Didn't we JUST agree to try and keep the condescension out of the discussion? Please try to refrain from these kinds of personal attacks about my character

You’ve made this entire thread a trainwreck that’s all about you and your imagined persecution. Give it a rest, bro, no1curr

No its been about two people Uke and Cuepee

With the spirit of a respectful dialogue in mind, perhaps we can use this opportunity to wrap up this long running discussion. With the benefit of new exposure, do you believe that the series of phrases we've discussed are, as I believe, non-standard and problematic and probably best to be avoided, or do you believe that they are completely acceptable? I can't quite tell from your reply to Wiild, but it sort of makes it sound like you DO accept that at least some of them are best avoided?

Except that is demonstrably untrue as uke was all too often the one, to re-dig the old arguments back up to re-enflame and reengage them. So reality is not your friend.

But that aside as uke pointed out, rightly we are to move beyond this, so i invite those trying to revise and lie about history, whatever their motivations, to move on so we all can.

I think you were fairly honest and accurate about your assessment about it. I was condescending to you. You were obstinate in return. As long as I enjoyed being condescending and you enjoyed being obstinate, it continued. We've now agreed to do neither. Most of the grammatical debates I think really ought to be over in one or two posts, and I actually suspect when you respond to my previous post that might be the case. We shall see

OK, the first 5 paragraphs of this are, I believe, saying kinda the same thing I was when I was talking about self-awareness. The next couple of paragraphs sound like the sort of thing I've advocated (but not always done myself ) in the past - moving on from arguments.

The rest of it seems to be what you're looking for a response to; not sure how revealing it will be.

Use of language evolves, and usually quite slowly. There is no one day when one way of your expressing yourself becomes incorrect or unacceptable. During that evolution, there will be disagreement, which is what you've described. But of course, you know all of this. You'll also get a variety of responses, and I think this is where you go a little wrong - you get hyper-focused on those who react strongly. IDK, maybe I shouldn't say you go wrong, but I just think it's unproductive to worry about the few "shamers".

I'm going to go back to a specific part of your post for a moment:

You use the example of cis, which I recall as being an example of where a correction was made in this thread in a respectful way. If I am misremembering, you can just tell me so and I'll take your word for it; no need to go back and find the quote. However it was made, I learned from it; pretty sure I had used "CIS" at some point in the past.

On another note, I think you're being overly generous with your examples of who won't know how to use cis (and likely intentionally so to make your point more easily); I think that term is still further from mainstream than some think. That can be the problem with word usage; when we spend a lot of time among like-minded people, it's easy to assume that some word usage that is standard to our own group is standard for all, when in fact we might be out in front (or behind) the evolution of said term. So I agree that shaming is usually not the best way to go, but I also think it's a waste of time to get hung up on others' shaming, and also remember the frustration, discrimination, or worse that some have faced and that this will shape their reaction to our words.

I agree mostly with this post.

And I don't have the desire and energy to look back either. When i original did not use cis properly it was due to me not knowing. I cannot remember if uke and others were snooty instantly or on a subsequent misuse. uke seems to have the view of 'I told you once, so anything beyond that I am no longer assuming benign intent', which is not the case.

As I once pointed out to a person, if a person misspells a word in a document you should expect them to do it often as that is how the word appears to them at a subconscious level and it will take conscious effort or repetition to change that often involving the same error again on that road.

And its not getting "hung up". It is giving back to him what he is dishing out.

What then escalates it is the chorus of one sided offense and calling out. uke can walk up and swing at me or others and the usual chorus is silent. I, or others swing back and they call out 'shame'..

it is not that they are wrong in their critique. What they are saying is correct and did happen but they deserve nothing in reply regardless. They are part of the problem tool When you are so one sided and biased such that you ignore one offense only to call out the other (which uke owns btw) that means your critique should be ignored.

Whatever we might call it, I'm glad the two of you have agreed to turn the page on this; hopefully it holds for a while, which likely will require slight transgressions to be ignored now and then. The thread will be better for it IMO.

More so, believe it or not, whenever I feel i contribute to driving posters who I think are more productive or i learn from or enjoy from the this forum away or to post less, I do regret it.

We could have saved a LOT of time if you had just said this, oh I dunno, 2000 posts ago I guess I was slightly snooty and that is on me, but come on man, let's take it a little more relaxed next time

‘Conflicting opinions’: IOC’s transgender guidelines delayed again until 2022

...

While I agree with them taking their time, I think this approach is a mistake...

My issues:

- it should not be the 'stakes' of the elite levels that determine anything in this realm. Either it is fair competition or not, and if not fair then separate and make new divisions. Do not accept 'it is not fair ... but who cares as the stakes are lower' as a premise.

Fairness or the original sporting intent of trying to create Level Playing Fields should be the overwhelming priority for all.

- Do not create situations where a transwomen can compete in Archery against other women but not powerlifting or cycling based on some arbitrary distinction that the biological sex is meaningful in one but not in the other. You will see every sport then argued on this spectrum repeatedly.

If the biological sex aspect is indeed not important to outcomes where it makes for a definable advantage, and that is the argument being put forth, simply make that sport 'Open'. One single category which is Open for all, male female, regardless of gender identity.

One single archery competition for all.

It would be very outdated thinking to suggest in areas where women were the equal or better to men, that they should have their own division where they are kept from competing against ALL the best.

Look at education where women are beginning to dominate the Uni ranks in most areas. They don't need protecting from men. Let them compete with them head on for all opportunities and kick the men's butts.

