One new post for subscribers to The Athletic this week, breaking down the surprise trade that sent Grayson Rodriguez to the Angels for Taylor Ward.
Over at AV Club, I reviewed the game Ink, the newest title from Kasper Lapp and his best game since his award-winning Magic Maze.
My next free email newsletter might have to wait until after this weekend’s PAX Unplugged convention, as I’ll be there gaming as much as humanly possible.
And now, the links…
- Longreads first: The Toronto-based site The Local has a piece on a freelance scammer who published pieces at some legitimate sites that appeared to be entirely AI-generated. I ran into something similar recently, where a site and writer I’d never heard of had a quote from me that I’d never said and that made no sense.
- Mother Jones digs into the grifter Riley Gaines, who finished 5th in a swim meet, was gracious in defeat, and then realized she could make a career out of bashing trans people – and even cis women who she just decides are trans.
- This October 2024 story from Stereogum on the end of Japandroids is a tremendous piece of writing, not just music writing but any writing, especially with the Japandroids’ lead singer/guitarist Brian King being such a notoriously difficult person to get to know.
- The Guardian – one of the sites fooled by the AI scammer that The Local exposed – has the story of two men who have made a career of helping people leave cults. They eschew the term deprogramming and the sometimes coercive methods involved in that process in favor of an approach where you try to convince the cult member-victim that leaving was their idea.
- The Harvard Crimson has been all over the Larry Summers-Jeffrey Epstein connection, to a degree that professional outlets have not, highlighting how Epstein was Summers’s wing man as the Harvard professor tried to sleep with a student, and breaking the news that Summers reversed course and immediately left his teaching responsibilities for the semester.
- NPR details the backlash to Megyn Kelly’s claims that Epstein raping 15-year-olds doesn’t make him a pedophile, including this superb video by a 14-year-old girl named Eloise. (There are, in fact, some very good things on TikTok.)
- President Trump pardoned a January 6th rioter who has now been charged with molesting an 11-year-old. I don’t know why Democrats aren’t pushing this headline everywhere; in 1988, Republicans used the case of Willie Horton, a Massachusetts convict who fled while on furlough, assaulted two people, and raped a woman, to help defeat Presidential candidate Michael Dukakis.
- A new research paper documents the discovery of a chemical found in a common soil bacterium that is 100 times stronger than current antibiotics and would be effective against MRSA.
- Thanks to climate change, the Aedes aegypti mosquito, carrier of dengue, Zika, and chikungunya, is now appearing in the Rocky Mountains.
- Texas A&M now prohibits any classroom discussions of topics related to “race or gender ideology” or sexual orientation.
- Switzerland has passed a law expanding the state’s power to force email and VPN providers to decrypt user messages and log IP addresses.
- Several countries are developing their own messaging apps to compete with and/or separate their people from the global behemoths of Meta, TikTok, etc., most of which are based in the unstable and uncertain United States.
- Amine Kessaci is a 22-year-old activist in France who started an organization to help victims of drug-related violence after his brother was killed for his involvement in the drug trade. This week, another of Amine’s brothers was killed in apparent retaliation for Amine’s political work.
- Wisconsin House Speaker Robin Vos (R) blocked a bipartisan bill that would expand Medicaid coverage from 60 days after a mother gives birth to a full year. ProPublica has more on this story, noting that Vos claimed he would “protect the unborn” but doesn’t seem to care if they die after that.
- A rare bit of positive news: A Republican candidate for Governor in Michigan had been demonizing the Muslim population in Dearborn, claiming Sharia Law was imminent and organizing a (white) march there, but after visiting the town and speaking to religious and civic leaders, he admitted he was wrong and said the propaganda about the Muslim community there was all lies. I’m most impressed that Anthony Hudson took the time to go to Dearborn and visit mosques and businesses, meaning his mind was at least somewhat open to the possibility that his views were based on misinformation.
The last sentence in the article about the Michigan gubernatorial candidate really puts a damper on the positivity in the rest of the story.
Reading the Riley Gaines article made me think about Rob Portman, the former Republican U.S. Senator from Ohio. Portman was a predictably anti-gay-rights vote in his party (Defense of Marriage Act, prohibiting gay couples from adopting). That is, until his son came out as gay. Suddenly, he understood that the world wasn’t as black-and-white as he wanted everyone to believe. I hope no one in the anti-trans crowd ever has a child who struggles with gender identity and does something to hurt themself because they know they are hated by tens of millions of Americans.
“It doesn’t matter until it happens to me.” Is a core part of GOP orthodoxy. The reactions to insurance premiums increasing and people losing their farms/businesses due to tariffs.
See also: Cheney, DICK
Along those same lines – Politicians who support draconian punishments for drug “crimes” until it happens to a family member. Then, the family member is “just a god person who made a mistake”.
Meanwhile, how many tens of thousands of people sit in prison for non-crimes?
This isn’t just the Gop. Democrats do it too, though I’m pretty sure the GOP has been worse.
Is Riley Gaines a grifter? I haven’t read the article yet, but I will.
Meanwhile, I’ll open myself up to being called all sorts of horrible things by rehashing this discussion in which most people seem completely entrenched in one belief or another.
1) I believe trans people have the right to exist, in peace, with equal rights and healthcare.
2) I believe anyone, trans or otherwise, should be treated with respect and dignity and be allowed to choose their preferred name or pronouns.
3) I also believe it is a legitimate point to believe that it is unfair for Lia Thomas to compete in women’s swimming events.
Lia Thomas was biologically male and went through puberty as a biological male. There are numerous competitive advantages this confers. Why do people insist on pretending otherwise, or insist on calling people with my 3 beliefs horrible names? Is that really the path? Just lump together people with legitimate concerns about fairness and equity in women’s sports with actual hateful bigots who want trans people to be dead or beaten? Really?
Wasn’t the whole point of creating women’s sports to exclude biological males who obviously have overwhelming advantages? Are there any strength or endurance records held by biological women? In most cases, the records for such events are not only held by biological males, but by a wide margin.
What is wrong with saying, “one division of sports should be for strictly biological females, and the open division is for anyone who wishes to compete, including biological females if they wish to do so.” ?
I’m still waiting for someone to show me the articles detailing Lia Thomas’s grueling training sessions in which she improved from 500th ranked to 5th ranked. Oh, wait, that didn’t happen. She went from 500th to 5th because she went from competing against men to competing against women. How is this point just continually ignored?
Nobody is trying to deny Lia Thomas the “right” to swim competitively. She can swim in the open division – the SAME DIVISION SHE PREVIOUSLY COMPETED IN. But somehow, the argument is that by not allowing her to compete against biological women, she is being denied Liberty? How does her desire to compete against biological women supersede the biological women’s desire to not compete against biological males?
When a reporter asked Lia Thomas, “Some people have suggested that you have a physiological advantage over the women you are now competing against. What is your response to that?” Her answer was, “Well … the difference is … I’m happy now”.
Huh ???
And the reporter left it at that. No follow up.
I remember an interview with a trans bench presser, and she said, “I don’t understand why all these women are so weak. I mean, granted, I have an obvious advantage, but still.”
What ??
Can someone make this make sense for me? I mean, I’m 5 foot 8 and 165 pounds. My personal max bench press was 245. This would elicit a big yawn from anyone in the weightlifting community. How many biological women can bench press 245? With actual strict form, not the ridiculous back arch with 4 inches of range of motion that is inexplicably allowed in powerlifting competitions.
