GOP & Policies toward/treatment of Transgender & other LGBTQ Americans

[finesse]

I said public rise, meaning it's more prominent in public.

ok?

I have no idea why you keep trying to bring religion into this. My position has nothing to do with morality, nor do I believe gender dysphoria is any more immoral than bipolar disorder. My position is based in science, which is why I'm not arguing against trans men in male sports.

If you believe fairness in athletics it is necessary.

So, there are biological differences between males and females that give males a clear advantage.

This is how you rationalize your position based on empathy rather than reason.

It has more validity that trying to combine science and fairness. Fairness is not part of any science.

 

[ZenMode]

It has more validity that trying to combine science and fairness.

Nope and it's not even close.

Fairness is not part of any science.

Biology and physics, as it relates to athletics, is most definitely a part of fairness. It's why they have weight classes in wrestling and boxing. It's why they don't allow 8-year-olds to compete against 20-year-olds and it's why men aren't permitted to compete in women's sports.

Or, it's why men used to not be permitted to compete in women's sports.

 

[superrific]

@finesse You asked yesterday why I somewhat agreed with Elon about empathy being a weakness in the US.

It's not a weakness. Empathy is literally the emotion on which all of civilization is built. Civilization was not built, and never could be built, by a bunch of atomized individuals. It was built out of shared identity, which is a function of empathy. Once civilization got going, there were plenty of developments like slavery -- but still, empathy is the basis of a community or even a nation.

Your views are loathsome and disgusting. Empathy is the most powerful emotion. It is not a weakness at all; it takes great strength. And our best presidents have typically been motivated by empathy (see, e.g., Lincoln, FDR, Obama), an dour worst presidents the ones who preached individualism or mindless tribalism (Hoover, Coolidge, Nixon, Trump). This isn't a close call.

 

[HintonJamesHeel]

Trumpers are OBSESSED with this.

Because it has won elections and will continue to.

 

[superrific]

Because it has won elections and will continue to.

Can't argue that it helped in this election. But we've seen a pattern for 30 years that I expect to continue:

A. Democrats govern well and improve the country.
B. Conservatives take for granted how well the government is working, and instead focus on wedge issues like gay marriage, trans, race, etc.
C. GOP wins elections, and promptly runs the country into the ground.
D. Dems save the day

I have a feeling this cycle will be broken because Trump is wrecking everything to such an extent that the GOP will be forever tainted. I expect the Dems to win every federal election for the next decade, barring unforeseen circumstances (which there always are, but those can cut both ways).

 

[nycfan]

 

[ZenMode]

It's not a weakness. Empathy is literally the emotion on which all of civilization is built. Civilization was not built, and never could be built, by a bunch of atomized individuals. It was built out of shared identity, which is a function of empathy. Once civilization got going, there were plenty of developments like slavery -- but still, empathy is the basis of a community or even a nation.

Your views are loathsome and disgusting. Empathy is the most powerful emotion. It is not a weakness at all; it takes great strength. And our best presidents have typically been motivated by empathy (see, e.g., Lincoln, FDR, Obama), an dour worst presidents the ones who preached individualism or mindless tribalism (Hoover, Coolidge, Nixon, Trump). This isn't a close call.

I would argue that sympathy is more effective than empathy because sympathy doesn't ignore reason.

Empathy, as I've been arguing, is why we put aside reason and allow males in female sports or why you give into a crying child when they want candy even when you know they shouldn't have it.

 

[akillesheel]

Strawman.

a) if it's bullshit, show me the work. women were siloed into their own sports communities separate from men to a) make sure that as sports gained cross-gender popularity, women wouldn't sacrifice attractiveness for athleticism, and b) to shield men from the possibility of losing to women. different sports historians have different ideas of how much each of those factors contributed, but they were both there. there's nothing about safety.

b) if it's a strawman, then what is your argument? we can throw out fairness, because you haven't been able to show why the competitive advantage supposedly conferred by "maleness" is uniquely unfair compared to that conferred by genetically superior height, build, lactic acid processing ability, or any host of things that make elite athletes elite (also, when have sports ever adhered to a definition of "fair" that means everybody has an equal chance of winning?). you say "biology," but you're arguing exactly the opposite of the scientific consensus of biologists, geneticists, and doctors, so that's out. what's left?

