Tracinski's cartoon speaks to me. I would have been described as a left-leaning democrat just a few years ago but because I don't subscribe to certain "truths" of the new woke religion, my nieces and nephew consider me a far right conservative. What I actually am is an angry centrist who loathes both extremes.
Tracinski's cartoon speaks to me. I would have been described as a left-leaning democrat just a few years ago but because I don't subscribe to certain "truths" of the new woke religion, my nieces and nephew consider me a far right conservative. What I actually am is an angry centrist who loathes both extremes.
Angry centrist here too, Adrienne Scott! I'll cite Ruy Texeira on the "Fox News Fallacy": just because the authoritarian right is a threat to democracy doesn't mean there's no such thing as an authoritarian left.
And yet, Joe Biden is the President, BBB failed, and police budgets were increased. The people you're taking about have gotten basically nothing they were after. So, the question then becomes, *what more do you want?* Why are you, who has the whole apparatus of the Democratic party leadership catering to your desires, so angry? At this point, the only thing the "authoritarian left" is doing is saying mean things. That somehow makes them just as dangerous as the authoritarian right, who tried to stage a coup, and are planning to do it again?
Sherm: I was on the mall on January 6 as a researcher, so you don't need to convince me about the right. If you don't think there's any problem in universities, newsrooms, and other cultural institutions, that's ok by me. I'm not arguing this point with anyone. I'll just say that on this, Charlie is correct.
I mostly agree with this. I live in a very liberal area and moat of my adult friends are progressives. My conservative childhood and college friends think I'm a communist because I vote for Democrats, loathe Trumpism, and am pro-choice. My progressive friends are intolerant of me because I don't hate the police, I was truly angry about the 1 1/2 year school closures, and I'm just more moderate on COVID mitigation. It's been sort of eye opening.
I'm left-leaning and not afraid to say it. The "extremes" are not really equivalent. While I don't consider myself "far" left, for the most part, people who do generally care about the well being of their fellow human beings. Meanwhile, on the far right, it's all about demonizing and undervaluing their fellow human beings. You may not agree with policy proposals promoted by the "far' left, but they are motivated by making the lives of people better. Can you really say that about the extreme right, or the GOP in general these days?
Here's one: I believe that there are inherent physical differences between men and women. I fully support trans people to be whomever they desire and have equal protection under the law but I also don't "believe" trans women are actual women and I don't believe trans women who have gone through male puberty should complete in elite women's sports. Call me whatever the heck you want-- I don't care.
That has bothered me too. But I'm old enough to not be whatever "woke" is I guess. I still think there are two basic sexes. I'm thinking maybe elite sports will have to move to tiers like wrestling and boxing. No mens and womens, just tiers of strength and ability. It just seems like there's always something pushing to diminish the female half of humanity. (I also do not believe in letting children make life decisions when neither they bodies nor their minds are fully developed. I'm neither proud nor ashamed of that thought but either way I should be entitled to hold it.)
Good for you, Adrienne, for being willing to take the heat and engage on this.
I think trans women are women; the ones I know are fully female in every respect that I can tell. I think the number of trans women in elite sports is so low as to be a non-starter as an issue. Of course, you make a good case for using puberty blockers early for teens who think they may be trans.
I won't call you bigoted or anti-trans; but I would suggest you may want to do a little research into just how female trans women can be. Also just how male trans men can be.
Well, I have been fighting for women's sports since I was a kid in the 70s. I even got a job writing an article (through Gloria Steinem) about my junior high school to discuss my investigation into the fact that our candy sale money (sold mostly by girls) was spent on boys sports (over $10 k) while $250 was given to the only girls sport available---intramural bowling. This was before Title IX. I recite this tale since I've long been invested in fighting for equity and opportunity for girls and women in sports. That said, I believe that trans athletes are few and far between and are being attacked, used as political pawns....Frankly it's a joke when state legislatures pass laws to "protect girls and women in sports" given those same bodies have never done a darn thing to expand or secure actual opportunities for girls (or women) to compete on a level playing field. Face it, the anti-trans in sports mantra is simply about vilifying an already marginalized person to score political points. I think the Republican governor of Utah said it best when he vetoed this bogus legislation: "“I struggle to understand so much of it and the science is conflicting. When in doubt however, I always try to err on the side of kindness, mercy and compassion...Four kids who are just trying to find some friends and feel like they are a part of something. Four kids trying to get through each day...Rarely has so much fear and anger been directed at so few. I don’t understand what they are going through or why they feel the way they do. But I want them to live.” I agree with the Governor Spencer Cox.
YES! what you said. The trans women in sports is a non-issue since there are so few. And yes, legislatures didn't care about girls' sports until now. Why are there laws being passed about this? or about bathrooms? trans people have been using appropriate bathrooms ever since there were gender-specific bathrooms, and it's no big deal.
There's no group of trans women pushing cis women out of women's sports - in most places, in order to be eligible to compete as a woman, a trans woman has to be regularly tested for testosterone levels and have them come in below what many women, who they're competing against, produce naturally. HRT just destroys upper body strength, I've heard on the humorous side complaints from people who can't open pickle jars anymore and on the heartbreaking side from someone in construction 'transitioning was great, for the first time in my entire life I can look in the mirror without wanting to kill myself, I feel so much better and saner and whole and happy for the first time... but I'm just not strong enough to do my job anymore, and I don't know what to do'.
Now, eventually, there would be an AMAB athlete at the highest levels who decided to transition. The HRT would destroy her upper body strength, because that's one of the many things HRT does, and she would fall far behind her male competitors while she still had to compete with them, and by the time she was allowed to compete against women, she would have a thoroughly mediocre recent record. Then when - if - she ever started competing at the highest level again, the story would be 'man can't hack it, goes to women's league to dominate the poor girls there'.
But could one frickin' person every time this comes up mention the HRT body strength thing? Because they act like all you need in order to transition for the purposes of athletics is to wave a wand and go 'squadaddle squadoodle I no longer possess a noodle'.
Do they not know about the body strength/testosterone thing? Because every person on HRT I know of sure knows about it, there are jokes on trans twitter about no longer being able to open pickle jars, have they never heard of it somehow? Have they heard of it, but don't believe it exists/believe we're exaggerating/making it up for our own purposes? And even if we assume that they've never heard about it/just don't believe us when we do... why would you assume that you're the first person who has ever thought of this? Gender disguises have been a trope since Shakespeare, didn't you ever see Some Like It Hot on AMC? When I was a kid there was an awful, awful movie about a man disguising himself as a woman to compete in the WNBA after getting banned from the NBA - in the twenty years since that movie came out (I do not care enough to look up the exact date Juwanna Mann was released) - if really all you needed to do to compete in a women's league is to declare that you're a woman, wouldn't someone have tried this by now?
Ninety percent of Olympic-level athletes, when asked if they would take a drug that would guarantee them a gold medal but kill them within ten years, said 'yes, I would.' Do you seriously think that no one would be willing to undergo SRS for that medal if it was that easy? I remember all the jokes about the East German weightlifting program, thank you!
Here's the thing. For years now, activists have been screaming "Where's the evidence this is a problem?" Predictably, now that we have the evidence, they haven't stopped screaming. You can reduce testosterone levels; it won't change the advantages in size and lung capacity that have accrued in undergoing puberty. And I would dispute that the required T levels for transwomen are lower than normal levels for women.
What evidence is there? Trans women have been allowed to compete for years. There's no massive trans conspiracy forcing cis women out of women's sports. These bills are bills in search of a problem.
Maybe all the people parroting right wing media trans hate (masquerading as concern about female athletes) are unfamiliar with Renee Richards, a famous trans athlete from the 70's.
What is so suspicious about this sudden "concern" about trans athletes is that it's totally political. Trans athletes are governed by rules and regulations from sports authorities.
We don't need Tucker Carlson's "expertise" or that of Republican state legislators, who've already crapped the bed when it came to crazy abortion laws.
1) Trans women athletes are not a new thing, therefore don't require any outrage; 2) an example of a trans woman (who transitioned in adulthood) who didn't beat her opponent.
Lia Thomas is irrelevant now, so use Renee Richards as an example if you absolutely must discuss this subject as if it were a political issue (which you don't, nor does anyone else outside the duly constituted sports authorities; and it isn't).
There is no conspiracy. There doesn't need to be one.
I know you're aware of Lia Thomas. The 500th ranked male collegiate swimmer suddenly becomes the number one ranked female collegiate swimmer, and this isn't a cause for concern? Her teammates have to voice their concerns off the record to rightwing outlets because mainstream outlets won't listen, and because they're afraid of retaliation?
And for the vast majority of Americans, it just seems obvious that none of this is fair, no matter how much bad science activists cite to bolster their claims. This is not a hill for anyone to die on, putting women's rights behind those of a small percentage of biological men. Women have been getting shafted by men since Adam and Eve, and this is not as progressive an attitude as progressives seem to think it is.
In the 2018–2019 season Lia was, when competing in the men's team, ranked 554 in the 200 freestyle, 65 in the 500 freestyle, and 32 in the 1650 freestyle. In the 2021–2022 season, those ranks are now, when competing in the women's team, 5 in the 200 freestyle, first in the 500 freestyle, and eight in the 1650 freestyle.
And when Lia went on HRT while she was still competing in the male divisions, she underwent a huge *fall* in the rankings, as I explicitly said in the third paragraph of my original post.
> Now, eventually, there would be an AMAB athlete at the highest levels who decided to transition. The HRT would destroy her upper body strength, because that's one of the many things HRT does, and she would fall far behind her male competitors while she still had to compete with them, and by the time she was allowed to compete against women, she would have a thoroughly mediocre recent record. Then when - if - she ever started competing at the highest level again, the story would be 'man can't hack it, goes to women's league to dominate the poor girls there'.
Right there.
Anyways, your evidence that trans women are pushing cis women out of sports is... one swimmer.
On the exact same amount of evidence, I could say that being named 'Diana Taurasi' is obviously an unfair advantage to being the WNBA scoring leader. And that's nothing compared to how many people whose names start with 'T' are at the top of this chart. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1237068/wnba-scoring-leaders/ Why won't the NCAA crack down on this T-initial crisis?
