Author Topic: Are social conservatives always wrong?  (Read 25208 times)

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28129
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #350 on: July 08, 2019, 06:24:13 PM »
^^I agree with you but am confused about one thing - you wrote  "It's like the lefties denying physiology".  What physiology are they denying?
Gender.


However, progressive denial of physiological science has less consequences for the world than conservative denial of climate science.
...what? People on the left don't deny gender.

To the contrary: they're generally very concerned that anyone should be able to express whatever gender they are without being discriminated against, persecuted, or having other rights taken away because of what gender they are or express.
We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and are now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about us, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out our Now page to see what we're up to currently.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14336
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #351 on: July 08, 2019, 06:34:36 PM »
^^I agree with you but am confused about one thing - you wrote  "It's like the lefties denying physiology".  What physiology are they denying?
Gender.


However, progressive denial of physiological science has less consequences for the world than conservative denial of climate science.
...what? People on the left don't deny gender.

To the contrary: they're generally very concerned that anyone should be able to express whatever gender they are without being discriminated against, persecuted, or having other rights taken away because of what gender they are or express.

+1

Although I feel like Kyle maybe confusing sex with gender.  Your sex is determined by whether you've got a block n'tackle or an extra innie under your pants.  That's physiology.  Gender is a social and cultural construct determining how a man or woman should or shouldn't act.  That's largely made up stuff.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2191
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #352 on: July 08, 2019, 06:41:07 PM »
Man, evolution really fucked up our brains as teenagers didn’t it? I mean the part of the brain that processes independence and social acceptance develops far more rapidly than the area that comprehends and processes possible outcomes and consequences. Probably best if we simply educate, yet also plan for the “worst” in terms of teen behavior.

madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2419
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #353 on: July 08, 2019, 06:43:45 PM »
As someone with actual teenagers in actual school (in a state where the health curriculum, including sex ed, is pretty comprehensive) I have some thoughts about this.

My observation is that teenagers seem to fall (at least in this matter) into two buckets: the "not going to have sex in high school" bucket, and the "hell yeah!" bucket. I was in bucket 1.  MrInCO was in bucket 2. We have one teenage son in each bucket.  This is not because our values changed mid-child-rearing, it's because they're different people. I've also noticed that adults who themselves were in bucket 1 have a hard time imagining that some kids would legitimately be in bucket 2, and can be pretty judgy about it.

Exactly. I was in Bucket 1, I knew I wasn't ready for sex, and no amount of being taught what condoms are for and how to use them was going to make me have sex any sooner. This was also true for all my nerdy friends. Later, when I was ready, I was glad I understood the basic mechanics of how it all worked. We didn't get any education about consent back then -- it would have been great if we did.

On the other hand, the HUGE AMOUNT of education I got about all the different drugs in 1980s America DID make me determined to do hallucinogens when I grew up, and also to stay away from crack, so mixed results I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 639
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #354 on: July 09, 2019, 10:28:22 AM »
Quote
As another example, look at intersectionality.  The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters. 

They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
Those aren't examples of authoritarianism.  You can protest bad behaviour without wanting to make laws about it.  The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon.  Blackface: bad.  Dressing up as "Mexican" for Hallowe'en: bad. Non-Japanese person teaching karate or non-Indian person teaching yoga after having been certified: unclear.
Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.

Dressing up as Mexican at Halloween is not decidedly unacceptable.  Many people are fine with this. Some people are more offended by the yoga thing.

What's remarkable to me is that the authoritarian left is more concerned with Halloween costumes than politicians that exploited affirmative action for their own gain (Elizabeth Warren attending Harvard as a native American).  And don't be too quick to be offended, I'm 0.2% native so she may be appropriating my culture.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2191
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #355 on: July 09, 2019, 10:48:07 AM »
Quote
As another example, look at intersectionality.  The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters. 

They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
Those aren't examples of authoritarianism.  You can protest bad behaviour without wanting to make laws about it.  The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon.  Blackface: bad.  Dressing up as "Mexican" for Hallowe'en: bad. Non-Japanese person teaching karate or non-Indian person teaching yoga after having been certified: unclear.
Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.

Dressing up as Mexican at Halloween is not decidedly unacceptable.  Many people are fine with this. Some people are more offended by the yoga thing.

What's remarkable to me is that the authoritarian left is more concerned with Halloween costumes than politicians that exploited affirmative action for their own gain (Elizabeth Warren attending Harvard as a native American).  And don't be too quick to be offended, I'm 0.2% native so she may be appropriating my culture.

Warren never attended Harvard. She was however a professor of Law there starting in 1995. I am not left but I sure am not offended over something you made up. Speaking to actual facts I am not offended at all by her heritage. Someone dressed as a Nazi on Halloween is highly offensive to me. I guess you and I have vastly different ideologies. Mine aren’t really political either. To each their own I guess.

EvenSteven

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
  • Location: St. Louis
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #356 on: July 09, 2019, 10:50:34 AM »
Quote
As another example, look at intersectionality.  The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters. 

They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
Those aren't examples of authoritarianism.  You can protest bad behaviour without wanting to make laws about it.  The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon.  Blackface: bad.  Dressing up as "Mexican" for Hallowe'en: bad. Non-Japanese person teaching karate or non-Indian person teaching yoga after having been certified: unclear.
Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.

Dressing up as Mexican at Halloween is not decidedly unacceptable.  Many people are fine with this. Some people are more offended by the yoga thing.

What's remarkable to me is that the authoritarian left is more concerned with Halloween costumes than politicians that exploited affirmative action for their own gain (Elizabeth Warren attending Harvard as a native American).  And don't be too quick to be offended, I'm 0.2% native so she may be appropriating my culture.

Mind if I ask you where you got this information? And a follow up question, does it matter to you if you repeat untrue accusations on the internet?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14336
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #357 on: July 09, 2019, 10:58:39 AM »
Quote
As another example, look at intersectionality.  The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters. 

They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
Those aren't examples of authoritarianism.  You can protest bad behaviour without wanting to make laws about it.  The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon.  Blackface: bad.  Dressing up as "Mexican" for Hallowe'en: bad. Non-Japanese person teaching karate or non-Indian person teaching yoga after having been certified: unclear.
Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.

Dressing up as Mexican at Halloween is not decidedly unacceptable.  Many people are fine with this. Some people are more offended by the yoga thing.

This is likely why Toque mentioned "The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon."
 
You've called the protest of cultural appropriation authoritarian.  Authoritarianism is the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.

So, which authority is demanding strict obedience?  Strict obedience to what exactly (where are these laws written out)?  Who is enforcing them?

Freedom is not guaranteed to be consequence free.  If you're free to wear black face, someone offended by this is equally free to protest these actions.  If the person hosting the party that you're wearing black face at decides he doesn't want you there because of the hassle and kicks you out, that's also a natural consequence of your actions.  None of these actions is authoritarian though.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 11:00:25 AM by GuitarStv »

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 639
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #358 on: July 09, 2019, 11:35:16 AM »
Quote
As another example, look at intersectionality.  The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters. 

They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
Those aren't examples of authoritarianism.  You can protest bad behaviour without wanting to make laws about it.  The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon.  Blackface: bad.  Dressing up as "Mexican" for Hallowe'en: bad. Non-Japanese person teaching karate or non-Indian person teaching yoga after having been certified: unclear.
Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.

Dressing up as Mexican at Halloween is not decidedly unacceptable.  Many people are fine with this. Some people are more offended by the yoga thing.

What's remarkable to me is that the authoritarian left is more concerned with Halloween costumes than politicians that exploited affirmative action for their own gain (Elizabeth Warren attending Harvard as a native American).  And don't be too quick to be offended, I'm 0.2% native so she may be appropriating my culture.

Mind if I ask you where you got this information? And a follow up question, does it matter to you if you repeat untrue accusations on the internet?
My mistake.  She was hired, not a student.  The rest stands.

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 639
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #359 on: July 09, 2019, 11:38:52 AM »
Quote
As another example, look at intersectionality.  The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters. 

They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
Those aren't examples of authoritarianism.  You can protest bad behaviour without wanting to make laws about it.  The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon.  Blackface: bad.  Dressing up as "Mexican" for Hallowe'en: bad. Non-Japanese person teaching karate or non-Indian person teaching yoga after having been certified: unclear.
Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.

Dressing up as Mexican at Halloween is not decidedly unacceptable.  Many people are fine with this. Some people are more offended by the yoga thing.

This is likely why Toque mentioned "The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon."
 
You've called the protest of cultural appropriation authoritarian.  Authoritarianism is the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.

So, which authority is demanding strict obedience?  Strict obedience to what exactly (where are these laws written out)?  Who is enforcing them?

