CharonY

Also, at this point I would not be surprised if the guard was black. Under stress racial biases (and training) take over the rational part exacerbating such errors.

I also recall a case where an armed guard subdued a shooter and then got shot by the arriving police.

Indeed, more than half of the women who were victims of psychological abuse also encountered physical abuse, in men the rate is just shy of 50%. Another gender difference is the frequency. I do not quite remember the precise numbers, but I believe women are roughly twice as likely to be repeatedly abused (IIRC indicated as 10 or more incidences of abuse). Not sure whether that might mean that men are more likely to get away from abusive relationships, though.

Not quite. As mentioned, for sexual abuse we find the largest gender differences. Looking at StatCan data it is at about 2% for men and 12% for women. Note that this also includes same-sex partners. When it comes to physical violence of any sorts, it is a bit closer, 23% of women vs 17% of men). So victims of physical abuse are not only women, but if we look at severe injuries the numbers skew towards women again. Emotional abuse was even more common but women again were more commonly victims (43%) compared to men (35%). So while there differences, they may be smaller than often expected. Edit: crossposted with Peterkin

I think this thread illustrates why discussing population wide-problems using celebrities might not be ideal. The personality of either of these persons has no impact om the reality of the situation, which requires statistical data. And the data suggests that the life-time risk of women to face abuse from intimate partners is just a bit higher than for men (~40% vs ~30%), though typically women are (for obvious reasons) at higher risk of severe injury and are much more common to be victims of sexual abuse. So clearly there is something that needs to be done for the victims. However, changing traditional views is contentious (we now get into the progressive part of things). Clearly, the data demonstrates that reality does not align with the thinking that because men are stronger, they cannot be abused. Likewise seeking help for men is heavily stigmatized. At the same time some folks like to deal with it like a zero-sum game. I.e. if we help one group it is assumed to be at the cost for another. As such, we need to re-think the issue in a more holistic way to provide enduring solutions.

On a more general level, a big issue are gender stereotypes. Traditional views of men being strong and dominant in a relationship and as such conventional wisdom assumes that men cannot be abused by women. This obviously also ignores mental abuse, as traditionally men are just supposed to suck it up. In other words, society needs to rethink traditional view of feminity and masculinity and arrive at a more integrative view that accepts and helps abused men more broadly.

That is exactly the point though. We mostly unconsciously get into our gender roles. I don't think anyone needed to be explained how to be a boy/girl nor did one need to examine one's own genitals in much detail to figure out how to feel about it. However if it is mostly a passive process, it does follow that there must be a biological mechanism associated to how we feel about it. We do know that many factors are involve in sex differentiation including parts of the brain. While the work is very preliminary, some studies suggest an association between gender incongruence with certain differences in estrogen receptors. So it is less about the person being (mentally) confused, but in a way the biological programs (which, typically work in various continua and not in neat categories) just did not align (or potentially ended up in a less defined zone between the extremes). I.e. in the same way that you and I were clear about how our gender is, so are transgender kids. The issue really is that parts of their body disagree.

Yes, if you think men are not suited or should not be teachers or nurses, it is clearly discriminatory (and society clearly does not see it that way, male nurses and teachers have on average a higher salary than their female counterparts). And this is even worse as we are talking about positions of power. Excluding groups from access to power can lead to pretty bad and discriminatory policies, of which we have plenty of examples. Many of these have been explored in various threads, so I am not digging them up again. I did not mean to imply that there are not alternatives. However, it seemed to me that progressives seem to need to fulfill a way higher standard than folks apply to conservative views. As a matter of fact, I do not see a lot of nuance in any group. Where do we see moderates distancing themselves from anti-immigrant sentiments and associated implicit assumptions regarding foreigners? We can ask those questions all day long, but the truth is that if oversimplify groups (does not really matter which leaning) we are going to criticize a caricature which adds little substance. One also could ask who in your mind is a progressive vs non-progressive? Ultimately attitudes overlap in various segments of the population. You complained about folks associating anti-abortion sentiments with misogyny, I provided evidence that there is at least some overlap. So depending on where you stand you could agree more or less how important it is, but dismissing it, is at this point not supported by evidence.