My recollection was the NCAA punted regarding the guidelines, the guidelines were tightened up by the receiver of the punt, then the NCAA ignored the new guidelines.
I think propagandists would skip the "my recollection" part and just assert it as fact. Regardless, yes, the NCAA punted to USA Swimming, saying they would adopt their policy, but they didn't have a policy, so they had to come up with one, and the policy they came up with included 36 months of testosterone suppression. That timeframe disqualified Lia. So, the NCAA ignored their policy and let Lia swim anyway.
He is not asserting that Lia needs to be first every time. In the 2018–2019 season she was, when competing in the men's team, ranked 554 in the 200 freestyle, 65 in the 500 freestyle, and 32 in the 1650 freestyle. In the 2021–2022 season, those ranks are now, when competing in the women's team, 5 in the 200 freestyle, first in the 500 freestyle, and eight in the 1650 freestyle.
I think it’s really about creating division in American politics, using a very small, vulnerable group which lacks a constituency to defend them. Cruelty is a side “benefit”. And in terms of that goal of division, it has been wildly successful in bringing out the worst.
"One year of gender-affirming treatment resulted in robust increases in muscle mass and strength in TM, but modest changes in TW. These findings add new knowledge on the magnitude of changes in muscle function, size, and composition with cross-hormone therapy, which could be relevant when evaluating the transgender eligibility rules for athletic competitions."
That's scientific evidence that after testosterone trans men remain at a disadvantage in men's sports and after estrogen trans women maintain a biological advantage in women's sports. Granted, it's only one data point, but since all you've offered is anecdotes and vitriol it's a pretty big blow to your credibility.
Now is a good time to stop insulting people and start looking for peer reviewed studies that support your position. Maybe the one I read is an outlier. Maybe not. I don't know enough to take a position and insult anyone who questions it, but I like to understand things so I'll keep looking.
Most of what you said is a pretty mainstream view that most liberals ascribe to or are ok with. Only super far left people, mostly very politically active trans people themselves, would disagree with you wholeheartedly.
the "I don't believe trans women are actual women" hints toward actual bigotry, but I wouldn't call it that based on what you said so far.
If you think there's a hint of bigotry in saying that trans women are not actual women, that's where the problem. is. That statement is rooted in biological fact, not how one feels toward the people involved.
A male body that has undergone drastic surgery and ongoing administration of female hormones is not a female body. It retains deep differences. That person is not the same as a biological female.
That person is still fully human and deserves the same basic human rights and the same moral sympathy as all other humans. But that person is not actually a woman.
It should be permissible to say so without being accused of bigotry or even just a hint of bigotry.
I do agree with that. My best friend's is now a female. I've known him since birth. It's pretty easy to see the difference, imo. But as long as he is happy, it's okay by me.
Again, About 98% of the time, visual inspection at birth reliably identifies the unified sex/gender of the baby. The unification requires components in four areas to develop normally, both prenatally and at puberty, (1) genetics, (2) neurobiology, (3) endocrinology and 4) psychology. Maybe what society should be examining is that transitioning indicates an acceptance of the binary concept. People who transition also need constant pharmaceutical maintenance which may not be healthy in the long term.
Carol, it's fairly common for people who do actually hate or want to discriminate against trans people to latch onto the issue of biological differences between cis people and trans people and use it as an excuse to justify what they actually want, which is to discriminate against them and deny them equal civil rights and the freedom to live happy, productive lives. The biology is irrelevent to what really matters for the vast, vast majority of trans people, which is having equal civil and human rights.
Why does anyone care about the biology? It doesn't matter with regard to how trans people are treated in our society or how you or I interact with them in everyday life.
So when someone brings it up (especially in the same breath they are saying "new woke religion"), it's perfectly reasonable to note the similarity and infer that that speaker may ascribe to an actual discriminatory position.
I didn't actually call Adrienne a bigot; I just noted the similarity in the language.
It seems like you're latching onto a partial sentence while ignoring the rest of my message because you're looking for a reason to be mad.
"That statement is rooted in biological fact, not how one feels toward the people involved."
If somebody has two X chromosomes and a Y chromosome, are they female or male? If someone has XY, but the Y fails to trigger, are they male or female? If someone is born with undifferentiated reproductive organs, are they male or female? What about Turner Syndrome, where someone only has one full chromosome? All of the above are, if not common, then common enough that over the course of your life you've probably encountered at least a few cases of them.
You seem to have a lot of conviction that this is a simple matter, so explaining all these edge cases shouldn't be too difficult.
But how many trans people in competitive sports are we talking about here? Enough so that there needs to be LAWS that target trans children? Or does it make more sense to handle it case by case, with these few trans women having to submit to blood tests to check their testosterone levels (which is currently what happens).
I am sympathetic to the argument that the issue isn't numerically big enough to require sweeping laws. And I don't like the consequence of keeping some people out of competition altogether -- though people are also kept out for other reasons (i.e. disabilities). But "case by case" might mean arbitrary.
The main point is: It should not reflexively be called "bigotry" to say that there are real differences between a "trans woman" and an actual biological woman.
It is not bigoted to say that girls have a good reason to feel cheated when someone who recently competed as a boy is now competing against them and winning all the races.
If Dems go along with the free and easy charge of "bigotry" against anyone who raises these legitimate concerns, it alienates a lot of people who are not hateful bigots at all.
Carol does not have to hold any science credential or completed any studies herself. She only has to cite studies when asked. Which specific assertion do you think requires citation? Probably the one about real differences between a trans woman and an actual biological woman," correct? It is common knowledge that a trans person must constantly take hormones and other drugs to maintain the transition or the body will start to revert back.
How many women's sports games have you paid to go see? I coached girls' track for almost 20 years and we never saw all these people who suddenly care about girls' sports in the stands
The issue isn't how many spectators there are. It's whether female participants should have their chances of winning ruined because they must compete with a biological male whose body retains some natural advantages in strength and speed even after going through hormonal treatment.
There's a rational and just argument that only actual females should be allowed to compete in a field designated as a women's competition -- and it has nothing to do with bigotry toward trans people, any more than it's bigotry against all the men who may not compete in that contest.
There's also a moral case for trying to find a way that trans people can compete in sports they love. I doubt that many people would really wish to deny them that opportunity altogether. But it should be permissible to acknowledge that hormone treatments and surgery don't turn a man into an actual woman.
You're telling a specific kind of woman that she cannot compete in a sport she loves due to how she was born. That's bigotry
Also, many of these people who now care so much about girls' and womens' sports were raging about Title IX hurting mens' and boys' sports and saying most women don't like sports, so why have womens' sports.
A man with a hormonally and surgically altered body is not a woman.
It is not bigotry to say that "woman" and "man" have precise meanings, and so do their equivalents in every known language, and those meanings arise from the biological facts of almost every animal species.
That fact that some people are profoundly uncomfortable with their biological sex and would rather be the other one (or think they would, as many later change their minds) does not erase the facts of biology that underlie the meanings of words.
There is nothing bigoted about pointing to the facts of biology.
It is, however, hateful to accuse other people of having ugly motives when they do.
The facts of biology are more complicated than that. About 98% of the time, visual inspection at birth reliably identifies the unified sex/gender of the baby. The unification requires components in four areas to develop normally, both prenatally and at puberty, (1) genetics, (2) neurobiology, (3) endocrinology and 4) psychology.
"The issue isn't how many spectators there are. It's whether female participants should have their chances of winning ruined because they must compete with a biological male whose body retains some natural advantages in strength and speed even after going through hormonal treatment."
Do you have any evidence for the last part of that? Because the studies I've seen (as well as the fact that these athletes aren't blowing out absolutely everyone) suggests otherwise.
I don't have it handy right now, but I've certainly read it. And when someone who was a mediocre athlete competing in a field of boys or men easily dominates all the girls and women after the required amount of hormonal adjustment - as I have seen in track and in swimming -- is it really plausible that there is no residual biological advantage from all those years of male hormones and the other deep differences that start setting in early in the body's development?
The burden of proof should be on those who insist that there is no significant biological difference between a female body and a hormonally and surgically altered male body. And it should be not called hateful to say there's a difference.
I've interacted with people whose gender was ambiguous in their self-presentation, and I've treated them as people fully deserving of human decency. But that's a different matter from the realities of biology.
I had girls' shot putter who outthrew almost every boy on the team (the top 2 boys were better than her, but that means she would have made the boys' varsity team)
I have a friend who transitioned in her 60s, after obviously living as a male (and serving in the military) for decades with testosterone. Once on male hormone suppression along with pharmaceutical estrogen, her strength definitely deteriorated which caused some adjustments in her daily activities, which are ongoing.
I can say, it’s been a valuable and rare education to have a close friend who can describe from first hand experience, what it feels like - especially regarding societal interactions - to experience life from both genders.
The question is whether strength deteriorated so much as to make her competitive with other women, or whether in spite of the diminished strength she is still much stronger than her female peers. Lia's record might be considered anecdotal but still in the 2018–2019 season she was, when competing in the men's team, ranked 554 in the 200 freestyle, 65 in the 500 freestyle, and 32 in the 1650 freestyle. In the 2021–2022 season, those ranks are now, when competing in the women's team, 5 in the 200 freestyle, first in the 500 freestyle, and eight in the 1650 freestyle.
I’d bet that my friend who transitioned is still stronger than me, for all the biological reasons people are discussing. It’s a really “sticky wicket” without an obvious solution. I wish it had never come up, but it was inevitable. I’m still examining my own feelings/opinions. At this point, I wish people didn’t demand to have it all, the whole pie. Everyone is faced with limitations, physical, intellectual, or even emotional, on their participation in societal activities. I’d never enter a beauty pageant for example! My son is too short to play basketball. But we are nonetheless content in the absence of those activities.
What a sexist answer! I watched an equal number of soccer and field hockey games. But please continue lecturing me on my parenthood and history since you seen to “know “ so much about it. I usually ignore people like you but your arrogance is breathtaking.
