EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3162
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35173 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8760 Posts
On April 17 2021 22:45 BlackJack wrote: Yes I was being a little snarky in that part you bolded. I don't really have an opinion to share on the law/issue itself. It seems like a complex issue and I have not spent a lot of time looking into the issue. Maybe I will dive into it later today when I have some free time. that seems prudent. _ and to your newer post. yes that seems like a problem _kinda_ overall, women competing with "originally men" who like use that to have an edge. kinda - I admit I know too little. but should it be one solved on the backs of way younger people already overwhelmed by their circumstances? like, it's not like there are people specifically "turning" to go into women's sport to dominate... I don't think anyone sane would go through such an ordeal. maybe add another class in the future, I really don't know. it clearly needs discussion and more input from various people. to try to "solve" the issue in fucking high school... is idiocy on too many levels. and yeah they hope for cheap points for the chicken hawks in the GOP unfortunately. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6342 Posts
On April 17 2021 22:51 BlackJack wrote: One thing I would want to know before I formed any opinions on M2F trans people in women's sports is just how many athletes are dominating in their field and displacing women from podium spots possibly because of a biological advantage. If there aren't even any examples of such athletes then it seems like a pointless endeavor to bar them from women's sports in the interest of "fairness." Although anyone that follows American politics even poorly probably understands that the GOP that makes these laws don't really give a damn about fairness in women's sports and just use it as an excuse to win some points among their base at the expense of the trans community. I think even the most elementary google search will give you the statistics you are asking for about ex-male domination in womans sports. And I think you know exactly what those statistics are. Doing 'inspections' is silly in my view. The state knows everything about you, i highly doubt you can enroll into a school without the school knowing your past names or genders. That said, there will always be corruption with school boards taking bribes to look the other way. But there will also always be women livid that they didnt get a scolarship because a guy that couldnt be top 300 in mens, transitions and wipes the floor in the womans to get that same scholarship. She will do everything she can to annul those results. EDIT: just to be clear, trans women competing in female athletics is not a problem. But someone that failed as a male athlete and transitioned for easy money/free school is a problem. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46194 Posts
On April 17 2021 22:51 BlackJack wrote: One thing I would want to know before I formed any opinions on M2F trans people in women's sports is just how many athletes are dominating in their field and displacing women from podium spots possibly because of a biological advantage. If there aren't even any examples of such athletes then it seems like a pointless endeavor to bar them from women's sports in the interest of "fairness." Although anyone that follows American politics even poorly probably understands that the GOP that makes these laws don't really give a damn about fairness in women's sports and just use it as an excuse to win some points among their base at the expense of the trans community. I think there are a few documented cases at the high school and college levels, but it's extremely, extremely rare. And I think your last point - that it's a bullshit excuse for Republicans to just hate on a particular demographic - is very important and should be continuously pointed out every time someone tries to pretend that this is to sincerely protect the sanctity of sports/competition, or whatever. Stream of consciousness: In fact, literally as I was typing "sanctity", I started to realize the depth of the analogy between married couples who are gay and athletes who are trans, especially in regards to misconceptions: -Banning gay marriage was supposed to protect the sanctity of marriage, which is already riddled with drama and scandals and bullshit from straight couples = Banning trans athletes is supposed to protect the sanctity of sports/competition, which is already riddled with drama and scandals and bullshit from cis athletes; -"Gay people can still get married anyway, but only with people of the opposite sex" = "Trans athletes can still compete in sports anyway, but only with people with the same reproductive organs"; -"Being gay is a choice" = "Being trans is a choice"; Et cetera. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11913 Posts