I know people will say they’re not interested in “whataboutism”, but would anyone want to see someone like Mike Tyson get into the ring against female boxers? Victor Wembanyama competing in the WNBA? Would any amount of hormone treatment undo the insurmountable physiological advantages each of them would have if they transitioned and started playing women’s spots?
This is a legitimate discussion. I have very few GOP friends. I am not sure I can think of one off the top of my head who identifies as strictly republican. My friends and associates are all Liberal, Democrat, or neutral/independent. And yet, not one of them with whom I have discussed this issue thinks it makes sense for biological males who went through puberty male to be competing in women’s sports.
Iguess we’re all just hateful bigots. ??
If you spent half the time googling for answers to your questions as you spent writing them all out, you could have saved everyone from reading this same tired transphobic monologue. You don’t have to be a hateful bigot to fall for right-wing talking points.
Here’s an easily Google-able example article that answers most of your question begging re: Lia Thomas. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/lia-thomas-trans-swimmer-ron-desantis-b2091218.html
She was on HRT for multiple years before she competed in women’s events, and saw notable/measurable decreases in her height/weight/strength from pre-transition. In the 2022 competition that brought her right-wing attention, she won one race category and finished fifth or worse in several others. Other cis women swimmers set new records at the event in categories that Thomas competed in, but Thomas set no new records herself. Further down in the article the author compares her post-transition times to record women’s times and finds Thomas’s times across several race categories to be middle-of-the-pack in that elite company. What about her performance in any of that sounds inherently unfair, given that many non-trans swimmers were able to repeatedly beat her?
How bad would Thomas have to perform in women’s events before you stopped questioning her right to compete in them?
@ CP. Since you disregarded almost everything I said, let’s just agree to disagree and not discuss it further? Or perhaps we can? Either way is fine with me.
I do thank you for saying that I am falling for right-wing talking points rather than just calling me a hateful bigot transphobe, since that’s the response I usually get.
I did do some google searches, but I have no idea which information is vali and which is not. I don’t even know where to get reliable news.
I’ll continue to try to gain more information.
For what it’s worth – none of the people I know who are apparently “falling for right-wing talking points” have voted republican even though they share my concerns about fairness in sports.
And, I don’t think this is why democrats are struggling against the GOP. I attribute this to general incompetence of the democrats to rally around strong candidates and focus on the issue that actually matter. I mean, the GOP is so abhorrent in so many ways. Why are they struggling so much to gain traction against a party that consistently does terrible things in almost every area of politics ??
As Keith said,
“… I don’t know why Democrats aren’t pushing this headline everywhere; in 1988, Republicans used the case of Willie Horton, ,,,”
I feel as though the GOP hands the democrats low-hanging fruit, and the democrats ignore it.
I mean, I find both parties irritating and I despise this two-party oligopoly on politics, but I consider the democrats to be the lesser of two evils.
But I won’t vote for them. I vote the party whose values align with mine, which is neither of these two incompetent major parties.
The link you provided says, “The scientific evidence is mixed, ”
If the scientific evidence is “mixed”, how is this such a black-and-white issue as you seem to suggest?
(I’m only halfway through the article you linked to)
Frank, your original comments and questions appeared to be rhetorical in a way that wasn’t interested in any answer someone could give in a comment section and mostly existed to emphasize your underlying belief of “isn’t this whole thing crazy and wrong?” If you wanna bullet point a few specific questions that could be answered in a comment section, feel free.
Here’s some questions to you that can be quickly answered in a comment section:
-Do you find Thomas’s race results across several categories acceptable as described in the linked article? If not, how much worse would she need to perform for you to accept her competing in women’s events?
-Can you name 5 active/competitive cis women swimmers without looking them up?
-Can you name 5 active/competitive cis women athletes from any sport without a lookup?
-When’s the last time you watched any women’s sports event in full? (A single race at a meet event doesn’t count as “in full”)
I wasn’t being rhetorical. It didn’t make sense to me, and I was asking someone to make it make sense for me. I meant that literally.
The information you provided, along with some other information I read, seems to indicate that one year of HRT is insufficient, but many scientists believe 2 years of HRT is sufficient to keep the sports fair.
SO, it makes more sense now. I’m not entirely convinced that 2 years of HRT removes all advantages – and I don’t buy the argument of “Well, sports are inherently unfair anyway, because some biological males have physical advantages over other biological males (Such as Shaquille O’Neal or Victor Wembanyama), and some biological women have physiological advantages over other biological women, so, even if a trans athlete did have physiological advantages, so what?”
Can I name 5 competitive swimmers? No. I also cannot name 5 NHL players or 5 male football (meaning Soccer here in the US) players or MMA athletes. So what? Does this disqualify me discussing an issue related to those sports?
I probably cannot name 20 members of congress. Should I never discuss anything talked about in this blog, since much of it has to do with politics and congresspeople?
I’m not sure how many creative artists I can name either. am I not allowed to engage in a discussion about AI-generated content?
I’m not sure I understand the criteria for being allowed to discuss an issue.
I said I would give the matter more thought. I that’s no enough for you, oh well. You want me to just instantly change my viewpoint after a minimal amount of research or googling? Isn’t that what you seem to be objecting to in the first place? Or, is it okay for people to be under-informed as long as they share your viewpoint?
You still aren’t answering the first question, which I’ve asked more than once: how much worse would Thomas have to perform in women’s events before you found it acceptable for her to compete in them?
The point of my last three questions wasn’t to gatekeep who is allowed to discuss a topic, and I also wasn’t suggesting that women’s sports aren’t worthwhile. My point was a (correct) assumption that you have zero interest or investment in women’s sports outside this right-wing talking point. Right-wing media has instilled an emotional unease in you that can’t be reasoned with, about a topic that you otherwise know nothing about and aren’t interested in.
You and a crowd of other possibly well-meaning dupes have been gathered to loudly insist that you know nothing and aren’t bothering to change that, but have a lot of questions that need to be taken seriously. What makes your sudden transphobic concerns any different than an anti-vaxxer’s?
I don’t believe having concerns about fairness and equity in sports makes me transphobic.
I watch men’s sports a lot less often than women’s sports; this is true. I’m not sure why that matters?
I am “interested” in the topic to the extent that I care about fairness in sports.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have a general concern for fairness and safety with regard to this topic, especially in contact sports. I don’t know how many high-level trans athletes there are in sports, especially contact sports.
I remain curious to see how this develops over the coming decades. It would not surprise me if, 20 years from now, many or most strength and endurance records are held by trans women. Or, that might not happen at all. I’m not sure how much data we have now.
Regarding HRT, since the science and studies seem to indicate that 1 year of HRT is insufficient but 2 years is sufficient, then I’m satisfied with that. I remain skeptical that all physiological advantages are removed after 2 years of HRT, but, I’m not a doctor or scientist, so my skepticism is not relevant.
So for now, consider my concerns regarding Lia Thomas rescinded. I’ll rely on the scientific community to ensure fairness and safety as more data is obtained in the coming decades.
On a side note, and I am asking this out of genuine curiosity because it seems you have some knowledge on this subject –
Much of this debate seems to focus on trans women. I rarely see any discussion regarding trans men. Are they allowed to compete in women’s sports? I assume not, because they’re taking Testosterone? Or, maybe yes, as long as their testosterone remains at or below some agreed upon level? Are there any trans men who compete in the open category? I would guess that’s unlikely, because even after HRT, most trans men probably are still at a competitive disadvantage?