From second hand information, the change from male to female causes a strength differential somewhere in the middle, as one might expect. I’m guessing there’s a large range of experience in that regard, probably depending on age at transition and also before/after general fitness status.
If you think insinuating that I’m a bigot will bring a life-long Democrat (now centrist, thanks to people like you) further left, you are incorrect. I support equal rights for ALL but I also recognize that their are biological differences between men and women, something that wasn’t considered “bigoted” ten minutes ago.
Don't go down the rabbit hole on this. My 17 year old son explained it to me best: basically it comes down to whether you believe gender is a social or biological construct. Those who use terms like "nonbinary" and "they" believe that no one is a completely a man or a woman, gay or straight and so therefore why should society try and pigeonhole them?
My son also reminded me that in ancient Greece and Rome there were "lady-men" who were men who dressed like women. Of course most of them were just gay dudes, but I digress.
Ultimately, when it comes to sports, gender IS biological. It is simply unfair to put what are men into women's sports and expect the women to be able to compete. And for some on the left to choose this as the hill they wish to die on explains everything you need to know about why Dems lose elections.
Again, my mother, a sage women without a college degree, smartest person I know, said it best, "when Democrats try to excuse bad behavior or a general lack of common sense, they get in trouble."
it's not a strawman at all. That poster is using the exact same language people used against Black people and gay people. You can pretend it's a strawman, but it's not.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. How dare you insinuate that I'm racist and anti-gay simply because I don't subscribe to your "religion." You know nothing about me, and your contempt and ignorance perfectly exemplifies what I'm talking about.
This is the inherent problem: you assumed they think you’re a racist homophobe because they’re making a crass, trolling comment. You respond in kind. They jump on that and go “see, you’re denying it and being defensive so it’s true”. It’s so infuriating watching you talk past each other.
The reality is: both sides moved the goalposts, but the right wing has far more political power. Left has cultural power, but little widespread political power outside of major urban areas.
There’s no true powerful “left wing” political party in America (lol no democrats are not socialists). There’s definitely an authoritarian party with widespread state power, now that the GOP gave up fully on democracy.
Ignore the idiot lefties trying to Twitter diss people (yes they’re a problem but they won’t cause a constitutional crisis) pay attention to states where politicians are passing draconian bills.
I think reasonable people can disagree on the issue of trans women competing in certain women’s athletic events. That doesn’t mean it’s I’ll will on anyone’s part. It’s hard to argue that years of male hormones don’t have a lasting impact even after being suppressed for awhile. The Penn swimmer showed that pretty convincingly this year. I’m very sympathetic to their desire to be treated as any other women are, but cis women can be at a disadvantage. I don’t think this is a very common issue at all, and shouldn’t be an issue in recreational sports, but in elite competition I think it’s more complicated. For example, if Caitlyn Jenner had transitioned at a younger age, I don’t think other women would have stood much of a chance against her in track & field. This is generally a pretty respectful forum so I’d encourage people not to assume the worst unless it’s clear that someone is acting with malice.
Maybe, but that would have been ridiculous. Ale puberty makes one taller, broader shouldered, etc. I’m only talking about elite competition, and not passing laws to incite public outrage. It’s a sport by sport kind of issue, and I’m for allowing as much access as is reasonable. I’m just not sure I’d want to be a female basketball player playing against someone like a (theoretical) trans LeBron James. Hopefully that doesn’t make me a horrible human being.
You think cis men are going to fake being women to play pro women's sports? You do realize that a cis man good enough to play in the WNBA or the NASL could earn for more playing in man men's leagues.
I wasn’t referring to faking anything, but someone that is mediocre in a mens league could be dominant in a women’s league after transitioning. Richard Ruskin was a mid 40’s amateur tennis player as a man, but as Renee Richard’s was able to compete on the women’s pro circuit at 49 years of age. Similar for the Penn swimmer. I really don’t think it’s controversial to most that male puberty provides some physical advantages that don’t go away with hormone suppression. I’m not sure why you think this is so bigoted.
Your attitude perfectly exemplifies that first cartoon. You're talking to liberals who aren't remotely hostile to your position, but you're treating their disinclination to accept what you're saying without question or comment as an attack.
I'm not transphobic, but I'm also not blind. I'm nowhere close to an elite athlete (and I'm 5'7", 50, and not especially fit) but if the internet is to be believed I can bench press nearly 100 pounds more than 6'8", 207# Brittney Griner. She's an elite athlete and I'm a couch potato, but I'm by far the stronger of the two of us.
The US women's national soccer team is among the best of the best, but as skilled as they are when they play elite U-16 boys teams they lose badly. They're better at soccer, but the boys are way too fast. The female players can exceed the boys' skill and knowledge, but not match their speed and strength.
These are facts, not opinions, yet you're asking people to set them aside and accept your position that any trans female has the right to compete in any women's sport? Fun position you're putting folks in. If they support the female athletes saying they think it's unfair then they're transphobic, but if they explain why they think it's fair for trans females to play in their league then uh-oh, now they're mansplaining. Either way they end up being the asshole, even if they're broadly sympathetic to trans people in every other way and believe that women are 100% equal to men.
It was mean-spirited because he is correct that prefacing an opinion with "I think" is very common, and he never claimed his comment was anything other than opinion.. However, "just an opinion" is a bad faith tactic for dismissing as opinion without making any attempt to dispute it. He cited the Penn swimmer to support his opinion. What do have to support your dispute?
He also stated he has no problem with everyone playing together recreationally, but wonders about elite sports citing Jenner. You could make an effort to answer the implied question instead of mean-spiritedly bringing up his daughter.
Strawman. Neither he not I have characterized what he said as anything other than opinion. The new context into which you put his comment about his daughter was mean-spirited.
Fact: In the 2018–2019 season she was, when competing in the men's team, ranked 554 in the 200 freestyle, 65 in the 500 freestyle, and 32 in the 1650 freestyle. In the 2021–2022 season, those ranks are now, when competing in the women's team, 5 in the 200 freestyle, first in the 500 freestyle, and eight in the 1650 freestyle.
You’re trying awfully hard to pick fights. There’s absolutely nothing I’ve said to indicate that in any way. My people (Jewish) have been considered of lesser value by many over history, but I try not to let that impact every discussion I have.
How is that bad faith? Those exact same arguments were sued to justify racism. It's factually accurate. If that makes you uncomfortable, perhaps you need to ask yourself why.
It is not the "exact same argument", and if you are going to hurl accusations of racism, then nobody is going to take what you say seriously. You seem to be the only one here looking for a fight, rather than seeking to understand
Is the concern about fairness in women's sports legitimate? If not, why don't you explain data supporting the assertion that there is no difference between FAAB and MAAB women in sports in terms of outcomes. Or provide something to the discussion other than calling people bigots. Picking fights like this is not helping trans women nor does it advance the discussion. It's just trying to score points.
Not to beat the trope into the ground, but the reality of the current left is a whole lot of white folks pretending to speak for BIPOC groups. How about we let those folks speak for themselves? Latino folks are not running around calling themselves "latinx". Black folks made it very clear they were behind the mainstream liberal Dems like Biden and Clyburn and Shontel Brown, but the progressive left wants to label those same liberal Dems as racists or Uncle Toms
I've never been on Twitter. My congressman and the Dems in my area seem pretty reasonable. As a matter of fact, my Republican friends are reasonable and get along with my friends who are Democrats. But then, we're not a bunch of a-holes.
Black Democrats have been supporting moderate liberal to conservative Democratic politicians for 50 plus years. For whatever reason white liberals and their paid tv talking heads (looking at you Joy Reid) just cannot seem to understand why a black person in Atlanta, Houston or Prince Georges County MD give Elizabeth Warren the "side eye" when hear talk about free college and wealth taxes. In the experience of most black people, they end up paying for these things without getting any of the benefits.
The white liberal's biggest problem has been and always will be that they don't actually know many black people and the few that they do know they probably don't talk to. If they did, they would know that what black people really want is not to defund the police, but to have police patrol the streets in their neighborhoods and work with them to stop crime; they would like to call 9-11 and have cops show up in less than 2 hours; they would like to go to schools that are properly funded; they would like to have policies that help them start businesses so that they can build wealth for their communities; and they would like the government to protect them from attacks on their rights by state and local governments. In other words, they want what everyone else in the US wants, and has benefitted from since at least WWII: basic, run of the mill liberalism that was once the purview of the GOP before 1964, and is now (still?) the ideology of the Democratic Party, at least since 1960. They do not want a revolution, or redistribution program or anything else (reparations is not withstanding, which means different things to different people).
There's a patronizing savior-complex among some white leftists, making them unable to see that people of other races have the same rational ability to choose differing political views that white people do.
That was pretty unfair. I understand exactly what you mean. I’m a New England liberal but my 20 something daughter sometimes has rules about what can be said that baffle me.
Sometimes peoples opinions are hard to understand, particularly with a 30+ year age difference. We actually agree on virtually all political issues. It’s just that people in their 20s are more attuned to subtleties of language than when I was that age, even as a Boston liberal. I’m not making some major statement here. I think you’re reading too much into this.
Agree with this. I recently got together with a fellow middle aged gay I hadn't seen since college and we marveled at the granularity of identities that are meaningful to college students today. It was funny - we felt like such radicals back in the 90s coming out as gay. Kids today just yawn at that, which, in fairness, is the world we hoped we were creating back then.
But it is a religion. It views racism not merely as a historical legacy to be remedied by laws applicable to everyone, but as America's Original Sin which can never be expunged by white people (or anyone else progressives accuse of being their collaborators) even by endless self criticism, apologies and mortification. There's a whole industry devoted to it. So like many religions it's also part grift.
I think it implies a belief in a god or god's. I don't think there is any argument that the importation of slaves into the American colonies was important to its growth and also immoral. There were many people in the 13 colonies who saw the buying and selling of humans as immoral, but they benefitted from the institution anyway. How does acknowledging both truths constitute a religion?
You entirely miss the point, which is not a plain history lesson but the need for perpetual expiation of ineradicable guilt. It's a dogma of secular predestination. We are always damned, always hell bound and must always repent and acknowledge our transgressions. Those who don't submit are subjected to the equivalent of sermons and struggle sessions. If that isn't piety on display, I don't know what is. It also pays pretty well for those who preach it.