Freedom is not guaranteed to be consequence free.  If you're free to wear black face, someone offended by this is equally free to protest these actions.  If the person hosting the party that you're wearing black face at decides he doesn't want you there because of the hassle and kicks you out, that's also a natural consequence of your actions.  None of these actions is authoritarian though.
Your examples are definitely authoritarian.  Wearing blackface is accepted to be bad.  A Scandinavian teaching yoga, not so much. 

My point was the arguments of convenience that are used by lefty authoritarians when it suits their goals.  How they will hound someone wearing a costume when costumes are precedent, but exempt someone running for POTUS.

EvenSteven

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
  • Location: St. Louis
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #360 on: July 09, 2019, 11:39:33 AM »
Quote
As another example, look at intersectionality.  The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters. 

They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
Those aren't examples of authoritarianism.  You can protest bad behaviour without wanting to make laws about it.  The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon.  Blackface: bad.  Dressing up as "Mexican" for Hallowe'en: bad. Non-Japanese person teaching karate or non-Indian person teaching yoga after having been certified: unclear.
Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.

Dressing up as Mexican at Halloween is not decidedly unacceptable.  Many people are fine with this. Some people are more offended by the yoga thing.

What's remarkable to me is that the authoritarian left is more concerned with Halloween costumes than politicians that exploited affirmative action for their own gain (Elizabeth Warren attending Harvard as a native American).  And don't be too quick to be offended, I'm 0.2% native so she may be appropriating my culture.

Mind if I ask you where you got this information? And a follow up question, does it matter to you if you repeat untrue accusations on the internet?
My mistake.  She was hired, not a student.  The rest stands.

*eye-roll* She wasn't hired as a native American, she was hired as a law professor. You make it sound like she got the job because she was falsely claiming to be an American Indian. You are repeating untrue accusations.

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 639
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #361 on: July 09, 2019, 11:46:41 AM »
^^I agree with you but am confused about one thing - you wrote  "It's like the lefties denying physiology".  What physiology are they denying?
Gender.


However, progressive denial of physiological science has less consequences for the world than conservative denial of climate science.
...what? People on the left don't deny gender.

To the contrary: they're generally very concerned that anyone should be able to express whatever gender they are without being discriminated against, persecuted, or having other rights taken away because of what gender they are or express.

+1

Although I feel like Kyle maybe confusing sex with gender.  Your sex is determined by whether you've got a block n'tackle or an extra innie under your pants.  That's physiology.  Gender is a social and cultural construct determining how a man or woman should or shouldn't act.  That's largely made up stuff.
Should a transgender woman (born male) be allowed to compete with women in physical domains like powerlifting, MMS, etc?

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 639
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #362 on: July 09, 2019, 11:48:14 AM »
Quote
As another example, look at intersectionality.  The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters. 

They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
Those aren't examples of authoritarianism.  You can protest bad behaviour without wanting to make laws about it.  The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon.  Blackface: bad.  Dressing up as "Mexican" for Hallowe'en: bad. Non-Japanese person teaching karate or non-Indian person teaching yoga after having been certified: unclear.
Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.

Dressing up as Mexican at Halloween is not decidedly unacceptable.  Many people are fine with this. Some people are more offended by the yoga thing.

What's remarkable to me is that the authoritarian left is more concerned with Halloween costumes than politicians that exploited affirmative action for their own gain (Elizabeth Warren attending Harvard as a native American).  And don't be too quick to be offended, I'm 0.2% native so she may be appropriating my culture.

Mind if I ask you where you got this information? And a follow up question, does it matter to you if you repeat untrue accusations on the internet?
My mistake.  She was hired, not a student.  The rest stands.

*eye-roll* She wasn't hired as a native American, she was hired as a law professor. You make it sound like she got the job because she was falsely claiming to be an American Indian. You are repeating untrue accusations.
She might have, no one will know.  But she had the audacity to play that game.  I might have .more native blood than her and I know better.

EvenSteven

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
  • Location: St. Louis
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #363 on: July 09, 2019, 11:56:05 AM »
And a follow up question, does it matter to you if you repeat untrue accusations on the internet?


She might have, no one will know.  But she had the audacity to play that game.  I might have .more native blood than her and I know better.

Thank you for answering my question.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14336
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #364 on: July 09, 2019, 11:56:55 AM »
Quote
As another example, look at intersectionality.  The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters. 

They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
Those aren't examples of authoritarianism.  You can protest bad behaviour without wanting to make laws about it.  The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon.  Blackface: bad.  Dressing up as "Mexican" for Hallowe'en: bad. Non-Japanese person teaching karate or non-Indian person teaching yoga after having been certified: unclear.
Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.

Dressing up as Mexican at Halloween is not decidedly unacceptable.  Many people are fine with this. Some people are more offended by the yoga thing.

This is likely why Toque mentioned "The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon."
 
You've called the protest of cultural appropriation authoritarian.  Authoritarianism is the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.

So, which authority is demanding strict obedience?  Strict obedience to what exactly (where are these laws written out)?  Who is enforcing them?

Freedom is not guaranteed to be consequence free.  If you're free to wear black face, someone offended by this is equally free to protest these actions.  If the person hosting the party that you're wearing black face at decides he doesn't want you there because of the hassle and kicks you out, that's also a natural consequence of your actions.  None of these actions is authoritarian though.
Your examples are definitely authoritarian.  Wearing blackface is accepted to be bad.  A Scandinavian teaching yoga, not so much. 

My point was the arguments of convenience that are used by lefty authoritarians when it suits their goals.  How they will hound someone wearing a costume when costumes are precedent, but exempt someone running for POTUS.

Why do you believe that:
- protesting someone who wears black face is authoritarian
- kicking someone out of a private party who arrives dressed in blackface is authoritarian

To me, the first is exercising freedom of speech and the second is exercising his right to property.  I'm curious why you believe that this is authoritarianism, and what you would propose as a fair way to fix both scenarios to your liking.


As far as Warren being hired 'as a Native American' . . . Reagan's former U.S. Solicitor General, Charles Fried, who was part of the committee that put Warren in a tenure position at Harvard said in a written statement that her ethnicity never came up during the process.  What evidence do you have that he is lying?

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7031
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #365 on: July 09, 2019, 12:00:01 PM »
Quote
Should a transgender woman (born male) be allowed to compete with women in physical domains like powerlifting, MMS, etc?

This is a tricky question, and I'm not sure there's a good answer.

Partly because it's not just male/ female sex - there are people with both sets of organs, and there are people who have more/ less testosterone.  And wasn't there a thread on here about that pretty recently?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14336
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #366 on: July 09, 2019, 12:13:21 PM »
^^I agree with you but am confused about one thing - you wrote  "It's like the lefties denying physiology".  What physiology are they denying?
Gender.


However, progressive denial of physiological science has less consequences for the world than conservative denial of climate science.
...what? People on the left don't deny gender.

To the contrary: they're generally very concerned that anyone should be able to express whatever gender they are without being discriminated against, persecuted, or having other rights taken away because of what gender they are or express.

+1

Although I feel like Kyle maybe confusing sex with gender.  Your sex is determined by whether you've got a block n'tackle or an extra innie under your pants.  That's physiology.  Gender is a social and cultural construct determining how a man or woman should or shouldn't act.  That's largely made up stuff.
Should a transgender woman (born male) be allowed to compete with women in physical domains like powerlifting, MMS, etc?

It's a tricky question to answer.

Women are (on average) weaker and slower than men.  We've created an artificial set of rules that are half based around measurable sex characteristics, and half based around gender rules in order to allow women to compete among themselves on a more level playing field.

This generally works well (and achieves the expected goal), but there are specific corner cases like the one that you mentioned that are hard to get a good answer for.  My gut instinct would be that if the transgender woman is post op and on female hormones . . . then biologically she should be pretty close to level with any of the women she's competing with.  In which case, yeah, let her compete.  I can think of cases where it wouldn't make sense to allow though.  I guess it would have to be on a case by case basis.

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 639
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #367 on: July 09, 2019, 12:14:07 PM »
And a follow up question, does it matter to you if you repeat untrue accusations on the internet?


She might have, no one will know.  But she had the audacity to play that game.  I might have .more native blood than her and I know better.

Thank you for answering my question.
Is this just snark?  If there wasn't any truth to it, she wouldn't have apologized a few months ago. 

It's interesting that she isn't being protested, or deplatformed.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14336
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #368 on: July 09, 2019, 12:16:20 PM »
Quote
Should a transgender woman (born male) be allowed to compete with women in physical domains like powerlifting, MMS, etc?

This is a tricky question, and I'm not sure there's a good answer.

Partly because it's not just male/ female sex - there are people with both sets of organs, and there are people who have more/ less testosterone.  And wasn't there a thread on here about that pretty recently?

There was a thread about Semenya.  She was born a woman, has female genitals (IOC inspected and approved - which . . . ugh that must have been fun for all involved), but produces more testosterone than most women.  She has been banned from running competitions by the authorities unless she submits to have her natural hormone levels changed chemically.

