J.C.MacSwell

Canada maybe. We have more women, Christine Sinclair in particular, that are household names than that of our male soccer players. Not sure if that generates enough revenue to make a difference but we are certainly one of the rare countries where it could.

"Nobody does it" is your objection so you can't get past that and see the point? Why consider equal pay if nobody does it? No country has so far paid equally to their men's and women's soccer teams. ...and if you can follow the argument, equal pay just happened to be very close to what was deserved based on gate receipts and similar revenues. Do you not think they would have asked for more if they could have? You think they would have fought for the right to share with the men if the men's revenues were significantly lower? They happened to be in a very unique situation in the world of soccer. Other countries are extremely unlikely to follow their lead. I'm going to go out on a limb without looking and guess that of the 14 different G7 bell curves based on gender, there's probably a middle of a male one that's pretty damn close to a female one (and yes, I thought of that prior to replying to Dim, and no I wasn't trying to suggest an exact midpoint)

No. Nor does any other National team have men and women share revenues. Your point? The women generated slightly more revenue but their contract wasn't tied to that, or they automatically would have received more. They did in fact deserve more, but not based on "equal pay". They certainly would not have chosen that argument if they were underpaid in the same manner but the men's Team was earning less. I didn't claim there wasn't. I said I'd still be in the middle of a G7 bell curve if I decided to change, with the caveat that I am really only aware of the two main genders. (not claiming I'm well versed in all the possible curves, but aware enough to know my statement is valid) At high school level the top XY athletes are already producing what would be World Record performances for females, and many are competing for scholarships. So the top high school level is beyond what I would consider recreational and top college well beyond that. That of course should not exclude trans athletes from competing at recreational level past middle school or even for life. How do you ascertain that someone capable of skill level 1, is only willing to demonstrate skill level 2? (Just asking on behalf of former East German coaches hoping to revive their careers, and many current Russian ones) People cheat. What you are suggesting are criteria incentivized to stay under. Sandbagging is well known in recreational level sports where the stakes are low. What makes you think it won't be used when the stakes are high? What if this argument had been used, and given weight, when women were trying to gain access to sports of their own? We'd still be back in the 1920's (okay, maybe no one would have known what you were on about back then)inviting females to watch from the sidelines. The pee thing you keep going on about: There's good reasons men tend to pee standing up and women tend to pee sitting down. The Good Lord (read evolution) chose to hand most of the burden for the proliferation of our species on women. This doesn't mean that they are inferior athletes. It means that you can't measure it in the same way when some carry that well known burden and others do not.

True. There may be some gender category somewhere, that I am not aware of, that if I joined I would not be in the middle of the bell curve. Can we leave it at that?

It holds regardless of any gender choice I choose to make.

As someone in the middle of a G7 member bell curve...I think I'm very fortunate.

World bell curve? Or G7 member bell curve?

If you are wealthy enough to consider half a million extra a year (making the Team) to nothing extra at all (displaced from the Team) a slight pay cut, I'm very happy for you Dim.

Their true colours would come out though, if transgender eligibility was up to USA alone, or they had to rely solely on the Americans that had their heads up their bungholes and were willing to speak up in defence of women's sport. Certainly. Who would argue otherwise? I don't think transgenders are threatening to take away women's voting rights, or women's human rights generally.

Just a comment on equal pay and though I'm absolutely fine with the new USA contract, I'm not for equal pay in the manner the US women's Team has demanded. They all make substantially more than most men and women, and they deserve to IMO, but it's driven by gate receipts (the prize moneys are included in that) not simply because they are elite athletes. They certainly can negotiate and share revenues they generate with each other, that's their prerogative. But they certainly don't expect themselves to share the revenues with other elite athletes outside their sport, say women's wrestling, or within their sport, say the paralympic soccer teams. I do expect the women will be very protective of that revenue, including wanting rules to exclude XY individuals from competing on an arbitrary equal footing. Ultimately it will tend to be about the money, not the integrity, the women would not have signed that deal if their expected revenues were higher than the men's (nor should they have if that was the case). Also don't expect Brazil, or any other country to follow their lead, and don't suggest they are less progressive when they don't go for equal pay (they may be less progressive, as demonstrated by the greater discrepancy in Brazil of the Men's to Women's game, but not due to rejecting "equal pay" at top level) It will be interesting though, to see how many transgender females tryout for the US Women's Team given the half a million a year incentive, how many make it against whatever hurdles are put in place against them. My thinking is that most of the current Team will be very relieved when their international body declares transgender females ineligible or, more likely, effectively blocks them from international play with overly restrictive rules, and Rapinoe et al can pretend to take the high road, just as they have in their demands for equal pay.

Is it simply Marxism? I certainly never considered Marx to have been evil or for that matter pure communism to be. I just consider it to tend toward totalitarianism just as would fascism. I am certainly not referring to science. It would be closer to espousing what we would like to be true without questioning it. But it would be a particular variety of it. More what many older tenured professors in the humanities are doing. Ones with no real interest in scientific method unless it supports their ideas. Sorry. Just from what you wrote between brackets I thought it might be assumed that he was. He might be a bit of a sensationalist but he seems like a tormented one and not evil, or malicious toward any group.

What term should be used to refer to or describe the leftist academia phenomena so as not to suggest any conspiracy theory or especially an anti-semitic one?

You consider J Petersen a racist? I haven't paid much attention lately, and I think he's gone through some health issues, including perhaps mental health issues, but from everything I've seen he's been outspokenly a free speech advocate, anti-marxist,anti-fascist, and anti-nazi. He does speak well outside the Overton window (and is willing to espouse on areas he's not necessarily expert on as CY has pointed out) but measures his speech fairly carefully outside of the fact he will think and answer on the spot. Here he's explaining, or at least discussing, being photographed behind a Pepe flag.

Thanks and+1. I think you are a little too forgiving of the Dems shortcomings but good post and thanks for the effort. In your opinion or impression though, is it fair to say you believe systemic racism is more of a factor than systemic wealthism? Or am I reading you wrong, or do you feel they haven't been factored out enough for you to say or feel you know?

This seems similar to the current progressive playbook...attack the individual...don't even consider the intended context.

Of course this is somewhat incorrect: "It comes just three months after the Tokyo Olympics, which saw the first transgender and intersex athletes compete in the Games' history." Caster Semenya, for example, is an intersex athlete that won gold in the 800m in Rio in 2016 but was deemed ineligible to compete in Tokyo. It looks though like the IOC might be are slowly coming to terms with this. I don't see it in the same link but am pretty sure they are leaving the final decisions to individual sports...so at least they are working on guidelines. +1

Certainly testosterone control hasn't worked. What else has been tried. Has anything been tried to advance inclusion of transgender males? Only INow has the answer but so far he's been keeping it secret, other than to suggest it's not hidden somewhere in our asses. The IOC has given up and left it to the individual sports bodies.

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".