It might be that a country with a difficult past can un-damn itself by addressing that past, very similar to how an individual can. Some people whose early life was traumatic and troubled find that the effects have lasted into adulthood, and prevent them from living the satisfying life they wish for. But if they have the ability to look into their early experiences and bring them into the light of day, they can free themselves from the power of past wrongs. I've often wondered how a nation might do this liberating self-discovery, but still don't have any good ideas. Maybe Germany knows something about it?
People who are accused of complicity in racism - especially "systemic" racism which is often discernible to academics or ideologues and not obvious to anyone else - often feel unfairly stigmatized, the more so if their immediate ancestors did not perpetrate it. They may also feel that their forebears experienced significant prejudice and handicaps too. America has known all sorts of discrimination aimed at all sorts of people - not just blacks but American Indians, Chinese, Catholics, Jews, Irish, Italians, Slavs, Mormons, etc. That's a lot of trauma to assess and psychoanalyze. A cottage industry devoted to addressing slavery alone risks being branded as special pleading and spurring a backlash such as we have already seen, exploited by interested parties. Additionally, competing victimologies can balkanize the country and prevent it from reaching a useful consensus
Of course there's no reason why the history of all groups can't be taught, but they will have to make way for eachother. That's a much more complicated case than Germany's, where the trauma was inflicted on people who were either driven out of the country or simply murdered and never came back to demand a rightful place. Imagine if 20 million Jews and Poles were asserting equal rights to live in Prussia or Bavaria.* I doubt so many Germans would be happy to oblige them.
*Following the war Stalin gave an eastern slice of Germany to Poland after taking an eastern slice of Poland for himself, but neither the Germans nor the Poles had any say in the matter.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. The difference, to my mind, between the immigrant groups you mentioned and the black population is in large part the circumstances by which they came to north America, and their conditions once here. Africans were kidnapped, brought here against their will, forced to serve masters, for many generations. People bought and sold. While other ethnicities, who for the most part came here voluntarily, faced discrimination, they were not subjected to the same inescapable circumstance as slavery, and later Jim Crow.
And no, none of us living today are responsible for slavery, or own slaves. But we are all inheritors of our mutual past as a nation and live with its consequences. What harm can come from bringing it to light, other than maybe some transient discomfort? I do not advocate national psychoanalysis, but I do advocate for historical truth in our classrooms, which includes both the good and the bad. It really won't bite. It's what a great nation, seeking to be more perfect, might do.
I thought the reference to religion was in the sense of a "woke Statement of Faith" that all adherents must subscribe to in all its particulars in order to remain in good standing with the rest of the "congregants."
BLM has been exposed as a total grift at this point. Anyone who just follows mainstream outlets probably has no idea. What the heads of that organization have done is basically Wayne Lapierre/Steve Bannon bad, but no one wants to report on it.
As far as I know, it was broken by New York Magazine- I'm not exactly sure where they fall on the left/right spectrum, but I'm not aware of them being far right.
Unfortunately, when the right complains about media bias, they're not always wrong. The Hunter Biden laptop is the biggest recent example. I've wondered, on that one, whether the msm in general is just wary of covering scandals related to politicians' children, as they seem to be doing a replay in underreporting Kushner's ties to the Saudis.
I think the main stream media stopped reporting on Biden's son when Trump's son in law came home with pockets full of dirty money from the Saudi Royal Family. The Trump's didn't even try to hide it.
One story in a notorious scandal rag makes the accusations tentative at the very least and dubious at best. It is very easy to cast a shadow. Ask yourself who benefits from this story. That is a good place to begin gathering some facts to be able to make an assessment of the story’s validity. To say, on the reporting in one story from the NYPost, that “BLM has been exposed as a total grift at this point” is, perhaps, putting too much faith in the NYPost.
The story was broken by right-wing propaganda, and apart form the NY Magazine story, all the reporting in from right wing propaganda. A small non-profit with a $200,000 annual budget suddenly became a large-scale operation, taking in $90 million in 2020 and bought a $6 million house in California. (They got a pretty good deal on that house, BTW). They did nothing illegal. We can disagree with their strategic spending priorities, but on the other hand, their actions were pretty typical of people who find they have won the lottery when they did not even buy a ticket. Hopefully, they have hired a non-profit expert to help them reorganize.
Mea culpa. However, the story did lack substance using language that was not specific. There was no content to present possible differing interpretations and view points. I stand by the criticism that there is very likely a reason such a story has not, to my knowledge, been covered by more substantial news organizations.
I also think there is a reason, but probably not the reason you're thinking. I haven't seen any reporting, or even any comment from the people in the story, that disputes the reported facts. They're putting a spin on it, to be sure (Yes, we bought the $6 million mansion, but it was for a really good reason!), but they're not disputing the facts, to my knowledge.
Another example:
How many people following main stream outlets thought it was remotely possible Kyle Rittenhouse would be acquitted? Everyone makes editorial decisions, what they choose and choose not to cover, and how they cover it. Everyone has subscribers and advertisers to answer to. The MSM knows its audience.
I'm not trying to argue they're as bad as outlets like the NY Post or Fox News, because I absolutely don't think they are, but they're not perfect, and they do leave their audience less informed than they could be from time to time.
Reporters can be very frustrated by the editorial decisions. I know cause I’ve worked there and sometimes tore out my hair in frustration. But there’s more than different points of view in play now. The right has been building professional blind outrage at the other. The left have screamers, too, but they are not as organized or well funded…. Or we’ll armed. L'And they don’t want to kill people for disagreeing with them like the red hats.
You're using an expressly theological term which refers to something that can only be expunged by faith in a savior. It's nice of you to grant some whites a dispensation, but that only reinforces the analogy. And by what right do you get to decide who gets to be saved and who doesn't?
No, the term Original Sin is being used figuratively, or perhaps as an analogy to a defects with forever ramifications. (See systemic racism). No analogy is a perfect match in all its particulars. No one thinks the Original Sin of slavery is religious in the sense it can only be expunged by faith in a savior. It can be expunged by public policy, laws, and a change in social mores.
What's a "defect with forever ramifications" except a permanent blot? And how can a permanent blot be cleansed except through permanent atonement? That's why woke theology requires unending proselytism and why it differs from conventional liberalism.
Even conventional liberalism is dissatisfied with the US efforts to eliminate the systemic racism established by past government policies. A significant number of elected official opposed civil rights for blacks in the 1960s. The right simply declares that systemic racism disappeared-poof-with the passage of the Civil Rights Act they opposed, and have undermined in insidious ways ever since.
Today, the right is opposed to teaching the shameful parts of history because it might make students uncomfortable. Well sure, that 's how we get to "never again." The pitfall the far left never avoids is going too far like statements that all white children are racists by virtue of being white. People like Cruz grab these fringe ideas from people who are usually not Democrats and try to claim they represent the view of the Democratic party.
John McWhorter definitely falls into the category of the POC intellectual who realizes there is money to be made from insulting other POCs. With that said, he does make some salient points on the "Woke" debate.
With that said, I understand and sympathize with those people who want to right historic wrongs, but there is a fine line between righting historical wrongs and inflicting widespread punishment through an accusatory, "guilt by association" mentality, which is too often what the Woke ideology seeks to achieve. As such, and based on what I have heard Mr. McWhorter say on various tv shows, I would agree with him.
John McWhorton is associated with the conservative think tank, Manhattan Institute. He self-describes as a “cranky liberal” and glories in criticizing the left while claiming to be left. Just cause he wrote a book doesn’t mean he’s cornered the truth on “wokeness”. Maybe he, like some other commenters here, like myself, is north of 50 and is simply out of touch with the POV of younger generations.
She did not complain about her nephew disputing her. She said, "because I don't subscribe to certain "truths" of the new woke religion, my nieces and nephew consider me a far right conservative. " From that, you pretend to read her mind as to the nature of what precisely she doesn't subscribe to.
Tracinski's cartoon speaks to me. I would have been described as a left-leaning democrat just a few years ago but because I don't subscribe to certain "truths" of the new woke religion, my nieces and nephew consider me a far right conservative. What I actually am is an angry centrist who loathes both extremes.
Angry centrist here too, Adrienne Scott! I'll cite Ruy Texeira on the "Fox News Fallacy": just because the authoritarian right is a threat to democracy doesn't mean there's no such thing as an authoritarian left.
And yet, Joe Biden is the President, BBB failed, and police budgets were increased. The people you're taking about have gotten basically nothing they were after. So, the question then becomes, *what more do you want?* Why are you, who has the whole apparatus of the Democratic party leadership catering to your desires, so angry? At this point, the only thing the "authoritarian left" is doing is saying mean things. That somehow makes them just as dangerous as the authoritarian right, who tried to stage a coup, and are planning to do it again?
Sherm: I was on the mall on January 6 as a researcher, so you don't need to convince me about the right. If you don't think there's any problem in universities, newsrooms, and other cultural institutions, that's ok by me. I'm not arguing this point with anyone. I'll just say that on this, Charlie is correct.
How is "wokeness" in those spheres today any different than "political correctness" 30 years ago?
I mostly agree with this. I live in a very liberal area and moat of my adult friends are progressives. My conservative childhood and college friends think I'm a communist because I vote for Democrats, loathe Trumpism, and am pro-choice. My progressive friends are intolerant of me because I don't hate the police, I was truly angry about the 1 1/2 year school closures, and I'm just more moderate on COVID mitigation. It's been sort of eye opening.
I'm left-leaning and not afraid to say it. The "extremes" are not really equivalent. While I don't consider myself "far" left, for the most part, people who do generally care about the well being of their fellow human beings. Meanwhile, on the far right, it's all about demonizing and undervaluing their fellow human beings. You may not agree with policy proposals promoted by the "far' left, but they are motivated by making the lives of people better. Can you really say that about the extreme right, or the GOP in general these days?
This. There's no serious, empowered movement on the left calling for the imprisonment of Christians, for example.
If you dig around amidst the tankies and so on you'll find somebody rabbling things, but even inside that margin they're the minority.