BicycleB

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1794
  • Location: Live Music Capital of the World
  • Older than the internet, but not wiser... yet
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #369 on: July 09, 2019, 12:19:49 PM »

What's remarkable to me is that the authoritarian left is more concerned with Halloween costumes than politicians that exploited affirmative action for their own gain (Elizabeth Warren attending Harvard as a native American).  And don't be too quick to be offended, I'm 0.2% native so she may be appropriating my culture.

Mind if I ask you where you got this information? And a follow up question, does it matter to you if you repeat untrue accusations on the internet?
My mistake.  She was hired, not a student.  The rest stands.

*eye-roll* She wasn't hired as a native American, she was hired as a law professor. You make it sound like she got the job because she was falsely claiming to be an American Indian. You are repeating untrue accusations.
She might have, no one will know.  But she had the audacity to play that game.  I might have .more native blood than her and I know better.

There is evidence reasonably suggesting that she did acknowledge her ancestry, but not evidence that she mentioned it during application or promotion processes. In other words, it appears that she didn't "play" any game, or use her ancestry for advancement.

Re State Bar of Texas, where her ID acknowledged native ancestry: "Warren filled out the information card after being admitted to the bar...there's no indication it was used for advancement."

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/16/17983250/elizabeth-warren-bar-application-american-indian-dna

Same report: "The Boston Globe took a deep dive into whether Warren's identification as a Native American contributed to her rise in legal academia. Reporter Annie Linskey's investigation determined it had no bearing on Warren's hiring at distinguished universities, including Harvard."

Here's the Boston Globe article:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/09/01/did-claiming-native-american-heritage-actually-help-elizabeth-warren-get-ahead-but-complicated/wUZZcrKKEOUv5Spnb7IO0K/story.html

It says she mentioned her ethnicity three years after being hired. That doesn't sound like someone using her ethnicity to get ahead. Is that the game you think she was playing? (Or am I missing the deep game being played there?...wouldn't be the first time I missed something.)

I had supposed she was either trying to be honest when asked, or mentioning it in hopes that her testimony would be encouraging to other people with Native ancestry. Is that a foolish assumption, even though it fits the facts about when and where she disclosed?



Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 639
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #370 on: July 09, 2019, 12:24:39 PM »
"Why do you believe that:
- protesting someone who wears black face is authoritarian
- kicking someone out of a private party who arrives dressed in blackface is authoritarian

To me, the first is exercising freedom of speech and the second is exercising his right to property.  I'm curious why you believe that this is authoritarianism, and what you would propose as a fair way to fix both scenarios to your liking"

I do agree with your characterization of those situations, although the second is more clear since it's private property and a private event.  The difference here is that blackface is a limit case; It's already well entrenched as unacceptable.   The problem is when groups like antifa pull fire alarms when people like Dr Peterson say things like "men and women are different", and this is presumed as denial of trans people or something.  There's a complex world between "I want to help the disenfranchised" and "we must resist the oppressors".  The latter must be dealt with a great deal of care and recursion  (otherwise you risk labelling your well intentioned opponents as oppressors that should be destroyed)

Orwell said that socialists don't care for the poor, they just hate the rich.  This territory is dangerous.

From Road to Wigan pier:

The truth is that, to many people calling themselves Socialists, revolution does not mean a movement of the masses with which they hope to associate themselves; it means a set of reforms which 'we', the clever ones, are going to impose upon 'them', the Lower Orders. On the other hand, it would be a mistake to regard the book-trained Socialist as a bloodless creature entirely incapable of emotion. Though seldom giving much evidence of affection for the exploited, he is perfectly capable of displaying hatred—a sort of queer, theoretical, in vacuo hatred—against the exploiters.

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 639
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #371 on: July 09, 2019, 12:28:35 PM »
^^I agree with you but am confused about one thing - you wrote  "It's like the lefties denying physiology".  What physiology are they denying?
Gender.


However, progressive denial of physiological science has less consequences for the world than conservative denial of climate science.
...what? People on the left don't deny gender.

To the contrary: they're generally very concerned that anyone should be able to express whatever gender they are without being discriminated against, persecuted, or having other rights taken away because of what gender they are or express.

+1

Although I feel like Kyle maybe confusing sex with gender.  Your sex is determined by whether you've got a block n'tackle or an extra innie under your pants.  That's physiology.  Gender is a social and cultural construct determining how a man or woman should or shouldn't act.  That's largely made up stuff.
Should a transgender woman (born male) be allowed to compete with women in physical domains like powerlifting, MMS, etc?

It's a tricky question to answer.

Women are (on average) weaker and slower than men.  We've created an artificial set of rules that are half based around measurable sex characteristics, and half based around gender rules in order to allow women to compete among themselves on a more level playing field.

This generally works well (and achieves the expected goal), but there are specific corner cases like the one that you mentioned that are hard to get a good answer for.  My gut instinct would be that if the transgender woman is post op and on female hormones . . . then biologically she should be pretty close to level with any of the women she's competing with.  In which case, yeah, let her compete.  I can think of cases where it wouldn't make sense to allow though.  I guess it would have to be on a case by case basis.

Case by case makes this very difficult to be consistent in a competitive environment.   A former man who had testosterone coursing through them for twenty years will not have the effect undone by an operation.   I'm sure if a few women die at the hands of trans women in MMA matches this situation will find a resolution.   I agree with you mostly though.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2128
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #372 on: July 09, 2019, 12:28:52 PM »
And a follow up question, does it matter to you if you repeat untrue accusations on the internet?


She might have, no one will know.  But she had the audacity to play that game.  I might have .more native blood than her and I know better.

Thank you for answering my question.
Is this just snark?  If there wasn't any truth to it, she wouldn't have apologized a few months ago. 

It's interesting that she isn't being protested, or deplatformed.

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/06/692103008/elizabeth-warren-apologizes-for-latest-revelation-of-native-american-claims

Quote
"Family stories are not the same as tribal citizenship," Warren said Wednesday, "and this is why I have apologized ... to Chief Baker...

At the time she filled out the form, she did not understand this. Furthermore, as has already been pointed out, this distinction played no role in her hiring. It's not that there isn't any truth to it, but the claims you've made are verifiably false.

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 639
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #373 on: July 09, 2019, 12:33:15 PM »
And a follow up question, does it matter to you if you repeat untrue accusations on the internet?


She might have, no one will know.  But she had the audacity to play that game.  I might have .more native blood than her and I know better.

Thank you for answering my question.
Is this just snark?  If there wasn't any truth to it, she wouldn't have apologized a few months ago. 

It's interesting that she isn't being protested, or deplatformed.

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/06/692103008/elizabeth-warren-apologizes-for-latest-revelation-of-native-american-claims

Quote
"Family stories are not the same as tribal citizenship," Warren said Wednesday, "and this is why I have apologized ... to Chief Baker...

At the time she filled out the form, she did not understand this. Furthermore, as has already been pointed out, this distinction played no role in her hiring. It's not that there isn't any truth to it, but the claims you've made are verifiably false.
She is, at most, 1.6% native.   I'm not buying that she was trying to honor her heritage.   I think she was being politically expedient.  I will agree to disagree with you on this.

Edit: you allege she didn't understand that.  The distinction not being a hiring factor is an allegation.  Those are not verifiable in retrospect. 
« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 12:35:10 PM by Wrenchturner »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14336
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #374 on: July 09, 2019, 12:52:49 PM »
^^I agree with you but am confused about one thing - you wrote  "It's like the lefties denying physiology".  What physiology are they denying?
Gender.


However, progressive denial of physiological science has less consequences for the world than conservative denial of climate science.
...what? People on the left don't deny gender.

To the contrary: they're generally very concerned that anyone should be able to express whatever gender they are without being discriminated against, persecuted, or having other rights taken away because of what gender they are or express.

+1

Although I feel like Kyle maybe confusing sex with gender.  Your sex is determined by whether you've got a block n'tackle or an extra innie under your pants.  That's physiology.  Gender is a social and cultural construct determining how a man or woman should or shouldn't act.  That's largely made up stuff.
Should a transgender woman (born male) be allowed to compete with women in physical domains like powerlifting, MMS, etc?

It's a tricky question to answer.

Women are (on average) weaker and slower than men.  We've created an artificial set of rules that are half based around measurable sex characteristics, and half based around gender rules in order to allow women to compete among themselves on a more level playing field.

This generally works well (and achieves the expected goal), but there are specific corner cases like the one that you mentioned that are hard to get a good answer for.  My gut instinct would be that if the transgender woman is post op and on female hormones . . . then biologically she should be pretty close to level with any of the women she's competing with.  In which case, yeah, let her compete.  I can think of cases where it wouldn't make sense to allow though.  I guess it would have to be on a case by case basis.

