3 ms·

> What does that mean for women's sports? I don't know, I'm not an athlete, coach, tournament organizer, part of a rule-making body, or one of a number of othe

> What does that mean for women's sports? I don't know, I'm not an athlete, coach, tournament organizer, part of a rule-making body, or one of a number of other roles that would give me insight or authority to be involved in that decision. Why does everyone feel comfortable stepping into this conversation with authority?

gruez 1y ago
>I don't know, I'm not an athlete, coach, tournament organizer, part of a rule-making body, or one of a number of other roles that would give me insight or authority to be involved in that decision. Why does everyone feel comfortable stepping into this conversation with authority? Would you be equally deferential to the organizer/rule-making body if it was some other controversial issue, like whether women could compete at all? As a sibling comment mentioned, women couldn't even compete in the olympics before 1900, so if it came up as a culture war topic would your reaction also be "I don't know, I'm not an athlete, coach, tournament organizer, part of a rule-making body, or one of a number of other roles that would give me insight or authority to be involved in that decision"?
- giraffe_lady 1y ago
  I don't see the need to create and articulate a universalizeable moral framework to decide how I should react to a specific case in front of me. I listed rulemakers and organizers but also athletes themselves. I don't know much about the history of the olympics but I would guess the desires and probably activism of women athletes played a role.
  - gruez 1y ago
    >I don't see the need to create and articulate a universalizeable moral framework to decide how I should react to a specific case in front of me. You kinda do, otherwise your position just sounds like "why are you talking about trans athletes? You should just Trust the Experts, except when I disagree with them, then it's an Important Moral Issue that the public needs to weigh in on". >I listed rulemakers and organizers but also athletes themselves. I don't know much about the history of the olympics but I would guess the desires and probably activism of women athletes played a role. This is a very perilous position to hold, because it basically means if there's enough TERF athletes to outnumber trans women athletes (which doesn't seem too implausible, based on purely demographic factors) then it's okay to exclude them.
    - EnergyAmy 1y ago
      To your last point, most women don't want men in their sports, but have been pressured to go along with it. It is okay to exclude men from women's sports because women have the right to sex-specific spaces.
    - giraffe_lady 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - kijjun 1y ago
        [flagged]
ryandv 1y ago
You're right, discussion's open to the clergy only. Any laymen who continue to discuss this infohazard will be banned. the clergy, such at least as can be fully confided in, may admissibly and meritoriously make themselves acquainted with the arguments of opponents, in order to answer them, and may, therefore, read heretical books; the laity, not unless by special permission, hard to be obtained. This discipline recognises a knowledge of the enemy's case as beneficial to the teachers, but finds means, consistent with this, of denying it to the rest of the world: thus giving to the élite more mental culture, though not more mental freedom, than it allows to the mass [0]. [0] John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty." 1859. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm

gruez 1y ago

>I don't know, I'm not an athlete, coach, tournament organizer, part of a rule-making body, or one of a number of other roles that would give me insight or authority to be involved in that decision. Why does everyone feel comfortable stepping into this conversation with authority? Would you be equally deferential to the organizer/rule-making body if it was some other controversial issue, like whether women could compete at all? As a sibling comment mentioned, women couldn't even compete in the olympics before 1900, so if it came up as a culture war topic would your reaction also be "I don't know, I'm not an athlete, coach, tournament organizer, part of a rule-making body, or one of a number of other roles that would give me insight or authority to be involved in that decision"?

giraffe_lady 1y ago
I don't see the need to create and articulate a universalizeable moral framework to decide how I should react to a specific case in front of me. I listed rulemakers and organizers but also athletes themselves. I don't know much about the history of the olympics but I would guess the desires and probably activism of women athletes played a role.
- gruez 1y ago
  >I don't see the need to create and articulate a universalizeable moral framework to decide how I should react to a specific case in front of me. You kinda do, otherwise your position just sounds like "why are you talking about trans athletes? You should just Trust the Experts, except when I disagree with them, then it's an Important Moral Issue that the public needs to weigh in on". >I listed rulemakers and organizers but also athletes themselves. I don't know much about the history of the olympics but I would guess the desires and probably activism of women athletes played a role. This is a very perilous position to hold, because it basically means if there's enough TERF athletes to outnumber trans women athletes (which doesn't seem too implausible, based on purely demographic factors) then it's okay to exclude them.
  - EnergyAmy 1y ago
    To your last point, most women don't want men in their sports, but have been pressured to go along with it. It is okay to exclude men from women's sports because women have the right to sex-specific spaces.
  - giraffe_lady 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - kijjun 1y ago
      [flagged]

ryandv 1y ago

You're right, discussion's open to the clergy only. Any laymen who continue to discuss this infohazard will be banned. the clergy, such at least as can be fully confided in, may admissibly and meritoriously make themselves acquainted with the arguments of opponents, in order to answer them, and may, therefore, read heretical books; the laity, not unless by special permission, hard to be obtained. This discipline recognises a knowledge of the enemy's case as beneficial to the teachers, but finds means, consistent with this, of denying it to the rest of the world: thus giving to the élite more mental culture, though not more mental freedom, than it allows to the mass [0]. [0] John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty." 1859. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm