Is the ACLU getting too Woke?

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 28154
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Is the ACLU getting too Woke?

Post by thoreau » 09 Aug 2019, 01:43

TL;DR Gryllularity is boring.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13541
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Is the ACLU getting too Woke?

Post by Eric the .5b » 09 Aug 2019, 04:07

Jennifer wrote:
08 Aug 2019, 20:04
Eric the .5b wrote:
08 Aug 2019, 19:35
Jennifer wrote:
08 Aug 2019, 01:17
Eric the .5b wrote:
07 Aug 2019, 23:42
All I'm pointing out is that there's a Hell of a lot of other situations where, "No, you just aren't gonna win" come up in sports, whether competitive or friendly, so long as everyone's actually trying. Those situations are completely accepted in sports.
Provided the playing field is generally accepted to be fair (the metaphorical "level playing field"). Women v. men does not apply in many cases.
You're asserting that transgirls vs. cisgirls is not "fair" because, absent hormone treatments, at least one competitor has little or no real chance to win. But many competitions are generally—and commonly—considered "fair" even though one or more competitors in them have no real chance to win. So, why/how is this situation any different?
It's different because of the Venn diagram differential I mentioned in a post upthread:
And if you drew the Venn diagram of "the ability of best athletes in a sport/league/whatever" and "the lower 50%/75%/90% of athletes in that same sport/league/whatever", they wouldn't touch, either.

We accept uneven and unsurmountable match-ups happening in "fair" competitions, but this competition of two transgirls enter a track meet can't be "fair" because it's...supposedly an uneven match-up. I don't buy it.
Jennifer wrote:
08 Aug 2019, 01:17
...but the thing is, until now, none of those reality-denying groups were ones whose goals I actually support.
I can't think of any groups—including the ACLU—that I've ever supported who haven't proclaimed nonsense at times. It's what political groups do. It's fine to say "this X is too far for me to tolerate", but "this X never happens" is bullshit.
Jennifer wrote:
08 Aug 2019, 01:17
And, although you say you're not denying dimorphism
*rolls eyes* And we're done here.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9698
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Is the ACLU getting too Woke?

Post by nicole » 09 Aug 2019, 06:25

Completely coincidentally, it also doesn’t matter if natal females are systematically oppressed because of their biology.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Sliced bagels aren't why trump won; it's why it doesn't matter who wins." -dhex

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18769
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Is the ACLU getting too Woke?

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 09 Aug 2019, 14:46

thoreau wrote:
09 Aug 2019, 01:42
Are the stakes zero? In general, people attach non-zero value to enjoying equal rights to participation in recreation.

Let's consider an alternative scenario: A league that excludes non-white people, as opposed to transgender people. My goal here is not to argue whether discrimination against transgender people is or isn't exactly equivalent to racial discrimination (that's very much a matter of controversy, one that is ancillary to my immediate point) but to argue that discrimination in sports can matter even if sports in and of themselves have dubious significance.

Anyway, if a friend asked me to donate to their kid's all-white sports league, I would decline. Just about all decent people would (assuming they knew of the policy, it wasn't just "Hey, my kid's in this league, wanna donate?" with no mention of the policy). In fact, most people would start re-evaluating whether they want to remain friends with that parent. Regardless of whether one did or didn't give a shit about sports, that league is just not something that most people would want to support. Conversely, if the league wasn't discriminatory, even people who don't care about sports might donate because they care about their friend's kid and want to support their endeavors.

Now, at this point there are two obvious side-tracks that we could take: One is that we could invoke Libertarianism 101 and say that the league ought to enjoy a free association right. But that gets us nowhere, because the Libertarianism 101 argument is that the government shouldn't coerce the league to open up, not that everyone else should think this league is great. Besides, Libertarianism 101 also says that we have a free association right to decide not to support that league if we have a value system that opposes what they're doing. The other thing we could do (which hasn't happened yet, but often does happen here) is turn this into a bunch of "is" statements about civil rights law as it currently exists. But my hypothetical assumes a world where we have to make a choice.

