This story has gone mainstream and is being picked up everywhere. For example, Megyn Kelly talked about it and has video clips of some of the key moments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Malcom tries to blame the pro-trans sentiment on COVID and that “we all went crazy”. No, Malcolm. Many of us didn’t go crazy during COVID. Those that wanted to fit in with the prevailing narrative “went crazy”. Otjers of us kept sane sane and were mocked / threatened for being “transphobic” or some liberal BS.
Trans women are women. Not boys pretending to be girls but women. They should live as women if they choose. I lose nothing, NOTHING by allowing a trans person to live as their chosen gender.
Trans women are women. Not boys pretending to be girls but women. They should live as women if they choose. I lose nothing, NOTHING by allowing a trans person to live as their chosen gender.
And to head off the "it isn't fair" crap I was beaten by 2 biological females at a race yesterday. I just wouldn't care if they ran as men. Again, it doesn't impact my life at all.
It is, by definition, anti-trans inclusion in sport. You can argue whether that's right or wrong, but you can't pretend that it's not anti-trans inclusion. Ross repeatedly makes that clear himself, that this is an issue about competing rights and wherever you land, one group is going to lose out in some way. The only issue that's really up for debate is which group you want to deprive. There's no perfect solution here, only a least imperfect outcome.
I agree that no matter what policy decision is made someone "loses". Yes, that person can compete, but it still is not an ideal situation for them. We also need to teach the players on the team not to be a--holes because that person is different. We have largely done it with gay athletes. The acceptance in society is pretty darn good (not perfect but that is never going to happen) and with younger people it is more likely that if someone says something anti-gay now, someone will call them out on it. We need that same sort of acceptance with the guy who sees themself as a girl from his male teammates.
The use of "anti" and "pro" are semantic devices. See anti-abortion and pro-life...So yes in a way it is anti-trans just as it is anti-old to exclude 25 year olds from youth sports.
Hmm, in society, yeah acceptance of gay people is so much better now even compared to as recently as the early-2000s. But not in pro sport. Athletics has been very good, the reactions to Nico Young and Yared Nuguse have been positive. But look at the pro team sports, how many out gay basketball or soccer players do you see? How many out gay male golfers or tennis players are there? There's still a long way to go in sport for acceptance of gay people. I have a lot of hope for the younger generations. They're far more of a live and let live attitude
Latest 'Real Science of Sport' podcast has a great interview with Gladwell. He had been the chair on a lopsided panel against sports scientist Ross Tucker on the topic of Transgender Athletes in 2022. At the outset of the podcast he says he agrees 100% with Ross that there is no place for trans athletes in female sport and that he was ashamed of his performance on that panel because he was cowed by the panel/audience. "I was objective in a dishonest way- I let a lot of howlers pass without comment". He also calls for an end to the spectacle of boys taking part in girls' sport at high school level: "Parents are not gonna put up with this sort of bullsh*t".
Refreshing to hear someone hold themselves accountable for when they got things wrong/weren't as intellectually honest as they could have been on this topic. More of this please.
What does "chair a panel" mean? Did he argue one position and then change his mind?
In my opinion, this is a hot-button issue that many feel strongly against, but few are actually advocating for.
I also wonder how many defenders of women sports are also defending other women's issues like access to healthcare, or equal opportunity and pay, etc. Doesn't seem to me like there is a big overlap.
My opinion is like Spock said before he died -- the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. All solutions must consider and ensure fairness to the many cis-gender athletes.
I think the IAAF took the right approach, allowing men who want to compete as women, on a case-by-case basis, to compete in certain events with hormone suppression therapy. It may need more refinement, but it seems to be the right direction and compromise.
Also not in favor of non-consensual mixed dressing rooms and showers, but if the transperson has undergone physical anatomical surgery, this seems to suggest their strong commitment to their chosen gender, rather than a desire to win women's medals or stalk female athletes.
That is Not anti-trans. It is Pro-woman Athletic Fairness and Safety. Simple. Period. It's also not a herd. It's breaking from the herd that managed to gain some seriously funky momentum. It was based on fear and guilt, and now the policies are much nearer reality and science and fact.
