I'm saying usually we don't let sex and gender be ipso facto the relevant definition of like for sorting people, and I don't see why sports should be an exception. Like should compete with like. The question is on what basis we adjudicate likeness.
now you are just making up stuff based on sex stereotypes. quite a reach from data snob! i guess whatever gets the job done for you.
do you claim that, among the full population interested in participating at any level, the lower half of the higher performing sex's distribution does not in fact substantially overlap with the upper half of the lower performing sex in many sports? sometimes you don't actually need a spreadsheet.
even if the extreme right tails are quite different, the middle of the distribution of people interested in competing likely is not. bsky.app/profile/inte...
Loading quoted Bluesky post...
ha! maybe i'm too old fashioned and there's really no basis for sex discrimination even in wrestling!
If the process was fair? I think the race analogy is apropos, some sports are disproportionate in racial demographics at top levels, and that's fine. Lower levels get more proportionately mixed. 1/
People who participate for the love of the sport mostly participate in venues that either are mixed or are disproportionate for reasons unrelated to capability segregation (pickup game or organized leagues in areas whose populations are themselves disproportionate). 2/
Promotion to higher tiers is ability based. This is all much better than having leagues or tiers de jure segregated by race, even in sports where race might in fact be correlated with top-level performance. /fin
i mean, maybe we should! and girls of similar height and ability might join them! tallest and otherwise best equipped players could have their own league, which might or might prove very disproportionately to be of a single sex or gender.
(ironically perhaps in this context, given that wrestling might have a better shot than most sports at surviving elevated scrutiny surrounding segregation by sex or gender!)
you don't think there's a lot of overlap, among people interested in playing, between the least competitive of one sex or gender and the most competitive of the other, in most sports? 1/
that's all it takes. if the most competitive of one sex or gender would consistently dominate, that's not sufficient to render sex or gender a far from noisy proxy. 2/
if there's a middle of the unified distribution that's substantially mixed, then these categories are very noisy proxies for ability. 3/
if your only interest is competitiveness to be at the very top of the distribution, then perhaps these categories seem less noisy. (perhaps not, i'm not making the claim, but it might be right!) 4/
but most questions surrounding participation in sports are not restricted to this hyperelite level. 5/
using less noisy proxies doesn't harm sorting according to living in the very right tail. if the most elite strata by directly relevant proxies turn out to be very disproportionately of a sex, gender, race, whatever, that's fine! 6/
segregating by other characteristics or demonstrated capability doesn't preclude those outcomes, while segregating by sex, gender, race guarantees noise beneath the far right tail and uselessly may preclude outliers from unexpected categories who could compete in those tails. 7/
for most of sport that's not hyperelite, sex or gender based segregation almost certainly prevents fair competitors from meeting one another. at the hyperelite level, there's no cost to sorting by better proxies for ability whether or not the outcomes prove quite similar. /fin
why doesn't the existence of sex or gender segregated sports constitute unlawful discrimination? sports could legitimately be segregated by weight, musculature, skill, lots of characteristics rationally related to competition on like terms. 1/
but sex and gender are noisy proxies for any of this, and constitute categories discrimination by which demands elevated scrutiny under all circumstances. /fin
“unless the abrupt funding cuts announced and implemented in the first half of 2025 are reversed, a staggering number of avoidable deaths could occur by 2030.” // can’t the administration show the same “flexibility” it showed with tariffs on USAID?
Loading quoted Bluesky post...
those little countries they made quickly license Starlink as a condition of tariff relief, will they now make ban Starlink?
Loading quoted Bluesky post...
yeah. there was a brief period during the early Biden Administration, when Synemanchin were thwarting Build Back Better and Democrats seemed hopeless, when i toyed hopefully with the possibility of a kind of European Christian Democratic party emerging from the GOP. 1/
i have no idea whether a Hawley-style successor might to some degree of gone down that road, but in our timeline Biden pulled astonishing legislative victories out of the ashes of BBB humiliation, the successor to Trump is aggrieved Trump and nothing more than plutocratic fascism./fin
(Hawley still has his heterodoxies, even if he concedes them for a rusted nickel. I can’t believe, having lived in Florida beginning 2022, I once saw any hope of anything in DeSantis. DeSantis’ version of “Christian Democracy” would be Salem, Massachusetts.)
i’m beginning to think President Miller might be even worse than President Musk.
i don’t think this is sulky or something to apologize for. we have gone way, way, way too far from this principle, which has probably harmed our prosperity and certainly harmed any legitimacy surrounding what even under decent government would survive as a somewhat unequal distribution of wealth.
(pedant note: “with Mamdani and former CFTC chair Lina Khan” should be FTC)
Yes. Insuring in practice no alteration of power doesn’t imply cancelling elections outright.
a lot more faith in continued alteration of power here than republicans seem to be expressing in the power they’re arrogating, the personal risks they’d be subject to following such an alteration. obviously we must act, not doom. but we can’t presume anymore that turntaking is a matter of course.
Loading quoted Bluesky post...
This post is all you need to know.
too much algorithmic social media consumption is like receiving one of those serial killer notes written in clipped-out magazine letters and being like “hey, this ‘Q’ is from The NewYorker so what the note says must be true!” a collage of a lie is not redeemed by the quality of elements collaged.