 

[Mulberry Heel]

This was always the goal - attack transgenders first, then go after the entire LGBTQ community. This is nothing less than trying to cancel all LGBTQ kids from being able to express themselves at school. No clubs, no discussion of LGBTQ issues of any kind, and no doubt no allowance of any shirts or clothing or posters that mention anything to do with the LGBTQ community, and no LGBTQ books in school libraries. And - presto! - they're back in the closet again, just like Republican Jesus and God wants them to be! Yet another page taken straight from the Orban playbook. Disgusting.

 

[Healing]

Remarkable how much time and cognitive energy a person will expend to justify to themselves that their bigotries aren’t bigoted.

 

[superrific]

why you give into a crying child when they want candy even when you know they shouldn't have it.

You think that is about empathy? I am an exceedingly empathetic person and I have never done that.

 

[ZenMode]

You think that is about empathy? I am an exceedingly empathetic person and I have never done that.

Yes, not everyone does everything the same way.

That doesn't change the point that empathy tends to disregard reason, while sympathy doesn't and it's the disregard for reason that makes empathy a weakness.

 

[superrific]

a) if it's bullshit, show me the work. women were siloed into their own sports communities separate from men to a) make sure that as sports gained cross-gender popularity, women wouldn't sacrifice attractiveness for athleticism, and b) to shield men from the possibility of losing to women. different sports historians have different ideas of how much each of those factors contributed, but they were both there. there's nothing about safety.

Well, it's more complex than that. There was also the operation of normative gender roles, and in particular the idea that women were not aggressive or competitive enough to play with men.

You're right that safety wasn't a big issue a hundred years ago, because safety in sports generally wasn't a priority. But over time, it's impossible to ignore safety as an issue in some cases. One reason women don't play football -- and have not been allowed to, generally speaking, except for kicker -- is that they would get badly injured. Of course, women are unlikely to be good at football.

On the other hand, safety doesn't explain why pretty much all Olympic sports (or maybe all), are sex-segregated. There is no risk that a female ping-pong player will be hurt if she plays against men. We have women's chess leagues (and in Asia, women's leagues for go). I don't know why there would be separate categories for shooting or bobsled or curling (which might not be sex-segregated; I don't watch it).

 

[superrific]

That doesn't change the point that empathy tends to disregard reason

How would you know, since you possess neither?

Empathy is the foundation of reason in human interactions. Consider a military leader, a quintessentially rational position. The leader is trying to rally troops that have taken huge losses in battle, have had to retreat to possibly terrible positions, and are exhausted. Is a speech about putting nation first really going to inspire them in that moment? Of course not. The leader has to understand how the rank and file are feeling; how to reach them in their times of difficulty; and get them to believe that they can turn it around.

You're just confusing sympathy and empathy. Remember: sympathy is feeling bad for someone. Empathy is feeling what they are feeling. Empathy requires rationality.

 

[ZenMode]

a) if it's bullshit, show me the work. women were siloed into their own sports communities separate from men to a) make sure that as sports gained cross-gender popularity, women wouldn't sacrifice attractiveness for athleticism, and b) to shield men from the possibility of losing to women. different sports historians have different ideas of how much each of those factors contributed, but they were both there. there's nothing about safety.

If you are saying that there was ever a time when women's opportunities in sports were restricted by misogyny, I would agree. Women were supposed to stay in the kitchen, take care of the kids, were too fragile, etc.

b) if it's a strawman, then what is your argument? we can throw out fairness, because you haven't been able to show why the competitive advantage supposedly conferred by "maleness" is uniquely unfair compared to that conferred by genetically superior height, build, lactic acid processing ability, or any host of things that make elite athletes elite (also, when have sports ever adhered to a definition of "fair" that means everybody has an equal chance of winning?). you say "biology," but you're arguing exactly the opposite of the scientific consensus of biologists, geneticists, and doctors, so that's out. what's left?

Yes, biology shows that males and females are significantly different in ways that are extremely relevant in athletic sports. Among other things males, in general, have 40-60% more muscle mass than females.

There's nothing keeping women out of men's sports TODAY other than they simply can't compete at increasingly higher levels. Sure, you'll occasionally see a girl as a kicker on a HS football team but that's it.

 

[StrangePackage]

 

[ZenMode]

How would you know, since you possess neither?

