J.C.MacSwell

One would hope there would be better choices.

Their doctors don't set the required testosterone targets. The sport governing bodies do. The same ones that outlaw drug use for enhancing performance in cisgendered women, choose a one size fits all target for others in a failed attempt to balance safety and fairness in an equitable manner. Caster Semenya was declared ineligible to compete for refusing to take drugs she did not need, and did not want. Fair and equitable inclusion of transgenders in top level sport is extremely difficult if not impossible. Why is it that those of us with our heads up our bunholes can clearly see that, while those thinking their heads are elsewhere cannot?

I remember Robert Ringer (civil libertarian) translating this as "Ask not what the people in power can do for you, ask what you can do for the people in power" He was entertaining if nothing else.

Yeah. I certainly left some work there.

That's the Catch 22 isn't it? How do you recognize the difference in this political climate? Sometimes "the club" is obvious and sometimes less so. Sometimes the accusation of "race card" is attacking genuine concern. Both sides call "wolf" or act like chicken little too often and too often you hear crickets from the side of the bad actor. (apologies for this borrowed metaphor word salad, but hope my point gets across)

Or how about, "what elements of current progressivism should be avoided, so as to avoid paving the way for Trump part 2?"

@ Peterkin: I originally typed ""Considered" is different from getting out the racism club, and swinging it at everything you don't like." But changed it as I didn't want to suggest CY was doing that...It is certainly a tactic I've observed in other posters...but the intent was toward the topic. I often don't agree with CY, but his posts are at least more thoughtful than clublike.

It's indicative of my view on "what's wrong with progressivism".

And while my charges and blame might not seem to be toward the GOP, re-read my posts, I've acknowledged it and don't feel the need to sing it back to the choir here, given the actual topic of the thread.

I didn't realize rich white (and other) Democrats and their choir were the primary victims. I thought the primary victims were the ones they were claiming they wanted to help.

In fact (read IMO), your median GOP voter, and your median Dem voter, probably are not that different and most would like to see real progress in many areas and deserve a good moderate party (which if in power too long will no doubt become corrupt and need replaced...hopefully having left some permanent improvements) "Considered" is different from getting out the racism club, and swinging it at everything one does not like.

Two questions. 1. When adjusted for wealth or just income? 2. Which problem is foremost, the discrepancy due to wealth with race factored out or the discrepancy due to race with wealth factored out? If wealth is the leading factor, why is racism so often assumed to be the driving factor? In countries with more universal health care systems, how do the root causes of the discrepancies differ? How much of what is considered systemic racism would disappear with a more universal health care system in place? How much systemic wealthism would be reduced with more restrictions on political spending and lobbying, and how much systemic racism would disappear with it? Easy to blame the GOP here, rightfully so,but are the Dems not implicated in much of this also? Especially when they are so quick to pick up and wield the racism club, and all the while protect the Clintons and the Bidens. How much more progress could be made if the "progressives" were more intent on real progress, and less on identity politics and power? There's a difference. And the GOP aren't the only ones taking advantage of the current system and exploiting others.

Absolutely. Recreational sports, taken as a whole, are healthy, rewarding, and ultimately more important than elite sports. But that doesn't answer the question I put forward with regard to top level sports. 100 years ago girls and women competed and enjoyed recreational sports. Some felt they deserved the opportunity to do more.

I honestly don't see how you can possibly think you have a workable solution beyond recreational level.

I do admit to a bit of confusion....in the thousand plus times I've watched try-outs and physical testing...the incentive seemed to be toward trying your best...so I'm less familiar with trying to match some arbitrary lesser standard.