On April 17 2021 23:07 plasmidghost wrote: I'll be honest, I know of exactly one trans woman who is good at her sport and she's a cyclist. The IOC has allowed trans people to compete in the Olympics since 2004. Not only has a trans woman never won a gold medal, none of us have even qualified for it. The first time any trans person qualified for competing in their country's trials was trans man Chris Mosier for the Tokyo Olympics now this year. He didn't make it due to injury. To compete according to a decent amount of ruling committees that have trans-inclusive policies, trans women must suppress their testosterone levels to below levels naturally occurring in cis women. Because of this, any supposed advantage in height, build, etc. is completely nullified. Taking estrogen will absolutely destroy your muscle mass (I know from experience) and typically, you have to be on it for 2-3 years. At the school level, California has allowed trans girls to compete in women's sports since 2013 and none of them have dominated. It is a classic example of rightwing people inventing a problem, and then solving that invented problem through something that they actually want to do, but cannot say out loud. They want to make life hard for trans people because they are bigoted assholes. But they cannot say that openly. So they invent the sports problem, or the bathroom problem, or any number of other problems that don't have any basis in reality, and then conveniently solve these problems through making life harder for trans people. It is similar to how they solve the invented problem of election fraud through making it harder to vote for people who would vote against them. | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9904 Posts
On April 17 2021 23:22 Simberto wrote: It is a classic example of rightwing people inventing a problem, and then solving that invented problem through something that they actually want to do, but cannot say out loud. They want to make life hard for trans people because they are bigoted assholes. But they cannot say that openly. So they invent the sports problem, or the bathroom problem, or any number of other problems that don't have any basis in reality, and then conveniently solve these problems through making life harder for trans people. It is similar to how they solve the invented problem of election fraud through making it harder to vote for people who would vote against them. It reminds me of the 'feminist' argument over here in the UK that men will transition to get into women's shelters and attack women. This is something that doesn't happen, but for some reason politicians listen to them instead of the trans women suffering violence. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46194 Posts
On April 17 2021 23:34 Jockmcplop wrote: It reminds me of the 'feminist' argument over here in the UK that men will transition to get into women's shelters and attack women. This is something that doesn't happen, but for some reason politicians listen to them instead of the trans women suffering violence. Same goes with the bathroom argument, except trans people are disproportionately victims, not disproportionately assailants. It's all bullshit. What makes that a "feminist" argument though? That seems to be an odd use of the term. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9904 Posts
On April 17 2021 23:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Same goes with the bathroom argument, except trans people are disproportionately victims, not disproportionately assailants. It's all bullshit. What makes that a "feminist" argument though? That seems to be an odd use of the term. People use the argument from a specifically feminist POV. Often it is groups with feminist in their name who push this argument. Ostensibly liberal people like JK Rowling love this argument. It always starts with "I'm a feminist, but". ps contrapoints did an excellent episode about JK Rowling which is on topic... | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11913 Posts
On April 17 2021 23:45 Jockmcplop wrote: People use the argument from a specifically feminist POV. Often it is groups with feminist in their name who push this argument. Ostensibly liberal people like JK Rowling love this argument. It always starts with "I'm a feminist, but". ps contrapoints did an excellent episode about JK Rowling which is on topic... It is the TERF (Trans exclusionary radical feminist) area of feminism. I think these are often people who are more man-hating then actually feminist, so they think trans women are actually men trying to get into "their" space. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8760 Posts
On April 17 2021 23:28 plasmidghost wrote: Also, I know nearly all of you don't experience gender dysphoria, but let me assure you that if you're a cis guy that wants to transition just to beat cis women in sports, being on estrogen will absolutely destroy your mental state. Having the wrong hormones in you will cause things like severe depression, dread, suicidal ideation, panic, anxiety, and many other things. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a single sport committee out there that will allow trans women to compete if they're not on estrogen thank you for the insight. I imagine it must be hard to "declare colors" so to speak. to add to the police discussion a bit: this week's Real Time is pure fire, the podcast is free and on itunes if you do not have HBO. every once in a while Bill Maher still kicks ass. | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9904 Posts
On April 17 2021 23:55 plasmidghost wrote: That's accurate, yeah. They view us as predatory, entitled men despite literally no evidence of that. They're everywhere in the government there. I'm thankful that for now, their beliefs aren't as prevalent in the US. I also have read that a lot of TERF groups in the UK are bankrolled by US conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation I heard about this too. TERF (I avoid the term because it causes tedious arguments) ideology is very mainstream over here. Its a really sad situation tbh. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
