Transgender athletes wins CT state champs for school

Blue Hurricane wrote:

GD wrote:

There are many Democrats who think like you do, but you're missing an important point about the radical, so-called "woke" wing of the Democratic party. They have repackaged ideas that many recognize as racist and sexist and call them progressive. John McWhorter, a professor and NYT columnist, has a book about the race aspects of this ideology. It's called Woke Racism.

Essentially, woke ideology (an amalgam of postmodernism and critical theory) argues that philosophical liberalism, which I will summarize crudely as the belief that all people are morally equal and deserve equal opportunities in society, is an ideology created by white men to create and maintain dominance over women and people of color. They put identity politics in place of equality doctrine, and identity politics entails treating different groups of people as if they are essentially different. Racial essentialism is therefore a shared feature of old school racism and woke ideology.

When people argue that being on time or a strong work ethic are facets of white supremacy, they're embracing the very same ideas that racists of prior generations did. The Smithsonian Institute posted an infographic on their website arging these sorts of thigns a handful of years ago. The logical implication of this belief is that people who aren't white don't have a strong work ethic or have difficulty showing up on time. This is why people can pull quotes from Richard Spencer (white supremacist) and Robin DiAngelo (anti-racist educator) and find more similarities than differences. DiAngelo and others in her camp are like arsonists running the fire department. Their toxic illiberal ideas are creating the very problems they claim to have expertise in solving.

There's a difference between acknowledging a history of racism and sexism and its lingering effects today, for example, and arguing that the bedrock of Western culture (philosophical liberalism) is the ideology that created racism and sexism. On the contrary, liberalism is the foundation upon which institutions like slavery and coverture were overturned.

The problem is pretending that 50% of the country thinks this way. You talk about the far left as if it represents the entire party. It is like thinking all republicans are white suprematists. A loud minority doesn’t make a majority.

fickle wrote:

GD wrote:

There are many Democrats who think like you do, but you're missing an important point about the radical, so-called "woke" wing of the Democratic party. They have repackaged ideas that many recognize as racist and sexist and call them progressive. John McWhorter, a professor and NYT columnist, has a book about the race aspects of this ideology. It's called Woke Racism.

Essentially, woke ideology (an amalgam of postmodernism and critical theory) argues that philosophical liberalism, which I will summarize crudely as the belief that all people are morally equal and deserve equal opportunities in society, is an ideology created by white men to create and maintain dominance over women and people of color. They put identity politics in place of equality doctrine, and identity politics entails treating different groups of people as if they are essentially different. Racial essentialism is therefore a shared feature of old school racism and woke ideology.

When people argue that being on time or a strong work ethic are facets of white supremacy, they're embracing the very same ideas that racists of prior generations did. The Smithsonian Institute posted an infographic on their website arging these sorts of thigns a handful of years ago. The logical implication of this belief is that people who aren't white don't have a strong work ethic or have difficulty showing up on time. This is why people can pull quotes from Richard Spencer (white supremacist) and Robin DiAngelo (anti-racist educator) and find more similarities than differences. DiAngelo and others in her camp are like arsonists running the fire department. Their toxic illiberal ideas are creating the very problems they claim to have expertise in solving.

There's a difference between acknowledging a history of racism and sexism and its lingering effects today, for example, and arguing that the bedrock of Western culture (philosophical liberalism) is the ideology that created racism and sexism. On the contrary, liberalism is the foundation upon which institutions like slavery and coverture were overturned.

These types of arguments are just intellectual masturbatory narratives, not rooted in math and data and not designed to be amenable to quantification, so anyone can say whatever they want and no one else need care.

But they help the base on both sides of the traditional party lines get fired up, so it makes for shrewd politics, I suppose.

GD wrote:

fickle wrote:

These types of arguments are just intellectual masturbatory narratives, not rooted in math and data and not designed to be amenable to quantification, so anyone can say whatever they want and no one else need care.

But they help the base on both sides of the traditional party lines get fired up, so it makes for shrewd politics, I suppose.

You are, without rival, the most manipulative and disingenuous contributor to these threads--always resorting to a, "Look over here!" tactic when you can't defend your arguments.

You're trying to bait me into a no-win argument by placing artifical boundaries on the discussion. Here you resort to an outdated epistemology, positivism, and suggest that any discussion that doesn't conform to the assumptions of this oudated philosophy is a sham and outside of the proper realm of rational debate. Yet, when RunRagged gives you reams of data to support her points, you also dismiss her with a dumb, ad hominem attack that only you regard as clever.

Maybe you're a troll and are intentionally being fickle with your responses just to rile people up. Either way, it's stupid.

fickle wrote:

GD wrote:

You are, without rival, the most manipulative and disingenuous contributor to these threads--always resorting to a, "Look over here!" tactic when you can't defend your arguments.

You're trying to bait me into a no-win argument by placing artifical boundaries on the discussion. Here you resort to an outdated epistemology, positivism, and suggest that any discussion that doesn't conform to the assumptions of this oudated philosophy is a sham and outside of the proper realm of rational debate. Yet, when RunRagged gives you reams of data to support her points, you also dismiss her with a dumb, ad hominem attack that only you regard as clever.

Maybe you're a troll and are intentionally being fickle with your responses just to rile people up. Either way, it's stupid.

Looks like you don’t disagree with anything I actually wrote above, sweetie. My post wasn’t even attacking you or your post, but maybe you are just feeling extra PMessy today?

Math and data is my philosophy and mostly the basis of what I care about. And no, your transphobic verbose overlord isn’t sufficiently analytical to meaningfully engage (nor are you).

GD wrote:

fickle wrote:

Looks like you don’t disagree with anything I actually wrote above, sweetie. My post wasn’t even attacking you or your post, but maybe you are just feeling extra PMessy today?

Math and data is my philosophy and mostly the basis of what I care about. And no, your transphobic verbose overlord isn’t sufficiently analytical to meaningfully engage (nor are you).

Now this person is launching a sexist insult at me with the hope that I will reciprocate with my own insult, which he will use to paint me as a bigot. If I respond with something grounded in rationality or evidence, he will either continue with the insults or accuse me of intellectual masturbation once again.

I hope that by pointing to the tactics, others will start to recognize these manipulations and avoid stepping into such traps. His goal, and that of others like him, is to provoke your anger by hitting your emotional and/or intellectual buttons, then use your angry response to denigrate everybody who agrees with your position.

Language games and emotional manipulation. Learn to spot it, and don't fall for it.

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

RunRagged wrote:

So in your view, there's no need for any policy that attempts to insure fairness in track & field for female students before 7th grade?

US Youth Track & Field Records, Age 8 & Under by Sex:
100m: 13.65 Male; 13.97 Female
200m: 28.11 Male; 28.48 Female
400m: 1:03.30 Male; 1:06.53 Female
800m: 2:29.59 Male; 2:38.26 Male
1,500m: 5:08.52 Male; 5:21.81 Female
Long Jump: 4.46m (14'7¾") Male; 3.99 m (13'1¼") Female
Shot Put: 9.62m (31'6¾") Male; 8.11 m (26'7¼") Female
Mini Javelin: 33.29m (109'2¾") Male; 23.15 m (75'11½") Female

On what grounds do you think it's justified to deny female students fairness in track & field so long as they haven't made it to 7th grade yet?

K-6 sports are not the Olympics or the FIFA World Cup. Parents often take them way too seriously. Let kids be kids before worrying about winning and losing.

Norway is the most successful country in Winter Olympics, and kids there do not engage in formal competitions until they are 14-15. It has not hurt their success in later years.