid at January 29, 2021 11:30 AM
Apparently we also forgot that it is Saturday morning in Beijing.
Isab at January 29, 2021 11:55 AM
Conan,
Also... for someone who starts equating people to Nazi's at the drop of a hat you sure are sensitive about "name-calling".
Just the other day you said I was going to be rounding up conservatives to load them onto trains.
All three of you are the most thin skinned bullies out there.
I've got Crid who is a perpetual troll that is so very sensitive that he apparently needs you and Isab to run in to support him when he gets smacked down.
I've got Isab who has been calling me autistic and saying I'm locked in an institution for years (amongst other lovely insults)... but clutches her pearls and insists she's never seen such horrible blog comments in all her 60 years after I tell Crid that he doesn't have a family that loves him.
Then I've got you who will name-call left and right and compare people to Nazi's... but then you catch the vapors when you are referred to as a bigot.
You guys have to be the most pathetic lot of losers I've ever interacted with in all my life.
Here is a clue, if you are that sensitive then you should be treating others how you want to be treated.
What a bunch of whiny babies.
Artemis at January 29, 2021 12:01 PM
Isab,
It's good to see that you don't let being perpetually wrong keep you down.
Just out of curiosity, are you one of those Q nuts that believes Trump is still president and will emerge victorious on March 4th?
Or is that conspiracy drivel even too crazy for you?
Artemis at January 29, 2021 12:04 PM
If you said interesting things, there'd be something else to talk about.
Crid at January 29, 2021 12:21 PM
Crid,
Boring people are ignored... I on the other hand have accumulated obsessed groupies.
When I am around you guys can't seem to control yourselves... and you're constantly speculating about what my life is like and where I might be from.
The reality is that happy people don't do the things you do. You're just a lonely and pathetic loser who is in the sunset years of his life and gets his jollies trying to annoy people on the internet.
You cannot annoy me though Crid... I enjoy making fun of you.
Artemis at January 29, 2021 12:36 PM
“Just out of curiosity, are you one of those Q nuts that believes Trump is still president and will emerge victorious on March 4th?”
Nope. I think Chairman Xi will be fully in charge of the U.S government for at least the next four years.
Good news is; I’m moving back to Japan soon. We can be neighbors again Artie!
Isab at January 29, 2021 12:59 PM
Isab Says:
"Nope. I think Chairman Xi will be fully in charge of the U.S government for at least the next four years."
lol... okay... so you are an adherent of entirely different conspiracy nonsense.
"Good news is; I’m moving back to Japan soon. We can be neighbors again Artie!"
Good news for the United States... bad news for Japan.
I bet your actual neighbors are relieved you will be gone.
Artemis at January 29, 2021 1:10 PM
Good news for the United States... bad news for Japan.
I bet your actual neighbors are relieved you will be gone.
Artemis at January 29, 2021 1:10 PM
At the magnificent estate chez Isab, my neighbors know less about my comings and goings than Joe Biden knows about shotguns. That’s the beauty of being rich and rural, and Republican.
See ya soon!!!
Isab at January 29, 2021 1:25 PM
Isab,
It's even more pathetic that you are saying you are leaving the entire country for some extended period of time and no one will notice or care.
My neighbors stop by with holiday gifts and ask how the kids are doing when we run into them.
They couldn't tell you what was going on day to day... but I am certain they would notice if I moved away.
Furthermore... if you absolutely adore being this isolated, Japan is pretty much the last place you'd want to go. The population density there is through the roof.
That suggests to me you aren't going because you want to.
Artemis at January 29, 2021 2:43 PM
> groupies.
The parameters of your lunacy are more interesting than anything you've ever said. That happened with Britney, too.
Crid at January 29, 2021 2:55 PM
There goes the neighborhood.
Japan at January 29, 2021 3:10 PM
> There goes the neighborhood.
Without neighbors like her, you're screwed, and everyone knows it. Especially the Big Kids next door.
Crid at January 29, 2021 3:12 PM
Crid,
Your ability to assess the mental health of anyone is highly questionable.
Just to put things into perspective... you are arguing with someone going by the name Japan because they made a joke that having Isab moving there is kind of undesirable.
My take on the whole thing is that Japan's loss is Wyoming's gain.
I also think the timing of her leaving the country is a bit suspicious... I think we need to know her whereabouts for January 6th.
Artemis at January 29, 2021 3:20 PM
Borrrr-ing. Institutionalized?
Crid at January 29, 2021 3:57 PM
You really are an idiot, Artie. Bigot is just a word to you.
Addressing one of the host of other subjects you included in your latest gish gallop, Artie, I haven't called anyone a Nazi.
You also need to revise your definition of "thin-skinned."
Conan the Grammarian at January 29, 2021 4:44 PM
Conan,
So let's get this straight... you tell folks they are ready and willing to round people up to load them on trains for execution and that is perfectly fine... but when someone calls you a bigot that is over the line?
I'm still waiting for an example of what rights you are talking about being adversely affected... why are you silent on this after making this statement?
Keep in mind that being a bigot means you are prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or group on the basis of some demographic feature that links them together.
Earlier in this conversation you said the following:
"we should be concerned about the potential for violence and abuse in opening women's private spaces to men who say they identify as women, but cannot offer any confirmation of that claim."
That statement means you are ready and willing to infer violent and abusive intent upon these folks before they have even done anything criminal.
That is a prejudiced statement... you are prejudging them.
I still remember you defending Kavanaugh during a supreme court confirmation hearing where he cried and yelled and talked about "boofing" and his love of drinking after being accused of sexual assault.
You insisted we could not have any negative inference about him despite the allegation.
But for transgendered folks you don't even need an allegation... you need to be concerned ahead of time.
That kind of thing makes you a bigot Conan.
That is what the word is meant for.