(Intentionally ignored)

Empathy is the foundation of reason in human interactions. Consider a military leader, a quintessentially rational position. The leader is trying to rally troops that have taken huge losses in battle, have had to retreat to possibly terrible positions, and are exhausted. Is a speech about putting nation first really going to inspire them in that moment? Of course not. The leader has to understand how the rank and file are feeling; how to reach them in their times of difficulty; and get them to believe that they can turn it around.

Yes, empathy has usefulness in human interactions. For example, your wife may want you to empathize with her when she's had a bad day. A head Coach may inspire his players by empathizing with the situation they are in.

You're just confusing sympathy and empathy.

I'm not confusing sympathy and empathy.

Remember: sympathy is feeling bad for someone. Empathy is feeling what they are feeling. Empathy requires rationality.

Yes, and when you put yourself in a position where you aren't just sympathizing, but are literally feeling their feelings, that is where reason tends to go down the drain. As it relates to trans women, YOU feel rejected, YOU feel left out, YOU feel like you aren't truly a woman and it makes YOU sad, and who wants to feel those things? Nobody, of course, so let's just allow males play in female sports because it makes US feel better.

Look back at this entire thread. All of the reasons given for allowing males and girls sports are related to feelings, not reason.

 

[finesse]

(Intentionally ignored)

Yes, empathy has usefulness in human interactions. For example, your wife may want you to empathize with her when she's had a bad day. A head Coach may inspire his players by empathizing with the situation they are in.

I'm not confusing sympathy and empathy.



Yes, and when you put yourself in a position where you aren't just sympathizing, but are literally feeling their feelings, that is where reason tends to go down the drain. As it relates to trans women, YOU feel rejected, YOU feel left out, YOU feel like you aren't truly a woman and it makes YOU sad, and who wants to feel those things? Nobody, of course, so let's just allow males play in female sports because it makes US feel better.

Look back at this entire thread. All of the reasons given for allowing males and girls sports are related to feelings, not reason.

 

[akillesheel]

If you are saying that there was ever a time when women's opportunities and sports were restricted by misogyny, I would agree. Women were supposed to stay in the kitchen, take care of the kids, were too fragile, etc.

Yes, biology shows that males and females are significantly different in ways that are extremely relevant in athletic sports. Males, in general, have 40-60% more muscle mass than females.

There's nothing keeping women out of men's sports other than they simply can't compete at increasingly higher levels. Sure, you'll occasionally see a girl as a kicker on a HS football team but that's it.

almost nobody is arguing that those biological differences don't exist. rather, i'm saying they are not any more insurmountable than the biological differences that differentiate a WNBA player from a woman whose basketball career ends after high school, which you have yet to refute other than pointing to an invisible moving target of "fairness." was it fair, for example, that zion williamson was playing against high schoolers half his size who probably haven't touched a basketball in close to a decade? don't bother answering, because you've been asked this question or a variation on it about 50 times and haven't come up with an answer.

"nothing keeping women out of men's sports?" maybe it's your intentional lack of empathy, but you can't see what might happen if a woman joined a professional men's league? Katie Hnida was raped by a teammate and thrown under the bus by her coach. Sarah Fuller got death threats and her house got swatted. There are a whole bunch of social reasons a capable woman wouldn't want to join men's sports, and they intersect with the prosocial and homosocial reasons that trans people should be playing and competing with people who share their gender.

 

[superrific]

I'm not confusing sympathy and empathy.

Yes, and when you put yourself in a position where you aren't just sympathizing, but are literally feeling their feelings, that is where reason tends to go down the drain. As it relates to trans women, YOU feel rejected, YOU feel left out, YOU feel like you aren't truly a woman and it makes YOU sad, and who wants to feel those things? Nobody, of course, so let's just allow males play in female sports because it makes US feel better.

Look back at this entire thread. All of the reasons given for allowing males and girls sports are related to feelings, not reason.

You are confusing them. Empathy does not cause reason to go down the drain. Empathy is a mode of reason. It's a way of reasoning about subjective and/or phenomenological experience. The opposite of empathy is hegemony.

It's quite simple: you can't reason to your way to good policy if you don't know what that policy is supposed to accomplish. You cannot understand the goals of policy without empathy. Hegemony is not a mode of democracy. It is usually not reasonable (which is why it has to be hegemonic).

I'm not arguing with you about this. Once again, this is a topic I know well and you've never thought about except in slogans. Funny how our dynamics keep coming back to this.