Mr. Rogan, while an ass, has never advocated wholesale extermination of peoples, or espoused Nazi ideas, like Mr. Yannopoulos. Mr. Rogan has said that perhaps F-t-M and M-t-F athletes should compete in the divisions they were born into/genetically correlate with, as things like bone density, muscle construction and leverage can make a paramount difference in sport. This is not hate speech, this is not denying anyone’s humanity; it is an attempt to deal logically with matters of physiology and mass in an area where physiology and mass matter. And until identifying as 5’2" makes you 5’2", it is a matter of concern that will only become more pertinent.
Speech you disagree with isn’t hate speech automatically.
No, Blue or Bust. I intend to vote for any candidate who gains the nomination.
First, we ARE already fucked. The stakes we’re playing for make that clear.
100 million Americans didn’t vote in the 2016 Election. Is every one of them a Trump voter? No. Is every one of them a transphobic, sexist mysogynist? No. THOSE people, if given a good reason, will help a Democratic candidate win, but those humans won’t give a shit if it’s Biden or some other drone.
If you think people aren’t saying critical things about Sanders, a brief perusal of the Atlantic and the NYT will disabuse you of that illusion.
And, again: Oh, Sanders isn’t the best candidate on trans rights? Then who is? Out of Biden, Warren, Klonbuchar, Sanders?
How is that ‘phobic?’ It doesn’t speak to some irrational fear or an irrational aversion; it speaks to matters of empirical fact. Does pointing out that a 6ft 2 person has an athletic advantage over a 5ft 2 person make you height-phobic? Does pointing out very real differences in developmental psychology make you some kind of ‘phobic?’
Also, I wasn’t saying ‘not calling for genocide’ is the floor. I was saying that your comparison where Rogan = Yannopoulos was at best hyperbolic and disingenuous.
[Mod: hand-wringing about moderation removed. This is the very, very last time. You have been warned repeatedly to not derail]
Mr. Rogan has said that perhaps F-t-M and M-t-F athletes should compete in the divisions they were born into/genetically correlate with, as things like bone density, muscle construction and leverage can make a paramount difference in sport.
Unless you are Caster Semenya or any of the other intersex and cis women who fall outside what some people have decided what the ideal woman athlete should be.
The reality is that Joe Rogaine is talking pseudoscientific bollocks that does not stand up under scrutiny.
(This is off topic and I have no desire to continue it)
We’re not talking about you. We’re talking about bringing in voters who will only vote for their guy, otherwise, they’ll go vote for the authoritarian racist. If they don’t care enough to vote against an authoritarian racist, then THEY are the ones to blame for dragging this country to hell.
Wow. amazing that you can read 100 million minds at once!
I’m aware, actually, thanks. That doesn’t mean he is above criticism. He’s a candidate running for office. Our JOB as voters to is push him on his blind spots, including accepting endorsements from deeply problematic people with a history of bigotry.
Primarily it’s pseudoscience bullshit masquerading as “science”. There are women who are larger and bigger than other women who are cisgendered. If the problem is size matching size, then don’t put one fighter up against another fighter who is larger/bigger/stronger… problem solved. You don’t need to misgender people and pull in BS to justify such sickening comments.
Miss me with that strawman, please.
Yeah, I never did that, so you know…
No, it’s because you’re promoting transphobic trash ideas.
But @the_borderer is correct. I’ve said all I have to say on this issue. If you can’t see how this is offensive and bigoted, then that’s your problem. It’s not the job of those of us here to educate you to be a bit more sensitive to real live human beings you share this planet with.
Ideally, there would be 4 areas of athletic competition: M, F, M-t-F and F-t-M.
That would, perhaps, be the fairest thing that still allows for a recognition of real differences.
Because saying that women and men have real and scientifically verified physiological differences – the use of energy and sustained performance aerobically, density and length of bone, composition of muscle and ratio of of fast-twitch to short-twitch muscle, and differences that unfold during the body’s most important and powerful years of development – is not ‘prejudice’ but rather an acknowledgment of scientific facts and thus, by extension logically, taking those differences into account would make for better sport and better competition.
(This is not an attempt at diversion/digression, but, rather, an honest answer to a posed question; now returning to Presidential Candidates.)
I didn’t write the headline, and if I had’ the phrase ‘mecca’ would not be in it. But the article does list many things Mr. Sanders has done for the LGBTQ community, and if that’s not enough for you, it isn’t.
This is not an attempt at digression or diversion, simply answering the last question posed. Back to Presidential Candidates.
What, in your mind, is the point of having gender-based categories for sports?
Because taller people have proven physical advantages in basketball, but we don’t have height categories in basketball. Heavier people have proven physical advantages in fighting sports and we do have weight categories in fighting sports. Adults usually have proven advantages over children and in most sports children have their own competitions. But the minimum age for gymnasts in the olympics used to be 14 and was changed to 15, then 16 - what changed about 14-year-olds during that time and why is it 15 for figure skaters? And it’s pretty damn obvious a 50-year-old is never going to win an olympic medal in nearly anything (there are exceptions) but we don’t have a separate 20-30, 31-40 and 41-50 category. Of course at non-olympic levels there are sometimes age categories (I once met someone who had the world’s second best time in some length of breast stroke for people aged 65-69).
How we divide people into categories to judge them against each other in sports is a social decision made to address social conditions. There is no empirical right answer, it depends on what we are trying to achieve. Currently we have a state where people are allowed to compete as members of their own gender, without being singled out as trans. We also currently have a state where transgender people with olympic gold medals earned those gold medal before coming out (I say with moderate confidence). What is the real-world social problem with that state that would be solved by creating four categories as you suggest? Who is currently being treated unfairly and by what standard of fairness? (Or, alternately, since I think this is usually the way these decisions are made: How would that increase the number of people who are inspired to participate in sports?)
Actually, this article makes the point that rowing (aka crewing), for Britain’s Olympic team, became a much more winnable event specifically by nothing more and nothing less than recruiting people with taller bodies/bigger bones/greater leverage. Just as people with bigger bodies/bigger bones/greater leverage will do better in sports that those benefit. Which is many.
And in Horseracing the horse does the work, not the human.
The differences in most of the metrics relevant to athletics are within one standard deviation of each and diminishing over time.
And your statement about jockeys is mind-bogglingly incorrect. Jockeys are incredibly athletic and work as hard as a comparable runner over the same time period during a race. They lose a couple of pounds of sweat over the course of a race.
Trans people benefit from having their brains develop more fully under both major sex hormones. This leads to greater facility in mathematical/spatial abilities and in verbal/relationship abilities as the physical brain structures underlying those skills are more enhanced than they are for cisgender people.