So, exclusionary practices in sports leagues can be subjected to moral critiques even by people who don't like sports, because they might wish to support their friend's kid's activities out of personal fondness, and then they have to weigh their desire to support the kid against their moral judgment of the policy.

Leagues that exclude transgender people do exist and are the subjects of critiques. Those of us who were going to support friends or relatives or students or whoever in their leagues need to decide whether or not we approve of these exclusions, and if we disapprove strongly enough to outweigh our desire to support our friends or relatives in their endeavors.

If the neighborhood recreational league excludes transgender people, I'm inclined to say that's a bad thing. If a more serious competitive women's league excludes transgender people, well, the advocates for such exclusions have their own fairness argument, involving sexual dimorphism and the purpose of sex segregation in elite competition (as opposed to casual fun). These things need to be weighed.

Unless you not only don't care about sports but also don't care about supporting the recreational activities of friends and family. Which is, of course, valid, but it's not an argument that's going to really help anyone else resolve the dilemmas if they don't share your preferences. Once somebody answers "Oh, come on, who cares?" with "I do, for reasons that are good enough for me" then there's not much point in continuing with "It doesn't matter."
Yes, but what constitutes "equal rights"? Aristotle famously said justice was treating like cases alike and different cases differently. Obviously, the trick lies in discerning what differences are relevant to the case at hand.

Again, I don't care if you care and other people care about whether transgendered individuals are or are not permitted to compete in athletic contests with cis-gendered athletes because it's just athletics. You can give reasons why they should and why they shouldn't and maybe some of those differences strike me or you or others as more relevant than other differences to whatever criteria of fairness we think are appropriate, but the decision will still end up being at some level arbitrary and the results will still end up being about who does or doesn't get to do something that doesn't, itself, matter.

Whatever sexual dimorphism is, it's still attributable to the class of males and the class of females, not necessarily to individual males or individual females, so it's not at all unreasonable to assume that a small, slight unathletic male who transitions to become a trans-female won't have any advantage at all over strong, muscular females who compete in the same sport. Whether it's the neighborhood pickup game or the world cup, insofar as justice is a retail business, a rule excluding transsexuals per se will be an injustice to that individual because he/she is being excluded not because of who he/she was and is but because of what the typical male and female morphological differences are.

You can say, well, that's just the price we pay to keep bulked-up Eastern European male athletes from transitioning so they can all win the Woman's World Cup to which my reply is both that, yes, but it is an injustice regardless of the overall good intentions and, second, that I don't care who wins the Woman's World Cup because it's just a couple of groups of people kicking a ball up and down a field. If you and others do care, you're welcome set the rules any way you want, but you can only hide behind "fairness" to a certain point because all sports rules are arbitrary.

Sure, race. So if Coppertone creates tanning leagues with huge financial rewards for the winners, will it be unfair racial discrimination to exclude African Americans from the contest? What about the occasional Michael Jackson type African American who has undergone expensive and painful skin lightening? Should he be banned because, as it turns out, continued exposure to sunlight will restore his pigmentation to its original shade? Would any of it matter?

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24229
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Is the ACLU getting too Woke?

Post by Jennifer » 09 Aug 2019, 16:43

Eric the .5b wrote:
09 Aug 2019, 04:07
Jennifer wrote:
08 Aug 2019, 01:17
And, although you say you're not denying dimorphism
*rolls eyes* And we're done here.
Because I ... made a distinction between what you're saying here versus the more extreme arguments presented by my pious-dipshit friend and now the ACLU?

If such people and groups really do adopt the platform "the only way to support equal rights for minorities" is for the majority to be expected to deny reality," I do not think the result will be a beautiful oppression-free utopia where minority rights are respected by all -- I fear a backlash is the more likely result.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 28154
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Is the ACLU getting too Woke?