Case by case makes this very difficult to be consistent in a competitive environment.   A former man who had testosterone coursing through them for twenty years will not have the effect undone by an operation.   I'm sure if a few women die at the hands of trans women in MMA matches this situation will find a resolution.   I agree with you mostly though.

These types of cases tend to be pretty rare.  To my knowledge, there has never been a man who has gotten a sex change with the intent to dominate women's sport.  I don't know what the period of time necessary to be taking female hormone to negate any physical benefit of male hormones, but am certain that a rule could be added regarding the matter.

I've competed in MMA, Jiu-Jitsu, Judo, and boxing.  A death in the ring has nothing to do with sex and gender, and is overwhelmingly caused by a fluke accident or outstandingly piss-poor refereeing.  I sincerely doubt that allowing trans women to compete with born women would have any real bearing on this.

(Actually, if there's a tremendous power disparity between the two as you are insinuating would happen, the match would tend to end more quickly which is typically safer for the competitors.  The most concussions and brain damage tends to come from very evenly matched people who are beating on each other for longer periods of time.  That's one of the reasons that MMA is considered a safer sport than boxing.  The heavier gloves slow hand speed in boxing, which means that less force hits an opponent . . . which means that you get hit a lot more often before you're knocked out.  Much more dangerous.)

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2191
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #375 on: July 09, 2019, 01:00:53 PM »
Quote
As another example, look at intersectionality.  The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters. 

They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
Those aren't examples of authoritarianism.  You can protest bad behaviour without wanting to make laws about it.  The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon.  Blackface: bad.  Dressing up as "Mexican" for Hallowe'en: bad. Non-Japanese person teaching karate or non-Indian person teaching yoga after having been certified: unclear.
Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.

Dressing up as Mexican at Halloween is not decidedly unacceptable.  Many people are fine with this. Some people are more offended by the yoga thing.

What's remarkable to me is that the authoritarian left is more concerned with Halloween costumes than politicians that exploited affirmative action for their own gain (Elizabeth Warren attending Harvard as a native American).  And don't be too quick to be offended, I'm 0.2% native so she may be appropriating my culture.

Mind if I ask you where you got this information? And a follow up question, does it matter to you if you repeat untrue accusations on the internet?
My mistake.  She was hired, not a student.  The rest stands.

*eye-roll* She wasn't hired as a native American, she was hired as a law professor. You make it sound like she got the job because she was falsely claiming to be an American Indian. You are repeating untrue accusations.
She might have, no one will know.  But she had the audacity to play that game.  I might have .more native blood than her and I know better.

So we should all up up in arms over something that may or may not have happened? More so than someone wearing blackface or dressing up as Hitler for Halloween. Wow, just wow dude!

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 639
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #376 on: July 09, 2019, 01:01:29 PM »
^^I agree with you but am confused about one thing - you wrote  "It's like the lefties denying physiology".  What physiology are they denying?
Gender.


However, progressive denial of physiological science has less consequences for the world than conservative denial of climate science.
...what? People on the left don't deny gender.

To the contrary: they're generally very concerned that anyone should be able to express whatever gender they are without being discriminated against, persecuted, or having other rights taken away because of what gender they are or express.

+1

Although I feel like Kyle maybe confusing sex with gender.  Your sex is determined by whether you've got a block n'tackle or an extra innie under your pants.  That's physiology.  Gender is a social and cultural construct determining how a man or woman should or shouldn't act.  That's largely made up stuff.
Should a transgender woman (born male) be allowed to compete with women in physical domains like powerlifting, MMS, etc?

It's a tricky question to answer.

Women are (on average) weaker and slower than men.  We've created an artificial set of rules that are half based around measurable sex characteristics, and half based around gender rules in order to allow women to compete among themselves on a more level playing field.

This generally works well (and achieves the expected goal), but there are specific corner cases like the one that you mentioned that are hard to get a good answer for.  My gut instinct would be that if the transgender woman is post op and on female hormones . . . then biologically she should be pretty close to level with any of the women she's competing with.  In which case, yeah, let her compete.  I can think of cases where it wouldn't make sense to allow though.  I guess it would have to be on a case by case basis.

Case by case makes this very difficult to be consistent in a competitive environment.   A former man who had testosterone coursing through them for twenty years will not have the effect undone by an operation.   I'm sure if a few women die at the hands of trans women in MMA matches this situation will find a resolution.   I agree with you mostly though.

These types of cases tend to be pretty rare.  To my knowledge, there has never been a man who has gotten a sex change with the intent to dominate women's sport.  I don't know what the period of time necessary to be taking female hormone to negate any physical benefit of male hormones, but am certain that a rule could be added regarding the matter.

I've competed in MMA, Jiu-Jitsu, Judo, and boxing.  A death in the ring has nothing to do with sex and gender, and is overwhelmingly caused by a fluke accident or outstandingly piss-poor refereeing.  I sincerely doubt that allowing trans women to compete with born women would have any real bearing on this.

(Actually, if there's a tremendous power disparity between the two as you are insinuating would happen, the match would tend to end more quickly which is typically safer for the competitors.  The most concussions and brain damage tends to come from very evenly matched people who are beating on each other for longer periods of time.  That's one of the reasons that MMA is considered a safer sport than boxing.  The heavier gloves slow hand speed in boxing, which means that less force hits an opponent . . . which means that you get hit a lot more often before you're knocked out.  Much more dangerous.)

Fair enough.   But if a woman dies from a brain hemmorhage after fighting a trans woman, these questions will proliferate.    And it will be very hard to find the answers. 

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 639
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #377 on: July 09, 2019, 01:03:34 PM »
Quote
As another example, look at intersectionality.  The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters. 

They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
Those aren't examples of authoritarianism.  You can protest bad behaviour without wanting to make laws about it.  The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon.  Blackface: bad.  Dressing up as "Mexican" for Hallowe'en: bad. Non-Japanese person teaching karate or non-Indian person teaching yoga after having been certified: unclear.
Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.

Dressing up as Mexican at Halloween is not decidedly unacceptable.  Many people are fine with this. Some people are more offended by the yoga thing.

What's remarkable to me is that the authoritarian left is more concerned with Halloween costumes than politicians that exploited affirmative action for their own gain (Elizabeth Warren attending Harvard as a native American).  And don't be too quick to be offended, I'm 0.2% native so she may be appropriating my culture.

Mind if I ask you where you got this information? And a follow up question, does it matter to you if you repeat untrue accusations on the internet?
My mistake.  She was hired, not a student.  The rest stands.

*eye-roll* She wasn't hired as a native American, she was hired as a law professor. You make it sound like she got the job because she was falsely claiming to be an American Indian. You are repeating untrue accusations.
She might have, no one will know.  But she had the audacity to play that game.  I might have .more native blood than her and I know better.

So we should all up up in arms over something that may or may not have happened? More so than someone wearing blackface or dressing up as Hitler for Halloween. Wow, just wow dude!

What happened was that she declared herself native when she really wasn't.  That's the root of this problem.  Not whether or not she benefited from it--that part is more subjective, although I believe she did.

Edit: the better question here is: did she practice or embody any behavior during this time that would demonstrate her heritage?  Was she close with the community?  I'm still betting on political or I suppose professional expedience.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 01:06:06 PM by Wrenchturner »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14336
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #378 on: July 09, 2019, 01:15:36 PM »
"Why do you believe that:
- protesting someone who wears black face is authoritarian
- kicking someone out of a private party who arrives dressed in blackface is authoritarian

To me, the first is exercising freedom of speech and the second is exercising his right to property.  I'm curious why you believe that this is authoritarianism, and what you would propose as a fair way to fix both scenarios to your liking"

I do agree with your characterization of those situations, although the second is more clear since it's private property and a private event.  The difference here is that blackface is a limit case; It's already well entrenched as unacceptable.

Then we have established that these are not clear examples of authoritarianism as was previously stated.  Whether the person is wearing blackface, or is dressed up as a zebra . . . it doesn't change the actions in either case.  So I am again confused where you are seeing authoritarianism.


The problem is when groups like antifa pull fire alarms when people like Dr Peterson say things like "men and women are different", and this is presumed as denial of trans people or something.  There's a complex world between "I want to help the disenfranchised" and "we must resist the oppressors".  The latter must be dealt with a great deal of care and recursion  (otherwise you risk labelling your well intentioned opponents as oppressors that should be destroyed)

Illegal acts, are illegal.  I've already said that people who pull fire alarms should be both condemned and prosecuted.  Not sure what you're looking for here.

I don't agree with your equating resisting oppression with 'destroying people'.  Ghandi (as an example) resisted oppressors, labelling them as such without ever resorting to violence.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14336
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #379 on: July 09, 2019, 01:21:51 PM »
These types of cases tend to be pretty rare.  To my knowledge, there has never been a man who has gotten a sex change with the intent to dominate women's sport.  I don't know what the period of time necessary to be taking female hormone to negate any physical benefit of male hormones, but am certain that a rule could be added regarding the matter.