Yes, I realize I can google this, which I will do now, but I would also look at any links you provide. As I said, this is just out of curiosity. I don’t think trans men should be excluded from sports, but it seems to me they would have a difficult time.
The searches I performed did not return exactly what I was looking for, but I did find the NCAA policy:
https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2022/1/27/transgender-participation-policy.aspx
This seems to indicate that a trans man who has begun HRT cannot compete in women’s sports and must compete in the open division.
That leads to some questions:
Is that fair to a trans man? I did see a list of trans male athletes on Wikipedia, so there are some who have bene successful. I would guess that overall, trans men have lower testosterone than cis men.
What is the scientific consensus on how high testosterone levels can be before it becomes a competitive advantage?
Back to the original issue – that policy seems to indicate that anyone assigned male at birth can never compete in NCAA women’s sports. I’m confused, because I thought this whole issue arose from trans women competing in women’s sports including at the NCAA level. OR is this a recent policy change? (That document is dated January 2025.)
Frank, the NCAA cowardly changed their trans participation policies in Feb 2025 to comply with a new Trump executive order rather than fight it in court. That executive order and a ton of other actual legislation that is similarly anti-trans have been encouraged by the sort of painfully uninformed “just asking questions” routine you are currently occupied with. You are falling prey to right-wing media framing that triggers on a perfectly reasonable desire to prevent injustice, except in this case, it’s a hollow emotional appeal to stop a fictional injustice.
Good for you for now acknowledging that Thomas is fairly competing against women. Boo to you for apparently shifting the goal posts and retreating now to “contact sports” though. I assume you have no specific incident of egregious harm in mind, and this is just another clueless exercise in “but what if…?”
These same tired arguments get made about all sort of women’s competitions where a trans woman is involved, even when there’s no obvious “assigned-male-at-birth biological advantage” involved.
Skateboarding trick competition? Sorry, it’s unfair if trans women do well. https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/female-skateboarder-says-trans-competitors-are-taking-prize-money-away-from-her-and-others-transgender-athletes-taylor-silverman-red-bull-redbull-competition-cornerstone-skateboard-skate-board-skater-women-woman-girls
Trans woman jeopardy winner? Nope, unfair to count her record as a woman https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amy-schneider-jeopardy-champion-transgender-comments/
The end goal for the broader movement you’re speaking up for is always a superficial “I don’t mind if trans people exist..” followed by a “…as long as they don’t meaningfully participate in society in any way that makes anyone uncomfortable or competes with them.”
Nothing is ever satisfactory for anyone anymore. I rescinded my statements about Lia Thomas and Swimming. I said I accept the science indicating that 2 years is sufficient to create a level playing field.
I’m not doing any “shifting”. I’m asking questions with no opinion yet stated or formed. But, that’s okay. You and people like you are arrogant know-it-alls, who are right on every subject and everyone else is wrong. And if anyone dares to even ask questions, oh, your mighty wrath falls upon them. It’s really astonishing to see. At the moment, I am not in disagreement with you on ANYTHING, and yet you still lambaste me as some sort of enemy and bad guy.
And instead of providing anything useful with regard to my other questions of genuine inquiry, you took the time to further bash and insult me.
When did democrats and liberals become so damn intolerable and insufferable? I used to think republicans has a monopoly on that, but I suppose that has changed.
I’ll just quietly retreat into silence for the rest of my life, continuing to vote against the miserable two-party system. Because, trying to talk politics with anyone from the two major parties is absolutely pointless. I just get nastily insulted by anyone from either of the two major parties, all of whom can just go fuck themselves for all I care.
Frank, you have parroted multiple bad-faith talking points from the right, none of whom actually cares about so-called “fairness” in women’s sports (because the scientific evidence is that trans women don’t have an actual advantage, and the evidence also does not support the artificial gender binary). If you do that, you’re going to face a backlash from people who support trans rights and from people who follow the scientific evidence on the topic.
There were an extremely small number of trans women trying to play women’s sports in the U.S. before this fake controversy began, nowhere enough to be a problem worthy of the amount of time and energy it has consumed in our political discourse. If the anti-trans people actually cared about fairness in women’s sports, they’d be fighting for equal pay and equal scholarships, and ensuring that young girls had equal access to sports opportunities, such as playing with boys when girls’ leagues/teams don’t exist. I have never seen a single example of someone holding strong opinions against trans women playing with cis women who also made the slightest effort to support women’s sports in positive ways.
Frank, the problem with the “just asking questions” defense is that none of us were born yesterday. We all know about the existence and purpose of right-wing propaganda, and we’ve all had these discussions (including, I’m reasonably sure, with you) before. Regardless of whatever actual complexities exist around the idea of trans participation in sports, the moral imperative for people like you and I is clear.
I said I would quietly retreat, but maybe that was hasty. Ongoing discussion is too important to discard out of frustration.
Responding to a variety of points people have made:
1) Yes, we should not lose sight of the original point. Riley Gaines definitely seems scummy, and I’m fine with disregarding whatever she says. Her actions in ignoring an actual sexual assault should be called out and she should have to answer for that.
2) I don’t want anyone in society to feel marginalized. I want everyone to be treated fairly. (Please note that by “treated fairly”, I mean “equal opportunity”, not “equal out comes”.
3) I feel as though I was simultaneously told I was uninformed/misinformed while also being told that my questions were not genuine questions but rather a mask for transphobic bigotry. Which is it? If I am misinformed and uninformed, am I not allowed to ask questions? This is what I was referring to when I said sometimes a [person just cannot do anything right in the eyes of other people, especially here on this forum.
4) In a span of les than 48 hours, I responded to information provided by acknowledging the validity of points being made, reversing course on a significant portion of what I was saying, and rescinding some of my previously stated concerns. How often does anyone change any part of their thoughts or opinions at all, let alone in a span of 48 hours? And yet I was still yelled at and called transphobic, and told that I was being dishonest and bigoted with my further questions.
5) So, it’s bad to be uninformed, but it’s bad to ask questions. Okay….. I mean, the primary site I use for news is this blog. But apparently I should never question anything posted here… unless it’s a right-wing talking point. If it’s a left wing talking point, I should just accept it as universal and incontrovertible truth. Which still leaves both sides hating me and being angry with me, because I am not affiliated with either party.
6) Does nobody want to address the feeling of disenfranchisement of those who do not feel that either of the two major parties speaks to them? We talk a lot about elections here, and the country is strongly divided, with many elections being razor-thin outcomes, and yet a significant portion of society does not vote at all. As someone who has worked with teenagers and young adults extensively, I see it increasingly common among high-school students and young adults.
7) The questions I asked about trans men were genuine legitimate questions of intellectual curiosity. I wasn’t trying to marginalize trans women by asking, “what’s happening with trans men?” It’s sad that anyone somehow reached that conclusion. I have seen or heard very little about trans men compared to trans women (with regard to sports). I was genuinely curious. Are there just not as many trans men in sports as trans women? Or, have there just not been any profile cases like the Gaines/Thomas controversy? Do trans men find it difficult to compete physically against cis men, and if so, what can be done about it? These are legitimate questions. There are not “masked transphobic rhetorical right-wing talking points”.