Hadn't realized INow's well thought through and very workable proposal had been accepted into Law... He must be one exceptional cranium from anus remover.

posting error

Proposal: Allow transgender males steroids to increase their testosterone well beyond normal male range so that they can be competitive in top level sports. Not that it would actually be enough (because though significant it's not all about testosterone), but if it was...how would this be different from many of the current proposals for transgender females inclusion in female sports? Nope. (brevity attempted) Edit: Even intersex athletes have been forced to choose...drugs or ineligibility... https://www.npr.org/sections/tokyo-olympics-live-updates/2021/07/28/1021503989/women-runners-testosterone-olympics "That's because of new rules from track's governing body, World Athletics. Under the rules, Semenya and other female athletes who refuse to lower their naturally high testosterone levels are barred from competing in races from 400 meters to 1 mile." I'm torn on this one, but I'm leaning toward letting them compete as females...but I'm 100% against incentivizing them to suppress their natural testosterone to do so. My solution would be to allow them to compete, and if they win give two gold medals, if second 2 silvers etc...I posted with regard to this earlier

I don't follow. Which daughter has your proposal solved for? Are they both taking drugs to either; over suppress testosterone beyond a healthy limit, or enhance it in an unhealthy manner? Have you explained that their health is paramount and they should avoid the sport at that level? Have you supported one and not the other? Please explain. Help me remove my head from my bunghole. Because if you're right it's firmly in there. I don't see any solution vaguely remote, never mind obvious, in what you are proposing for anything beyond recreational sport.

Okay INow. Let's say you have a son that transgenders to female and is capable of dominating female sports. They are going to let her play if she reaches arbitrary testosterone targets that are not the best for her. She's dedicated, wants to play and wants to win. She's willing to sacrifice her long term health (or not) to reach the arbitrary target. How would you feel about that? You have another daughter equally dedicated that also wants to play. She's also willing to alter her testosterone level, and sacrifice her long term health, to make herself competitive enough to win. She's even willing to stay within the limits of the same target forced on transgenders (or arguably said incentivizing transgenders with possible eligibility they won't otherwise have). How do you feel about that? Who is going to judge skill and ability prior to the game, never mind judge "merit". (French and Russian figure skating judges notwithstanding) for high level sport. It really isn't at recreational level. But at top level it's "Citius, Altius, Fortius" not "Arbitrarius Mediocus" I never thought I'd agree about that, but you've made such a compelling argument I have to admit you're right.

Don't kid yourself, Jimmy. If a those girls ever got the chance, they'd overrun you and everyone you care about!

LOL (literally) +1 I'm still laughing at this whole post.

An agenda seeking real progress would strive to give everyone the same rights and opportunities, and reduce the ability for the rich to exploit the poor, regardless of the colour of their skin and regardless of their gender.

As I mentioned yesterday... Will more categories be added?...and when they all demand equal pay based on sharing total revenues who is to say no to them? But I guess for now it's nice to see them all get their half million a year...plenty of incentive for cis gendered females and any transgendered females that feel they can play at or near high school level male soccer....might even be a few cis gendered males willing to tryout...who would have the gall to question their motive for switching teams? After that all shakes out, let's assume they decide to stay with just two categories, open and some arbitrary "other"...on what basis should "other" be limited to those identifying as female? This thread started with many claiming there was no threat whatsoever to female sports...I guess "We've come a long way baby!" You believe it because you want to believe it. You have no scientific basis for it, unless the "women out there" you are referring to are those with XY chromosomes. Your fantasy is not helping women's sports and in the long term will not help transgenders.

If they are to be fully accepted in top level female sports in the category of their chosen gender, and be handicapped neither unhealthily nor unfairly (the two handicaps being generally incompatible and necessarily arbitrary), transgender women will dominate many if not most established sports, due to the the inherent and well understood advantages of having XY chromosomes and having gone through puberty. How will this be conducive to their acceptance by society? In sport and otherwise. How will the US Women's Soccer Team feel when they are either all replaced by transgender females, or are only able to maintain their place by overly restrictive and/or unhealthy rules that essentially eliminate transgender females from trying out? Or is that just okay? As long as someone is representing them and getting equal pay with the men...