webadict
@webadict@lemmy.world
- Comment on US Olympic policy change bans transgender women in women's events 4 weeks ago:
But, I think you don’t want sports segregated by sex assigned at birth, either. If you did, you would have trans men competing against women. And again, trans men still compete and win at sports while competing against other men just like any other masc athlete, and if your argument is that men, as a category, are better than women at sports, then you won’t accept trans men competing against women, either.
The thing is, there’s not much point debating you. It feels like you would probably be okay with excluding trans people from sports, and that feels more and more like the point with these types of debates. And if you are okay with trans men competing against men, then is it not kinda bigoted to not also be okay with trans women competing against women? Why exclude them for doing everything they can to make it fair? Even the Olympics had a plan for trans athletes that was statistically shown to be fair for competitors based on medical experts.
Like, in a perfect world, there would be better sports categorization, but until that point, we see trans women perform like women and trans men perform like men, so that is where we should allow them to compete. And if there is some sort of issue where someone (male or female, trans or cis) dramatically over performs, that would be a better time to deal with that particular one-off.
Anyway, feel free to look into long- and ultra-distance running for instances of women getting closer to men’s times, but, heck, women are closing the gap in shorter running competitions as well, even if at a slower rate. As for the 7% to -13% advantage, trans athletes were compared against cis athletes in a variety of activities, testing things from jump height to grip strength to wingspan, and the advantages in most categories ranged from a 7% advantage to a 13% disadvantage for the trans athlete on average. The biggest issue is that there just aren’t enough trans athletes to know how much of an advantage or disadvantage being trans gives you, but, on average, it is likely to be pretty minimal if there even is one.
- Comment on US Olympic policy change bans transgender women in women's events 4 weeks ago:
Your argument is that these are unfair, but I pointed out the exact scenario you are saying is unfair. You can argue that any biological difference a trans woman has compared to a cis woman is unfair, but does that mean a cis woman who has all of those things is also unfair? And if the answer is no, then… Why is there even a problem?
These aren’t inherently unfair. They are perceived to be unfair because of how we segregate these sports and because we automatically just assume trans women are stronger, better, faster, etc than cis women, which isn’t true. Again, the statistics we have show that cis and trans athletes have a statistical advantage in a wide variety of sports and activities between 7% to -13%.
Like, we see similar outcomes for trans men, and these concerned people do not give a shit about those athletes. You would think trans men would absolutely fail compared to men, given how poor these people think female athletes compare, but they don’t. They do just as well compared to their cis counterparts.
Hell, several sports are starting to have women with results similar to men. Sure, a lot of weight and strength-based sports still see substantial differences, but many stamina- and speed-based sports are becoming quite competitive. This is why cultural differences also matter. A lot of our sports and health science is geared towards male athletes, and we treat female sports and competitors as lesser, from how we fund them to how we train them.
- Comment on US Olympic policy change bans transgender women in women's events 4 weeks ago:
See, the thing is, I disagree. No one would take the years it takes to transition for the unknown potential advantage. We do not know what amount of advantage or disadvantage transitioning would give, and the evidence we currently have says that there isn’t a statistical advantage.
These policies don’t even protect cis-women. Women born with hormonal abnormalities or genetic advantages are directly impacted. These are seen as beneficial in male competitors (Michael Phelps is a genetic lottery winner and should probably be in his own league), but if a woman happened to benefit by having naturally higher testosterone production, height, or skeletal structure, should she be excluded from competing against women? Then the only difference between that hypothetical trans athlete and cis athlete is… That they are trans.
Most of this issue is really due to how we segregate sports. We arbitrarily use gender/sex because there are genetic and cultural differences that mostly correlate to difference in outcomes. There are better ways to segregate sports (ala weight classes in boxing) that would more fairly match opponents, but we don’t do these. Why? Mostly laziness, somewhat historical systems of oppression.
So, no, I don’t agree. When you can find a trans athlete that transitioned for am advantage, I will acknowledge your point.
- Comment on US Olympic policy change bans transgender women in women's events 4 weeks ago:
Do you not think a cis-female 52-year old former athlete and ex-Navy could not play college basketball as well or better than Gabrielle Ludwig? Mission College didn’t go to playoffs the one year that Gabrielle Ludwig played 30 minutes a game.
Do you… Do you think older women are shit at basketball?
- Comment on US Olympic policy change bans transgender women in women's events 4 weeks ago:
Name one transfem Olympian that this ruling protects against. Which of those girls are out there stealing medals?
Like, imagine an athlete so dedicated to trying to win that they spend years paying stupid amounts of money to go to a psychologist, go on HRT, get surgery, and deal with unbelievable amounts of stigma on top of the training you also would need to do in order to get almost no advantage (or possibly negative advantage) instead of just buying steroids.
Imagine being stupid enough to believe that.
- Comment on Gallium 5 weeks ago:
There’s no technicality about it. The people that get married are the ones who determine the exclusivity of the marriage.
Like, it’s even dumber than that because if you didn’t have marriage, you’d still have people in exclusive relationships, so wtf are you complaining about?