I disagree. I think the stakes is a crucial component of the analysis we can't ignore. We have a balance between different laudable values of which "fairness" is one but far from the only value in sport. How you balance those values depends crucially where you are on the spectrum. If it is elementary aged kids playing on in their gym class, the values of inclusion and developing teamwork and love of sport etc in my mind utterly dominate the marginal loss in fairness. If it is the pinnacle of sport, the Olympics, then fairness is extremely, extremely important which is why I'd be quite happy being far more exclusionary and strict at this level. The stakes are crucial in this analysis. Also note carefully that thinking there are places whether other values dominate doesn't mean one stops caring about fair play or that this isn't still ingrained firmly in the culture of sports at those low stakes levels.



I don't see the issue here. Different sports are biomechanically different and it seems quite reasonable that the rules might be different for curling then cycling. And different sports might build up different sets of rules and cultures in their disciplines so it would be weird for the IOC to sort of supercede that so that the World Championships in sport X was more or less inclusive than the Olympics in sport X. I think it makes perfect sense for say the weight lifting federation or whatever its name is to set rules for weight lifting that are in the same overall IOC framework but might not be identical to the rules of a different sport.

Let me phrase it this way, if the IOC gave a very inclusive set of rules (say the 1 year at 10nmol level) and imposed it on every sport, would you think the individual sports federations should have the right to say "no that doesn't make sense for our sport, we want a stricter requirement"?


Can you think of any reasons why this might not be a good idea?

This, this, a thousand times this.

I think Recreational Sport versus Competitive Sport, makes that distinction and that is where it should remain.

As soon as you make it 'Competitive' then the fair playing field must be the preeminent factor otherwise it is not 'competitive' by definition and the fallout from that can be significant.




I cannot think of any scenario where that would be more beneficial than what i say, in my view.

No.

Explain?

No, anything in elementary school isn't sport. Uke just cherry-picked two easy example and avoided the hard part of issue.

It becomes sport when scores get kept, published and talent starts to become part of a coach's game plan. I would argue the last four years of high school qualifies as sport (7th and 8th grade are still developmental years in my experience). So, imo 9th grade through college is the most inclusive period when people engage in organized sports. This is the area that needs dissecting; not elementary school and the olympics.

We mostly agree, I think. After rejecting Cuepee's principle that "stakes" is irrelevant, that is when we get to all the interesting questions like well, ok, at what type of stakes ought one have what type of policies. I start at Elementary school because a bunch of US states are writing laws to block kids from playing in elementary sports of their gender; I think it is completely obvious that inclusion dominates at this level and the more interesting questions are somewhat about that.

I also think 7th and 8th grade sports are developmental and inclusion dominates at these levels too.

But if you want to get NCAA scholarships, for instance, well then there already is testing requirements which again I think is appropriate.

People can debate exactly where and when in the hierarchy what level of stringentness needs to apply, but the key point here is that it very much DOES depend on the stakes involved.

There are literally thousands upon thousands of sports leagues worldwide for under 11s in which "scores get kept, published and talent [is a part of] a coach's game plan". That definition is absurd.

People itt have constantly acknowledged that the goals of inclusivity and fairness can be difficult to balance but the main reason the difficult areas have never really been discussed is the fundamental disagreement between QP and everyone else on the "easy example".

Wild, other than the little league World Series, name a prepubescent sporting event anyone has heard of.

Reading comments since I stand by 'stakes' being irrelevant but would clarify that as i meant it within the context of 'Competitive Sport' only.

Once you define in Competition as the goal again the Fair playing field must be in place as the First principle. It simply is not competitive otherwise and is a distortion of the word otherwise even if you say 'ya but only a little bit distorted'.

If you have a person of any age or level or sex in any competitive sport training to win the competition they should only face others on a fair playing field. That should be the ideal.

Go outside that to Recreational sport and you can define in your highest principle as inclusion or whatever else you want.

For most sporting events that most kids play in, nobody has heard about them except the parents and local community. It isn't that the local hockey league is some internationally renowned thing. But they still take score. They still post the scores on the website. The coaches still try to put the best players on the main lineup or whatever.

I think you are mostly right too. At the lower levels inclusion should be the goal. Most of the developmental leagues I was involved I did split the boys and girls up but we definitely had coed soccer, baseball and flag football teams at those levels. But QP is correct too, that these were generally not competitive sports yet- the transition to competitiveness corresponds with puberty.

The problem is just as valid if you classify it by having "stakes" or by being "competitive". The fundamental distinction is that it isn't a black and white binary. There isn't two distinct categories called "competitive sport" and "recreational sport". It is a spectrum. Is grade 9 kids playing on their local school baseball team "competitive" or "recreational"? Well, there are elements of both, it isn't a dichotomy. If you think of "competitive sport" as a monolith than you end up with this awkward construction where the rules you want to put for super high-stakes things like the Olympics are the same rules to be imposed on vastly lower stakes things that have nonetheless some elements of competition to them. That's a mistake.

And btw, things do kind of sort themselves out at the lower ages appropriately.

So for example, even back when i was a child we had girls who would play on the boys soccer team from ages 3 to around age 10 because the girls were good enough and wanted the higher level of competition, for skill development they were not able to get in girls sport.

Boys and Mens sport should be (and are) really Open divisions for that reason as no one can really bring a competitive advantage that ruins the Fair Playing (outside mechanised handicap runners (ie Blade Runners), etc now trying to compete).

But female competitive sport, even in those youngest of days should be kept to the fair playing field concept. The damage and discouragement that can be done if a transgirl destroys the competitive field making it clear that there is not even a pretense they are able to compete, can discourage many girls from even trying and that is not a good thing.