I've competed in MMA, Jiu-Jitsu, Judo, and boxing.  A death in the ring has nothing to do with sex and gender, and is overwhelmingly caused by a fluke accident or outstandingly piss-poor refereeing.  I sincerely doubt that allowing trans women to compete with born women would have any real bearing on this.

(Actually, if there's a tremendous power disparity between the two as you are insinuating would happen, the match would tend to end more quickly which is typically safer for the competitors.  The most concussions and brain damage tends to come from very evenly matched people who are beating on each other for longer periods of time.  That's one of the reasons that MMA is considered a safer sport than boxing.  The heavier gloves slow hand speed in boxing, which means that less force hits an opponent . . . which means that you get hit a lot more often before you're knocked out.  Much more dangerous.)

Fair enough.   But if a woman dies from a brain hemmorhage after fighting a trans woman, these questions will proliferate.    And it will be very hard to find the answers.

I don't believe that it will be any harder to find answers than for any other death in the ring.

Deaths in fighting sports are very rare.  Transgender people in sports (particularly fighting sports) are also very rare.  I feel like you're searching for a unicorn here.

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 705
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #380 on: July 09, 2019, 01:21:55 PM »
What happened was that she declared herself native when she really wasn't.  That's the root of this problem.  Not whether or not she benefited from it--that part is more subjective, although I believe she did.

Edit: the better question here is: did she practice or embody any behavior during this time that would demonstrate her heritage?  Was she close with the community?  I'm still betting on political or I suppose professional expedience.

I don't this is a notable problem. Even at my much younger age, one result of colleges using race as an element of admission was most counselors recommending that you identify as a minority (if at all arguable) as it can boost your admission odds. Even you happen to be a distant relative of someone of native american, Latino, black, or Hispanic background or whatever, you are often advised to identify as the one more likely to be admitted. Even up through early 2000, everyone pretty much knew if you could identify as something other than White or Asian it might be beneficial...

Its a silly thing to nitpick against. Is it morally wrong. I think its somewhere on par with taking advantage of any gray area rules to gain a slight advantage. The real moral wrong is probably to allow race to be a factor in admissions at all.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2128
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #381 on: July 09, 2019, 01:36:54 PM »
And a follow up question, does it matter to you if you repeat untrue accusations on the internet?


She might have, no one will know.  But she had the audacity to play that game.  I might have .more native blood than her and I know better.

Thank you for answering my question.
Is this just snark?  If there wasn't any truth to it, she wouldn't have apologized a few months ago. 

It's interesting that she isn't being protested, or deplatformed.

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/06/692103008/elizabeth-warren-apologizes-for-latest-revelation-of-native-american-claims

Quote
"Family stories are not the same as tribal citizenship," Warren said Wednesday, "and this is why I have apologized ... to Chief Baker...

At the time she filled out the form, she did not understand this. Furthermore, as has already been pointed out, this distinction played no role in her hiring. It's not that there isn't any truth to it, but the claims you've made are verifiably false.
She is, at most, 1.6% native.   I'm not buying that she was trying to honor her heritage.   I think she was being politically expedient.  I will agree to disagree with you on this.

Edit: you allege she didn't understand that.  The distinction not being a hiring factor is an allegation.  Those are not verifiable in retrospect.

Correct, her intent and prior knowledge is not verifiable. But the notion that it played a role in her hiring has been refuted by an in depth investigation and the people who hired her. Perhaps verifiable wasn't the best word choice as a person's word cannot be verified, but if the people who did the hiring say it wasn't a factor, what more could you ask for?

Do you still find it "interesting that she isn't being protested, or deplatformed" with the new information presented in this thread? Do you really expect anyone to protest her based on the possibility that she may have had dishonest intent in something that likely didn't benefit her at all? Even with very reasonable explanations as to why she did it?

Also, the 1.6% figure is misleading. Even direct descendants and tribal members can have very little genetic linkage. It's entirely possible to be descended from Native Americans and have 0% linkage. She never should have taken the genetic test as the results are not something most people understand. 1/32 native does not equal 3.125%, it's much more complicated.

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 639
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #382 on: July 09, 2019, 01:55:48 PM »
These types of cases tend to be pretty rare.  To my knowledge, there has never been a man who has gotten a sex change with the intent to dominate women's sport.  I don't know what the period of time necessary to be taking female hormone to negate any physical benefit of male hormones, but am certain that a rule could be added regarding the matter.

I've competed in MMA, Jiu-Jitsu, Judo, and boxing.  A death in the ring has nothing to do with sex and gender, and is overwhelmingly caused by a fluke accident or outstandingly piss-poor refereeing.  I sincerely doubt that allowing trans women to compete with born women would have any real bearing on this.

(Actually, if there's a tremendous power disparity between the two as you are insinuating would happen, the match would tend to end more quickly which is typically safer for the competitors.  The most concussions and brain damage tends to come from very evenly matched people who are beating on each other for longer periods of time.  That's one of the reasons that MMA is considered a safer sport than boxing.  The heavier gloves slow hand speed in boxing, which means that less force hits an opponent . . . which means that you get hit a lot more often before you're knocked out.  Much more dangerous.)

Fair enough.   But if a woman dies from a brain hemmorhage after fighting a trans woman, these questions will proliferate.    And it will be very hard to find the answers.

I don't believe that it will be any harder to find answers than for any other death in the ring.

Deaths in fighting sports are very rare.  Transgender people in sports (particularly fighting sports) are also very rare.  I feel like you're searching for a unicorn here.
Women in MMA might disagree.   This is about fairness in the sport, and previously being male could be interpreted similarly to performance enhancing drugs.

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 639
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #383 on: July 09, 2019, 02:03:07 PM »
I'm going to conclude my posting in this thread.  I believe I've made my points clearly enough.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14336
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #384 on: July 09, 2019, 02:54:09 PM »
These types of cases tend to be pretty rare.  To my knowledge, there has never been a man who has gotten a sex change with the intent to dominate women's sport.  I don't know what the period of time necessary to be taking female hormone to negate any physical benefit of male hormones, but am certain that a rule could be added regarding the matter.

I've competed in MMA, Jiu-Jitsu, Judo, and boxing.  A death in the ring has nothing to do with sex and gender, and is overwhelmingly caused by a fluke accident or outstandingly piss-poor refereeing.  I sincerely doubt that allowing trans women to compete with born women would have any real bearing on this.

(Actually, if there's a tremendous power disparity between the two as you are insinuating would happen, the match would tend to end more quickly which is typically safer for the competitors.  The most concussions and brain damage tends to come from very evenly matched people who are beating on each other for longer periods of time.  That's one of the reasons that MMA is considered a safer sport than boxing.  The heavier gloves slow hand speed in boxing, which means that less force hits an opponent . . . which means that you get hit a lot more often before you're knocked out.  Much more dangerous.)

Fair enough.   But if a woman dies from a brain hemmorhage after fighting a trans woman, these questions will proliferate.    And it will be very hard to find the answers.

I don't believe that it will be any harder to find answers than for any other death in the ring.

Deaths in fighting sports are very rare.  Transgender people in sports (particularly fighting sports) are also very rare.  I feel like you're searching for a unicorn here.
Women in MMA might disagree.   This is about fairness in the sport, and previously being male could be interpreted similarly to performance enhancing drugs.

I get (and understand) the argument that a transgender woman might have physiological advantages over the average woman.  That's a reasonable thing to be concerned about.  As mentioned previously, your scenario is an unusual one and there's no clear cut right or wrong on that.

To the best of my knowledge, performance enhancing drugs haven't been linked to any deaths in the ring in MMA.  What?  How can that be?  Won't 'roids turn someone into an unstoppable best?  Well, no.  PEDs are used for three reasons in fighting sports:
- to recover faster and increase training workload (more training means better skills - this is why the Gracies were fans of steroids but didn't look like bodybuilders)
- to maintain high levels of muscle and low levels of body fat
- to gain strength by increasing overall body muscle weight

Steroids, testosterone, and growth hormone will not make you hit harder than another guy with the same amount of muscle mass who is the same weight.  Fighting sports all use weight classes.  At best you're gaining a fractional strength advantage because you've got slightly less fat on your frame.  Drug use in MMA is pretty widespread (I've fought against guys who were taking 'roids).  Deaths in matches are not.

Insinuating that a transgender woman on who has been on hormone replacement for some time is somehow likely to kill another woman in the ring is therefore a really weird argument to make.  Both women will be in the same weight class.  Given enough time, female hormones will increase the amount of fat that the transgender woman carries to the same levels that a natural born woman carries.  It would be quite surprising to find any significant difference in strength between the two.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2191
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #385 on: July 09, 2019, 05:45:09 PM »
What's remarkable to me is that the authoritarian left is more concerned with Halloween costumes than politicians that exploited affirmative action for their own gain (Elizabeth Warren attending Harvard as a native American).