Post by thoreau » 09 Aug 2019, 17:27

DAR, you're coming dangerous close to saying that everything is arbitrary so there's no reason to care about anything. That sort of thing is only said if either (1) the speaker really dislikes the topic (i.e. it is hardly a neutral preference) or (2) the speaker is in a humanities class in the 1990's and thinks they can impress the professor.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18769
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Is the ACLU getting too Woke?

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 09 Aug 2019, 17:57

Really? Because I don't think you've heard me argue that how we decide what's a crime and who's a criminal doesn't matter or how we determine property rights doesn't matter or that how we treat one another doesn't matter or any of dozens if not hundreds of other topics don't matter and that I don't care about them and neither should you. You've heard me argue that who runs the fastest doesn't matter and that who gets to get on the team that kicks the ball down the field doesn't matter and that I don't care about those things and don't think you should, either. I understand, humans being as they are, that people will care about a great many things that don't matter except tautologically in the sense that they matter to them, but I don't have to agree with them about any of those things and it also doesn't follow that because I don't care about one thing or another that I don't care about anything. If you've inferred from what I've written on this topic that I'm a borderline nihilist, you really haven't been reading closely enough.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 28154
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Is the ACLU getting too Woke?

Post by thoreau » 09 Aug 2019, 18:17

Oh, I know that you aren't a nihilist, but your arguments here could be seen as giving aid and comfort to nihilism.

You and I have both interacted with Jadagul, we're both familiar with the argument that everything is in some sense arbitrary, and I think we actually both concede the grain of truth in that, on some level. But because there's a grain of truth in that, because just about everything does have some arbitrariness, it makes arbitrariness at best a worthless and at worst a dangerous thing to appeal to. So I am perturbed that you seem to be appealing to it here.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13541
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Is the ACLU getting too Woke?

Post by Eric the .5b » 09 Aug 2019, 18:25

Jennifer wrote:
09 Aug 2019, 16:43
Eric the .5b wrote:
09 Aug 2019, 04:07
Jennifer wrote:
08 Aug 2019, 01:17
And, although you say you're not denying dimorphism
*rolls eyes* And we're done here.
Because I ... made a distinction between what you're saying here versus the more extreme arguments presented by my pious-dipshit friend and now the ACLU?
Although you say you were just making a distinction, that more comes across as implying that I'm being disingenuous. And even if you aren't and are just avoiding what I've said to go, "But someone else is saying what I want to argue with...", after days of this repetitive argument, I've lost interest.
Jennifer wrote:
09 Aug 2019, 16:43
If such people and groups really do adopt the platform "the only way to support equal rights for minorities" is for the majority to be expected to deny reality," I do not think the result will be a beautiful oppression-free utopia where minority rights are respected by all -- I fear a backlash is the more likely result.
Given you were just talking the other day about how this rhetoric from the ACLU was likely to make you not "support" trans rights, if such a backlash ever happened, wouldn't you just think it was their just desserts? What would be to fear?
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13541
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Is the ACLU getting too Woke?

Post by Eric the .5b » 09 Aug 2019, 18:34

nicole wrote:
09 Aug 2019, 06:25
Completely coincidentally, it also doesn’t matter if natal females are systematically oppressed because of their biology.
If all it takes to "systematically oppress" "natal females" is a roughly one-in-two-hundred chance of running into a transgirl who does better than them at a track meet, then I agree, I'm absolutely fine with them being oppressed into eternity.

Though, as Thoreau notes, as a libertarian, I'm completely fine with people starting up private athletic competitions where only white, middle-class, suburban cisgirls who meet strict height, weight, and hormone levels measurements for their age can compete. They can even have match-ups between the Jesus People League and the Second-Wave Feminists League.

ETA: Though, let's be real, that should be the "Second Baptist Reformed League" (which split off from the Second Baptist League last year). And you can probably work in a League of Karens for the generic white sports moms.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18769
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Is the ACLU getting too Woke?