Going through the thread I think the common theme is that we need to provide options. This might include opportunities to contact or non-contact sports and potentially (there might some disagreement here) less inhibition in terms of what kids choose to play. I think to a certain degree one can apply common sense without necessary planning for every possible contingency here. Especially on the recreational level participants together with coaches could figure out how "hard" they want to go into. From my experience at least it worked reasonably well. For example, we had one boy who was developing much faster than the rest of us but was asked to hold back a bit when playing against girls (and I wished he had held back against me, too).

When I was in school there was a bit like that. Essentially at some grade folks could choose among different sports (volleyball, basketball, gymnastics etc.). So for those not wanting to get into contact sports they could essentially opt out. I.e. they were not sorted in or or excluded from the sport that way (and as far as I am of there were no regulations in that regard, just some level of common sense, I guess). Self-sorting vs regulated sorting, if you will. Agreed. I think kids are more resilient than they get credit for and I do think that certain GenX/Millenial parents are too obsessed in providing their kids with the perfect of optimal childhood, which seems (at best) to make them more anxious than they should be (and social media does the rest).

I think I disagree on that one. In Germany school sports is much less competitive, but we often played in mixed teams until graduation. But even in clubs (where the real competition is) kids are sorted according to skill (where eventually boys will be on top) but the most talented girls will play with boys until age 17 (to foster abilities as much as possible). I have not found anything suggesting higher injuries.

Huh, didn't actually know that. Cheers.

Where does it say that Kissinger was banned from the Ukraine. The article seems only to mention that Russia was banned from the event.

Why do you think that they need to do that? Do you expect conservatives to line up when and decry every lack of nuance they their folks bring up? And this point is not defamatory as such either. After all, there are a range of studies that have shown that indicators of sexism (and racism) were the strongest predictors of Trump voters (i.e. we are looking a sizeable proportion of folks). Likewise, surveys have shown that anti-abortion voters are those most opposed to measures of equality. Looking at folks who want abortion to be illegal in all or most cases for example, we find that 54% of them think that men are generally better political leaders, and only 47% think that the same number of women as men should be in positions of power. Note that women were oversampled in this survey https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1647-supermajority-survey-on-women/429aa78e37ebdf2fe686/optimized/full.pdf#page=1 Likewise studies looking at left-right divides in matters of abortion to be associated with sexism (e.g. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.044). So instead of the right decrying sexism in their group, you think progressives should be more nuanced and perhaps state that up to 50% of anti-abortionists are sexists? Sorry I still am unclear what this means. Are "they" the progressives? Who is faking what? Not trying to be obtuse, but I find it difficult to figure out who is doing what in your sentence.

Eh, seems that we were saying the same thing, then. I also doubt that offending folks is really an issue if in the end it maximizes profit (but again I think there are easier ways to do that than weighing folks). Thinking a bit more about existing policies, I think the current rule is that if folks cannot sit with the armrest down, they cannot fly, unless the seat next to them is available (and/or they bought a second seat). I suspect that especially for some budget airlines, buying two seats is unavoidable for certain overweight folks.

I think the issue here is that it is a fairly one-dimensional view. There are many different reasons why folks are against abortion, and conversely, there are plenty of folks who acknowledge but disagree these notions and do not simply break it down to misogyny. Saying that all pro-choice folks think about it in terms of misogyny is a clear oversimplification and at best. I am not sure what that means, though. You oppose folks that oppose abortion because they oppose stem cell research? Wouldn't it better to be for or against these ethical problems not because what certain folks think about it or whether they are hypocritical about it, but rather think about the issue based on, well the issues themselves? Like in case of abortion the right of the unborn vs that of the mother? Doesn't basing ones own value system based on whether you like what or how someone thinks about something seem a bit backwards?