What happened was that she declared herself native when she really wasn't.  That's the root of this problem.  Not whether or not she benefited from it--that part is more subjective, although I believe she did.

Whatever sticks to the wall I guess?

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 867
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #386 on: July 09, 2019, 10:01:35 PM »
Although I feel like Kyle maybe confusing sex with gender.
The assertion that they are different is a social assertion, which has only very weak roots in physiological science. It's saying that identity trumps physiology. In other words, belief is more important than facts. This is a view which denies science.

Now, it is at times actually useful and good to deny or ignore science. Romantic love, for example, is not helped by taking blood assays to assess the hormones floating around at the time, and science cannot and probably never will explain why (as shown in the Blue Zones Project) people with religious belief and members of religious communities tend to live longer than lonely atheists. If I adopt a boy and say "he is my son", I am denying physiology. But it's better if (while allowing him to know he's not my birth son) we both ignore physiology and I treat him exactly as I would my biological son, and he treats me exactly as he would a biological father. And the likely scientific fact that death ends in unconscious oblivion is not one which it's healthy to contemplate every day.

So if denying physiological science helps people having trouble with their gender identity find happiness and fulfilment, all good, and we should support and respect their choices. Thus transgenders should get the treatments they desire, I am fully support of it being on Medicare here in Australia, since it has the appropriate protections of not being done on minors, it taking time, etc. Nonetheless, all the talk of it is a denial of science.

On the flipside, while progressives allow for people to be transgender, they are violently against anyone being transracial; cf the drama of Rachel Dolezal. And the physiological fact is that there is less genetic and anatomical difference between any random African American woman and a caucasian woman, than between a woman and a man. If what I identify as - my belief - can ignore physiology, then there is certainly a greater case for being transracial than being transgender, since there is less physiological difference to ignore. After all, men and women quite literally have different organs in their bodies, there exist no organs which one race has but another doesn't.

Why are transgendered accepted by progressives, but transracials abused? Why can someone identify as a different sex/gender, but not race? Either identity trumps all, or it does not. Because again, this is not based in science, but in ideology.

Likewise, conservatives will accept science when it comes to geology, medicine, engineering and so on, but reject science when it comes to climate change. Ideology.

Ideologies have a long history of ignoring scientific reality when it clashes with some tenets of the ideology. The "trickle-down effect" or "free markets cure all" of capitalism, or collectivisation in Communism. "No, no, this time it will work, it just wasn't tried hard enough last time!" Lysenkoism is perhaps the purest example.

To answer the OP, social conservatives do not have a monopoly on being wrong. Every religion, every ideology, has its blind spots, its moments of "la la la I can't hear you!" And one of those blind spots is, "the other guys are always wrong, simply because they are The Other Guys."
« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 10:12:08 PM by Kyle Schuant »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14336
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #387 on: July 10, 2019, 07:10:45 AM »
Although I feel like Kyle maybe confusing sex with gender.
The assertion that they are different is a social assertion, which has only very weak roots in physiological science. It's saying that identity trumps physiology. In other words, belief is more important than facts. This is a view which denies science.

Now, it is at times actually useful and good to deny or ignore science. Romantic love, for example, is not helped by taking blood assays to assess the hormones floating around at the time, and science cannot and probably never will explain why (as shown in the Blue Zones Project) people with religious belief and members of religious communities tend to live longer than lonely atheists. If I adopt a boy and say "he is my son", I am denying physiology. But it's better if (while allowing him to know he's not my birth son) we both ignore physiology and I treat him exactly as I would my biological son, and he treats me exactly as he would a biological father. And the likely scientific fact that death ends in unconscious oblivion is not one which it's healthy to contemplate every day.

So if denying physiological science helps people having trouble with their gender identity find happiness and fulfilment, all good, and we should support and respect their choices. Thus transgenders should get the treatments they desire, I am fully support of it being on Medicare here in Australia, since it has the appropriate protections of not being done on minors, it taking time, etc. Nonetheless, all the talk of it is a denial of science.

On the flipside, while progressives allow for people to be transgender, they are violently against anyone being transracial; cf the drama of Rachel Dolezal. And the physiological fact is that there is less genetic and anatomical difference between any random African American woman and a caucasian woman, than between a woman and a man. If what I identify as - my belief - can ignore physiology, then there is certainly a greater case for being transracial than being transgender, since there is less physiological difference to ignore. After all, men and women quite literally have different organs in their bodies, there exist no organs which one race has but another doesn't.

Why are transgendered accepted by progressives, but transracials abused? Why can someone identify as a different sex/gender, but not race? Either identity trumps all, or it does not. Because again, this is not based in science, but in ideology.

Likewise, conservatives will accept science when it comes to geology, medicine, engineering and so on, but reject science when it comes to climate change. Ideology.

Ideologies have a long history of ignoring scientific reality when it clashes with some tenets of the ideology. The "trickle-down effect" or "free markets cure all" of capitalism, or collectivisation in Communism. "No, no, this time it will work, it just wasn't tried hard enough last time!" Lysenkoism is perhaps the purest example.

To answer the OP, social conservatives do not have a monopoly on being wrong. Every religion, every ideology, has its blind spots, its moments of "la la la I can't hear you!" And one of those blind spots is, "the other guys are always wrong, simply because they are The Other Guys."

This appears to be a confirmation of my previous statement then?  You do not understand what gender is, and have confused it with sex.

madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2419
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #388 on: July 10, 2019, 07:52:12 AM »
Although I feel like Kyle maybe confusing sex with gender.
The assertion that they are different is a social assertion, which has only very weak roots in physiological science. It's saying that identity trumps physiology. In other words, belief is more important than facts. This is a view which denies science.

Nah. It's a view that understands the limits of science (at least at this point) in being able to explain a TRUE, LIVED phenomenon.

Science is INCREDIBLY influenced by beliefs and if you don't get that, spend half an hour on Google looking up what scientists have said and still say about the intelligence and strength of non-white-dude-type people throughout history, all the way up to the present day.

ALSO. Prescription drugs are primarily tested on men. Cars and airplanes are designed primarily for the average man to fit in properly (as any woman with a big chest trying to comfortably wear a seat belt can tell you). Plan B doesn't even work on women above a certain body weight. The entire world up to this point has been engineered for the accessibility, safety, and opportunity of privileged and powerful people. And it's discriminatory, influenced by belief, and also completely sound according to "science."

Nature/genetics is one thing, and nurture/environment is another, and subjective internal experience is another. Moreover, all three impact each other.

In a quest for one tidy logical thought to rule them all (which I see all the time in the nerd-heavy makeup of these boards) y'all end up over-simplifying reality. And what gets edited out in those over-simplifications is the perspectives of everyone who's not already in the middle of the circle.

Sibley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3766
  • Location: Chicago, IL
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #389 on: July 10, 2019, 08:08:41 AM »
I'll be honest and say that I haven't read through all 9 pages. However, I've been thinking about the initial question and came to an opinion. It's taken a while.

Those who resist correcting an injustice are always wrong. What the injustice is, who the resisters are, the reasons why - really don't matter. If an injustice exists and you don't want to try to correct it (or at least lessen it), then you are wrong. Social conservatives may or may not have a greater number of instances of this, but they certainly don't have a monopoly. I'm sure that examples can be cited for any group of people where they were wrong.

At root, I believe that fear is a major contributor. If you change X, then your life might be worse. If Y changes, then you might have to admit that you were wrong. It's not easy to do, and that explains why so many people have a difficult time changing.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2128
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #390 on: July 10, 2019, 08:28:48 AM »
Although I feel like Kyle maybe confusing sex with gender.
...snip

This appears to be a confirmation of my previous statement then?  You do not understand what gender is, and have confused it with sex.

Biological sex is one aspect of gender. The word gender has different meanings depending on context.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14336
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #391 on: July 10, 2019, 08:36:29 AM »
Although I feel like Kyle maybe confusing sex with gender.
...snip

This appears to be a confirmation of my previous statement then?  You do not understand what gender is, and have confused it with sex.

Biological sex is one aspect of gender. The word gender has different meanings depending on context.

Agreed.  Kyle's post treats gender as though biological sex were the only aspect though.  That's where the confusion seems to arise.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11729
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #392 on: July 10, 2019, 06:11:43 PM »
Kyle has a point about data sets though.  I have Invisible Women:
Data Bias in A World Designed for Men
by Caroline Criado-Perez on hold at the library. I heard her being interviewed on CBC -very interesting.  And discouraging.

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 867
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #393 on: July 10, 2019, 07:42:58 PM »
Agreed.  Kyle's post treats gender as though biological sex were the only aspect though.  That's where the confusion seems to arise.
Again, this neatly demonstrates: denying physiological reality.

