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 -
It's Bayesian evidence towards your side, of course. I'm explaining why it's not enough evidence to tip my model entirely, because I think the correct model is more complex than that.
I place a high threshold on taking rights away from people and restricting what they're allowed to do. Stuff like this is suggestive but I'm explaining why the model is too complex for it to be definitive. I'm not confident that there's no advantage, I'm confident there's not enough evidence of one to justify bans at this stage.
And again, I'm saying that there's a simple and direct measure we could be looking at instead -win/loss records - and pointing out that I'm not very persuaded by any arguments that don't involve referring to or caring about that.
Its not strictly taking away anyone's rights. As far as I know these athletes are still allowed to compete on the male side of the sport. If you object that obviously they aren't competitive, then I could point to everything you've argued above and flip the argument on its head. Has the exact study you want been done on the male side of things? If not, you have an isolated demand for rigor.
Part of why I don't care very much about this issue, is I'd be fine with the ending of gender separated sports. Tough shit if women can't compete, the world ain't fair. I say that with daughters who will very likely compete in high school and possibly college sports competitions. Still don't care. I understand I have a minority view on that point, and if you want to have female sports it makes sense to actually try and preserve them.
I caught my first (and only) ban from you (I'm pretty sure) for saying the same, albeit in a far less charitable way. As far as I'm concerned, women's sports are fundamentally less interesting, the competitors are worse, the action less exciting. They've been grandmothered in as "societally acceptable", but in most cases, they're about as popular in terms of viewership as the Paralympics. I cynically suspect that even the relatively popular ones, like tennis or swimming, gain most of their appeal from the voyeuristic pleasure of watching skimpily clad fit women.
In some cases, a specific carve out or female only league is outright ridiculous, why should there be a separate leaderboard or league for female chess players? The original justification, if memory serves, that it helps them find a foothold in a misogynistic and unfriendly environment, has negative relevance now. It's a test of pure skill that doesn't even need more physical effort than moving pieces on a board.
I go even further into the minority by advocating for almost all restrictions being removed from sports in general. Hell yeah, let's allow anabolic steroids and sketchy Russian PEDs, and as a Twitter wag once said, find out high humans can really jump. Olympic athletes are often mutants who are gifted, from birth, with better muscles and cardiovascular systems. I see no reason why they can get away with being blessed by the roll of the RNG while intentional attempts at self-improvement are verboten.
If I can't get that, sadly, then I demand that standards be applied fairly. Biological women should be disbarred from "Men's" sports, which are, almost always, open to anyone who cares to participate, not that it'll make any difference in practise.
Yeah it's not uncommon for me to have to ban people I agree with for saying things in an uncharitable way.
There are legal reasons why the US has so many female sports leagues. There is a law requiring colleges to have equal treatment of men and women, and one of those requirements has said you need an equal number of female sports scholarships.
I see. Well, my tiny residual dissatisfaction with the ban I received is much ameliorated when I discover that you were doing much the same thing I later found myself compelled to do for Astragant, arguably the FarRight dude.
Certainly it taught me that tone and phrase matters, when the topics of discussion are contentious, which likely made me a more careful and considerate mod, as well as what I can only hope is one that does his best to stop that bias leaking through when trying to be impartial!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I remember the people who said 'Gay men aren't missing any rights, we both have the same right to marry a woman' back when gay marriage was on the docket. It wasn't convincing then, either.
Of course, we're in early days on this question, too. I expect a lot less variance and a lot more knowledge in another 10 years, and a lot more in another 50. I'm just looking at history on these types of fights and saying 'lets hedge towards giving the people the rights they want so long as we don't see any clear harm in doing so'.
Anyway. My post was full of proposed mechanisms that are directional, towards trans athletes being worse than cis male athletes. The 'uncertainty' is about whether all those negative factors on trans women bring their performance down to match cis women, or not. Not uncertainty about whether their performance is moving away from teh cis male mean, or in which direction.
Is there a right to "win at sports" that you are defending? This doesn't really seem like the same level of importance as gay marriage. I was also never one to say that about gay marriage. My stance has been and still is that the state should never have been involved in approving marriages. The original purpose of that was to prevent mixed race couples.
You seem certain that trans people aren't winning a bunch in the female leagues, so can't they also just lose in the male leagues?
I'd say the harm is a lesser or possibly equivalent version of just eliminating women's leagues altogether. Depends on entry requirements. The most permissive entry requirements would be the same as just eliminating the women's leagues. Super super strict entry requirements would make the harm non-existent, but probably only at the point where they are banning most trans athletes anyways.
Yet you've also spent a bunch of time denying the existence of directional effects that point to trans athletes being better than female athletes. You accept directional evidence when it suits you and deny it when it suits you. This is isolated demands for rigor.
I could also make up directional effects for why trans athletes might be better than cis gendered male athletes. The experience of being trans might give them more grit, having a trans community could give them a better support structure than most individual male athletes, and the increased awareness of their bodies might make them better at body awareness sports. The magnitude of these directional effects is about as well studied as the directional effects you mentioned. And I could again follow your line of arguments and say that without the win/loss ratio study we can't possibly know how things actually shake out.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link