Well, they have to take it into account for sure. But it is unclear to me whether weighing folks would help their business model. OldChemE has mentioned some aspects. Also if folks universally are getting heavier and obese folks are become the norm, then it might be that everyone just gets charged more. Or if there a niche developing, some airlines might cater specifically to the heavy/light segment, but only if the market is worth it.

I think one can summarize a lot of these things with a few quotes the first couple of pages. Essentially we need to understand the biology of transitioning better and find a more nuanced view on sex vs performance. There may be some disciplines where advantages are maintained, in which case transgender athletes are better suited to perform in the high performance class, which will be dominated by folks born male, in others that won't be the case. Chris Mosier, a transgender men won national championships in race walking, for example. There are different solutions and scaling for that. Golf was mentioned were handicaps can be introduced. This does not mean that easy solutions exist nor that it is unnecessary to figure out a system where biological women are not (further) disadvantage in earning potential, for example.

They likely introduced it because so many folks were overweight. But it also does show that no one really looked at it and considered it to be worthwhile to pursue.

Actually I think I read of a small airline had tried it out, but I am not sure if they are still doing that. Edit: Found it: it was Samoa Air who did it in 2013 but it went out of business 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samoa_Air

Marxism at its core is not a ruling system, but philosophy encompassing social, political and economic thoughts. There are also theories of histories embedded in it, which are mostly discarded in the more postmodernist intellectual system, where folks became highly skeptical of grand narratives of modernism (which includes for example Marx' historic view or simplification of class struggles and his predictions- something that seems to confuse Peterson as he likes to conflate those things). In its modern form it is has become more of a framework to look at social aspects, typically in a capitalist society. Neo-Marxism for example clearly state that the freedom of the individual is a a paramount political value and also acknowledges that capitalism provides these liberties of multiple levels. However, it also explores where limits of autonomy might arise e.g. due to inequalities. As such it does not tend more to totalitarianism as, say capitalism. That seems to disparage a whole swath of scholars without really any argument. Of course there are idiots in each profession including in humanities (take Peterson for example...https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve), but using those to disparage the whole discipline is a bit silly. It depends on precisely what you are mean. In terms of impact on health? If so, these two are not interchangeable while being somewhat connected. First in capitalist societies we will always have wealth disparity. It is just how the system works. Associated with that, we have found in pretty much any country, including those with socialized health system that there those with lower education and lower income are disadvantaged in terms of health measures including life expectancy. In Canada, Statscan has for example data that shows that this gap has increased over time (1996-2011). So this definitely has an impact. However, when we intersect it with race, things are complicated. There are several levels where it impacts the outcome. On the highest, we can simply talk about bad medical science. Here, there are racial assumptions (e.g. assumptions that there are racial differences in creatinine levels, which eventually resulted in specifically black folks being undertreated for renal issues). These are not necessarily malevolent, but because minorities are considered different, limited studies (or even without studies) the medical community is more ready to believe and treat folks differently and even ineffectively. A very prominent example of medical make-believe is sodium glutamate, which got an incredibly bad rep without any medical data. It was enough that it was a staple in Asian, but not in Western cooking. Then there are biases on the treatment level- medical professionals at least used to treat foreigners often pretty badly. In part because of communication issues, but in part also because of personal biases. Some example of such mistreatments could be forced or coerced sterilization, but there are also many other examples (even from my family). Moving on from there, there are also structural issues. Often folks of a given race live in similar regions, and there you might simply not have access to good care, even if it was free. Then there are issues with access to affordable and healthy food, transportation and so on. Another factor that has been identified is that of environmental racism- areas inhabited by low income minorities are more likely to be close to environmental hazards (in the US these include superfund sites) and poor access to clean water and similar issues. There are overlaps with certain under-serviced communities, but minorities are typically overrepresented. Then, we have the issue of lived experiences. Many minorities face some level of societal discrimination. It is similar to what e.g. a white person of low status might encounter, when predominantly interaction with folks of higher status. The difference is that this discrimination also happens among social peers. This is not only theoretical, but can actually be measured. Studies looking at health biomarkers of stress show that e.g. black folks with the same status as white folks have higher stress markers which are associated with a range of long-term health issues. Conversely at least theoretically (as studies in that regard are still lacking) minorities who grew up in a privileged environment and have control over where they go to (e.g. ex-pats vs working class immigrants) are likely to be better off. This complexity has resulted in more efforts to look into intersectionality of these parameters, but these are relatively new efforts (as historically such work was underfunded) and require quite a bit of effort to in order to get the data from sufficiently large cohorts. So on the question whether racial disparity can be fixed entirely by giving everyone money (which, is kind of funny, because fixing wealth inequality is some original Marxist thinking...) is a bit tricky. It will alleviate some aspects of it, certainly. But studies still show that many minorities (especially black and Hispanic folks) are still disadvantaged at equal wealth (and with African Americans specifically the difference is really big) so the other factors mentioned above (plus potentially more yet undiscovered ones) are likely going to factor in. And this is only when considering health outcomes (and not e.g. why there are racial wealth inequalities). Many things we only start to understand now. The historic (one could potentially say "modernist") way to look at it was to blame the minorities. There is something wrong with them, that is why their outcome is different. This has been a pervasive narrative for a long time. In the 90s for example maybe a few dozen articles were published looking at racial inequality and quite a few of those were either historic studies or argued that racial inequalities are tied to cognitive capabilities. Since maybe 2010 the number of studies have increased and diversified, providing counter-narratives. Only after that, funding became more accessible for this area of research, though quite a few reviewers were still disinterested examining cohorts who are not considered to be representative (aka white). Given the recency of this information, it is not very surprising that society is struggling to catch up with these new narratives and also that most folks might (on either side of the issue) do not fully understand it yet. We have ignored the issue and now we are just barely intellectually catching up.