"but because I don't subscribe to certain "truths" of the new woke religion"
Which ones?
Here's one: I believe that there are inherent physical differences between men and women. I fully support trans people to be whomever they desire and have equal protection under the law but I also don't "believe" trans women are actual women and I don't believe trans women who have gone through male puberty should complete in elite women's sports. Call me whatever the heck you want-- I don't care.
That has bothered me too. But I'm old enough to not be whatever "woke" is I guess. I still think there are two basic sexes. I'm thinking maybe elite sports will have to move to tiers like wrestling and boxing. No mens and womens, just tiers of strength and ability. It just seems like there's always something pushing to diminish the female half of humanity. (I also do not believe in letting children make life decisions when neither they bodies nor their minds are fully developed. I'm neither proud nor ashamed of that thought but either way I should be entitled to hold it.)
Good for you, Adrienne, for being willing to take the heat and engage on this.
I think trans women are women; the ones I know are fully female in every respect that I can tell. I think the number of trans women in elite sports is so low as to be a non-starter as an issue. Of course, you make a good case for using puberty blockers early for teens who think they may be trans.
I won't call you bigoted or anti-trans; but I would suggest you may want to do a little research into just how female trans women can be. Also just how male trans men can be.
Well, I have been fighting for women's sports since I was a kid in the 70s. I even got a job writing an article (through Gloria Steinem) about my junior high school to discuss my investigation into the fact that our candy sale money (sold mostly by girls) was spent on boys sports (over $10 k) while $250 was given to the only girls sport available---intramural bowling. This was before Title IX. I recite this tale since I've long been invested in fighting for equity and opportunity for girls and women in sports. That said, I believe that trans athletes are few and far between and are being attacked, used as political pawns....Frankly it's a joke when state legislatures pass laws to "protect girls and women in sports" given those same bodies have never done a darn thing to expand or secure actual opportunities for girls (or women) to compete on a level playing field. Face it, the anti-trans in sports mantra is simply about vilifying an already marginalized person to score political points. I think the Republican governor of Utah said it best when he vetoed this bogus legislation: "“I struggle to understand so much of it and the science is conflicting. When in doubt however, I always try to err on the side of kindness, mercy and compassion...Four kids who are just trying to find some friends and feel like they are a part of something. Four kids trying to get through each day...Rarely has so much fear and anger been directed at so few. I don’t understand what they are going through or why they feel the way they do. But I want them to live.” I agree with the Governor Spencer Cox.
YES! what you said. The trans women in sports is a non-issue since there are so few. And yes, legislatures didn't care about girls' sports until now. Why are there laws being passed about this? or about bathrooms? trans people have been using appropriate bathrooms ever since there were gender-specific bathrooms, and it's no big deal.
I've been to a lot of seedy bars in my day that had only one bathroom. You could use it or go in the ally.
that too!
Oh, for God's sake.
There's no group of trans women pushing cis women out of women's sports - in most places, in order to be eligible to compete as a woman, a trans woman has to be regularly tested for testosterone levels and have them come in below what many women, who they're competing against, produce naturally. HRT just destroys upper body strength, I've heard on the humorous side complaints from people who can't open pickle jars anymore and on the heartbreaking side from someone in construction 'transitioning was great, for the first time in my entire life I can look in the mirror without wanting to kill myself, I feel so much better and saner and whole and happy for the first time... but I'm just not strong enough to do my job anymore, and I don't know what to do'.
Now, eventually, there would be an AMAB athlete at the highest levels who decided to transition. The HRT would destroy her upper body strength, because that's one of the many things HRT does, and she would fall far behind her male competitors while she still had to compete with them, and by the time she was allowed to compete against women, she would have a thoroughly mediocre recent record. Then when - if - she ever started competing at the highest level again, the story would be 'man can't hack it, goes to women's league to dominate the poor girls there'.
But could one frickin' person every time this comes up mention the HRT body strength thing? Because they act like all you need in order to transition for the purposes of athletics is to wave a wand and go 'squadaddle squadoodle I no longer possess a noodle'.
Do they not know about the body strength/testosterone thing? Because every person on HRT I know of sure knows about it, there are jokes on trans twitter about no longer being able to open pickle jars, have they never heard of it somehow? Have they heard of it, but don't believe it exists/believe we're exaggerating/making it up for our own purposes? And even if we assume that they've never heard about it/just don't believe us when we do... why would you assume that you're the first person who has ever thought of this? Gender disguises have been a trope since Shakespeare, didn't you ever see Some Like It Hot on AMC? When I was a kid there was an awful, awful movie about a man disguising himself as a woman to compete in the WNBA after getting banned from the NBA - in the twenty years since that movie came out (I do not care enough to look up the exact date Juwanna Mann was released) - if really all you needed to do to compete in a women's league is to declare that you're a woman, wouldn't someone have tried this by now?
Ninety percent of Olympic-level athletes, when asked if they would take a drug that would guarantee them a gold medal but kill them within ten years, said 'yes, I would.' Do you seriously think that no one would be willing to undergo SRS for that medal if it was that easy? I remember all the jokes about the East German weightlifting program, thank you!
Here's the thing. For years now, activists have been screaming "Where's the evidence this is a problem?" Predictably, now that we have the evidence, they haven't stopped screaming. You can reduce testosterone levels; it won't change the advantages in size and lung capacity that have accrued in undergoing puberty. And I would dispute that the required T levels for transwomen are lower than normal levels for women.
What evidence is there? Trans women have been allowed to compete for years. There's no massive trans conspiracy forcing cis women out of women's sports. These bills are bills in search of a problem.
Maybe all the people parroting right wing media trans hate (masquerading as concern about female athletes) are unfamiliar with Renee Richards, a famous trans athlete from the 70's.
What is so suspicious about this sudden "concern" about trans athletes is that it's totally political. Trans athletes are governed by rules and regulations from sports authorities.
We don't need Tucker Carlson's "expertise" or that of Republican state legislators, who've already crapped the bed when it came to crazy abortion laws.
What about Renee Richards? I'm familiar with her.
1) Trans women athletes are not a new thing, therefore don't require any outrage; 2) an example of a trans woman (who transitioned in adulthood) who didn't beat her opponent.
Lia Thomas is irrelevant now, so use Renee Richards as an example if you absolutely must discuss this subject as if it were a political issue (which you don't, nor does anyone else outside the duly constituted sports authorities; and it isn't).
Richards transitioned in her forties. That's well past the prime of any female tennis player in the 1970s. And she still beat a lot of women players.
I wonder why nobody talks about trans men competing with men.
There is no conspiracy. There doesn't need to be one.
I know you're aware of Lia Thomas. The 500th ranked male collegiate swimmer suddenly becomes the number one ranked female collegiate swimmer, and this isn't a cause for concern? Her teammates have to voice their concerns off the record to rightwing outlets because mainstream outlets won't listen, and because they're afraid of retaliation?
And for the vast majority of Americans, it just seems obvious that none of this is fair, no matter how much bad science activists cite to bolster their claims. This is not a hill for anyone to die on, putting women's rights behind those of a small percentage of biological men. Women have been getting shafted by men since Adam and Eve, and this is not as progressive an attitude as progressives seem to think it is.
"I know you're aware of Lia Thomas. The 500th ranked male collegiate swimmer suddenly becomes the number one ranked female collegiate swimmer"
36th. She's ranked 36th. She won the 400m. Was middling in a lot of other ones.
Thank you for the correction.
That's still a huge leap in rankings.
In the 2018–2019 season Lia was, when competing in the men's team, ranked 554 in the 200 freestyle, 65 in the 500 freestyle, and 32 in the 1650 freestyle. In the 2021–2022 season, those ranks are now, when competing in the women's team, 5 in the 200 freestyle, first in the 500 freestyle, and eight in the 1650 freestyle.
And when Lia went on HRT while she was still competing in the male divisions, she underwent a huge *fall* in the rankings, as I explicitly said in the third paragraph of my original post.
> Now, eventually, there would be an AMAB athlete at the highest levels who decided to transition. The HRT would destroy her upper body strength, because that's one of the many things HRT does, and she would fall far behind her male competitors while she still had to compete with them, and by the time she was allowed to compete against women, she would have a thoroughly mediocre recent record. Then when - if - she ever started competing at the highest level again, the story would be 'man can't hack it, goes to women's league to dominate the poor girls there'.
Right there.
Anyways, your evidence that trans women are pushing cis women out of sports is... one swimmer.
On the exact same amount of evidence, I could say that being named 'Diana Taurasi' is obviously an unfair advantage to being the WNBA scoring leader. And that's nothing compared to how many people whose names start with 'T' are at the top of this chart. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1237068/wnba-scoring-leaders/ Why won't the NCAA crack down on this T-initial crisis?
After Lia Thomas, the guidelines for participation for trans athletes were tightened up, so Lia Thomas is no longer germane to this discussion.
Please pass it on to others who are similarly not up to date.
My recollection was the NCAA punted regarding the guidelines, the guidelines were tightened up by the receiver of the punt, then the NCAA ignored the new guidelines.
"My recollection" is often used by propagandists to spread disinformation. It would be best to look it up before writing. This looks like an NCAA punt. https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/ncaas-new-trans-athlete-guidelines-sow-confusion-lia-thomas-debate-rcna13073
I think propagandists would skip the "my recollection" part and just assert it as fact. Regardless, yes, the NCAA punted to USA Swimming, saying they would adopt their policy, but they didn't have a policy, so they had to come up with one, and the policy they came up with included 36 months of testosterone suppression. That timeframe disqualified Lia. So, the NCAA ignored their policy and let Lia swim anyway.
Lia was in the pool, right?
He is not asserting that Lia needs to be first every time. In the 2018–2019 season she was, when competing in the men's team, ranked 554 in the 200 freestyle, 65 in the 500 freestyle, and 32 in the 1650 freestyle. In the 2021–2022 season, those ranks are now, when competing in the women's team, 5 in the 200 freestyle, first in the 500 freestyle, and eight in the 1650 freestyle.