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 09 Aug 2019, 18:45

Well, I suppose I'm a sports nihilist. But you can't generalize from my argument about the arbitrariness of sports and athletics to much of anything else. Repeatedly, I've asserted it doesn't matter who runs the fastest, therefore it doesn't matter who gets to race, it doesn't matter whether the team with the green jerseys score the most points so it doesn't matter who gets to wear the green jerseys, etc. Sports *are* arbitrary: their rules are arbitrary, their organizations are arbitrary and their results are, if not arbitrary, of no particular significance beyond their own scope. If anything, it's denying the arbitrary and relative meaninglessness of sports and athletics that leads to absurdities such as worrying whether football players kneel during the national anthem or what performance enhancing drugs they take or whether you have to have been born with a vagina to play in the Woman's National Soccer team, etc.

You want to say it makes sense to worry about whether transsexual participation in women's sports raises legitimate moral issues and I keep saying that it can't because women's sports don't, themselves, involve moral issues and I pointed out that if some sense of fairness is the concern, it's easy to come up with counterexamples that would result in unfairness to some people to the advantage of others. But at the end of the day, sports are trivial; thus, while fairness in some Platonic sense may always be a desideratum in all human activity, its own importance is a function of how important the thing about which we are trying to be fair is. And because there is a certain arbitrariness in what factors we will consider and won't consider in determining what is fair, whatever that determination ends up being will be demonstrably unfair as soon as we point out legitimate counterexamples, e.g., the small, nonathletic male in my example.

Now, if we were talking about women in combat infantry positions or as fighter pilots or whether there should be height and weight requirements to be a firefighter that effectively preclude most women, then a discussion of sexual dimorphism has some weight behind it. But who gets the silver medal at the Winter Olympics? No.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24229
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Is the ACLU getting too Woke?

Post by Jennifer » 09 Aug 2019, 18:52

Eric the .5b wrote:
09 Aug 2019, 18:25
Jennifer wrote:
09 Aug 2019, 16:43
If such people and groups really do adopt the platform "the only way to support equal rights for minorities" is for the majority to be expected to deny reality," I do not think the result will be a beautiful oppression-free utopia where minority rights are respected by all -- I fear a backlash is the more likely result.
Given you were just talking the other day about how this rhetoric from the ACLU was likely to make you not "support" trans rights, if such a backlash ever happened, wouldn't you just think it was their just desserts? What would be to fear?
Because, despite the claims made by my pious-dipshit friend -- or the bullshit claims made by my hypothetical anti-racist group, criticizing me for my belief in the reality of sunburn and subsequent behavior in protecting my own skin's paleness -- I do NOT support the goals of the bigots in these cases: I oppose racism even in those instances where I personally might benefit by it, I oppose the notion that gender roles must be enforced on people who don't want them even though I personally adhere to most (not all) of the current American "gender expectations" for those whose genitals look more or less like my own ... no, I don't want LGBT people to lose the gains they've made or stop making more, and I DO want white supremacy and other forms of racism to go away rather than be made stronger, and that is not going to happen if "opposing bigotry" requires one to deny reality or (in the case of cisgirls who are presumably supposed to believe "Merely saying the words 'I am a woman' is all it takes to completely eradicate certain physical advantages an XY person has over an XX one"), calmly accept and embrace the notion that they can only ever compete in games rigged against them.

And to clarify: it's not that I "support" trans rights; it's that I do not "support" being called a hateful bigot for such things as "noting that human sexual dimorphism is real," and I certainly am not going to support groups who claim otherwise (especially not where there are scads of other causes I consider worthy of support, that also don't call me a bigot for this).
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13541
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Is the ACLU getting too Woke?

Post by Eric the .5b » 09 Aug 2019, 19:04

Jennifer wrote:
09 Aug 2019, 18:52
And to clarify: it's not that I "support" trans rights; it's that I do not "support" being called a hateful bigot for such things as "noting that human sexual dimorphism is real," and I certainly am not going to support groups who claim otherwise (especially not where there are scads of other causes I consider worthy of support, that also don't call me a bigot for this).
I only asked because you made a few remarks like "[if they do this, I'm] unlikely to go out of my way to support them". Which seems odd to point out if you're not supporting them in the first place.

