Is it true that the only way to perform well in this thread is to not post in it?

Has it been decided to merge all of the divisions or simply decide each situation on a case-by-case basis?

it's so obvious that the IAAF specifically targeted caster that it would never hold up in US courts.

like they literally made the rule to only target the races that she has run in her career.

Budweiser got woke

I genuinely got confused. Does anyone understand this at first pass?

https://twitter.com/BudweiserUK/stat...91737920065536

Yes. Of course.

I don't get it. Care to explain?

Budweiser are sponsoring a pride event and have come up with some coloured cups to represent different parts of the community.

How is that hard?

Hey now WN. My post only seemed trolly. My point is they are making up these colors on their own right and there is no asexual community with colors assigned to them, right?

Looks like it could be mockery. I've never heard of "asexual pride" before. Do asexuals suffer from some kind of discrimination?

I sincerely doubt that Budweiser is intending to mock anyone with that bit of marketing.

Yes.

Yeah man, you nailed it.

It can be both. They can claim it is serious while still enjoying the fact that it will get them media attention they wouldn't get otherwise. Look at stuff related to Nike/Kapernick.

Don't want to derail this thread further, but I'd be happy to read about it if you have a link with good explanation .

Why I meant to stay out of this thread.

There seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread.

XX chromosomes /= female and XY chromosomes /= male. These chromosomes are simply the means by which mammals typically become male and female but they are not the same as being one or the other.


Hope this helps.

Is there a fairly uncomplicated scientific definition of femaleness?

The best definition I have seen of a female is an individual that has progressed some distance down the pathway for the production of large gametes.


EDIT: Speaking of sex not gender obv.

Not really, no. At least not if we are going to operate with exactly 2 categories, such as for public accommodations. This sort of ties in with WN's citation from the feminists, who argue that sex rather than gender presentation is what should be used in sex-segregated facilities, for the protection of women. I'm sympathetic that segregated facilities are a good thing, because there are more than enough men who are jerks and/or predators to justify it, but they don't seem to grant that a trans woman in a men's facility is also at risk for harassment and assault, sexual or otherwise. It seems unjust to have a system where trans people are de facto excluded, and it also seems impractical for every segregated facility to build a third option.

Also consider that changing one's gender is a massive, painful undertaking fraught with risks of ostracism, abandonment by one's own family, unemployment, poverty, violence, and death. Yet people feel so strongly about needing the change that they risk and endure these things for it. Maybe there is something in their biology that is driving the feeling that they are not living their true lives rather than just a craven desire to win at track or look at naked women in the locker room?

A company that specializes in selling alcohol positioning itself as a voice of morality is an interesting juxtaposition.

The whole thing just came off weird. Like even the way it was written. It's like they took a script from someone deep in the wokeiverse and passed it on to the general public is if they would just seamlessly follow along.

I personally think this whole woke marketing thing is a high risk low reward situation. You're trying to sell stuff. Making polarizing content is really powerful stuff except when your audience is as broad as budwieser or gillete, it just seems like you are going to annoy or confuse people. In the bud case, i don't see any backlash and tweets are free, but if they start going down this road it will probably be a mistake. You can hit viral gold doing this but it's not going to be easy

I dunno, appealing to asexual rights seems pretty benign.

I just find it ironic that a company that sells poison which results in so many social costs is moralizing at all. It is interesting that I think if a gun manufacturer tried the same ploy it would probably be called out immediately and backfire spectacularly; yet I am not sure that at the societal level the costs:benefits of alcohol are that obviously better than guns.

And I say this as an enthusiastic imbiber of said product (although not Budweiser, I am way too much of an alcohol snob for that).

On the Hampstead heath pond story. All that happened is that the legal right (since 2010) for transgender women to use the women only facility was made into a formally inclusive policy.

The main objection afaik isn't about identifying transgender women (which is quite rightly illegal) but have come from religious groups who do not accept transgender at all - to them they are men.

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/s...mmers-1.484633

Assuming there’s not a huge competitive advantage, since only about 5% of high school boys are top-tier or college bound athletes and only a sliver of a percent of them would transition….

This might shock you, but alcohol at a pride event is not a polarising issue in London.

All that will have happened is that whatever Pride group they're sponsoring will have liaised with them about what groups they'd like to be represented and Budweiser marketing team have said "How about some colourful cups?".

What road is it you think they're going down?

What??? I was a middling high school athlete and would have absolutely crushed women in the 800M. My PR was 2:07, which wasn’t particularly good for men, but I never saw a female who could come close to it.

At the HS level, The issue seems to be more what % of decent male athletes would claim to be female and crush female competitors. Not whether they could. A LOT more than 5% could.