I think it’s really about creating division in American politics, using a very small, vulnerable group which lacks a constituency to defend them. Cruelty is a side “benefit”. And in terms of that goal of division, it has been wildly successful in bringing out the worst.
From this study:
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article-abstract/105/3/e805/5651219?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false
"One year of gender-affirming treatment resulted in robust increases in muscle mass and strength in TM, but modest changes in TW. These findings add new knowledge on the magnitude of changes in muscle function, size, and composition with cross-hormone therapy, which could be relevant when evaluating the transgender eligibility rules for athletic competitions."
That's scientific evidence that after testosterone trans men remain at a disadvantage in men's sports and after estrogen trans women maintain a biological advantage in women's sports. Granted, it's only one data point, but since all you've offered is anecdotes and vitriol it's a pretty big blow to your credibility.
Now is a good time to stop insulting people and start looking for peer reviewed studies that support your position. Maybe the one I read is an outlier. Maybe not. I don't know enough to take a position and insult anyone who questions it, but I like to understand things so I'll keep looking.
Most of what you said is a pretty mainstream view that most liberals ascribe to or are ok with. Only super far left people, mostly very politically active trans people themselves, would disagree with you wholeheartedly.
the "I don't believe trans women are actual women" hints toward actual bigotry, but I wouldn't call it that based on what you said so far.
If you think there's a hint of bigotry in saying that trans women are not actual women, that's where the problem. is. That statement is rooted in biological fact, not how one feels toward the people involved.
A male body that has undergone drastic surgery and ongoing administration of female hormones is not a female body. It retains deep differences. That person is not the same as a biological female.
That person is still fully human and deserves the same basic human rights and the same moral sympathy as all other humans. But that person is not actually a woman.
It should be permissible to say so without being accused of bigotry or even just a hint of bigotry.
I do agree with that. My best friend's is now a female. I've known him since birth. It's pretty easy to see the difference, imo. But as long as he is happy, it's okay by me.
Again, About 98% of the time, visual inspection at birth reliably identifies the unified sex/gender of the baby. The unification requires components in four areas to develop normally, both prenatally and at puberty, (1) genetics, (2) neurobiology, (3) endocrinology and 4) psychology. Maybe what society should be examining is that transitioning indicates an acceptance of the binary concept. People who transition also need constant pharmaceutical maintenance which may not be healthy in the long term.
Carol, it's fairly common for people who do actually hate or want to discriminate against trans people to latch onto the issue of biological differences between cis people and trans people and use it as an excuse to justify what they actually want, which is to discriminate against them and deny them equal civil rights and the freedom to live happy, productive lives. The biology is irrelevent to what really matters for the vast, vast majority of trans people, which is having equal civil and human rights.
Why does anyone care about the biology? It doesn't matter with regard to how trans people are treated in our society or how you or I interact with them in everyday life.
So when someone brings it up (especially in the same breath they are saying "new woke religion"), it's perfectly reasonable to note the similarity and infer that that speaker may ascribe to an actual discriminatory position.
I didn't actually call Adrienne a bigot; I just noted the similarity in the language.
It seems like you're latching onto a partial sentence while ignoring the rest of my message because you're looking for a reason to be mad.
"That statement is rooted in biological fact, not how one feels toward the people involved."
If somebody has two X chromosomes and a Y chromosome, are they female or male? If someone has XY, but the Y fails to trigger, are they male or female? If someone is born with undifferentiated reproductive organs, are they male or female? What about Turner Syndrome, where someone only has one full chromosome? All of the above are, if not common, then common enough that over the course of your life you've probably encountered at least a few cases of them.
You seem to have a lot of conviction that this is a simple matter, so explaining all these edge cases shouldn't be too difficult.
And "biological fact" used to say Black people were inferior to white people
Yes, 1000% yes.
But how many trans people in competitive sports are we talking about here? Enough so that there needs to be LAWS that target trans children? Or does it make more sense to handle it case by case, with these few trans women having to submit to blood tests to check their testosterone levels (which is currently what happens).
I am sympathetic to the argument that the issue isn't numerically big enough to require sweeping laws. And I don't like the consequence of keeping some people out of competition altogether -- though people are also kept out for other reasons (i.e. disabilities). But "case by case" might mean arbitrary.
The main point is: It should not reflexively be called "bigotry" to say that there are real differences between a "trans woman" and an actual biological woman.
It is not bigoted to say that girls have a good reason to feel cheated when someone who recently competed as a boy is now competing against them and winning all the races.
If Dems go along with the free and easy charge of "bigotry" against anyone who raises these legitimate concerns, it alienates a lot of people who are not hateful bigots at all.
Carol does not have to hold any science credential or completed any studies herself. She only has to cite studies when asked. Which specific assertion do you think requires citation? Probably the one about real differences between a trans woman and an actual biological woman," correct? It is common knowledge that a trans person must constantly take hormones and other drugs to maintain the transition or the body will start to revert back.
Okay boomer.
I understand your irritation, but thought-terminating cliches are unhelpful.
How many women's sports games have you paid to go see? I coached girls' track for almost 20 years and we never saw all these people who suddenly care about girls' sports in the stands
The issue isn't how many spectators there are. It's whether female participants should have their chances of winning ruined because they must compete with a biological male whose body retains some natural advantages in strength and speed even after going through hormonal treatment.
There's a rational and just argument that only actual females should be allowed to compete in a field designated as a women's competition -- and it has nothing to do with bigotry toward trans people, any more than it's bigotry against all the men who may not compete in that contest.
There's also a moral case for trying to find a way that trans people can compete in sports they love. I doubt that many people would really wish to deny them that opportunity altogether. But it should be permissible to acknowledge that hormone treatments and surgery don't turn a man into an actual woman.
You're telling a specific kind of woman that she cannot compete in a sport she loves due to how she was born. That's bigotry
Also, many of these people who now care so much about girls' and womens' sports were raging about Title IX hurting mens' and boys' sports and saying most women don't like sports, so why have womens' sports.
A man with a hormonally and surgically altered body is not a woman.
It is not bigotry to say that "woman" and "man" have precise meanings, and so do their equivalents in every known language, and those meanings arise from the biological facts of almost every animal species.
That fact that some people are profoundly uncomfortable with their biological sex and would rather be the other one (or think they would, as many later change their minds) does not erase the facts of biology that underlie the meanings of words.
There is nothing bigoted about pointing to the facts of biology.
It is, however, hateful to accuse other people of having ugly motives when they do.
The facts of biology are more complicated than that. About 98% of the time, visual inspection at birth reliably identifies the unified sex/gender of the baby. The unification requires components in four areas to develop normally, both prenatally and at puberty, (1) genetics, (2) neurobiology, (3) endocrinology and 4) psychology.
People argued that biology proved Black people were inherently inferior. Was that not bigotry?
It is an ugly motive to deny all women the same access
"The issue isn't how many spectators there are. It's whether female participants should have their chances of winning ruined because they must compete with a biological male whose body retains some natural advantages in strength and speed even after going through hormonal treatment."
Do you have any evidence for the last part of that? Because the studies I've seen (as well as the fact that these athletes aren't blowing out absolutely everyone) suggests otherwise.
I don't have it handy right now, but I've certainly read it. And when someone who was a mediocre athlete competing in a field of boys or men easily dominates all the girls and women after the required amount of hormonal adjustment - as I have seen in track and in swimming -- is it really plausible that there is no residual biological advantage from all those years of male hormones and the other deep differences that start setting in early in the body's development?
The burden of proof should be on those who insist that there is no significant biological difference between a female body and a hormonally and surgically altered male body. And it should be not called hateful to say there's a difference.
I've interacted with people whose gender was ambiguous in their self-presentation, and I've treated them as people fully deserving of human decency. But that's a different matter from the realities of biology.
Anecdotal evidence:
I had girls' shot putter who outthrew almost every boy on the team (the top 2 boys were better than her, but that means she would have made the boys' varsity team)
I have a friend who transitioned in her 60s, after obviously living as a male (and serving in the military) for decades with testosterone. Once on male hormone suppression along with pharmaceutical estrogen, her strength definitely deteriorated which caused some adjustments in her daily activities, which are ongoing.
I can say, it’s been a valuable and rare education to have a close friend who can describe from first hand experience, what it feels like - especially regarding societal interactions - to experience life from both genders.
The question is whether strength deteriorated so much as to make her competitive with other women, or whether in spite of the diminished strength she is still much stronger than her female peers. Lia's record might be considered anecdotal but still in the 2018–2019 season she was, when competing in the men's team, ranked 554 in the 200 freestyle, 65 in the 500 freestyle, and 32 in the 1650 freestyle. In the 2021–2022 season, those ranks are now, when competing in the women's team, 5 in the 200 freestyle, first in the 500 freestyle, and eight in the 1650 freestyle.
I’d bet that my friend who transitioned is still stronger than me, for all the biological reasons people are discussing. It’s a really “sticky wicket” without an obvious solution. I wish it had never come up, but it was inevitable. I’m still examining my own feelings/opinions. At this point, I wish people didn’t demand to have it all, the whole pie. Everyone is faced with limitations, physical, intellectual, or even emotional, on their participation in societal activities. I’d never enter a beauty pageant for example! My son is too short to play basketball. But we are nonetheless content in the absence of those activities.
Both my son and daughter played college sports (D1) so I’ve seen quite a lot— thanks for asking.
Yet you'd still deny some women a chance to participate
What a sexist answer! I watched an equal number of soccer and field hockey games. But please continue lecturing me on my parenthood and history since you seen to “know “ so much about it. I usually ignore people like you but your arrogance is breathtaking.
From second hand information, the change from male to female causes a strength differential somewhere in the middle, as one might expect. I’m guessing there’s a large range of experience in that regard, probably depending on age at transition and also before/after general fitness status.
If you think insinuating that I’m a bigot will bring a life-long Democrat (now centrist, thanks to people like you) further left, you are incorrect. I support equal rights for ALL but I also recognize that their are biological differences between men and women, something that wasn’t considered “bigoted” ten minutes ago.