- Comment on Trump team leaks AI plans in public GitHub repository 2 months ago:
Don’t hide behind the shitty half-assed news reports, you coward. Just name the actual Democrat that fired their vaccine board, so we can end this. Just name the actual Democrat that banned abortion federally, instead of posting fifteen useless articles. Just name the Democrat that kept child marriage protected because it’s easier. Just name the Democrat that deported my neighbor, specifically, since you seemed to have known him. Just name the Democrat that implemented a voting suppression measure, assuming you can find one within the last 25 years, instead of you saying that’s the same thing as ranked choice, which have been challenged by Republicans in every single instance (and this is the only instance you found for Democrats, if you could call it that, lol). Just name the Democrat that called queer people slurs openly and wants them tried for child sex crimes.
It should be so easy, right? If they’re the same, just fucking name them.
- Comment on Trump team leaks AI plans in public GitHub repository 2 months ago:
I don’t remember when the Democrats deported my neighbor or when they called self-proclaimed Nazis good guys or when they wanted to take away food stamps from single mothers or when they wanted to make voting harder or when they didn’t want to ban child marriage or when they wanted to take away the only source of food and housing for children, people with disabilities, and the elderly or when they wanted to ban vaccines or when they wanted to ban abortion or when they wanted to make being queer a child sex crime or when they ignored all of science, but I guess they were just too smart to do any of that.
- Comment on No You don't 2 months ago:
No. That appears to be Ashley from the indie visual novel The Coffin of Andy and Leyley. In the game, she and her biological brother Andrew (shown pulling her from the dryer) have a horribly codependent and unhealthy relationship, and there are a lot of implied instances of sexual attraction, especially on Ashley’s part, including a vision of the future where the two siblings have sex.
- Comment on The Outer Worlds 2 - Official Story Trailer | Xbox Games Showcase 2025 2 months ago:
I always get extra disappointed by the Outer Worlds, because I always confuse it with the Outer Wilds and would rather play that game.
- Comment on Pope Joan 3 months ago:
An intersex person is typically assigned a gender at birth, but so is everyone else. Being intersex just means you aren’t biologically male or female (though I think this might also include people who have sex chromosomes that develop as though they were the other binary sex, but I’m not an expert). Most intersex people don’t typically know they are intersex, and thus they would count as cisgender so long as they identify as the gender they were assigned at birth and transgender if they do not. Thus, if someone had, say XY chromosomes, but was assigned female at birth, they would probably be cis if they identified as female.
However, trans can be a bit of a self-identifying label, and thus someone in that situation might just as well consider themselves trans. There’s a lot of different definitions for trans. Many non-binary people would consider themselves trans since they don’t identify as their assigned gender at birth.
Long story short, gender is complicated. Sex doesn’t change (put a couple asterisks here), but gender is super flexible (also asterisks here.)
- Comment on ‘You Can’t Lick a Badger Twice’: Google Failures Highlight a Fundamental AI Flaw 3 months ago:
The saying “you can’t butter a fly” is an idiom expressing that someone or something is too difficult to influence or manipulate. It’s rooted in the idea that butterflies, with their delicate nature, are virtually impossible to convince to do anything against their will, let alone “butter” them in a literal sense.
- Comment on flouride 8 months ago:
It’s too much like the real anti-fluoride arguments, man. I can’t recognize it, man.
- Comment on flouride 8 months ago:
This is, and I don’t say this lightly, one of the dumbest conclusions I’ve ever seen someone jump to.
Might as well say that fluoride in the water caused software developers, lmao.
- Comment on Blessica Blimpson 9 months ago:
By that logic, forcing any name on a child is selfish, so they should pick their own name, since they are the ones that would have it. Although, in that case, temporary names would probably be a thing, so I don’t really see the issue (or you could use other cultural naming conventions like that, but that is one that exists.)
Unless your argument is nonconformity is selfish? I personally think some people will find a reason to make fun of another person, but nominative determination does have its appeal if you don’t believe that.
All names were unique at some point, but that’s a moot point. Eventually they will either become more popular or less popular.
- Comment on Blessica Blimpson 9 months ago:
How is it a stupid name? Are rarer names stupid? It’s just a name, if a very uncommon one, and it’s not even particularly hard to spell or pronounce, nor is it without thought. Combination names can sometimes produce odd results, so this one feels fairly mild.
- Comment on Blessica Blimpson 9 months ago:
Are you arguing that variants of names meaning blessing shouldn’t exist, or are you just against a new name? Because every name was new at one point, and lots of new names are variants of older ones.
- Comment on Blessica Blimpson 9 months ago:
Eh, the kid could have worse, and it seems pretty fitting for the name’s origins.
If you think of children as blessings, and want to change an existing name a little – in this case, Jessica – it makes sense. The first recorded instance of Jessica is from Shakespeare, who could’ve changed the biblical Iesca (Jeska) to Jessica by mixing Jesse into it (or making Jesse into a woman’s name… or other potential origins like the word jess being turned into a name.) And you consider Bless to be a name (though rather unpopular), so it wouldn’t even be particularly odd for the name.