I'm not sure how the whole I don't want the bigots to win, but if the ACLU or BLM says the wrong thing in fighting them, fuck it, because facts thing really shakes out. Because, as we all know, bigots are founts of hard-nosed rationality and reason...
Last edited by Eric the .5b on 09 Aug 2019, 19:06, edited 1 time in total.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24229
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Is the ACLU getting too Woke?

Post by Jennifer » 09 Aug 2019, 19:05

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
09 Aug 2019, 18:45
You want to say it makes sense to worry about whether transsexual participation in women's sports raises legitimate moral issues and I keep saying that it can't because women's sports don't, themselves, involve moral issues and I pointed out that if some sense of fairness is the concern, it's easy to come up with counterexamples that would result in unfairness to some people to the advantage of others. But at the end of the day, sports are trivial; thus, while fairness in some Platonic sense may always be a desideratum in all human activity, its own importance is a function of how important the thing about which we are trying to be fair is. And because there is a certain arbitrariness in what factors we will consider and won't consider in determining what is fair, whatever that determination ends up being will be demonstrably unfair as soon as we point out legitimate counterexamples, e.g., the small, nonathletic male in my example.
Coloring-book contests for preschool children are also trivial, IMO, but if some organization held a contest to see who did the best job at coloring within the lines, I'd still call it bullshit to expect four-year-olds to compete against healthy adults. I mentioned before my complete lack of visual-artistic talent, and I wasn't exaggerating when I said certain artistically inclined four-year-olds can draw better and more recognizable pictures of things than I can even now, with all the education and experience I have over them ... but, while there are thousands or even millions of four-year-olds today who can draw a better picture than I can, I'm FAR better than any four-year-old at coloring within the lines, for reasons which have fuck-all to do with artistic talent and everything to do with certain physical realities: four-year-olds haven't developed their full motor skills yet, whereas I'm in the Goldilocks zone: old enough for a complete set of fully developed motor skills, young enough that none of them have started to noticeably decline.

And, although I don't really "care" about some preschoolers not-winning a contest for a free box of Crayolas, I'd still be deeply concerned by the notion "It is bigoted and wrong-headed to say 'It's unfair to expect four-year-olds to compete against adults in certain motor-skills contests, especially since most of those four-year-olds were certain to lose either way.'" I don't really care about the contest or the prize here; what bothers me is the required denial of reality people are promoting.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18769
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Is the ACLU getting too Woke?

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 09 Aug 2019, 19:19

Off hand, I doubt you could get many preschoolers to compete against art academy graduates in a coloring book contest, but if such a contest were held, it would be silly to complain about how unfair it was. Regardless, I didn't call you a bigot. I did point out at least one sport in which whatever sexual dimorphism is it probably favors women and also pointed out that most sports were designed by men to be played by men, so it's hardly surprising that men, on average, will do better in those sports. My greater point is that whatever the rules are don't matter that much, however much they may matter to you or a woman competing against a trans-woman or a kindergartner competing against Jack Kirby.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24229
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Is the ACLU getting too Woke?

Post by Jennifer » 09 Aug 2019, 19:36

Eric the .5b wrote:
09 Aug 2019, 19:04
Jennifer wrote:
09 Aug 2019, 18:52
And to clarify: it's not that I "support" trans rights; it's that I do not "support" being called a hateful bigot for such things as "noting that human sexual dimorphism is real," and I certainly am not going to support groups who claim otherwise (especially not where there are scads of other causes I consider worthy of support, that also don't call me a bigot for this).
I only asked because you made a few remarks like "[if they do this, I'm] unlikely to go out of my way to support them". Which seems odd to point out if you're not supporting them in the first place.
I have supported LGBT rights since long before any of us-here first met each other online (at least in the sense of publicly arguing and privately voting in favor of them rather than against, and in my professional-journalist days producing some bylined articles to that effect too -- though, granted, I have not "actively supported" them in the sense of, like, attending protest rallies).