The Second Amendment is has also not been clear on whether it actually protects the right of citizens to bear arms. While it has been upheld as such, the decisions were split:

Yes obviously the athletes should be part of the conversation, no doubt about that. That does include transgender athletes. And rather unfortunately quite a few of the laws and rulings do not include consultations with said athletes which, as you said, is patronizing. Note that discussions on this board are purely speculative as AFAIK no one here has ruling power for any sports. It should also add that there is also the issue that sometimes a women's league is desired as women have less support in certain sports due to certain performance assumptions (which we discussed in context of jockeys). That is not what was proposed, from what I can see. I think that (or some variation of it) seems to be what most advocating to integrate transgender athletes are basically proposing. I should add that the differences should not be sexual, but performance traits relevant for a given sports that are likely to be sex-associated.

Ok, that confirms that you indeed do not get follow the gist of the argument. I am trying one more time and then I suggest that we give up on that as it does not seem to go anywhere. The argument of segregation is based on the fact that boys at some point become stronger than girls. Agreed? From there it follows that there is a physiological difference, and let us just call it strength to make it simple. After all if there is a difference, we should be able to measure by whatever means (otherwise there would be no difference). So let's say at girls have an average strength of 5 going up to 7, whereas boys have an average of 8 going up to 10. So let's say individuals with a strength of 8 or above are too dangerous to put together with folks with, say, more than two levels of difference. So let's say then that we put a threshold of 8 for the higher league. As no woman might reach it, it will be only men. However, men who do not reach that threshold (and therefore would be at similar risk of injury as women), would also not qualify. Conversely, transgender and potentially some other rare women who cross that threshold would then compete in that league, which would minimize risk of injury.

In other words, if we split the league according to the factors you describe we will automatically segregate folks which will, for the most part, follow sex lines. So what is the issue with that then?