Try and regulate what a minority is allowed to do, excluded from and such. Reguating guns? meh. let's focus on trans people in sports - trans women be to good for women sports but not good enough for the military. And especially let's focus on where they pee. That's so much more important than where our leaders stick their ("naturally" grown of course) cock. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On April 17 2021 23:28 plasmidghost wrote: Also, I know nearly all of you don't experience gender dysphoria, but let me assure you that if you're a cis guy that wants to transition just to beat cis women in sports, being on estrogen will absolutely destroy your mental state. Having the wrong hormones in you will cause things like severe depression, dread, suicidal ideation, panic, anxiety, and many other things. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a single sport committee out there that will allow trans women to compete if they're not on estrogen Is the bold part something you agree with or no? I've never heard anyone that supports trans rights say that a M2F transgendered person is only a woman if they are on estrogen. Banning M2F transgendered people that are not on HRT from women's sports because they have too big of a biological advantage is logically the same argument as banning M2F transgendered people that are on HRT because they still have too big of a biological advantage. It's the same argument just a different degree. If the argument is purely a moral one that it's wrong to discriminate against transgendered people that wish to compete in the sport of the gender they identify with then I don't see how whether or not the athlete is taking estrogen is relevant unless it's implied that M2F people that aren't taken estrogen aren't real women and therefore it's not discrimination. If it's not purely a moral argument regarding discrimination and it's believed that only athletes on HRT should be able to compete in the interest of fairness then it becomes a lot more blurry - how long should they have been on HRT before they are allowed to compete, how much testosterone should they be allowed to have in their blood, etc. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On April 17 2021 23:54 Doublemint wrote: thank you for the insight. I imagine it must be hard to "declare colors" so to speak. to add to the police discussion a bit: this week's Real Time is pure fire, the podcast is free and on itunes if you do not have HBO. every once in a while Bill Maher still kicks ass. This is 7 years old but one of Bill Maher's most on-point new rules in my opinion which is pertinent to recent conversations here: + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On April 17 2021 21:04 EnDeR_ wrote: Blackjack, you are not very clear in your posts and often include contradictory statements, so this makes it difficult to have a discussion with you. From what I gather, you think the cop shouldn't have made the mistake, but because there are 'mitigating' circumstances, i.e. someone resisted arrest or the kid had a gun; we should be lenient on the cop and not hold them to a higher standard. Is that the gist of it? Personally I don't think my posts contradictory. I think the issue is a problem that is endemic with arguing on the internet - you're trying to converse with people that are complete strangers and the delayed back-and-forth times makes it difficult to ask for clarification into the nuances of the person's views. As a result arguing on the internet seems to be a lot more about reading a person's words and then attempting to infer what "group" they belong to and then arguing more broadly against the beliefs of that group instead of what the person actually said. Granted, I tend to have a lot of atypical views that don't fit into any mold which maybe makes it my fault but I'm not going to alter my views just to get less grief arguing on the internet. I'll give you an example but I will put it in spoilers because it is extremely off-topic. + Show Spoiler + One atypical view I have is that I believe life begins at conception, but I'm also pro-choice. If I post on the internet why I think life begins at conception the reader of that post thinks "Oh this guy thinks life begins at conception, he must be a pro-lifer, let me hit him with these arguments for why being pro-life is wrong." Then I say "I never said I was pro-life yadda yadda" Then they say "well your posts aren't clear and are self contradictory." But the reality is there is nothing contradictory or unclear there. The contradiction is with what I actually posted vs what the reader inferred I also believed because of what I posted. Just because it doesn't fit the normal mold in our society doesn't make it contradictory. Similarly if I post a view as to why I think it's unreasonable to demand cops to make superhuman reactions with 100% accuracy the response is just usually "Oh so you think cops should be allowed to murder people in the street like dogs" or "So you think cops should be judge, jury, and executioner." etc. If people want to infer that I'm a racist pro-killing bootlicker or whatever, I really couldn't care less. I've always been a vocal proponent of police demilitarization, police reform, increased training, etc. I was on the streets of Oakland after George Floyd was killed. I don't need to justify my anti-police wokeness to anyone. | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
| ||