Again: why can we be transgender but can't be transracial? Why can I identify as a person with different organs, but can't identify as a person with different skin colour? Why am I allowed to ignore internal physiology, but not allowed to ignore cosmetic physiology? The ignoring science isn't even internally consistent. Likewise with rightwingers who deny climate change but still check the weather updates each day, or believe in geological science when drill cores tell them where oil is, but not when the drill cores tell them past temperatures.

Ignoring science because it doesn't fit ideology is the essence of being an ideologue. Thus rightwingers ignoring climate science, and leftwingers ignoring physiology, both gender/sex and (commonly) vaccination. Both also, by the by, ignore that their particular approaches when tried purely simply don't work. "The Soviet Union wasn't real communism," and "The US isn't real capitalism." Weaseling away from reality makes productive change difficult. This is a problem in our polarised ideological society.

The question is not whether conservatives or progressives are more wrong, but whether their wrongness actually matters.

The science-ignoring of "progressives", since the Soviet Union fell, is currently less damaging to the world than the science-ignoring of "conservatives", because we still have the USA. The lefty stuff is never going to take over the world without a great power sponsoring it. That's why it's given a pass in society. If Bruce wants to become Caitlin it doesn't really matter. She's happier now, so who cares. If Chantal doesn't want to vaccinate little Jaxon and he dies of influenza, that's a tragedy for the family but doesn't impact the world much, so long as he doesn't take some unfortunate immunocompromised person with him.

But denying climate science is going to fuck us all up, big time. And it is disproportionately fucking up the people who never benefited much from fossil fuels anyway. At least if NYC got flooded they had good lives for decades first, but it's more likely Bangladesh will be flooded, and most of them never even owned a light bulb.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14336
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #394 on: July 11, 2019, 07:40:07 AM »
Agreed.  Kyle's post treats gender as though biological sex were the only aspect though.  That's where the confusion seems to arise.
Again, this neatly demonstrates: denying physiological reality.

Again: why can we be transgender but can't be transracial?

Gender:  Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.

Race: a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by society.

Both have large social/cultural components and neither term denotes a clear cut 'physiological reality' as you've claimed.  So, I'd argue that people can be transracial.  Indeed, in this thread you're the only one making the claim that they cannot.  Transracial people have been around for a long time.  The Nazis (as the first example off the top of my head) liked to identify themselves as Aryan even though few of them were from the Indo-Iranian area that is historically recognized as the location Aryan people originated.

I feel like the question you're really trying ask though is different from what's written.  You seem to be upset that society treats someone who is trying to express themselves as transgender differently than someone who is trying to express themselves as transracial.  Is this what you're trying to get to?



Why can I identify as a person with different organs, but can't identify as a person with different skin colour?

You can't identify as either.  If you have a third lung, that's a measurable and concrete difference.  If you have darker pigment in your skin, that's an observable and measurable difference.

What are the measurable characteristics of 'race'?

I have brown eyes, brown hair, pale skin, and a big nose.  My ancestry is Polish, English, Scottish, German.  My culture is Canadian.  Scientifically, what race am I?

My son has brown eyes with epithelial folds, pale skin, brown hair, and a small nose.  His ancestry is Polish, English, Scottish, German, Chinese, Filipino, Spanish.  His culture is Canadian.  Scientifically, what race is he?

The more you research into the concept of race, the more you see that there's no scientific definition to hold onto.  Depending on who you talk to, it's based loosely in various mixes on observable differences, culture, and ancestry.  There's certainly no 'physiological reality' to be had here.



Why am I allowed to ignore internal physiology, but not allowed to ignore cosmetic physiology? The ignoring science isn't even internally consistent. Likewise with rightwingers who deny climate change but still check the weather updates each day, or believe in geological science when drill cores tell them where oil is, but not when the drill cores tell them past temperatures.

Ignoring science because it doesn't fit ideology is the essence of being an ideologue. Thus rightwingers ignoring climate science, and leftwingers ignoring physiology, both gender/sex and (commonly) vaccination. Both also, by the by, ignore that their particular approaches when tried purely simply don't work. "The Soviet Union wasn't real communism," and "The US isn't real capitalism." Weaseling away from reality makes productive change difficult. This is a problem in our polarised ideological society.

This one's easy.  You're allowed to ignore internal physiology because it doesn't apply here.  (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/)

The problem you're running into is bad initial assumptions.  Race isn't scientific at all.  Don't believe me?
- How many races have been scientifically identified?
- What are the defining characteristic differences between races?
- What happens when races intermingle?  Which race is the resulting offspring?

These questions do not have exact scientific answers.  There isn't even a scientific definition of what race is.  Without defining something, it's not possible to begin scientific examination of that subject.

Because you've simply assumed that race is scientific though, you've come to incorrect conclusions about it.

This is very different than the large amount of research that exists regarding climate change to which you're comparing 'race'.  No scientists are claiming that climate change is a social construct.  It exists, it's real and measurable, and we have defined various contributing factors.


The question is not whether conservatives or progressives are more wrong, but whether their wrongness actually matters.

The science-ignoring of "progressives", since the Soviet Union fell, is currently less damaging to the world than the science-ignoring of "conservatives", because we still have the USA. The lefty stuff is never going to take over the world without a great power sponsoring it. That's why it's given a pass in society. If Bruce wants to become Caitlin it doesn't really matter. She's happier now, so who cares.

Again, this example is not science denying.

Gender is largely a social construct.  A person can't change their sex . . . it's a  biological reality that they're born with.  You've got XX or XY chromosomes at birth, and that's never going to change.  You can change your gender though, as that's not a scientifically defined, measurable thing - it's predominantly cultural.  Using the two words interchangeably really only demonstrates an ignorance of the topic being discussed, and you're smarter than that.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11729
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #395 on: July 11, 2019, 10:54:26 AM »
To add to GuitarStv's comment - 
Race - there is more genetic variability in Africa than in all other people combined - there was a genetic bottleneck as people left Africa, and then more genetic bottlenecks as small groups moved again and again.   As far as ecologists can tell, the amount of skin pigment in a small inbreeding group is determined by UV exposure and dietary availability of vitamin D.  Do we say yellow Labrador retrievers are better/worse than chocolate Labs than black Labs?  NO.  So skin pigment is a silly criterion. 

Sex - we have  XX and XY (poor truncated chromosome) plus variables on them - XXY, XYY, etc.  For mammals; other vertebrate groups determine sex differently.  Plus developmental variability.  A male mouse fetus will have larger testes if his immediate siblings in his mother's uterine horn are males.  With cattle, if there are twins, one of each sex, the female is likely to be sterile because of exposure to her brother's testosterone in utero (this doesn't happen with us, there is better separation in the placenta and fetal membranes).

Variability -  anyone who has done lots of dissections (or surgeons, veterinarians) knows that there is variability in the basic body plan - nerves and blood vessels are not always where they  "should" be.  I knew someone whose sternum was reversed in concavity.

So the point of this is, there is all sorts of variability that basically goes under the radar.  Sometimes it becomes visible (like when we type our blood).  If I am about to get a blood transfusion, it doesn't matter whether the donor is male, female or other, or has different pigmentation - what matters is the ABO/Rh/Kidd/Kell/Duffy/MNS/Lewis match.

Society tends to take groups and lump them, while ignoring the outliers.  But the outliers do exist.  And who/what is an outlier depends on what criteria we are ussing.  If blood group was obvious, then AB- people would be a very small visible minority.

Samuel

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 362
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #396 on: July 11, 2019, 11:19:17 AM »
Race - there is more genetic variability in Africa than in all other people combined - there was a genetic bottleneck as people left Africa, and then more genetic bottlenecks as small groups moved again and again.   As far as ecologists can tell, the amount of skin pigment in a small inbreeding group is determined by UV exposure and dietary availability of vitamin D.  Do we say yellow Labrador retrievers are better/worse than chocolate Labs than black Labs?  NO.  So skin pigment is a silly criterion. 

At this point it's a jaw droppingly silly criterion. At least modern racists seemed to have moved from espousing biological superiority/inferiority to using race as a sloppy stand-in for cultural stereotypes they don't like (and refuse to see in their own racial group). That's... progress? Maybe?

I've basically come to regard racists as just a particular subset of a larger group: assholes. They're the dumbest, most superficial variety of asshole.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4788
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #397 on: July 11, 2019, 11:58:33 AM »
Quote
As another example, look at intersectionality.  The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters. 

They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
Those aren't examples of authoritarianism.  You can protest bad behaviour without wanting to make laws about it.  The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon.  Blackface: bad.  Dressing up as "Mexican" for Hallowe'en: bad. Non-Japanese person teaching karate or non-Indian person teaching yoga after having been certified: unclear.
Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.

Dressing up as Mexican at Halloween is not decidedly unacceptable.  Many people are fine with this. Some people are more offended by the yoga thing.