8) I did not realize we had reached a point where we do not have a definition of “biologically male” or “biologically female.” If that is in fact the case, and we no longer have a definition of “man” or “woman”, then what does it even mean to be a cis man or a cis woman or a trans man or a trans woman or non-binary, or any other label? How can one transition from male to female is there is no such thing as biologically male?
9) One point I often hear is, “a trans woman is a woman. PERIOD!” Okay – except apparently when it comes to sports, where at least an apparent majority recognizes that statement to be not entirely true when it comes to competitive sports. Hence the two years of HRT required for trans women to compete in women’s sprots. Again, if there is no such thing as “biologically male” or “biologically female”, then what does it even mean to have men’s sports and women’s sports?
10) The data shows that trans women have no competitive advantage over cis women, apparently. 9Again, what does this even mean if there is no such thing as biologically male or biologically female? SO, for the time being, please allow me to use those terms anyway, because I’m not sure what other terms to use at the moment. Does the data definitively show this? What were the test criteria? Maybe if I transitioned to female (whatever that even means anymore), I would have no advantage over a cis woman. But, I’m not an outstanding male athlete in the first place. There are very few trans women athletes, from what I have read. So where exactly are our data points? Lia Thomas, before transitioning, was of a height and size that is not atypical for a male competitive swimmer. What happens when a male of upper-elite size and strength transitions? Again, I’ll use two obvious examples: Shaquille O’neal and Victor Wembanyama. Does anyone seriously think that 2 years of HRT would put them on an even level if they played in the WNBA? I really doubt that height, frame, bone size, hand size, etc, are just going to magically disappear entirely.
11) The counter to that question I’ve most often seen is, “well, some cis women have significant biological advantages over other cis women anyway,” I don’t understand this point. Some male athletes have significantly higher natural testosterone than other male athletes. Yet, we still ban athletes from using testosterone, even if said testosterone would only raise their testosterone levels to the average numbers for a male competitive athlete.
12) The vast majority of people I have known and met seem to understand inherently that they are either biologically male or biologically female. But, if these concepts do not exist, then by what’s means do I and these other people come to the conclusions that we are male, or female?
13) As previously stated, trans participation in sports is in its earliest stages. There is not a lot of actual data from actual competitive sports, especially contact sports, as per my understanding. Is it not possible (possible!) that 30-40 years down the road, most or all strength and endurance records (or records that are directly related to height and weight or hand size) might be held by trans women? I don’t see how asking such a question could be dismissed as closeted bigotry. It’s a legitimate question, because as of now, we don’t have a lot of data in competitive sports. Even if that did happen, I don’t know whether that would or should be an issue of societal concern. But I could certainly envision a scenario where this does happen, and it may have various effects that have not been considered. I guess we cross that bridge when we come to it, if we come to it at all.
THESE ARE NOT MASKED TRANSPHOBIC QUESTIONS. I genuinely do not understand how it can be said that there is n such thing as biologically male or biologically female. If I have misunderstood anything that was said, and that misunderstanding is causing some of my confusion, can someone please POLITELY help clarify any of this rather than just insulting me and calling me a masked transphobic bigot? Is that too much to ask for?
Specific responses to Keith’s reply to me:
Keith: With regard to equal pay and equal scholarships: I don’t know exactly how the scholarship process works. I had always assumed that male athletes receive more scholarships (and likely more lucrative scholarships) because men’s sports generate more income for the schools and women’s sports do. (If I am mistaken, please tell me.)
Regarding equal pay: I am unsure what this refers to. Are you referring to WNBA salaries versus NBA salaries? Why should WNBA players receive the same pay as NBA players, when the NBA generates order of magnitude more revenue and income? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying? Don’t NBA, MLB, and NFL players get paid more than NHL players, because those other 3 sports bring in more revenue? I assume performance athletes (in any field, not just sports) are paid proportionally to the income they generate and the consumer demand for viewing their art or performances. I’m not sure what this has to do with men’s sports versus women’s sports.
Regarding the rest of your statement – Yes, I think society should do more to encourage young women to play sports, and give them every opportunity to do so. My personal experience is that most women are not interested in playing sports. I love sprots. I have tried to encourage every female friend or girlfriend I’ve had to join me in racquetball, football, or weightlifting. Most (nearly all) just haven’t been interested. Maybe that is because society discourages such activity at a young age – parents buy sports equipment for the boys and dolls and such for the girls.
As for my viewing habits – I primarily watch NBA, NFL, and MLB. I won’t watch much WNBA for the same reason I don’t watch much NCAAA Men’s basketball – because the players are not as good, and I prefer to watch the most elite athletes play. But when it comes to weightlifting and powerlifting, I watch lots of videos of female athletes, because I am very impressed by their strength RELATIVE TO THEIR SIZE.
Still, women are never going to deadlift 510 Kilograms like Hafthor Julius Bjornsson. How many WNBA players can even perform a basic dunk? Or throw a football 60 yards or leap 38 inches in the air to catch it? Can a female basketball player reach a height of 12 feet to swat a layup attempt as LeBron James did with his iconic block against the Warriors en route to their historic upset of the 70-win team? There’s a reason the WNBA basketball is smaller right? Can any woman throw a baseball 100 MPH or hit a baseball 450 feet? That being said, one of my favorite sports to watch is the ninja warrior competition, combining strength, endurance, and agility. And some of the more impressive performances that I’ve seen have been performed by females. That being said, I would guess that most of the fastest times are held by males.
What does all this mean? I think a lot of people prefer watching men’s sports because they want to watch the very best, and that’s not found in women’s sports. Thus, men’s sports bring in more money and revenue, and have more and better facilities and equipment.
Should that change, and if so, how exactly, economically I mean. These are also legitimate questions.
Hey Frank, I said above that you’re possibly well-meaning and likely see this issue as a matter of preventing injustice (thanks to sustained bad faith media framing that effects the entire media environment, even if you never look at specifically right-wing media yourself.) That’s not me calling you a bad guy, but me saying the end result of your “just asking questions” is still harmful in sum.
I understand the impulse to wonder “what’s wrong with asking questions?” but it ignores that some questions are inherently insulting and dehumanizing, and that is why people get yelled at for asking them. A type of question that falls into this category is “which rights should be excluded from participating in?” Some people enjoy asking specific versions of that question while ignoring that their publicly broadcasted thought experiment has outcomes with very dire consequences for the group in question. Merely asking the question suggests those rights are negotiable and subject to the whims of the rest of us.
I imagine there are many versions of that question that you would also find outrageous to even ask.
It also seems like you’re confusing me (and others) saying “you are wrong on this one issue” to mean “I am right on all issues,” but those two statements aren’t the same. Separately, I don’t think anyone responding to you said anything about being a Democrat or liberal or whatever other non-Republican political affiliation you’re annoyed with.
Ha, excuse my accidental bold formatting from using an angled bracket. The question that becomes bold midway through should say “which rights should (a minority group) be excluded from participating in?”
You know, it really makes Clay Travis mad when you speak about his DEI hire like that.
What do any of you intend to accomplish here in this tedious, tiresome debates that convince nobody?
What do YOU intend to accomplish with this comment, Steve? If you aren’t appreciating the conversation, then just ignore it. I don’t understand the point of telling other people that you find it unhelpful, even though you’re not involved.
