Kalbear

Yet it's crucial to make this a major issue? Oh, I don't think that people like you are thinking about it that cynically, but I'm far more confident that the folks who are framing these attacks at the higher levels are doing this. They might not be studying Haidt et al, but they'll be doing it this way because their focus groups and studies indicate that this messaging is more effective at getting more people involved than doing other things. That's just the nature of these kinds of attacks. They aren't coming organically from the world; the trans attacks are part of a coordinated, well-funded effort. ETA: the other aspect of it that we were talking about before - the puberty blockers - is another good one that tends to trigger liberals real well, the notion of causing harm. Another masterful technique to get more people on board.

My favorite part of the above is that anyone who actually carries out that order or facilitates that order can (by the defense counsel's viewpoint) be tried and convicted without any other requirements, including officials who can be impeached. But the president cannot. Very weird, that.

I think the problem is that there are several people who are questioning this topic in many ways who are acting precisely like a transphobe. As an example, recommending segregation when there are a crazy amount of ways to allow for people to participate is clearly not questioning this topic in 'any' way; it's clearly siding with the notion that you simply don't want that person to be part of the group. And maybe that's not transphobic directly, but it is exactly what transphobes are proposing. Also, I don't really think that the actual problem is that people who question this are labeled as transphobic. I think that the problem is that a whole lot of trans people are getting the message that they are not welcome in basic parts of society, and a whole lot of those people are looking at allies who are also throwing them out because of concerns of 'fairness'. The labeling is not nearly the actual problem. I'll also note the cleverness of framing this in terms of fairness. For most conservatives simply being able to block folks because they're trans is more than enough from a purity/ingroup perspective, but liberals famously favor fairness. Doing this argument this way means many liberals will then be real concerned about restricting people's access in terms of being fair.

Okay, but that is literally what the other proposals have been about. And the Olympics/world championships for all the sports out there already have ways to deal with this if they need to, and in fact have already done so in one case (and even that was shitty). So what is the problem?

Sure, but those dictations were to add inclusion, not to add exclusion. Note that when the government has stepped in and said things need to change it was to give athletes either more rights (like the NCAA with NIL) or more access (like Title IX). I'm fine if the government wants to make things more expansive, but there are a very, very scant few cases where the government stepped in to regulate a sport, and none that I can find that restricted athlete access.

Eh. I don't think you need that. I don't think you need the rules governing FIFA to apply to rec league soccer. I don't think you need Olympic rules to govern high school diving. I think that at MOST you can take what @karaddin said as the base point and then rule on case by case basis as you go, because the actual amount of people affected is so small that individual judgments can be reasonable. You absolutely do not need to make a blanket condemnation of it or a blanket restriction based on hypotheticals, especially across all sports. And you really, really don't need to create a separate league or set of leagues for sports as a response. And yeah, you might get results that aren't fair to some people. Which is true all the time. Especially in sports. You'll also get some results that are MORE fair to some people.

What can I say, I'm fuckin awesome

Trump apparently also said as much, that he's somewhat worried about RFK.

I think you can do that, and until you really are having an issue you absolutely should. There is nothing that stops these sport bodies from making very fast rules. In fact they've already done so in other cases that don't involve trans athletes. This isn't constitutional law, it's fucking high school sports and in a few cases small niche sporting events. More importantly I don't think that as a rule sports needs legislation about fairness whatsoever. That's entirely up to those sports leagues. If you need the government to step in and set rules about sporting it should be for either the commercial aspects or literal cases of breaking the law (like Larry Nassar). Why should the government get involved? What is so critical that any government needs to dictate how a sports league of any size runs their system?

Except the number of people affected so far is zero.

Okay, you should be able to then tell me what trans woman is out there currently that is absolutely dominating her sport. Or were you insinuating that Serena Williams is trans? Because to my knowledge the number of professional or even amateur athletes that are trans and are crushing their sport is...zero. If you don't, why are you talking about it then?

I guess the problem I am having is where the actual, ya know, literal problem is here that is supposedly being legislated. Are there a lot of trans women angling to join women's national soccer teams? And are they so much better than the normal women that we need to preemptively legislate or fret about it?

Also, to go back to the actual topic the thing I'm far more worried about is the same thing Israel is being dinged on - that the tools they're using is incredibly failure-prone. That might be okay when you're trying to identify a tree, but it's not great when using it to detain people or to call airstrikes.

There aren't any, but please continue. And no, I doubt you care at all. I doubt it's a big deal whatsoever until it has a possibility of affecting you. Abuse is abuse. Yeah, it's worse, but you're still okay with that 1-2%. I don't think it would be far worse, at least not for a while. That's the thing about authoritarian systems - they don't tend to prosecute everyone. They barely harass most people. They just make sure that you know that you could, at any time, be harassed. For some reason or no reason. Which is exactly the state we have right now for a whole lot of folks.

I'm sure the abuse will be greater. But the potential for abuse by Trump or anyone else will still be there. You should care about the potential for abuse regardless of who is in control. To be clear I'm not equating anything - I'm saying that the problem exists now, not in the future. That said it likely doesn't matter that much when laws aren't really important and no one cares about holding powerful people accountable.