Don't go down the rabbit hole on this. My 17 year old son explained it to me best: basically it comes down to whether you believe gender is a social or biological construct. Those who use terms like "nonbinary" and "they" believe that no one is a completely a man or a woman, gay or straight and so therefore why should society try and pigeonhole them?
My son also reminded me that in ancient Greece and Rome there were "lady-men" who were men who dressed like women. Of course most of them were just gay dudes, but I digress.
Ultimately, when it comes to sports, gender IS biological. It is simply unfair to put what are men into women's sports and expect the women to be able to compete. And for some on the left to choose this as the hill they wish to die on explains everything you need to know about why Dems lose elections.
Again, my mother, a sage women without a college degree, smartest person I know, said it best, "when Democrats try to excuse bad behavior or a general lack of common sense, they get in trouble."
Notice that for some reason nobody talks about trans men in men's sports.
You protest too much. It hit a nerve.
It actually was bigoted 10 minutes ago.
It's "bigoted" to say there are "biological differences between men and women"?
Wow.
It's bigoted to say some women aren't women.
How dare Black people or gay people want to be treated as human beings!
Wow. This was totally unnecessary.
That is a strawman response. Nothing about her expressed views implies she holds that opinion about blacks or gays.
it's not a strawman at all. That poster is using the exact same language people used against Black people and gay people. You can pretend it's a strawman, but it's not.
What "exact same" language is that precisely?
Ya know, I think they call that a strawman, one of Rush Limbaughs favorite tactics.
Rush who??
You think wrong.
nope
This is exactly what I'm talking about. How dare you insinuate that I'm racist and anti-gay simply because I don't subscribe to your "religion." You know nothing about me, and your contempt and ignorance perfectly exemplifies what I'm talking about.
This is the inherent problem: you assumed they think you’re a racist homophobe because they’re making a crass, trolling comment. You respond in kind. They jump on that and go “see, you’re denying it and being defensive so it’s true”. It’s so infuriating watching you talk past each other.
The reality is: both sides moved the goalposts, but the right wing has far more political power. Left has cultural power, but little widespread political power outside of major urban areas.
There’s no true powerful “left wing” political party in America (lol no democrats are not socialists). There’s definitely an authoritarian party with widespread state power, now that the GOP gave up fully on democracy.
Ignore the idiot lefties trying to Twitter diss people (yes they’re a problem but they won’t cause a constitutional crisis) pay attention to states where politicians are passing draconian bills.
I don't think he was referring to you as a centrist. Anti gay and racist is a far right viewpoint.
I know that you think some women shouldn't be allowed to compete in women's sports. That is why I hold you in contempt
I think reasonable people can disagree on the issue of trans women competing in certain women’s athletic events. That doesn’t mean it’s I’ll will on anyone’s part. It’s hard to argue that years of male hormones don’t have a lasting impact even after being suppressed for awhile. The Penn swimmer showed that pretty convincingly this year. I’m very sympathetic to their desire to be treated as any other women are, but cis women can be at a disadvantage. I don’t think this is a very common issue at all, and shouldn’t be an issue in recreational sports, but in elite competition I think it’s more complicated. For example, if Caitlyn Jenner had transitioned at a younger age, I don’t think other women would have stood much of a chance against her in track & field. This is generally a pretty respectful forum so I’d encourage people not to assume the worst unless it’s clear that someone is acting with malice.
A similar comment could have been made about barring Black athletes from sports 100 years ago.
Well...no, not intelligently...
Maybe, but that would have been ridiculous. Ale puberty makes one taller, broader shouldered, etc. I’m only talking about elite competition, and not passing laws to incite public outrage. It’s a sport by sport kind of issue, and I’m for allowing as much access as is reasonable. I’m just not sure I’d want to be a female basketball player playing against someone like a (theoretical) trans LeBron James. Hopefully that doesn’t make me a horrible human being.
You think cis men are going to fake being women to play pro women's sports? You do realize that a cis man good enough to play in the WNBA or the NASL could earn for more playing in man men's leagues.
I wasn’t referring to faking anything, but someone that is mediocre in a mens league could be dominant in a women’s league after transitioning. Richard Ruskin was a mid 40’s amateur tennis player as a man, but as Renee Richard’s was able to compete on the women’s pro circuit at 49 years of age. Similar for the Penn swimmer. I really don’t think it’s controversial to most that male puberty provides some physical advantages that don’t go away with hormone suppression. I’m not sure why you think this is so bigoted.
People argued that science proved white supremacy for centuries.
Your attitude perfectly exemplifies that first cartoon. You're talking to liberals who aren't remotely hostile to your position, but you're treating their disinclination to accept what you're saying without question or comment as an attack.
I'm not transphobic, but I'm also not blind. I'm nowhere close to an elite athlete (and I'm 5'7", 50, and not especially fit) but if the internet is to be believed I can bench press nearly 100 pounds more than 6'8", 207# Brittney Griner. She's an elite athlete and I'm a couch potato, but I'm by far the stronger of the two of us.
The US women's national soccer team is among the best of the best, but as skilled as they are when they play elite U-16 boys teams they lose badly. They're better at soccer, but the boys are way too fast. The female players can exceed the boys' skill and knowledge, but not match their speed and strength.
These are facts, not opinions, yet you're asking people to set them aside and accept your position that any trans female has the right to compete in any women's sport? Fun position you're putting folks in. If they support the female athletes saying they think it's unfair then they're transphobic, but if they explain why they think it's fair for trans females to play in their league then uh-oh, now they're mansplaining. Either way they end up being the asshole, even if they're broadly sympathetic to trans people in every other way and believe that women are 100% equal to men.
Lighten up.
They were wrong.
That was mean-spirited. Most of us have just an opinion, including you.
It was mean-spirited because he is correct that prefacing an opinion with "I think" is very common, and he never claimed his comment was anything other than opinion.. However, "just an opinion" is a bad faith tactic for dismissing as opinion without making any attempt to dispute it. He cited the Penn swimmer to support his opinion. What do have to support your dispute?
He also stated he has no problem with everyone playing together recreationally, but wonders about elite sports citing Jenner. You could make an effort to answer the implied question instead of mean-spiritedly bringing up his daughter.
Strawman. Neither he not I have characterized what he said as anything other than opinion. The new context into which you put his comment about his daughter was mean-spirited.
Fact: In the 2018–2019 season she was, when competing in the men's team, ranked 554 in the 200 freestyle, 65 in the 500 freestyle, and 32 in the 1650 freestyle. In the 2021–2022 season, those ranks are now, when competing in the women's team, 5 in the 200 freestyle, first in the 500 freestyle, and eight in the 1650 freestyle.
Saying “I think” is a normal way to present an opinion.
So why are your opinions, which are so fiercely held, better than anyone else's? Because they're yours?
I never implied otherwise.
I know you think you are morally superior to people who disagree with you. The contempt is very mutual.
I think you’re being treated pretty unfairly here, for what it’s worth.
How? They are making the exact same arguments that people made to justify racism
You're the exact kind of person who argued that my family in "biologically inferior" to white people.
You’re trying awfully hard to pick fights. There’s absolutely nothing I’ve said to indicate that in any way. My people (Jewish) have been considered of lesser value by many over history, but I try not to let that impact every discussion I have.
If you don't want to discuss in good faith, then just don't comment
How is that bad faith? Those exact same arguments were sued to justify racism. It's factually accurate. If that makes you uncomfortable, perhaps you need to ask yourself why.
It is not the "exact same argument", and if you are going to hurl accusations of racism, then nobody is going to take what you say seriously. You seem to be the only one here looking for a fight, rather than seeking to understand
There's not much to understand about people wanting to treat some women as less than other women. It's rank bigotry
Is the concern about fairness in women's sports legitimate? If not, why don't you explain data supporting the assertion that there is no difference between FAAB and MAAB women in sports in terms of outcomes. Or provide something to the discussion other than calling people bigots. Picking fights like this is not helping trans women nor does it advance the discussion. It's just trying to score points.
Not to beat the trope into the ground, but the reality of the current left is a whole lot of white folks pretending to speak for BIPOC groups. How about we let those folks speak for themselves? Latino folks are not running around calling themselves "latinx". Black folks made it very clear they were behind the mainstream liberal Dems like Biden and Clyburn and Shontel Brown, but the progressive left wants to label those same liberal Dems as racists or Uncle Toms
Are you talking about a few extremists? Among the Democratic politicians, the few on the far left are pretty diverse.
Yes, I'm talking about a very few elected officials and a larger amount of leftists that think Twitter is real life
I've never been on Twitter. My congressman and the Dems in my area seem pretty reasonable. As a matter of fact, my Republican friends are reasonable and get along with my friends who are Democrats. But then, we're not a bunch of a-holes.
Nailed it!
Black Democrats have been supporting moderate liberal to conservative Democratic politicians for 50 plus years. For whatever reason white liberals and their paid tv talking heads (looking at you Joy Reid) just cannot seem to understand why a black person in Atlanta, Houston or Prince Georges County MD give Elizabeth Warren the "side eye" when hear talk about free college and wealth taxes. In the experience of most black people, they end up paying for these things without getting any of the benefits.
The white liberal's biggest problem has been and always will be that they don't actually know many black people and the few that they do know they probably don't talk to. If they did, they would know that what black people really want is not to defund the police, but to have police patrol the streets in their neighborhoods and work with them to stop crime; they would like to call 9-11 and have cops show up in less than 2 hours; they would like to go to schools that are properly funded; they would like to have policies that help them start businesses so that they can build wealth for their communities; and they would like the government to protect them from attacks on their rights by state and local governments. In other words, they want what everyone else in the US wants, and has benefitted from since at least WWII: basic, run of the mill liberalism that was once the purview of the GOP before 1964, and is now (still?) the ideology of the Democratic Party, at least since 1960. They do not want a revolution, or redistribution program or anything else (reparations is not withstanding, which means different things to different people).
You how many white liberals there are? Millions. It's quite stupid to treat them as a monolith. They have many viewpoints and opinions.
There's a patronizing savior-complex among some white leftists, making them unable to see that people of other races have the same rational ability to choose differing political views that white people do.
I agree 100%.
That was pretty unfair. I understand exactly what you mean. I’m a New England liberal but my 20 something daughter sometimes has rules about what can be said that baffle me.
Of course. I just don’t always agree.
Sometimes peoples opinions are hard to understand, particularly with a 30+ year age difference. We actually agree on virtually all political issues. It’s just that people in their 20s are more attuned to subtleties of language than when I was that age, even as a Boston liberal. I’m not making some major statement here. I think you’re reading too much into this.
Agree with this. I recently got together with a fellow middle aged gay I hadn't seen since college and we marveled at the granularity of identities that are meaningful to college students today. It was funny - we felt like such radicals back in the 90s coming out as gay. Kids today just yawn at that, which, in fairness, is the world we hoped we were creating back then.
But it is a religion. It views racism not merely as a historical legacy to be remedied by laws applicable to everyone, but as America's Original Sin which can never be expunged by white people (or anyone else progressives accuse of being their collaborators) even by endless self criticism, apologies and mortification. There's a whole industry devoted to it. So like many religions it's also part grift.
I think it implies a belief in a god or god's. I don't think there is any argument that the importation of slaves into the American colonies was important to its growth and also immoral. There were many people in the 13 colonies who saw the buying and selling of humans as immoral, but they benefitted from the institution anyway. How does acknowledging both truths constitute a religion?
You entirely miss the point, which is not a plain history lesson but the need for perpetual expiation of ineradicable guilt. It's a dogma of secular predestination. We are always damned, always hell bound and must always repent and acknowledge our transgressions. Those who don't submit are subjected to the equivalent of sermons and struggle sessions. If that isn't piety on display, I don't know what is. It also pays pretty well for those who preach it.
It might be that a country with a difficult past can un-damn itself by addressing that past, very similar to how an individual can. Some people whose early life was traumatic and troubled find that the effects have lasted into adulthood, and prevent them from living the satisfying life they wish for. But if they have the ability to look into their early experiences and bring them into the light of day, they can free themselves from the power of past wrongs. I've often wondered how a nation might do this liberating self-discovery, but still don't have any good ideas. Maybe Germany knows something about it?
People who are accused of complicity in racism - especially "systemic" racism which is often discernible to academics or ideologues and not obvious to anyone else - often feel unfairly stigmatized, the more so if their immediate ancestors did not perpetrate it. They may also feel that their forebears experienced significant prejudice and handicaps too. America has known all sorts of discrimination aimed at all sorts of people - not just blacks but American Indians, Chinese, Catholics, Jews, Irish, Italians, Slavs, Mormons, etc. That's a lot of trauma to assess and psychoanalyze. A cottage industry devoted to addressing slavery alone risks being branded as special pleading and spurring a backlash such as we have already seen, exploited by interested parties. Additionally, competing victimologies can balkanize the country and prevent it from reaching a useful consensus
Of course there's no reason why the history of all groups can't be taught, but they will have to make way for eachother. That's a much more complicated case than Germany's, where the trauma was inflicted on people who were either driven out of the country or simply murdered and never came back to demand a rightful place. Imagine if 20 million Jews and Poles were asserting equal rights to live in Prussia or Bavaria.* I doubt so many Germans would be happy to oblige them.
*Following the war Stalin gave an eastern slice of Germany to Poland after taking an eastern slice of Poland for himself, but neither the Germans nor the Poles had any say in the matter.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. The difference, to my mind, between the immigrant groups you mentioned and the black population is in large part the circumstances by which they came to north America, and their conditions once here. Africans were kidnapped, brought here against their will, forced to serve masters, for many generations. People bought and sold. While other ethnicities, who for the most part came here voluntarily, faced discrimination, they were not subjected to the same inescapable circumstance as slavery, and later Jim Crow.
And no, none of us living today are responsible for slavery, or own slaves. But we are all inheritors of our mutual past as a nation and live with its consequences. What harm can come from bringing it to light, other than maybe some transient discomfort? I do not advocate national psychoanalysis, but I do advocate for historical truth in our classrooms, which includes both the good and the bad. It really won't bite. It's what a great nation, seeking to be more perfect, might do.
I thought the reference to religion was in the sense of a "woke Statement of Faith" that all adherents must subscribe to in all its particulars in order to remain in good standing with the rest of the "congregants."
It wouldn't surprise me if that's true, since there have been many instances in which people have been exhorted to acknowledge their racism.
BLM has been exposed as a total grift at this point. Anyone who just follows mainstream outlets probably has no idea. What the heads of that organization have done is basically Wayne Lapierre/Steve Bannon bad, but no one wants to report on it.
Who cares.
Why wouldn’t WaPo or NYT report on it? Could it be that the accusations don’t pass the fact-checking test? Where do you get your info from?
As far as I know, it was broken by New York Magazine- I'm not exactly sure where they fall on the left/right spectrum, but I'm not aware of them being far right.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/04/black-lives-matter-6-million-dollar-house.html
Unfortunately, when the right complains about media bias, they're not always wrong. The Hunter Biden laptop is the biggest recent example. I've wondered, on that one, whether the msm in general is just wary of covering scandals related to politicians' children, as they seem to be doing a replay in underreporting Kushner's ties to the Saudis.
I think the main stream media stopped reporting on Biden's son when Trump's son in law came home with pockets full of dirty money from the Saudi Royal Family. The Trump's didn't even try to hide it.
One story in a notorious scandal rag makes the accusations tentative at the very least and dubious at best. It is very easy to cast a shadow. Ask yourself who benefits from this story. That is a good place to begin gathering some facts to be able to make an assessment of the story’s validity. To say, on the reporting in one story from the NYPost, that “BLM has been exposed as a total grift at this point” is, perhaps, putting too much faith in the NYPost.
The link is not to a story from the NY Post. It’s NY Magazine.
The story was broken by right-wing propaganda, and apart form the NY Magazine story, all the reporting in from right wing propaganda. A small non-profit with a $200,000 annual budget suddenly became a large-scale operation, taking in $90 million in 2020 and bought a $6 million house in California. (They got a pretty good deal on that house, BTW). They did nothing illegal. We can disagree with their strategic spending priorities, but on the other hand, their actions were pretty typical of people who find they have won the lottery when they did not even buy a ticket. Hopefully, they have hired a non-profit expert to help them reorganize.
Mea culpa. However, the story did lack substance using language that was not specific. There was no content to present possible differing interpretations and view points. I stand by the criticism that there is very likely a reason such a story has not, to my knowledge, been covered by more substantial news organizations.
I also think there is a reason, but probably not the reason you're thinking. I haven't seen any reporting, or even any comment from the people in the story, that disputes the reported facts. They're putting a spin on it, to be sure (Yes, we bought the $6 million mansion, but it was for a really good reason!), but they're not disputing the facts, to my knowledge.
Another example:
How many people following main stream outlets thought it was remotely possible Kyle Rittenhouse would be acquitted? Everyone makes editorial decisions, what they choose and choose not to cover, and how they cover it. Everyone has subscribers and advertisers to answer to. The MSM knows its audience.
I'm not trying to argue they're as bad as outlets like the NY Post or Fox News, because I absolutely don't think they are, but they're not perfect, and they do leave their audience less informed than they could be from time to time.
Reporters can be very frustrated by the editorial decisions. I know cause I’ve worked there and sometimes tore out my hair in frustration. But there’s more than different points of view in play now. The right has been building professional blind outrage at the other. The left have screamers, too, but they are not as organized or well funded…. Or we’ll armed. L'And they don’t want to kill people for disagreeing with them like the red hats.
Power corrupts. It’s the rare case when it DOESN’T.
You're using an expressly theological term which refers to something that can only be expunged by faith in a savior. It's nice of you to grant some whites a dispensation, but that only reinforces the analogy. And by what right do you get to decide who gets to be saved and who doesn't?
No, the term Original Sin is being used figuratively, or perhaps as an analogy to a defects with forever ramifications. (See systemic racism). No analogy is a perfect match in all its particulars. No one thinks the Original Sin of slavery is religious in the sense it can only be expunged by faith in a savior. It can be expunged by public policy, laws, and a change in social mores.
What's a "defect with forever ramifications" except a permanent blot? And how can a permanent blot be cleansed except through permanent atonement? That's why woke theology requires unending proselytism and why it differs from conventional liberalism.
Even conventional liberalism is dissatisfied with the US efforts to eliminate the systemic racism established by past government policies. A significant number of elected official opposed civil rights for blacks in the 1960s. The right simply declares that systemic racism disappeared-poof-with the passage of the Civil Rights Act they opposed, and have undermined in insidious ways ever since.
Today, the right is opposed to teaching the shameful parts of history because it might make students uncomfortable. Well sure, that 's how we get to "never again." The pitfall the far left never avoids is going too far like statements that all white children are racists by virtue of being white. People like Cruz grab these fringe ideas from people who are usually not Democrats and try to claim they represent the view of the Democratic party.
Read John McWhorter’s book. I did and that’s what I’m talking about.
John McWhorter definitely falls into the category of the POC intellectual who realizes there is money to be made from insulting other POCs. With that said, he does make some salient points on the "Woke" debate.
With that said, I understand and sympathize with those people who want to right historic wrongs, but there is a fine line between righting historical wrongs and inflicting widespread punishment through an accusatory, "guilt by association" mentality, which is too often what the Woke ideology seeks to achieve. As such, and based on what I have heard Mr. McWhorter say on various tv shows, I would agree with him.
John McWhorton is associated with the conservative think tank, Manhattan Institute. He self-describes as a “cranky liberal” and glories in criticizing the left while claiming to be left. Just cause he wrote a book doesn’t mean he’s cornered the truth on “wokeness”. Maybe he, like some other commenters here, like myself, is north of 50 and is simply out of touch with the POV of younger generations.
Might as well say read Candace Owen's book
Something tells me you have an ulterior motive for reading the minds of people you don’t know. Two can play this game.
She did not complain about her nephew disputing her. She said, "because I don't subscribe to certain "truths" of the new woke religion, my nieces and nephew consider me a far right conservative. " From that, you pretend to read her mind as to the nature of what precisely she doesn't subscribe to.
What extreme right things has she written?