Malcolm Gladwell 'ashamed' of being 'cowed' on trans athletes in female sport

High hopes wrote:

Or, rather more cynically, he's just following the herd and he's seen that it's much more socially acceptable to be anti-trans now. Given how easily Gladwell seems to be persuaded by single, often not replicable, social science studies in his main line of work, it looks like he's a man of fairly malleable beliefs

I Have Edits wrote:

why do we care what he thinks? wrote:

Trans stuff aside, I don't really understand why Gladwell is treated like some kind of running pundit that we should all listen too.

He's a great writer but a (famously) poor interpreter of science and doesn't seem to have any particular experience or expertise that makes him knowledgeable about running... I mean it's always good to have someone famous promote the sport, but do we have to care so much about his random opinions?

He's not a good writer. He is a good communicator, but that is a different thing. He is also a coward with no backbone. He knew he was in the wrong and threw girls and women under the bus to win favor with his elite buddies.

Unconscionable.

seems cowardly tbh wrote:

High hopes wrote:

Or, rather more cynically, he's just following the herd and he's seen that it's much more socially acceptable to be anti-trans now. Given how easily Gladwell seems to be persuaded by single, often not replicable, social science studies in his main line of work, it looks like he's a man of fairly malleable beliefs

This.

When the panel and crowd are pro-trans, he failed to defend Ross.

When he's on a panel with Ross, he defends Ross.

Wow, such conviction.

Seems to do whatever is fashionable in the moment and context.

muckle wrote:

I saw the interview and saw nothing Gladwell or anyone else had to apologize for. Gladwell seemed like a reasonable interviewer and all three panelist civil and well reasoned in their comments.

Badcompany wrote:

seems cowardly tbh wrote:

This.

When the panel and crowd are pro-trans, he failed to defend Ross.

When he's on a panel with Ross, he defends Ross.

Wow, such conviction.

Seems to do whatever is fashionable in the moment and context.

No, you’re still conflating not tolerating biological males playing women’s with being anti-trans.

The reality is nobody gives an F about them one way or another. They’re a tiny minority within a small minority. We were just put in a spot where it was time to say “enough.”

seems cowardly tbh wrote:

Badcompany wrote:

No, you’re still conflating not tolerating biological males playing women’s with being anti-trans.

The reality is nobody gives an F about them one way or another. They’re a tiny minority within a small minority. We were just put in a spot where it was time to say “enough.”

You are completely missing the point.

I am very much anti-trans in terms of men in women's sports.

I am saying MG was cowardly and seems to just say what he thinks will please his audience at the minute.

Badcompany wrote:

High hopes wrote:

Take a second to organise your thoughts and try again. You're ranting like Grandpa Simpson

We don’t have to kiss trans ass. Just because the person is trans doesn’t mean he’s done anything to earn my or anybody else’s respect. We’re done with your entitlement mentality.

And you’re the one who’s continually cranking out longwinded tiresome missives, while saying nothing, when all you have to do is just take the L and move on.

Oh yeah, and you can apologize for attempting to destroy women’s sports and putting them at risk of harm.

High hopes wrote:

Why are you reading my posts if they're so tiresome? And I hate to tell you, but you don't get to tell anyone to shut up and move on. That's not how it works. People will always fight for their beliefs, so best prepare yourself for the long haul. You're also not being asked to kiss anyone's ass, just treat everyone with basic decency. Most people don't find that difficult.

hohoho. wrote:

Children do not undergo full medical transition. Minors experiencing severe psychological distress due to puberty may be prescribed puberty blockers, while cross-sex hormones are only given to adults.

Puberty blockers are largely reversible, while cross-sex hormones have more permanent effects.

If someone mentions they started transitioning as a teenager, they mean that they either socially transitioned without medication, or began taking puberty blockers only as children.

However, puberty blockers are very rarely prescribed. Only a small percentage of children identifying as transgender receive any medication at all.

Woke mind virus wrote:

High hopes wrote:

Why are you reading my posts if they're so tiresome? And I hate to tell you, but you don't get to tell anyone to shut up and move on. That's not how it works. People will always fight for their beliefs, so best prepare yourself for the long haul. You're also not being asked to kiss anyone's ass, just treat everyone with basic decency. Most people don't find that difficult.

Yeah, you’re fighting to allow men in women’s sports. Such a laudable cause!

Kobbs Hessler wrote:

JK Rowling from the top rope. Ouch

Tweet:x.com/jk_rowling/status/19639270772136...

kiltedrunner wrote:

Kobbs Hessler wrote:

JK Rowling from the top rope. Ouch

Tweet:x.com/jk_rowling/status/19639270772136...

I'm usually a fan of Rowling's no-nonsense approach but slightly ironic that she's saying Gladwell kept his head down to avoid being eviscerated online whilst she is...eviscerating him online to her millions of followers. Compared to 99% of left leaning journos and public figures, he is still 'early' on this issue. Also, I made this clear at the beginning of the thread, he was the moderator and yet I still sensed he agreed with Tucker...I sense Rowling didn't look into the details of what Gladwell actually did and said as she's acting like he was outspoken for trans rights in the debate.

rekrunner wrote:

Woke mind virus wrote:

Yeah, you’re fighting to allow men in women’s sports. Such a laudable cause!

Is he? Seemed more like he was saying you don't need to hate "trans" generally, yet you can still argue excluding them from women's sports.

I think the IAAF went in the right direction, allowing DSD athletes to compete if they undergo hormone therapy to reduce the testosterone advantage. A similar allowance can be made for "trans" women on hormone therapy. Similarly, the IAAF also allows "X-Y" women to compete when they have AIS (they are low to no responders to androgens, and have not developed male bodies).

I'm also in favor of keeping dongles out of the dressing rooms and sausages out of the showers. But if they have been snipped, that demonstrates a commitment.

Kobbs Hessler wrote:

JK Rowling from the top rope. Ouch

Tweet:x.com/jk_rowling/status/19639270772136...

rekrunner wrote:

If you are the moderator/chair of a debate, aren't you supposed to act neutrally, regardless of your own opinion? The moderator should keep the debate focused and civil if necessary, and is not expected to come to the defense of one side or the other, depending on his own personal views.

I'm still puzzled though about one point (sorry, didn't watch either video) -- did Malcolm side with "trans" inclusion on women's sports in the past, and then change his stance later? I got the impression from your initial posts that he was ashamed for not speaking out (which he shouldn't do anyway as chair).