Despite this, some of my pious-dipshit friends who know full well my stance on these matters called me a no-shit misogynist and transphobe for saying "sexual dimorphism is real and, in certain physical areas, it absolutely makes a difference." So ... I'm not associating with them as I did before. And if I were in the habit of actually attending protests as a protester rather than a sympathetic journo, well, I'm not going to join my pious-dipshit friends to attend the next pro-LGBT rally ... not because I oppose LGBT rights, but because I don't want to be called a hateful bigot and shitty person, nor do I want to be forced to say nothing or even express agreement when hearing such ludicrous statements as "Those cisgirls who lost to the record-breaking transgirls should be inspired by this example. And bigotry is the only possible reason those cisgirls might call this unfair."

Likewise, I've opposed racism since before any of us met, but if my anti-racist friends started insisting that I abandon my long sleeves, sunhats and sunblock in order to prove my racial-equality bona fides, I'm going to stop associating with them, too.
I'm not sure how the whole I don't want the bigots to win, but if the ACLU or BLM says the wrong thing in fighting them, fuck it, because facts thing really shakes out. Because, as we all know, bigots are founts of hard-nosed rationality and reason...
Actually, until now, it was generally the BIGOTS who required denial of reality (and often massive hypocrisy, too) to support their ludicrous notions: Michelle Duggar making her "gay men are all child molesters!" robocalls when she already knew her own Christian-hetero son had frequently molested his own sisters; white supremacists ignoring the bulk of human history and prehistory to argue "white people (and maybe some east Asians) are the only people capable of building a civilization or discovering important things," "everything I dislike about modern life is because of a nefarious Jewish conspiracy," "manmade climate change is a hoax perpetrated by capitalism-hating hippies who want us all to live in grass huts," "women lack the intellectual or logical capacity of men," etc. I expect bigots to require the denial of reality; that's the only way to uphold their bigotries in the first place. But I do not expect the anti-bigots to require this denial, and I think it is a very ominous sign.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24229
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Is the ACLU getting too Woke?

Post by Jennifer » 09 Aug 2019, 19:39

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
09 Aug 2019, 19:19
Off hand, I doubt you could get many preschoolers to compete against art academy graduates in a coloring book contest, but if such a contest were held, it would be silly to complain about how unfair it was. Regardless, I didn't call you a bigot.
No, you didn't, but others I know have and (going back to the original thread topic), it looks like the ACLU might be on track to follow.
My greater point is that whatever the rules are don't matter that much, however much they may matter to you or a woman competing against a trans-woman or a kindergartner competing against Jack Kirby.
And my greater point is that, while the rules may not matter much, the logic used to uphold the rules DOES matter. And if that logic is "There are no real physical motor-skills differentials between four-year-olds and adults" or "There are no real physical speed and strength differences between the sexes ... at least, not enough to matter in speed-and-strength contests," I do not think that bodes well.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18769
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Is the ACLU getting too Woke?

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 09 Aug 2019, 20:29

Jennifer wrote:
09 Aug 2019, 19:39
D.A. Ridgely wrote:
09 Aug 2019, 19:19
Off hand, I doubt you could get many preschoolers to compete against art academy graduates in a coloring book contest, but if such a contest were held, it would be silly to complain about how unfair it was. Regardless, I didn't call you a bigot.
No, you didn't, but others I know have and (going back to the original thread topic), it looks like the ACLU might be on track to follow.
My greater point is that whatever the rules are don't matter that much, however much they may matter to you or a woman competing against a trans-woman or a kindergartner competing against Jack Kirby.
And my greater point is that, while the rules may not matter much, the logic used to uphold the rules DOES matter. And if that logic is "There are no real physical motor-skills differentials between four-year-olds and adults" or "There are no real physical speed and strength differences between the sexes ... at least, not enough to matter in speed-and-strength contests," I do not think that bodes well.
The premise "There are no real physical motor-skills differentials between four-year-olds and adults" is patently false. The premise "There are no real physical speed and strength differences between the sexes ... at least, not enough to matter in speed-and-strength contests," is also patently false. But so is the premise "Sexual dimorphism suffices to disqualify every single member of one sex from competing in what has previously been a contest restricted to members of the other sex" as well as the premise "latent male sexual advantages even after complete sexual reassignment surgery, hormone treatment, etc. suffice to give any such person an advantage competing with natural born women." They are all, qua empirical claims, false.