Keith, my point is my disappointment with what the comments section on your blog have devolved into. For years, the comments below your posts were often a constructive back and forth on the topics raised in your posts, be it traveling, food, games, cinema, or current events. Now the comments under your weekly links posts have turned into the same 4-7 people making tired points in obnoxious fashion over and over again. It’s hardly a conversation; it’s a written volley of insults and one-upsmanship about the talking points. It’s cable news comes to a personal website.
I can’t help but think this is guided by the nature of the Saturday links posts which are almost exclusively negative, angry, and focusing on bad things happening in the world. Sure, it’s an extremely difficult time (particularly for anyone who isn’t a rich white man, though that’s nothing new), and you can easily find 100 things to be unhappy about each week. That’s your right, that’s everyone’s right. I think that accomplishes nothing longterm but fanning the flames outrage and, if I’m being honest, causing depression. And it comes at the expense of your otherwise excellent takes and analysis on matters outside of baseball.
If your point is that if I don’t like what’s on your site, including the comments, then I should just go away, that’s fine. I will. But I always enjoyed your writing and perspective (particularly when I didn’t agree with it), and am sad that this is what your otherwise excellent blog has become.
And in complete seriousness: Happy Thanksgiving to all.
Steve, I’m not asking you to go away. I’m just asking you not to scold other people engaged in a conversation. I understand your points here about why you don’t think the links posts or the ensuing conversations are useful, although I happen to disagree (if anything, I feel an obligation to use my platform to point out many of these things, even though few of them affect me personally). Your second comment here is quite different from your first one in tone and meaning.
Are we really arguing biological males should be able to compete with biological females? I’d love for anyone supporting that opinion to tell me where the lines are drawn. All sports? Youth sports? On hormone therapy treatment for X number of years? Should we abolish all gender segregated sports? There are significant, biological differences that can’t be wished away.
Can you define “biological female” for us?
The sex binary is a fiction. There’s no definition you can offer that’s going to set a clear boundary between “male” and “female.” You can’t use sex chromosomes. You can’t go by internal or external sex organs. You can’t go by ability to bear young or produce ova. Any definition is going to be full of holes because the sex binary is not based in science. Humans try to categorize things to make their understanding of the world (or universe) easier, but nature does not abide by our categories.
That link goes to an opinion article. One that could easily have been put in The Onion, it’s so over the top absurd.
The sex binary is not a fiction. There is certainly a definition that I can offer that sets a clear boundary between “male” and “female”, and it come from a kid in Kindergarten Cop: “Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina.” This of course is accompanied by different internal organs and bone structure. The entirety of recorded human history has understood this.
Thankfully, we still understand this! When a skeleton is unearthed for archaeological purposes, scientists can say what sex the person was, even tens of thousands of years later.
The earth isn’t flat. The moon landing wasn’t faked. Vaccines don’t change your DNA. Sex is binary.
“Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina.”
By that definition, a trans woman who has undergone gender reassignment surgery is a woman. I guess we’re on the same page after all!
This of course is accompanied by different internal organs and bone structure.
Except it’s not. People with Swyer syndrome have XY chromosomes with external female sex organs, underformed or nonexistent internal sex organs, and limited hormone production, so they may not even experience puberty. That’s just one disorder of sexual development that voids your claims.
You quoted a child, which is fitting, because you have a child’s understanding of the topic. Sex is not binary, and neither is gender.
Drew, which link were you referring to?
This is the one that Keither posted:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heres-why-human-sex-is-not-binary/
Here is a portion of the article:
“The animal kingdom does not limit itself to only one biological binary regarding how a species makes gametes. Scientifically speaking, animals with the capacity to produce ova are generally called “female” and sperm producers “male.” While most animal species fall into the “two types of gametes produced by two versions of the reproductive tract” model, many don’t. Some worms produce both. Some fish start producing one kind and then switch to the other, and some switch back and forth throughout their lives. There are even lizards that have done away with one type all together. Among our fellow mammals, which are less freewheeling because of the twin constraints of lactation and live birth, there are varied connections between gametes and body fat, body size, muscles, metabolism, brain function and much more.
While sperm and ova matter, they are not the entirety of biology and don’t tell us all we need to know about sex, especially human sex.”
I did read the entire article.
I am, for lack of a better word, confused. I see examples of non-binary sex in worms, fish, and lizards.
I see where the article says that in humans we should not assign societal roles or legal rights based on biological sex. (I agree).
I see the title of the article saying, “Human sex is not binary.”
Where in this piece does it actually discuss this question with regard to human physiology?
I feel even more lost than I did before.
So, on what basis are people assigned male or female at birth? On what basis are people assigned to the women’s sports team or the men’s sports team?
I’m trying to understand, but I don’t see how this article clarifies anything.
I mean, I’m aware (Please correct me if I am not saying this properly) that in rare cases, people can be born with both reproductive organs, or neither? In which case, it may be unclear whether this person is male or female.
Does that somehow mean the vast majority of people who are born with one set of reproductive organs cease to be “male” or “female”?
The science in the article refers almost exclusively to “mammals”, clearly avoiding saying, “humans”. The portion that does refer to humans seems entirely devoted to questions of expected societal behaviors and roles, which, I agree, should not be based on sex.
I do not see how that negates the existence of “biological human males” and “biological human females”.
Perhaps someone can provide a link hat better clarifies the science, maybe one that does not end with a disclaimer saying, “This is an opinion piece and does not represent the views of Scientific American”?
Can someone tell me why we have men’s and women’s sports teams if there is no scientific criteria to be classifying people as male or female?
@Drew did you really come on here at 4 AM on Thanksgiving to confess that you draw wisdom on important topics from what five-year-olds say in movies?
Mark,
All joking aside with regard to Drew’s comment, what is the actual criteria, since the statement Drew references is apparently incorrect?
In other words, why did Lia Thomas need to undergo 2 years of HRT in the first place compete in the women’s division?
This is a serious question. I’ve always thought we had fairly obvious ways to distinguish male from female, but now I have no idea what those criteria are.
Keith,
I see where you’re coming from.
I’m trying here. Can you please help me understand what the actual criteria is?
I understand that “strictly biologically male” and “strictly biological female” does not cover all situations.
What then is the actual criteria used to determine which sport someone should play, when we have only two categories (Men’s and women’s)?
Sometimes when people say “I don’t understand” and “I have questions”, they genuinely mean, “I don’t understand, and I have questions”.
Ok, fine: Boys were born with a penis, girls were born with a vagina. The (adult) writer for the movie obviously didn’t feel the need to make it that detailed. Swyer syndrome affects 1 in 80,000 to 100,000 people, a tiny percentage of the population. According to that logic, because of a miniscule minority, vaccines shouldn’t be given because they are unsafe. (Which is a terrible take that unfortunately some nitwits try to promote.) I’ll agree there’s a tiny percentage of exceptions, but so few as to be immaterial to the fact that as a basic rule, the Kindergarten Cop quote is accurate.
And let me be clear, if anyone wants to be a trans man or woman, go for it! No negative judgement from me. Live your best life. If you undergo surgery, you don’t magically become a woman or man. You are now a trans man, or trans woman. And that’s great! Good surgery would mean nobody would even look twice. But a person transitioning to a woman is still not a woman, that person is a trans woman. Which isn’t a bad thing, just different from being born a woman.
And Mike, I’m sorry that the timing of my post was not up to your standards. In the future, I will work to align my work and sleep schedules to a time frame that suits you better.
