Lauren Boebert rages over USA Boxing’s trans policy even though she clearly doesn’t understand it
3 years ago by ZeroCool to c/politics
100% agree, the hate is the point not the policy. It is a virtue signal to her deplorable people to say see I hate them just right now give me money.
This rhetoric has and will continue to get people hurt and killed.
That's pretty much been her whole MO since it became apparent she was in real danger of losing her seat. Spout some antisemitic conspiracy theory buzzwords, clutch her pearls over trans people existing, and hope she can leverage the resulting public sentiment into an easier win elsewhere or a job as some political bobble head on a media network.
That's the point. All this culture war bullshit is there to distract from climate change, nazis and all the wage slavery (and regular slavery) going on in the world today.
Our planet is on fire. The Nazis are back. Most of us are wage slaves. Women are going to prison over their physiology. Multiple nations are currently at risk of being wiped off the map...
Conservatives care about all of those actually relevant things, but they're trying to make them even worse.
Of course that wouldn't be very popular, so instead they just scream about what's in people's pants and their voters eat it up
There are just so many things Lauren doesn't understand.
A high school dropout that needed several tries to obtain their GED
She finally got it only a couple of years before she went to congress.
And people elected this woman.
This is an honest question and not intended to be inflammatory.
If a man goes through puberty, then undergoes gender reassignment surgery and is able to prove that their hormone levels are within the allowed ranges for four years, will their physique be comparable to that of a person who was assigned female at birth? Do they still have physical advantages gained through male puberty?
they're gonna have physical strength similar to someone with their physique. hrt noticeably reduces muscle mass and many cis women (especially pro athletes) have higher testosterone levels than hrt levels aim for
They're also going to have a better lung capacity, more stable trunk, and in relation to height men have longer arms and legs. Men also have larger bone areas at muscle attachment sites.
There's currently no way of removing all the variables that exist in order to equalize everything. In the case of boxing, you'll always hear about "reach" or arm length/wingspan. Boxers with a longer reach usually have an advantage since they can land blows out of range of their opponents. Since a born male will have a longer wingspan than a born female, that is one boxing specific thing that any Trans boxer will have over their opponent. That and lung capacity.
true. A better measure might be something like "lifetime testosterone level"; the current rules would not prevent a motivated coach from putting a cis woman on male growth hormones as a child and ending the regiment long in advance of the hormone testing period
The medical science on it says that two years of hormone therapy are enough to lose any sort of competitive advantage in trans athletes.
Four years is overkill, and is part of why this policy is considered one of the strictest in professional sports.
The argument that being trans gives you a competitive advantage always uses Lea Thomas as an example and always omits the fact that ciswomen swam faster than her.
The whole thing is bullshit.
Not a doctor or a trans woman, but from what I understand, you lose the physical advantages of self-produced testosterone over time.
Additionally, it's not as simple as "hormone levels." Some AFAB women have higher than normal levels of testosterone, and some AMAB men have higher than normal levels of estrogen (and/or just lower testosterone levels). There will always be athletes who have biological advantages, whether that's a bigger heart, better lungs, longer/shorter legs, better eyes, stronger bones, etc.
We draw these boxes around perceived genders as if that's a guarantee of fairness, but it's not some panacea that effectively separates the able from the unable, just like gender is more than your genes.
Who cares though? It's time to stop segregating sports by gender. Sports are skill based, right? So let's break them down that way. Break out divisions by skill, not by gender or physical location. If a woman can work her way to top-tier heavyweight boxing, let her do it.
E: Damn, y'all are really afraid of getting beat by a girl!
Barbell Medicine has an excellent article about gender in sports: https://www.barbellmedicine.com/...
For now, developing clear and equitable division eligibility policies and subsequently, allowing transgender athletes to compete in the appropriate division is prudent.
So like creating divisions based on skill instead of gender so all people can compete with any other athletes of a similar ability?
Yeah, man, If there was some issue that Boebert clearly understood, that would be the huge news story.
Actually, that sounds like a good story for The Onion. "Lauren Boebert criticizes bill for legitimate reasons that she completely understands."
Be charitable and try to look at this from conservatives view point:
- Massive gun violence
- Runaway inflation, basics becoming unaffordable
- Housing crisis
- Healthcare in shambles, even if you can afford it
- Regular environmental disasters
- COVID resurgence
So obviously they need to have details on every persons genitals. It's clearly the most important next step.
What makes it even better is they hate women's sports. They have always made fun of it. None of them watch it. They don't give a shit. They only care about the trans aspect of it. Not whether or not it's fair for cis women
She's likely totally OK with Buck Angel competing, right? Oh, but Buck wouldn't be allowed since he hasn't completed re-assignment surgery.
Gotta stop looking at theater security footage...
First of all, precisely because it is LLM, it is good to point out that it is a source.
Second, the LLM and chat GPT4 in particular can often summarize information quite well. Yes, there are cases when it hallucinate, but at this point it is very rare for GPT4. So, when I do not have hours and hours to spend on some topic like this, asking ChatGPT4 is a valid strategy to get reasonable probability correct answer, with much higher probability than random claims here in fediverse.
So, I will defend the method as reasonable, and will ask you, do you claim that what is stated is false?
You are posting a position you don't even necessarily understand. You are providing what might be facts or maybe not. Might be subject to bias in training data. What do you think this adds to the discussion? You want someone to disagree with stuff you don't even know?
I don't have time for that bullshit so I asked ChatGPT to write a rebuttal. I'm not even going to post the whole thing, just the following excerpt:
"It’s crucial to understand that transgender women are individuals whose gender identity is female, regardless of their assigned sex at birth."