That said, how society chooses to organize sports and athletics is, in the grand and even the not so grand scheme of things, trivial. Courts shouldn't get involved. Lawmakers shouldn't get involved. There are historically compelling reasons why matters such as race and religious belief cannot be used as the operative reasons to discriminate against people even in what would otherwise be matters of private concern properly beyond review by the law. Beyond that, however, there are no moral issues involved. Whether trans people get to compete with cis people in any sport or competition or whether men get to compete in women's field hockey games, etc. is too unimportant to get worked up one way or the other.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24229
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Is the ACLU getting too Woke?

Post by Jennifer » 09 Aug 2019, 20:46

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
09 Aug 2019, 20:29
Jennifer wrote:
09 Aug 2019, 19:39
D.A. Ridgely wrote:
09 Aug 2019, 19:19
Off hand, I doubt you could get many preschoolers to compete against art academy graduates in a coloring book contest, but if such a contest were held, it would be silly to complain about how unfair it was. Regardless, I didn't call you a bigot.
No, you didn't, but others I know have and (going back to the original thread topic), it looks like the ACLU might be on track to follow.
My greater point is that whatever the rules are don't matter that much, however much they may matter to you or a woman competing against a trans-woman or a kindergartner competing against Jack Kirby.
And my greater point is that, while the rules may not matter much, the logic used to uphold the rules DOES matter. And if that logic is "There are no real physical motor-skills differentials between four-year-olds and adults" or "There are no real physical speed and strength differences between the sexes ... at least, not enough to matter in speed-and-strength contests," I do not think that bodes well.
The premise "There are no real physical motor-skills differentials between four-year-olds and adults" is patently false. The premise "There are no real physical speed and strength differences between the sexes ... at least, not enough to matter in speed-and-strength contests," is also patently false. But so is the premise "Sexual dimorphism suffices to disqualify every single member of one sex from competing in what has previously been a contest restricted to members of the other sex" as well as the premise "latent male sexual advantages even after complete sexual reassignment surgery, hormone treatment, etc. suffice to give any such person an advantage competing with natural born women." They are all, qua empirical claims, false.
Regarding the Connecticut high school case, so far as I know, the record-breaking trans girls identified as female -- and I personally have no quibble with that, it's nobody else's business IMO -- but they'd not had surgery, hormone treatments or anything else to change the fact that, regardless of their gender identity, physically and hormonally they have the bodies of men (or at least very-late-adolescent boys), not women.
That said, how society chooses to organize sports and athletics is, in the grand and even the not so grand scheme of things, trivial. Courts shouldn't get involved. Lawmakers shouldn't get involved. There are historically compelling reasons why matters such as race and religious belief cannot be used as the operative reasons to discriminate against people even in what would otherwise be matters of private concern properly beyond review by the law. Beyond that, however, there are no moral issues involved. Whether trans people get to compete with cis people in any sport or competition or whether men get to compete in women's field hockey games, etc. is too unimportant to get worked up one way or the other.
In libertopia I'd be more inclined to agree (though I'd still be concerned if evermore people insisted "In order to support LGBT rights you must deny or dismiss dimorphism outright"), but in the non-libertopian world we have now, complete with mandatory-attendance public schools for the majority of kids, and those schools promote athletic contests even though IMO they shouldn't be involved with such things -- they need to quit pretending (and requiring students to pretend) that if someone with the body, muscles and hormones of an adult male says "I'm a female," that alone negates the physical-male advantages to the point where the cisgirls have no legitimate cause to complain otherwise.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18769
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Is the ACLU getting too Woke?

