This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Irrelevant. Figuring out whether this is a dude or not is a simple question, and should not require going into the legal status of homosexuality or gender transitions in Algeria.
I disagree, any argument that relies on trust in mainstream institutions in politically fraught cases is inherently flawed.
In any case I did not ask about assumptions and what they should be, I asked for evidence. It's downright absurd how both sides are Leroy-Jenkinsing into this, on the basis of absolutely nothing.
Is the argument not that many biological women in the same weight class have already defeated Khelif?
I should also note that I have sparred with guys much bigger and stronger, I was a wimpy 16yo training with grown male amateurs. Which is where my point came from, cover up run away and survive to the bell if you can't hang.
Many were the times the round timer went off and I had to tell the guy "Hey look I think we're going too hard for me."
I genuinely think that Khelif's opponent here worked herself into a bit of hysteria since there's ample proof that Khelif isn't some world-ending super hitter with her 11% KO rate in amateurs.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What evidence am I supposed to have if we're not trusting institutions? Am I supposed to go grope her? The evidence I offered was the analysis of the fights she was in, if you want to dispute that evidence it is on you to offer evidence that she is intersex.
Just so we're clear, I'm talking about "benefit of the doubt" arguments, like yours above. There should be no assumption of "someone would have noticed by now" or "let's go with the passport / birth ceritificate". This is a very easily testable thing, and she should be made to take such a test (a chromosomal one, for example).
You were putting the onus on the disqualifiers a second ago, are they supposed to grope her?
The results of the fight do not prove anything one way or the other, so I have no idea why you even bring it up.
My claim isn't that this person is either male, female, intersex, or something else entirely, my claim is "we don't know", and my evidence for the fact that we don't know, is that no one can seem to come up with any specific evidence in either direction.
There is a non-invasive test for having a Y chromosome (you just need a DNA sample, and before DNA testing there was a histological test for the presence of multiple X chromosomes which could be done with a cheek swab). The IOC used karyotype testing from 1958 to 1999 - it was abandoned after a small number of false positives of which the famous ones were cases of Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome - CAIS women have XY chromosomes and testicles which produce testosterone, but their body doesn't respond to the testosterone so they develop female external genitalia in utero and female physiology after puberty. Everyone agreed that in principle CAIS women should be allowed to compete as women because they don't have an unfair advantage, and people who opposed sex testing used this as a lever.
But the practical protocol of "include a karyotype test in the standard battery of medical tests that elite athletes undergo, and discretely make further enquiries about XY women" works if you let it. The problem is that you have to adjudicate borderline cases like Caster Semeneya, and in the rare genuine intersex cases people will hate you for good reasons whichever way you rule. If you say "no gatekeeping - anyone AFAB can compete as a woman" then you are giving the competition away to countries willing to modify birth certificates.
More options
Context Copy link
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If she has overwhelming physical advantages, such that they are unfair to allow in competition, then it would show up in her fight with Broadhurst. It doesn't, Broadhurst bullies her around the ring. I've never heard of a hormone that doesn't work against the Irish. That's the most objective evidence we can have about unfairness in boxing: the boxing!
I guess I see your point that we could all refrain from any discussion on the topic absent personal knowledge, but the standard of proof has to place the onus somewhere, and there's significant moral hazard in a "believe all women accusers" standard. It seems morally obvious to me that the requirement should be on the party crying unfairness to offer evidence of unfairness. Given that the record in the ring is mixed at best and offers no clear support for disqualifying Khelif, additional evidence must be offered on that side.
I think there's limitations here in the sense that if a random average 5'3 male were to play in the WNBA they'd have a noted baseline advantage but they still wouldn't be the best player in the league due to height handicap.
More options
Context Copy link
The way this works is a lot more complex than you're describing, and the question of whether Khelif is a woman is very simple, that's why I asked for evidence, and you're doing everything you can to avoid providing for some reason.
No. If you're going to say something like "Am I supposed to go grope her?" and act outraged at someone asking you for evidence, you have no right to demand it.
My request is simple - make her take a chromosomal test, and publish it. Until then, stop making confident claims about her being a woman.
More options
Context Copy link
Lance didn't win every race, doesn't mean he didn't dope. Card counting doesn't allow you to win every hand, but it still gives you an advantage. All that that Broadhurst's win reveals is the advantage of her opponent isn't insurmountable, not that it doesn't exist or that it isn't unfair.
Basically everybody Lance competed against at the highest level was also doping.
It radically changes the debate to say the advantage is routinely surmounted. It also undermines Carini's testimony that "she's just too strong."
Indeed, until his doping was discovered Lance had a reputation as "the only one not doping".
I still remember how heartbroken my neighbor felt. He is a bicycle enthusiast who survived cancer, Lance was his idol!
I laugh every time someone claims X wouldn't do steroids he's too good a guy. Everyone would, love. If they wouldn't, they wouldn't be here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
They're medics in a sports eligibility testing org, they draw her blood and look at her piss in a lab. Yes, it is reasonable to expect them to grope her more so than a poster here.
Ok, and what do they say?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What kind of evidence would convince you of either side of the argument?
The results of a specific test confirming XX or XY chromosomes, or presence of testicles / ovaries, for example. No, arguments to the effect of "some would have already done this and disqualified them by now" do not count.
You're presumably aware that the [organizations in charge of] official tests do not confirm anything on that matter, and you wouldn't trust them if they did. How exactly do you think /r/themotte should get our hands on unofficial tests?
Ok, if no one has any evidence either way, how do you justify a claim like:
You have no idea whether or not this is a woman, or whether they're born female, so just admit it. And before you try to say the onus is somehow on the other side, bear in mind you just made the argument for why they don't have access to that evidence either.
That would be the issue we're having then - someone should confirm something on the matter, and until that happens, people should stop acting like they know anything about this.
If you don't see a difference between unspecified "several testing committees" supposedly making a determination based on an unspecified test, and specific people making explicit claims based on specific tests and staking their reputation on it, I don't know how to help you.
Doesn't that prove too much?
By this standard, no one on the Motte should ever be allowed to claim anybody's biological sex.
I'm just saying people shouldn't get to make these wildly confident triumphant jabs at the outgroup, without having something in hand that actually proves the outgroup wrong, otherwise we'll devolve into "you should be talking about real issues, like the attack on Jussie Smollet" really quickly.
From what I understand it turned out Khelif's sex is very plausibly contestable, though there's also reasons for skepticism of the claim they're male.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link