Boys were born with a penis, girls were born with a vagina.
Still false, QED. Depending on how you define ‘intersex’, around 2% of humans are born with some condition that doesn’t fit neatly into the artifical sex binary.
There is more evidence that the sex binary is incorrect than there is evidence that Jesus Christ ever lived.
@Drew It seems my message was not clear, so I will be more direct: I think it is pathetic that, on a holiday rooted in the idea of gratitude and thoughtfulness, you instead took the opportunity to express bigotry and hatred on a forum where no one wants that.
Maybe not everyone celebrates the same holidays. Or celebrates them on different days.
I am not sure why it serves any purpose to attack someone for posting at 4 AM on a day that isa holiday in one country. Attack the content of the post if appropriate, but I don’t see what difference the timing makes.
I am still unclear on the criteria for figuring out who plays in which sport. If it’s not biological anatomy, what is the criteria? Hormone levels? Testosterone and Estradiol and perhaps other hormones?
For purposes of determining whether someone is eligible to play women’s sports, what exactly are the criteria?
I find it somewhat bizarre that we have now reached a point where we cannot agree on the definition of “man” or woman”.
Why do we need exact criteria for this?
I find it somewhat bizarre that we have now reached a point where we cannot agree on the definition of “man” or woman”.
This is essentially the argument from incredulity: I can’t believe this is true, so it must not be true. Those terms date back to a time when we didn’t even know what genes were or how inheritance worked. Babies born visibly intersex were often killed, which had the effect of enforcing the sex binary on the species, rather than adjusting definitions to match reality.
There is currently no problem whatsoever with trans women playing women’s sports. These trans bans are a fake solution in search of nonexistent problem, enacted to pander to bigots and religious zealots.
Keith,
I see nothing unreasonable about asserting that it’s odd that we cannot define “man” or “woman”.
Fine, woman can participate in trans sports. As has been pointed out, what do I care? It doesn’t affect my life.
Again though, I ask, what are the criteria? we DO have men’s and woman’s sports. (Technically, the men’s divisions are “open”, right? )
I’m asking this as a serious question. The consensus here seems to be that Lia Thomas can participate because she underwent two years of HRT. But what is a trans woman said, “HRT is serious and can have various effects, some undesirable. ** What if I don’t feel comfortable with this treatment, but I still want to play women’s sports”? Would she be denied the opportunity to play women’s sports? And if so, why?
I’m not just speaking randomly here. I was on hormone treatment for a year, and some of the effects were so adverse, I stopped.
Doing some googling, looks like the 2% figure is rounded up from 1.7% I found on a few different sources. Notably, it’s generally phrased as “up to 1.7%”. Other sources have it as a much lower number, far below one percent. As I stated in my previous post, while a statistically immaterial number of people may be born differently, it doesn’t affect the basic facts. We don’t make all countertops at 3 feet because of people born with dwarfism. Same concept with the sex binary.
And Mike, please stop attacking me baselessly. First you don’t like what time I’m posting. Then you accuse me of expressing bigotry and hatred, which is outrageous, as neither was present anywhere in my post, in which I went out of my way to show my support for trans people! Bigotry and hatred would be if I said “those trans people are disgusting, I don’t care what they say, if that’s how they’re going to act they should be jailed”. My comment was literally the exact opposite of that! I’m happy to have you feel that you are morally superior to me, you just don’t need to express it further.
We don’t make all countertops at 3 feet because of people born with dwarfism.
1.7% of the US population is about 5.8 million people, more than the high estimates of the number of U.S. residents who use a wheelchair. And we did make a significant change to accommodate that latter group in the Americans with Disabilities Act, requiring ramps, curb ramps, and other features outside buildings and along streets. That was an active change for the affected minority. In this case, trans bans are changes to exclude the minority; the default option would be to do nothing.
Denying someone’s identity is bigotry. If you don’t like people calling you bigoted or hateful, consider changing your views.
@Drew You said “sex is binary,” which inherently denies the existence and/or validity of trans and intersex people. Given the explicitly eliminationist rhetoric and policies of the current administration and the existential threat it represents for such people, it’s hard to read your words as anything but a participation in this larger project of bigotry. Regarding your smol bean defense: this has nothing to do with morality or “attacking” you, but is simply a reiteration of the clear meaning of your words and when you chose to post them.
On the off chance you are being genuine in saying you “support” trans people, would you offer such dismissive, childish “support” to any other group of people? If someone said they “supported” you by denying some fundamental and immutable aspect of your identity, would you feel like they truly support to you?
So, just trying to play devil’s advocate here. Or whatever the phrase is.
“Sex is binary” cannot be accurate, because, as everyone seems to agree, there are some people who are intersex.
Here is the definition I found:
“Intersex is an umbrella term for individuals born with biological sex characteristics, such as chromosomes, genitals, or hormones, that do not fit typical definitions of male or female.”
So, would it be fair to say that all people are either male, female, or intersex?
Also, doesn’t that above definition imply that we do have typical definitions of “male” and “female”?
Another question – in which sports division does an intersex person participate? (I’m asking this as a serious question because I don’t know the answer and I am not sure how this would or should be handled.)
Testosterone levels seem to be highly linked to these traditional definitions. Maybe the two divisions of sports should simply be “above [some level of testosterone]” and “Below [that level]”?
Should we just do away with divisions in sports altogether? Obviously not, right? So, what’s the solution? Some people do advocate simply allowing people to play in the division they identify as, without any HRT. Which would have biological males, in some cases, participating in women’s sports with a clear advantage.
It all becomes a bit murky, doesn’t it? Even without gender politics, it’s a bit murky.
If a male athlete takes exogenous testosterone to raise T levels to, let’s say, 800, that athlete would be banned. Yet some male athletes may have natural testosterone at levels exceeding even the typical upper limit of 1100 or 1150. A case could be made that such a person has an unfair advantage. And as has been noted, it’s a reality that some people do have physiological advantages over others, regardless of gender identity or politics.
Stating “sex is binary” clearly invalidates the existence of intersex people. Drew seems to recognize this by citing similar statistics as Mike, although the exact percentage of intersex people seems to be a matter of some disagreement.
So, we should not say, “Sex is binary”. But I don’t see an issue with saying, “most people (98%, even by Mike’s quoted statistic) are either biologically male or biologically female.” I think we can agree that, by definition, anyone who is NOT intersex is either male or female? I mean, that’s a tautology, since the literal definition of “intersex” is “someone who does not meet the definition of biologically male or female”, or something to that effect.
Does it invalidate the existence of trans people to say that 98% of people are male or female? How so? Isn’t the definition of a trans person “someone who has changed gender”? Or “someone who identifies with a gender that differs from their birth gender”?
Wikipedia defines transgender this way:
“A transgender (often shortened to trans) person has a gender identity different from that typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth.”
But then also says there is no universally agreed upon definition.
So, if we do not have an agreed upon definition, and there is no such thing as “biologically male” or biologically female”, then I am not sure I understand what it means to be transgender in the first place. (I’ve never quite understood this.)
Doesn’t all this mean that any person should just choose a gender of his or her choice? Should we just eliminate gender terms altogether? (seriously. If we didn’t have these terms in the first place, nobody would ever be misgendered, right?)