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 09 Aug 2019, 20:52

Why? Sounds like a great way to get parents so angry they shut down the athletics programs! Win-Win!

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13541
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Is the ACLU getting too Woke?

Post by Eric the .5b » 10 Aug 2019, 03:03

Jennifer wrote:
09 Aug 2019, 19:36
Eric the .5b wrote:
09 Aug 2019, 19:04
Jennifer wrote:
09 Aug 2019, 18:52
And to clarify: it's not that I "support" trans rights;
I only asked because you made a few remarks like "[if they do this, I'm] unlikely to go out of my way to support them". Which seems odd to point out if you're not supporting them in the first place.
I have supported LGBT rights since long before any of us-here first met each other online
OK, fine.
Jennifer wrote:
09 Aug 2019, 19:36
...the record-breaking transgirls...
I could be wrong, but I'm not aware of any records either of the girls broke, aside from one of them setting the meet record for the 100 yard dash—ie, she got the fastest time for that event at that particular meet. Which the Good Christian Girls say was something reserved for one of them.
Jennifer wrote:
09 Aug 2019, 19:36
I'm not sure how the whole I don't want the bigots to win, but if the ACLU or BLM says the wrong thing in fighting them, fuck it, because facts thing really shakes out. Because, as we all know, bigots are founts of hard-nosed rationality and reason...
Actually, until now, it was generally the BIGOTS who required denial of reality
I guess I need to start using the the bright pink sarcasm font.
Jennifer wrote:
09 Aug 2019, 19:36
But I do not expect the anti-bigots to require this denial, and I think it is a very ominous sign.
I don't see it, but OK.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13541
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Is the ACLU getting too Woke?

Post by Eric the .5b » 10 Aug 2019, 03:06

Jennifer wrote:
09 Aug 2019, 20:46
Regarding the Connecticut high school case, so far as I know, the record-breaking trans girls identified as female -- and I personally have no quibble with that, it's nobody else's business IMO -- but they'd not had surgery, hormone treatments...
One of them has said in an interview that she's now on hormone treatments since she turned 18.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 17315
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Is the ACLU getting too Woke?

Post by lunchstealer » 11 Aug 2019, 14:31

FWIW, In 2004 I fenced against a member of the 1996 US Olympic fencing team and only lost my bout 5-1. A year or so later I lost 5-4 to the under-19 US champion and the Over-60 US champion (two different bouts, not the same person). The U-19 guy was psychotically fast, while the over-60 guy just knew what I was going to do before I did because he'd seen it all before.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 26683
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Is the ACLU getting too Woke?

Post by Warren » 11 Aug 2019, 15:12

lunchstealer wrote:
11 Aug 2019, 14:31
FWIW, In 2004 I fenced against a member of the 1996 US Olympic fencing team and only lost my bout 5-1. A year or so later I lost 5-4 to the under-19 US champion and the Over-60 US champion (two different bouts, not the same person). The U-19 guy was psychotically fast, while the over-60 guy just knew what I was going to do before I did because he'd seen it all before.
These are women? Trans women?

ETA
I'm having trouble digesting the phrase "psychotically fast".
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 17315
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Is the ACLU getting too Woke?

Post by lunchstealer » 11 Aug 2019, 16:32

Warren wrote:
11 Aug 2019, 15:12
lunchstealer wrote:
11 Aug 2019, 14:31
FWIW, In 2004 I fenced against a member of the 1996 US Olympic fencing team and only lost my bout 5-1. A year or so later I lost 5-4 to the under-19 US champion and the Over-60 US champion (two different bouts, not the same person). The U-19 guy was psychotically fast, while the over-60 guy just knew what I was going to do before I did because he'd seen it all before.
These are women? Trans women?

ETA
I'm having trouble digesting the phrase "psychotically fast".
the speed of that little fucker was without empathy.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dbcooper and 11 guests