If trans females " just want to compete ", they still are able, and hopefully will --to at least stay physically heathy.
It is, by definition, anti-trans inclusion in sport. You can argue whether that's right or wrong, but you can't pretend that it's not anti-trans inclusion. Ross repeatedly makes that clear himself, that this is an issue about competing rights and wherever you land, one group is going to lose out in some way. The only issue that's really up for debate is which group you want to deprive. There's no perfect solution here, only a least imperfect outcome.
Since ‘trans’ is an illusionary concept, your whole premise is flawed. There is only male and female.
Trans women are women. Not boys pretending to be girls but women. They should live as women if they choose. I lose nothing, NOTHING by allowing a trans person to live as their chosen gender.
Your gender isn’t chosen any more than your shoe size, dimwit.
On the assumption that this is a genuine question, he was the moderator in a discussion. So although it wasn't his job to share his opinion at the time, he now feels that his objectivity was compromised at that time due to how intimidating the pro-trans/anti-women lobby were at that point. Where normally he would push back on some of the more ridiculous tactics of the pro-trans side in such a debate, he allowed them to pass without comment e.g. one of them apparently turned to Ross at one point and demanded that he had to "let them win", which is an utterly bizarre thing to come out with during a debate.
It is, by definition, anti-trans inclusion in sport. You can argue whether that's right or wrong, but you can't pretend that it's not anti-trans inclusion. Ross repeatedly makes that clear himself, that this is an issue about competing rights and wherever you land, one group is going to lose out in some way. The only issue that's really up for debate is which group you want to deprive. There's no perfect solution here, only a least imperfect outcome.
“Trans” is just a word that describes somebody pretending to be something that they aren’t. So being “anti-trans” is nothing more than being “pro-reality”.
On the assumption that this is a genuine question, he was the moderator in a discussion. So although it wasn't his job to share his opinion at the time, he now feels that his objectivity was compromised at that time due to how intimidating the pro-trans/anti-women lobby were at that point. Where normally he would push back on some of the more ridiculous tactics of the pro-trans side in such a debate, he allowed them to pass without comment e.g. one of them apparently turned to Ross at one point and demanded that he had to "let them win", which is an utterly bizarre thing to come out with during a debate.
Yes, genuine question, thanks. Your first post made it sound like Gladwell changed his position on the topic. Sorry, I should have read your next post, which answered my question a bit better, before asking.
That is Not anti-trans. It is Pro-woman Athletic Fairness and Safety. Simple. Period. It's also not a herd. It's breaking from the herd that managed to gain some seriously funky momentum. It was based on fear and guilt, and now the policies are much nearer reality and science and fact.
If trans females " just want to compete ", they still are able, and hopefully will --to at least stay physically heathy.
It is, by definition, anti-trans inclusion in sport. You can argue whether that's right or wrong, but you can't pretend that it's not anti-trans inclusion. Ross repeatedly makes that clear himself, that this is an issue about competing rights and wherever you land, one group is going to lose out in some way. The only issue that's really up for debate is which group you want to deprive. There's no perfect solution here, only a least imperfect outcome.
Of course, it’s anti-trans inclusion by definition. Anyone who uses emphatic disclaimers like “Simple” and “Period” to define away any nuance to the issue just doesn’t give a damn about what happens to trans people.
It’s also hardly clear the current outcome is the least imperfect. There were no trans athletes in T&F even with the pre-2023 rules, leave alone the post-2023 tanner2/12/2.5 rules, to prompt the return to SRY testing.
Of course, it’s anti-trans inclusion by definition. Anyone who uses emphatic disclaimers like “Simple” and “Period” to define away any nuance to the issue
Goes on rant about the kind of people that use 'emphatic disclaimers'; starts sentence with 'of course'. Glorious stuff.
I also wonder how many defenders of women sports are also defending other women's issues like access to healthcare, or equal opportunity and pay, etc. Doesn't seem to me like there is a big overlap.
The "defenders of women's of sport" are never defenders of WNBA, or defenders of equal pay, or defenders of access to abortion.
In fact, I'd go as far as to say they're usually the opposite: the men who endlessly post about trans athletes are the same who denigrate WBNA, and equal pay, and oppose access to abortion.