We’re all just people, when it comes down to it. What does it even mean to “identify as male”? Isn’t gender identity rooted to some extent in obsolete societal expectations of what activities and careers men and women should pursue and participate in?
nevertheless, it’s a reality that people who meet the traditional definition of “male” have clear and indisputable advantages in sports. So obviously, some definitions and classifications are necessary. Some could argue it’s “not fair” that people with my physiology have little to no chance of becoming a pro athlete. Life is not always fair, but certainly we should try to make everything, including sports, as fair as possible for everyone.
How to actually do that seems to be a difficult subject to tackle.
I still don’t see how any of this is fair to trans men, who are barred from playing women’s sports, but likely will not be physiologically capable of playing in men’s sports.
So, what exactly is the optimal solution?
it’s also difficult to even have the discussion, because anyone trying to discuss this or ask questions gets labeled as a “hateful bigot”, lumped in with obviously and overtly hateful people who say this like “IT is disgusting and should not exist” (using the pronoun “it” to refer to an actual person, which is blatantly hateful and bigoted.
Does everything have to be so extreme with no shades of gray? Isn’t it possible to say to someone, “you’re saying inappropriate and possibly harmful things” rather than just painting everyone with the same brush and labeling everyone as a “hateful bigot”?
As an example, if someone said, “Statistics seem to show that [one race or ethnicity] are less intelligent than [average]”, I would reply, “I think you’re misusing the data. There are socioeconomic factors and institutional racism that come into play, and not everyone has the same opportunities or access to the same quality education, etc”. But I would not say that that person, “you’re a hateful bigot.”
But if someone said, “[this race] are disgusting scum who should be thrown into a pit of fire”. I would say to that person, “you are a hateful bigot.”
@Frank Jones, it’s not at the Olympic level but a growing number of running races have added a 3rd division for non-binary and intersex athletes so people are starting to think about them as athletes who need a home.
@Brian in NoVA:
I see little reason to object to that creation of a 3rd division.
However, I’ve seen trans advocates object to this idea on the grounds that creating a separate division like that is actually marginalizing those athletes by saying, essentially, “you cannot compete with the vast majority of other athletes.”
I mean, if someone opened a restaurant and made all the intersex or non-binary people sit in one corner together, there would be uproar, right?
While people are debating the trans issue, the bigger issue for me is that Gaines is touting herself as pro-woman and in the meantime is actively ignoring a sexual assault scandal that happened to several of her own teammates at the hands of her coach. That is incredibly gross and kind of gives away the game. Gaines is making millions off the anti-trans crusade. If she was just someone speaking on behalf of sexual assault survivors, she wouldn’t getting the platform she is from Outkick, Fox, etc which is sadly telling.
Exception don’t make the rule. We have always created a boundary for sex segregated sports for a reason. What is it, 98% or so that fall within the standard male/ female sex definitions? My line is easy – Lia Thomas should’ve never been allowed to compete in collegiate swimming. I wish people arguing against that would be a bit more honest and say let’s do away with women sports. That’s logical conclusion to this.
And Riley Gaines is a joke and shouldn’t be given any more publicity ever.
Please explain how “let’s do away with women[s] sports” is the logical conclusion to “let trans women play sports”
I agree with you (Mike) that this is not a logical conclusion. Perhaps what Mark is saying is, “If we cannot even define male, female, man, woman, biologically male, biologically female, then by what criteria do we segregate men’s and women’s sports”?
I’m just guessing though. I’m sure Mark can speak for himself.
I just really don’t want the original point to get lost, and I hope that Frank appreciates this because it’s fairly cogent to his argument: Riley Gaines is a grifter in the most griftiness sense. While the conversation here has been about trans athletes and biology and fairness, Riley Gaines is an opportunist (also in the worst sense of the word) and her rise is an excellent look into the right wing media morass. Gaines and her ilk are all too happy to take Lia Thomas’s existence and use that to argue that trans athletes in women’s sports are tantamount to sexual assault… while ignoring the actual sexual assault by her coach. The only reason this issue is prevalent is becasue maga thinks cruelty in the guise of fairness and law and order can help them win elections and some of you are all to eager to carry that water. Speaking of Willie Horton….
I’m not sure what proponents of trans women being allowed to compete in women sports think they’re going to accomplish be calling anyone who disagrees a bigot or religious zealot. One doesn’t have to be either to think there are clear physical/ biological advantages for men. Many might say that’s simply following the science.
And considering most polling shows 75-80% being opposed to trans women in women sports, calling 75-80% of the people you need to convince otherwise seems like a poor tactic.
One doesn’t have to be either to think there are clear physical/ biological advantages for men.
We’re not talking about men competing in women’s sports. That is affirming the consequent.
Many might say that’s simply following the science.
And that is the argumentum ad populum. “Many might say” that a man named Jesus Christ rose from the dead after three days; a whole lot of people I see on Facebook post things like that every Easter, despite the lack of any actual evidence to support it (and the fact that people can not rise from the dead). Even if a majority of people believe something to be true, that doesn’t make it true. In this case, the science itself is pretty clear that neither sex nor gender is binary, and that the two are not the same thing.
1. Do you think the 96% of people who opposed interracial marriage in the 1960s were bigoted (https://news.gallup.com/poll/354638/approval-interracial-marriage-new-high.aspx)? Do you think those attitudes were changed by dancing around this bigotry or by facing it head-on?
2. More specific to the matter at hand, do you really think the “opposition” you cite is durable and well-founded? Or perhaps is it a reaction to the entirety of the ruling class throwing a minority to the wolves to attempt to satiate the lunatic fringe? Trans participation in sports was uncontroversial until the right-wing made it controversial. That people may have tacitly gone along with those foolishly trying to appease people doesn’t really mean there is popular support for banishing trans people from public life.
Discussion seems pointless. I wrote a lengthy essay at 9:42 AM, and no one has replied. “Asking questions” apparently is just not allowed.
So basically, it goes like this:
“You’re uninformed”.
“Okay, I’ll ask some questions to get better informed”.
“You’re asking questions? You’re a hateful bigot!”
Frank, how is this the best place to educate yourself on transgender topics? The fact of this comment section’s obvious inadequacy in comparison to resources dedicated to transgenderism — CP and others did yeoman’s work, I’ll admit — should explain the reaction.
I assumed good faith on your part until this last comment. Self-pitying strawman b.s.
@ E-dub
Are you serious?
This forum, where many of the regulars and the site owner, Keith, regularly proclaim to be authorities on this topic, who claim that everything they say is insuperably fact, is NOT a good place to ask questions and get answers ?
Really ??
And because I attempt to gain information here, I’m “not acting in good faith?”
Wow. Well, you’re a fucking moron.
I’ve literally never voted for a republican politician in my life.
At this point, I’m willing to consider voting GOP just to annoy the smug, arrogant, condescending, self-righteous democrat liberal assholes who think talking down to people is the optimal way to get their points across.
I mean, I write numerous essays comprising thousands of words, truing to have a serious conversation, and in the ultimate irony, you deem be to no longer be acting in good faith because … I’m asking questions in THIS forum instead of elsewhere ???
Cool, that’s fine. I’ll stop telling my friends that Keith’s blog is a useful place to gain information because E-Dub says that would constitute acting in bad faith.
Holy hell, what a fucking joke.
Time to take a break, FrankJones. Insulting other readers like this is not okay.