Artemis at January 29, 2021 6:42 PM
Conan,
This is also what you said how we as a society should respond to any teenager who might identify in a manner you don't approve of:
"And it's also "gross" that we, as a society, would be so afraid of not being woke enough that we would put no protections in place to keep this from happening, instead opening the gates to sexual predators and giving them an easy way in."
You are presuming these kids are sexual predators without any evidence... we should just start off with that inference.
We've heard this kind of talk about other groups in the past... be it Black folks or Jewish people.
The bigots always try to couch their prejudiced statements in the form of protecting society from some marginalized group.
What on earth do you think the statements were like that lead to the death of Emmet Till?
He was a black teenager that was murdered for allegedly flirting with a white woman. The kinds of people who murdered him spoke in exactly the same way you do... they believed society needed protections put in place to protect white women from black boys who hadn't done anything wrong. They should just presume something was wrong about them regardless of what they do or had done.
If you don't want to be seen as a bigot maybe you shouldn't be copying the types of bigots put forth to justify treating people horribly.
Now once again... what is your example of a right that is being adversely impacted?
I know how you operate... the chances of you ever specifying exactly what you are talking about are next to zero.
Artemis at January 29, 2021 6:58 PM
Conan,
Also... Gish Gallop is capitalized and you are using it wrong.
I'd love it if you learned more about fallacious reasoning, but that requires you to understand what they mean.
The Gish Gallop is not indicative of a long statement... it is indicative of a collection of arguments all shot out rapid fire.
Each post I make usually has just a couple of arguments that I then support with evidence.
When you employ the Gish Gallop what you do is just rattle off one argument after another without any support until you have a massive list.
Kind of like what you did in your post at January 25, 2021 3:42 PM.
All you did was rattle off 14 separate questions without supporting evidence of a logical connection to the topic at hand.
You were just tossing mud at the wall to see if anything might stick.
I don't do Gish Gallops... but I do write long posts.
They are not the same thing.
Artemis at January 29, 2021 8:20 PM
"They're"
Crid at January 30, 2021 2:21 AM
Crid,
Contractions are a style choice.
Interestingly they are also a style choice that is usually avoided in academic authorship and professional environments:
https://www.firstediting.com/when-should-i-avoid-contractions-in-writing/
"Generally speaking, avoid contractions in formal writing, such as business letters, essays, technical papers, and research papers."
I have to imagine you walking into an ice cream shop and yelling at people that they purchased the wrong flavor.
You're just a bitter and lonely old man.
Artemis at January 30, 2021 3:10 AM
Name a book, describe a friend.
Crid at January 30, 2021 3:58 AM
Jump through a hoop, roll over and play dead.
Artemis at January 30, 2021 1:50 PM
Crid,
On a more serious note... your obsession with people quoting books or well known individuals to demonstrate something to you is gauche.
Since you only seem to hold ideas in high esteem if you can identify a famous source I will help you understand with a quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson:
"I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."
Artemis at January 30, 2021 1:56 PM
Conan,
We're still waiting for your specific examples of what rights you are talking about being adversely impacted.
It shouldn't take days for you to clarify with specificity.
Artemis at January 30, 2021 2:40 PM
It would be interesting to see evidence that you're literate, and not merely eager to browse the web through whatever translation tools you require… Your mind, and tongue, are not American. You're in your seventh year of this: We would know.
Crid at January 30, 2021 6:40 PM
Crid,
It would be interesting to see evidence that you are capable of intelligent thought... and yet here we are with you writing to me via text on a blog and wondering whether or not I can read.
The available evidence suggests your mind has turned into a puddle of mush.
In all seriousness... are you suffering from a degenerative neurological disorder?... if so I will stop making fun of you.
Artemis at January 30, 2021 6:55 PM
No books? that's tough
Crid at January 30, 2021 8:48 PM
Crid,
What is your strategy here?... it seems to me that you trying to cover for Conan by burying his refusal for days to provide specific examples of rights that are being adversely affected.
Nothing you say or do can change the fact that the objections presented are not in good faith.
Maybe you can give some specific examples of rights that are adversely affected.
Try to stay on topic.
Artemis at January 30, 2021 11:24 PM
Your weirdness is more interesting than the things you say.
Crid at January 31, 2021 3:08 PM
Crid,
I think it is much more bizarre that you and Conan have this schtick going where as soon as you see he is completely in the weeds you show up as a clown to set up a distraction.
We're still waiting to find out exactly what rights are adversely affected.
I think we all know the answer is none... no one has an exclusive "right" to scholarship money... and no one has a "right" to hand pick who gets to urinate in the enclosed stall adjacent to the enclosed stall you occupy.
So spell it out Crid... what "right" is being impacted?
This isn't about rights... it's about entitlement.
Artemis at January 31, 2021 3:44 PM
Whatever. Where do you live?
Crid at January 31, 2021 9:14 PM
Don't be stupid Crid... I live where most people live... in my home.
Now, back to the topic. What rights are being impacted?
Let's face it, you know that Conan is just a bigot who just doesn't like the tingly feelings he gets when he sees trans folks walking by.
It's not like he has a penchant for defending women's rights... he's even argued before that if early feminists knew how things would turn out they wouldn't have bothered to fight for the vote.
Like most bigots he just has a hierarchy of discrimination to follow.
Artemis at January 31, 2021 9:42 PM
We're all bigoted towards pretentious goofballs.
You live an indoor life, right? Wheelchair? C'mon.
Crid at February 1, 2021 6:47 AM
Crid,
I notice you haven't said that Conan isn't a bigot... you're just saying you are a bigot too.
Of course the example you have given isn't even correct, but that is par for the course with your perverse abuse of the English language.
Artemis at February 1, 2021 9:44 PM
Leave a comment