This right here is why posting AI answers is garbage. It's not just flat out wrong, but insists that this nonsensical garbage is crucial to your understanding.
And for what it's worth I'm a big fan of AI. I use it all the time. I've written applications that leverage it. I've had it help me with coding issues. But I never, ever trust it.
I am not saying ChatGPT4 is fool proof, but neither is any source. And if I actually will try to understand the original sociological research paper, it may increase my chances of misunderstanding the data.
Let me put this this way - start asking ChatGPT4 (not 3.5) biological and medical questions and keep tally of correct answers. You would see how accurate it is. I would say with 95% probability it would answer such questions correctly. And this is how much credence I put in its answer.
So, when you say that I was providing the fact that may be right maybe not, yes, that’s correct. But it is not 50/50, far from it.
And if you do not want to provide rebuttal, it is your right, of course. But then, what’s the point of your post? We just need to believe your statement when you itself refuse to provide zero evidence?? You understand how it looks, right?
In the short term, yes. What this leaves out is that two years of HRT is enough to negate those physical benefits. Hormones are powerful shit.
Also, no it fucking isn't a reasonable method. It has neither the credentials to know what it's talking about, nor any obligation to verify that what it says is true. Imagine reading 10,000 shitty sci-fi novels and 1 textbook and thinking you can piece together advanced physics. It literally cannot tell the difference between fact and fiction, nor does it care. It's a machine. Garbage in, garbage out.
I suggest you to ask ChatGPT4 questions in medicine and biology, and keep tally. If you truly think ChatGPT4 is garbage, you will be surprised. I spent lots of hours interacting with it, and I understand its limitations and strengths. And these kind of questions it usually answers quite well.
Even if we assumed ChatGPT were completely accurate, that answer includes enough weasel words so it is not sufficient here.
varies significantly among individuals … might retain …. may not completely reverse
All this tells us is that making this fair is not an easy answer, anything more is individual interpretation. It probably needs some sort of medical consensus.
How did they choose four years? Did they pull that out of their asses, or was there medical input? Is there a reason to expect ChatGPT to be a better source than what they used?
Four years was number given in the question, because this number was selected by boxing rules.
As for the rest, are you suggesting that a post for discussion on internet should have the same level of credence as scientific article or article in encyclopedia? Why suddenly such super-high standards to my poste? Coincidently, no-one, despite criticism of my use of ChatGPT, pointed on even single mistake in that text.
Oh, FFS. Here we go. "I did my research" == "I plunked letters into a box until the computer used words I don't know. Science, bitch!"
We're so fucked.
If your claim that what is posted is incorrect, then state so, and provide reasons. Otherwise, I do not understand why using tools such as ChatGPT4 you consider as something bad? Do you use search engines? They are tools too. Do you use wiki? That is a tool too. Or do you spit sarcasm on anyone who does not produce original research?
If your claim that what is posted is incorrect, then state so, and provide reasons.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens.
You do not consider ChatGPT4 as any sort of evidence? Go ahead and ask it questions in medicine or biology and keep tally how many answers are right and are wrong.
I do admit that there is low probability that it is wrong, but simply dismissing it as no evidence at all is intentional dishonesty.
This pre-supposes that the trans person in question has actually gone through a male puberty which is one things trans advocates are trying to make medically optional and anti trans protesters are trying to take off the table. A lot of trans girls don't want to be forced to go through the puberty that will cause them to be looked down on BECAUSE it will be used as a basis for villification and exclusion from multiple facets of society for the rest of their lives...
But the majority at large would rather have these two conversations separately because transphobes don't want to have young trans women going through a female puberty with the consent and blessings of their parents and a panel of specialists. Heaven forbid! No, they want to make sure that they have justification to make trans girls these monstrously powerful beings who are always supposed to be some kind of threat because they should be forced, like men, to be transformed into animalistic beasts with raw unbridled physical prowess and unfettered lusts that we cannot allow into the careful guarded cloisters alongside the delicate tissue paper likes of womankind.
There is never allowed to be a win condition because there's never even a tiny concession on any front in favor of trans people. If trans advocacy got what they wanted in the realm of trans healthcare for young trans people we could be having a very different discussion about both endocrinology and trans women in sport. Instead we must always assume in these examples that there's zero healthcare options that delays puberty and averts the puberty of one's birth sex and THEN face regular preaching about how policing the fairness of essentially silly games is cause to label us all completely unreasonable while painting trans women as cheats and monsters. It is an embittering Catch 22.
I have no opinion whether trans women should be allowed or not to go through transition before. I would trust medical doctors about this (and not trans community and neither transphobic “community”, which are non-specialists).
But the fact is that the boxing organization does not even allow for trans people to participate in sport in category other than birth sex before age 18, so it assumes that the rules are applicable for those who transition after puberty, and I do see valid concern here from fairness to sic-women point of view. I personally do not have strong opinion here on how to balance fairness for cis-women with freeness to trans-women, but obviously it is not a clear cut question and any solution here would be a compromise with positive and negative sides.
But what amazes me is how quickly some people here get to calling me transphobe just for pointing this. Such extreme binary thinking does not serve community at all.
Again you are taking these arguements as two separate categories. Let's take a theoretical and start figuring out instead what you think is unacceptable where the line is of what is acceptable. Should a professional sport accept anyone unambiguously if they, with full medical assistance, took a regime of puberty blockers until the age of 16 and uninterrupted courses of HRT as soon as they are eligible (this requires the consent of a guardian) and thus never went through a male puberty?
Have you read that? The last time I saw that many hedges I was through the looking glass.
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
save