J.C.MacSwell

True. There may be some gender category somewhere, that I am not aware of, that if I joined I would not be in the middle of the bell curve. Can we leave it at that?

It holds regardless of any gender choice I choose to make.

As someone in the middle of a G7 member bell curve...I think I'm very fortunate.

World bell curve? Or G7 member bell curve?

If you are wealthy enough to consider half a million extra a year (making the Team) to nothing extra at all (displaced from the Team) a slight pay cut, I'm very happy for you Dim.

Their true colours would come out though, if transgender eligibility was up to USA alone, or they had to rely solely on the Americans that had their heads up their bungholes and were willing to speak up in defence of women's sport. Certainly. Who would argue otherwise? I don't think transgenders are threatening to take away women's voting rights, or women's human rights generally.

Just a comment on equal pay and though I'm absolutely fine with the new USA contract, I'm not for equal pay in the manner the US women's Team has demanded. They all make substantially more than most men and women, and they deserve to IMO, but it's driven by gate receipts (the prize moneys are included in that) not simply because they are elite athletes. They certainly can negotiate and share revenues they generate with each other, that's their prerogative. But they certainly don't expect themselves to share the revenues with other elite athletes outside their sport, say women's wrestling, or within their sport, say the paralympic soccer teams. I do expect the women will be very protective of that revenue, including wanting rules to exclude XY individuals from competing on an arbitrary equal footing. Ultimately it will tend to be about the money, not the integrity, the women would not have signed that deal if their expected revenues were higher than the men's (nor should they have if that was the case). Also don't expect Brazil, or any other country to follow their lead, and don't suggest they are less progressive when they don't go for equal pay (they may be less progressive, as demonstrated by the greater discrepancy in Brazil of the Men's to Women's game, but not due to rejecting "equal pay" at top level) It will be interesting though, to see how many transgender females tryout for the US Women's Team given the half a million a year incentive, how many make it against whatever hurdles are put in place against them. My thinking is that most of the current Team will be very relieved when their international body declares transgender females ineligible or, more likely, effectively blocks them from international play with overly restrictive rules, and Rapinoe et al can pretend to take the high road, just as they have in their demands for equal pay.

Is it simply Marxism? I certainly never considered Marx to have been evil or for that matter pure communism to be. I just consider it to tend toward totalitarianism just as would fascism. I am certainly not referring to science. It would be closer to espousing what we would like to be true without questioning it. But it would be a particular variety of it. More what many older tenured professors in the humanities are doing. Ones with no real interest in scientific method unless it supports their ideas. Sorry. Just from what you wrote between brackets I thought it might be assumed that he was. He might be a bit of a sensationalist but he seems like a tormented one and not evil, or malicious toward any group.

What term should be used to refer to or describe the leftist academia phenomena so as not to suggest any conspiracy theory or especially an anti-semitic one?

You consider J Petersen a racist? I haven't paid much attention lately, and I think he's gone through some health issues, including perhaps mental health issues, but from everything I've seen he's been outspokenly a free speech advocate, anti-marxist,anti-fascist, and anti-nazi. He does speak well outside the Overton window (and is willing to espouse on areas he's not necessarily expert on as CY has pointed out) but measures his speech fairly carefully outside of the fact he will think and answer on the spot. Here he's explaining, or at least discussing, being photographed behind a Pepe flag.

Thanks and+1. I think you are a little too forgiving of the Dems shortcomings but good post and thanks for the effort. In your opinion or impression though, is it fair to say you believe systemic racism is more of a factor than systemic wealthism? Or am I reading you wrong, or do you feel they haven't been factored out enough for you to say or feel you know?

This seems similar to the current progressive playbook...attack the individual...don't even consider the intended context.

Of course this is somewhat incorrect: "It comes just three months after the Tokyo Olympics, which saw the first transgender and intersex athletes compete in the Games' history." Caster Semenya, for example, is an intersex athlete that won gold in the 800m in Rio in 2016 but was deemed ineligible to compete in Tokyo. It looks though like the IOC might be are slowly coming to terms with this. I don't see it in the same link but am pretty sure they are leaving the final decisions to individual sports...so at least they are working on guidelines. +1

Certainly testosterone control hasn't worked. What else has been tried. Has anything been tried to advance inclusion of transgender males? Only INow has the answer but so far he's been keeping it secret, other than to suggest it's not hidden somewhere in our asses. The IOC has given up and left it to the individual sports bodies.

One would hope there would be better choices.