492
I'm a trans man. We don't have a secret agenda – we're just asking you to let us live.
(www.usatoday.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2024
492 points (89.5% liked)
politics
25426 readers
1845 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Since you mentioned sports. I was wondering your view point on how it should be handled in some cases. I'm not at all against it but think it could be tricky when dealing with some sports if someone is male to female transitioning after puberty. In some cases there's no gray area such as when the world chess organization banned transgender women like what in the fuck. It's not physical it's a thinking game I don't even know why they would separate genders anyway unless to just be sexist and imply one is smarter than the other.
Trans woman here, i think the government should stay out of it and if an organization would ban a cis woman for having PCOS then that's "ok". i think they should get rid of that rule and allow all women on HRT to join but at least it wouldn't be transphobic.
They don't separate genders. There's chess and then there's women's chess. As in there are tournaments for women and tournaments for everyone.
Women's chess is easier to compete and win in, and that's likely why they banned transgender women from it - for fear that some AMAB 2nd rate player might declare themselves a woman to win in women's tournaments and not wanting to navigate the minefield of how to define what a "woman" is in a way that prevents that but doesn't piss of the LGBTQ+ crowd. Easier to rip the bandaid off and be called a bigot for a short time now than have months of discussions that involve you being called a bigot over and over resulting in being called a bigot essentially no matter what definition you use.
And before it comes up, I'm not claiming women's chess is easier because men are smarter than women or something like that but because women's chess is a smaller pool of competition - it's easier to be the big fish the smaller the pond you're in. For example Judit Polgar is probably the #1 women's chess player of all time, she even beat Kasparov in a game at one point (being the first woman to ever beat a #1 ranked player in a game). Measure her against everyone and not just against women and she goes from being a superstar to merely being very, very good. From best woman in the world by a healthy margin for literally decades to #8 overall at her very peak.
Interestingly, basically all professional sports in the US use a similar setup, where there's a league that technically admits persons of either sex if they can compete at the required level and a league that only admits women. Just a few years ago a woman tried out for the NFL (and was injured after just a few practice kicks). There were talks that Britney Griner considered trying to be the first woman in the NBA, but went WNBA and set a game record and tied a career record in her debut game - she'd rather be a star in the WNBA than second-string in the NBA. I mean, before she got busted for domestic violence and later for drugs in Russia.
i like how your argument is "well it exists because otherwise it's only marginally worse."
If i had the chance to take #8 globally, across the ENTIRE world, that's incredible, fuck it, i'm done, my life is complete. I wouldn't complain about that. You can also break out the statistics, you don't have to break out the players, that's another equally valid way to construe this. Simply have different leader boards for different people.
I've never really been a fan of different competitive pools, if the entire point is competition, make it competitive. If you want to look at subsets, that's trivial to do in most cases.
Sure, but the point was the comparison between the two pools and how much the size of the pool impacts apparent performance - the same player with the same stats was #8 in the general chess pool for a time at her peak but was #1 in women's chess by a fairly large margin for literally decades (basically from the end of the 80's forward). She's been inactive since 2015, but she still holds the highest peak ELO rating in women's chess of all time (and is the only woman to ever cross 2700).
and my point is that these stats wouldn't change, because you would be sorting them exactly the same, the difference would just be your competition is no longer one party only. Though i suppose you could make the argument that having a womens league in the event that your female league size is literally 1/10 the male league. Seems like a skill issue to me though.