J.C.MacSwell

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".

And while my charges and blame might not seem to be toward the GOP, re-read my posts, I've acknowledged it and don't feel the need to sing it back to the choir here, given the actual topic of the thread.

I didn't realize rich white (and other) Democrats and their choir were the primary victims. I thought the primary victims were the ones they were claiming they wanted to help.

In fact (read IMO), your median GOP voter, and your median Dem voter, probably are not that different and most would like to see real progress in many areas and deserve a good moderate party (which if in power too long will no doubt become corrupt and need replaced...hopefully having left some permanent improvements) "Considered" is different from getting out the racism club, and swinging it at everything one does not like.

Two questions. 1. When adjusted for wealth or just income? 2. Which problem is foremost, the discrepancy due to wealth with race factored out or the discrepancy due to race with wealth factored out? If wealth is the leading factor, why is racism so often assumed to be the driving factor? In countries with more universal health care systems, how do the root causes of the discrepancies differ? How much of what is considered systemic racism would disappear with a more universal health care system in place? How much systemic wealthism would be reduced with more restrictions on political spending and lobbying, and how much systemic racism would disappear with it? Easy to blame the GOP here, rightfully so,but are the Dems not implicated in much of this also? Especially when they are so quick to pick up and wield the racism club, and all the while protect the Clintons and the Bidens. How much more progress could be made if the "progressives" were more intent on real progress, and less on identity politics and power? There's a difference. And the GOP aren't the only ones taking advantage of the current system and exploiting others.

Absolutely. Recreational sports, taken as a whole, are healthy, rewarding, and ultimately more important than elite sports. But that doesn't answer the question I put forward with regard to top level sports. 100 years ago girls and women competed and enjoyed recreational sports. Some felt they deserved the opportunity to do more.

I honestly don't see how you can possibly think you have a workable solution beyond recreational level.

I do admit to a bit of confusion....in the thousand plus times I've watched try-outs and physical testing...the incentive seemed to be toward trying your best...so I'm less familiar with trying to match some arbitrary lesser standard.

Hadn't realized INow's well thought through and very workable proposal had been accepted into Law... He must be one exceptional cranium from anus remover.