What's remarkable to me is that the authoritarian left is more concerned with Halloween costumes than politicians that exploited affirmative action for their own gain (Elizabeth Warren attending Harvard as a native American).  And don't be too quick to be offended, I'm 0.2% native so she may be appropriating my culture.

Mind if I ask you where you got this information? And a follow up question, does it matter to you if you repeat untrue accusations on the internet?
My mistake.  She was hired, not a student.  The rest stands.

*eye-roll* She wasn't hired as a native American, she was hired as a law professor. You make it sound like she got the job because she was falsely claiming to be an American Indian. You are repeating untrue accusations.
She might have, no one will know.  But she had the audacity to play that game.  I might have .more native blood than her and I know better.
Actually we do know it because if you look at when she filled out the paperwork indicating that she had Native ancestry (which we know now to be true per the blood test), she was already an employee.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4788
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #398 on: July 11, 2019, 12:06:24 PM »
These types of cases tend to be pretty rare.  To my knowledge, there has never been a man who has gotten a sex change with the intent to dominate women's sport.  I don't know what the period of time necessary to be taking female hormone to negate any physical benefit of male hormones, but am certain that a rule could be added regarding the matter.

I've competed in MMA, Jiu-Jitsu, Judo, and boxing.  A death in the ring has nothing to do with sex and gender, and is overwhelmingly caused by a fluke accident or outstandingly piss-poor refereeing.  I sincerely doubt that allowing trans women to compete with born women would have any real bearing on this.

(Actually, if there's a tremendous power disparity between the two as you are insinuating would happen, the match would tend to end more quickly which is typically safer for the competitors.  The most concussions and brain damage tends to come from very evenly matched people who are beating on each other for longer periods of time.  That's one of the reasons that MMA is considered a safer sport than boxing.  The heavier gloves slow hand speed in boxing, which means that less force hits an opponent . . . which means that you get hit a lot more often before you're knocked out.  Much more dangerous.)

Fair enough.   But if a woman dies from a brain hemmorhage after fighting a trans woman, these questions will proliferate.    And it will be very hard to find the answers.

I don't believe that it will be any harder to find answers than for any other death in the ring.

Deaths in fighting sports are very rare.  Transgender people in sports (particularly fighting sports) are also very rare.  I feel like you're searching for a unicorn here.
Women in MMA might disagree.   This is about fairness in the sport, and previously being male could be interpreted similarly to performance enhancing drugs.

I get (and understand) the argument that a transgender woman might have physiological advantages over the average woman.  That's a reasonable thing to be concerned about.  As mentioned previously, your scenario is an unusual one and there's no clear cut right or wrong on that.

To the best of my knowledge, performance enhancing drugs haven't been linked to any deaths in the ring in MMA.  What?  How can that be?  Won't 'roids turn someone into an unstoppable best?  Well, no.  PEDs are used for three reasons in fighting sports:
- to recover faster and increase training workload (more training means better skills - this is why the Gracies were fans of steroids but didn't look like bodybuilders)
- to maintain high levels of muscle and low levels of body fat
- to gain strength by increasing overall body muscle weight

Steroids, testosterone, and growth hormone will not make you hit harder than another guy with the same amount of muscle mass who is the same weight.  Fighting sports all use weight classes.  At best you're gaining a fractional strength advantage because you've got slightly less fat on your frame.  Drug use in MMA is pretty widespread (I've fought against guys who were taking 'roids).  Deaths in matches are not.

Insinuating that a transgender woman on who has been on hormone replacement for some time is somehow likely to kill another woman in the ring is therefore a really weird argument to make.  Both women will be in the same weight class.  Given enough time, female hormones will increase the amount of fat that the transgender woman carries to the same levels that a natural born woman carries.  It would be quite surprising to find any significant difference in strength between the two.
I'm not sure it is an unusual event. "Everything happened in the first round within the first two and a half minutes. It was a messy, bloody fight and not easy for everyone to watch. During the fight Tamika suffered a concussion and fractured her orbital bone in her skull and Fallon Fox didn’t stop until Tamika Brents was finally TKO’d. After the fight she received several staples in her head"
https://www.attacktheback.com/transgender-mma-fighter-fallon-fox-breaks-opponents-skull/
If you look at why title 9 exists, this may have bloodier than other examples, but I don't think an unusual one.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14336
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #399 on: July 11, 2019, 12:29:22 PM »
These types of cases tend to be pretty rare.  To my knowledge, there has never been a man who has gotten a sex change with the intent to dominate women's sport.  I don't know what the period of time necessary to be taking female hormone to negate any physical benefit of male hormones, but am certain that a rule could be added regarding the matter.

I've competed in MMA, Jiu-Jitsu, Judo, and boxing.  A death in the ring has nothing to do with sex and gender, and is overwhelmingly caused by a fluke accident or outstandingly piss-poor refereeing.  I sincerely doubt that allowing trans women to compete with born women would have any real bearing on this.

(Actually, if there's a tremendous power disparity between the two as you are insinuating would happen, the match would tend to end more quickly which is typically safer for the competitors.  The most concussions and brain damage tends to come from very evenly matched people who are beating on each other for longer periods of time.  That's one of the reasons that MMA is considered a safer sport than boxing.  The heavier gloves slow hand speed in boxing, which means that less force hits an opponent . . . which means that you get hit a lot more often before you're knocked out.  Much more dangerous.)

Fair enough.   But if a woman dies from a brain hemmorhage after fighting a trans woman, these questions will proliferate.    And it will be very hard to find the answers.

I don't believe that it will be any harder to find answers than for any other death in the ring.

Deaths in fighting sports are very rare.  Transgender people in sports (particularly fighting sports) are also very rare.  I feel like you're searching for a unicorn here.
Women in MMA might disagree.   This is about fairness in the sport, and previously being male could be interpreted similarly to performance enhancing drugs.

I get (and understand) the argument that a transgender woman might have physiological advantages over the average woman.  That's a reasonable thing to be concerned about.  As mentioned previously, your scenario is an unusual one and there's no clear cut right or wrong on that.

To the best of my knowledge, performance enhancing drugs haven't been linked to any deaths in the ring in MMA.  What?  How can that be?  Won't 'roids turn someone into an unstoppable best?  Well, no.  PEDs are used for three reasons in fighting sports:
- to recover faster and increase training workload (more training means better skills - this is why the Gracies were fans of steroids but didn't look like bodybuilders)
- to maintain high levels of muscle and low levels of body fat
- to gain strength by increasing overall body muscle weight

Steroids, testosterone, and growth hormone will not make you hit harder than another guy with the same amount of muscle mass who is the same weight.  Fighting sports all use weight classes.  At best you're gaining a fractional strength advantage because you've got slightly less fat on your frame.  Drug use in MMA is pretty widespread (I've fought against guys who were taking 'roids).  Deaths in matches are not.

Insinuating that a transgender woman on who has been on hormone replacement for some time is somehow likely to kill another woman in the ring is therefore a really weird argument to make.  Both women will be in the same weight class.  Given enough time, female hormones will increase the amount of fat that the transgender woman carries to the same levels that a natural born woman carries.  It would be quite surprising to find any significant difference in strength between the two.
I'm not sure it is an unusual event. "Everything happened in the first round within the first two and a half minutes. It was a messy, bloody fight and not easy for everyone to watch. During the fight Tamika suffered a concussion and fractured her orbital bone in her skull and Fallon Fox didn’t stop until Tamika Brents was finally TKO’d. After the fight she received several staples in her head"
https://www.attacktheback.com/transgender-mma-fighter-fallon-fox-breaks-opponents-skull/
If you look at why title 9 exists, this may have bloodier than other examples, but I don't think an unusual one.

While it certainly looks bad, breaking the orbital bone is not unusual in striking sports between men (and women) who are not transgender (even in the lighter weight classes, who typically don't hit as hard):
https://talksport.com/sport/mma/513279/ufc-london-molly-mccann-gruesome-injury-win/
https://www.mmamania.com/2015/2/1/7960443/miesha-tate-suffers-broken-orbital-bone-at-ufc-183-then-blown-tire-super-bowl-49-mma
https://www.mmamania.com/2019/5/19/18631380/sage-northcutt-9-hour-surgery-facial-orbital-cheek-fractures-one-knockout-loss-cosmo-alexandre
https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2017/5/29/15707764/kell-brook-broken-orbital-bone-second-time-two-fights-boxing-news
https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2018/6/4/17424088/josh-emmett-details-horrific-orbital-injuries-emergency-surgery-after-controversial-tko-loss-mma-ufc

It even happens occasionally in sports where people aren't trying to hit each other in the face:
https://www.inquirer.com/philly/health/what-you-need-to-know-about-joel-embiids-orbital-bone-fracture-surgery-20180330.html


Can you explain what unusual specific advantage you believe Fallon enjoyed over her opponent because she is transgender?