Keith, there are multiple written accounts of Jesus rising from the dead by people who knew people who claimed to have witnessed this event (well, not the actual rising, but they claimed to have seen Jesus alive after his crucifixion). These accounts are not proof that this actually happened, but they are certainly evidence that it did. They may not be persuasive evidence to you (or to me), but they are evidence nonetheless.
I also think, respectfully, that, before you admonish Frank, you should take a moment to look back on some of the pejoratives you have leveled at readers, often reflexively, who have a different point of view than you do. This includes immediately jumping to the conclusion that someone who has questions about trans participation in sports is a “dupe” or a mindless spouter of right-wing talking points. There is a pot-calling-kettle-black element to your admonishment of Frank– someone who has exasperated me at times in the past here, to be frank (no pun intended), but who has shown an amazing level of forbearance and thoughtfulness in this thread in the face of some pretty harsh and dismissive comments.
To stress the point made above by Mark, it is a counterproductive political approach to accuse people that you need to convince to change their minds about something of being racists, sexists or transphobes. Some of the people really are those things, and you’ll be hard-pressed to get them to change. But most people, especially with respect to trans rights, aren’t malicious. And when a majority of the voting public takes a position that you disagree with, you’re unlikely to convince them they’re wrong by telling them they’re bad or uninformed or dupes, and you will definitely have trouble winning if theirs is the majority position. (And, as I’ve said in other posts, you’d better be ready to hold your nose if your choice is between a Democrat who’s not as progressive as you’d like on trans rights and a Republican who doesn’t even believe that trans identity is a thing.)
Several years ago, I witnessed an interaction in which an older gentleman whom I know very well and who had never expressed any particular animus toward gay people, used the expression “sexual preference” in reference to a person’s sexual orientation. It was in the context of a neutral statement. He wasn’t condemning or criticizing; he was merely describing, or attempting to describe. (He was a non-college graduate and Navy veteran in his 60s, for the record, who has lived in the Bay Area for the last 50 years.) A younger person jumped all over him, chastising him for not using the term “sexual orientation” and began hectoring the older man about when he decided he “preferred” women. It was an extremely uncomfortable situation to watch. You could see that the older man felt attacked and was confused because he didn’t think he had said anything controversial. He was not privy to changing sensibilities about which terms are or are not acceptable. He doesn’t get those memos. (I think of my 80-year-old father, who lives in a Brooklyn neighborhood with a large population of Chinese immigrants, whose daughter-in-law is a Chinese immigrant, and whose grandchildren whom he loves are half-Chinese ethnically, but who still occasionally refers to Chinese as “Orientals” (and Latinos as “Spanish”) without any malice or animus whatsoever. These are simply the descriptors he grew up hearing.)
Anyway, the older gentleman in this anecdote, who had been a middle-of-the-road, not particularly partisan person for most of his life, is now a three-time Trump voter. I’m not saying that the “sexual preference” incident was what turned him, but I have reason to believe that it was one of a series of things like this that eventually made him resentful (a resentment stoked by right-wing media, but mostly indirectly– others who watched and listened to Fox News and talk radio influencing him to become more aligned with their grievances), and made him feel like overeducated liberals looked down on him and thought he was stupid. It’s an anecdote. Like the Gospels, it’s not proof of anything. But there are lots of people who are on the record saying that this is part of what drives their support of Trump and of MAGA. Don’t feed that reaction by reflexively or dismissively insulting people who need to be convinced, not insulted. I’m pretty sure that you and I (and many of the people posting here) want the same things from our government, including protection of trans rights. We all need to be very mindful of how we go about talking to people whose support we will need to get the current unfit leadership out of power and stop their ongoing efforts to take us backwards. (And I say this with great awareness of the irony that Barack Obama got pilloried for an expression of empathy towards people who felt alienated by both parties and let down by government– I refer here to “Bitter Clingers”-gate– and it was weaponized to stoke resentment, whereas Donald Trump can apparently dismiss entire American cities as shitholes and dismiss entire groups of American citizens as making no positive contributions, and there won’t be any thinkpieces about how Republicans need to be more sensitive to the concerns and sensibilities of Democrats living in big cities. It’s not a level playing field. Unfortunately, we have to swallow the hypocrisy and keep our eyes on the big picture, which is forming a coalition with a significant majority.)
@Brian, against my better judgement I am going to share a couple thoughts on a three-week-old blog post:
1. AFAIK no one has accused Frank of outright bigotry. The context here is that I’ve interacted with him on this topic in the past, as have others, so nothing discussed here is new. In this specific thread, CP did challenge him on some of his questions, which belie a certain stubbornness that goes beyond the “just asking questions” line. This seems like a perfectly reasonable response to someone beating this same drum over and over.
2. OTOH, I *have* accused Mark of bigotry, because he appears to be a troll who engages in explicit bigotry (ie. purposeful misgendering). The difference between Frank’s potentially well-meaning crankery and Mark’s clearly pointed agitation is, I think, a wonderfully demonstrative dichotomy of what should and should not be tolerated within an online community.
Brian, you’re simultaneously holding progressives to an impossible collective standard while generously letting allegedly grievance-motivated Trump voters escape any sort of accountability for their indefensible personal choices.
Yes, some people can be off-putting about how they express the opinions they hold strongly, no matter the specific opinion or its ethical correctness. Any opinion held by a substantial number of people will be held by some people with more passion than self-control, so you’ll always be able to find someone willing to be rude in their support of that opinion.
It should also be acknowledged that some people being rudely impassioned in their responses have much more at stake in a discussion, and may have also been polite in having the discussion many times prior before becoming weary responding to the same bad arguments that threaten them harm.
How many times do you think you’d be patient and polite in response if your city council repeatedly held meetings to discuss “should we burn down Brian in SoCal’s home?” I mean, it’s just a discussion Brian, and wow, you’re being a little emotional and rude about all this. Actually, you hurt my friend Tom’s feelings after he suggested that maybe we should just burn down your garage as a compromise, so now he’s committed the rest of his life to burning down any and all buildings you ever live in, and who could blame him after how rude you were to him about his garage idea? I think we can all agree your rudeness is the greatest moral harm to be corrected in this scenario; Tom has no agency or accountability for anything he does.
CP, I say right in my post that it’s a double standard. I’m trying to get malicious, incompetent people out of power. Feel free to keep trying to win people over by calling them names. I think it’s a counterproductive strategy. I can’t control whether a sociopath wants to burn down my house, but I do know that needlessly antagonizing someone who has the capacity to burn down my house is not a good idea. And the house is already burning. It has been burning since 2016 in part because a whole lot of people who used to sit out elections became motivated to vote because a canny and immoral con man effectively stoked their feelings that they are looked down upon and disrespected by liberals and elites.
We are talking about men competing in women’s sports. Lia Thomas went through puberty as a male. She had clear physical advantages over other female swimmers. And pointing that out doesn’t mean one’s a bigot or religious zealot.
Mark, this comment suggests that your main problem with Lia Thomas competing against cis women is that she “went through puberty as a male.” Does this mean you’d be fine with it if she’d undergone hormone therapy before reaching puberty? Does that also mean that you support prepubescent kids having the opportunity to receive hormone therapy?
I won’t assume your opinions, but a lot of people who make your same initial argument do not support prepubescent kids receiving HRT, which reveals their initial argument to simply be a bad faith distraction they’d never support being satisfied. In those case, they are clearly bigots.
Gee, Mike, I wonder why your condescension and self-righteousness doesn’t convince everyone to come around to your view.