Even if you believe that it is the case that she lived her early life as a male, at the point that a person has made it clear that they have some preferred pronoun/is trans would it not just be disrespectful to intentionally refer to them counter to that?
Well I think it bans women that thought/think that they are cis but actually aren't, which is a bit of a different story. A fairly tragic one. Intersex/trans/anything else people just don't really have a clean fit into a lot of places, which is unfortunate.
> this is nothing more than a misogynist attempt to make women’s sport as unimpressive and average as possible. Rules set by mostly old men of course.
Well, not really. 56%[1] of young women think that trans women should not be allowed in women's sports.
> It’s also mighty interesting how it’s always the male division that’s open, until you happen to have a sport where women are beating men at it, and then suddenly it’s the women’s division that’s the open one! (See shooting.)
IMO the "better" division should be open. If we are going to do two classes, and we find that one class has some sort of physical advantage inherently, then that class should be the "open" one.
> Stuff like this is why professional sports is widely seen as a cheater’s club where everyone tries to cheat as hard as possible just shy of getting caught, then acts completely innocent and indignant when someone else just barely crosses the line into getting caught.
A lot of people (the majority?) don't understand the extent of PEDs usage in sports. When everyone cheats nobody does. I've heard the argument before for going an "anything goes" division from friends for some sports, but then people are just going to start dying regularly from side effects like in body building.
Interesting how it’s “unfortunate” if it doesn’t affect men. The blatant hypocrisy is disgusting. There have been women banned from women’s sports who then later literally gave birth, if giving birth doesn’t qualify one as female, then what are we doing as a society?
Your linked article is also a massive category error. The people whose opinion should be polled should be actual competing athletes, that’s how the rules should be set in a sport. The biggest anti-trans athlete is some 5th place loser that couldn’t handle sharing 5th place with another woman and had to instead cry about it, only way to get in the news at 5th place, I suppose.
> Interesting how it’s “unfortunate” if it doesn’t affect men.
It's unfortunate because trans people are just as much people as cis people and deserve complete equality, but the reality of equality is that it can be very hard to do right.
Civil rights are hard because there are a lot of "rights" that can be applied to oppress others. Freedom of speech can absolutely be used to crush others, so how do you enact reasonable limits to prevent that without simultaneously causing the oppression that you aimed to prevent?
There are statutes in the US that put requirements on public school sports in relation to sex (sex is the quantifier used in Title IX). This to some effect limits men's sports in schools because of requirements for equality (typically represented as having an equal number of men's/women's sports). We consider this acceptable because otherwise there is the possibility that woman's sports are underrepresented because men's sports are more popular. In this case it's important to remember that there is limited funding.
The thing is, the class you are "bringing up" here is ~50% of the population. You're slightly limiting the other 50%, but it's barely of consequence. You are simply ensuring that to some extent funding isn't biased.
For trans women athletes, you are taking about a <1% subset of the population. This is not to say that minority populations don't matter (the United States is a great place because of minority populations). But if the majority of the women population say "no" to the <1%, then frankly at some point that's how the cookie crumbles. They still have the option of men's sports, they aren't restricted from competing there. They certainly are a huge gray area with the respect to physicality, even more so at younger ages when trans people are less likely to have transitioned (and more likely to be competing in a sport).
> The people whose opinion should be polled should be actual competing athletes
Really? In this case are you limiting it to just Olympic athletes? Can we include Diamond League athletes? Collegiate? Local 5k runners?
What even defines an athlete? Do I have to enter a race every so many months to maintain "athlete" status? Is a local race fine or do I need to be in Boston? This is silly gatekeeping.
> The biggest anti-trans athlete is some 5th place loser
Does this matter? It's also just "the biggest anti-trans athlete" that you know about. I'm sure there are some other women out there that are more hateful.
There are nuanced arguments to have about the trans women in sports situation, but the right is entirely against having them on completely bigoted basis, and then there is a very small subset of people who poison the well by turning good faith discussions about the topic into just hating the people having the discussions. At no point have I said anything disparaging about trans people or athletes. I'm just bringing up the reality of the situation being complicated, and as you called out: very unfortunate. It's unfortunate for trans men too, but nobody seems to complain about that one. :)
You don't need a TV. If there are only smart TVs then simply don't purchase one.
Most consumers are unwilling to take an option that they perceive as inconveniencing them more than getting screwed by the company inconveniences them.
Telling people to just go without a TV is a little more than a “perceived” inconvenience.
The reality is that companies know they can get away with crap because they all get away with crap. And because they all do it, consumers are powerless.
This is why regulation isn’t a bad the thing that many HNers seem to recoil at. The real problem with regulation is when it’s defined by lobbyists rather than consumer groups. But even then, it’s really no different to the status quo where businesses are never held accountable.
If somebody "needs" a TV then they might "need" some hobbies.
A disturbing proportion of my family spend more than half of their free time watching television (typically while doom scrolling tiktok). They don't "need" TVs - they need to find interests.
What people don’t need is someone dictating to them how they should relax after work.
Besides, it’s not like TVs are the only industry where consumer choice is an illusion. You see the same problem in a lot of sports (I used to fence and there was a great deal of pressure to buy equipment from one specific manufacturer which charged literally 4x the price for their gear).
And it’s not just hobbies either. I need a car for family duties and there are plenty of parts on it that can only be replaced by an authorised dealer.
Replying to this comment since clearly the point is misunderstood.
The core part of what I wrote was "need." If you believe you "need" as in "can't go without" a TV, in this example, then you probably should consider whether or not you may be addicted to consuming television.
Do this as an exercise: Which of these statements indicates that somebody may have a a problem?
- I need a cigarette
- I need a beer
- I need a TV
- I need to eat
- I need some water
- I need to relax
The last three are clearly real needs. The first two are addictive. TV isn't a literal need, so if you find yourself NEEDING it, you may have a problem.
> What people don’t need is someone dictating to them how they should relax after work.
I do get the point you’re trying to make. But at best it’s an irrelevant semantic that, by your own admission, is still a basic need. And at worst, it’s just elitist “I don’t enjoy x so you shouldn’t either” BS.
> What people don’t need is someone dictating to them how they should relax after work.
Nobody dictates that. What we do is to suggest there might be more rewarding things to do with their time off than watching TV between the dopamine hits from TikTok
Not physically forced, but that doesn’t mean the comments weren’t said in a way that might appear forceful to other people due to the combination of bluntness and lack of compassion.
For something to be dictated, you don’t have to be in a position to enforce those comments.
Sure, but you're just choosing hobbies for people. TVs are just one example here. If your hobby is 3D printing, you might've gotten screwed by Autodesk's subscription changes.
TV can be a hobby, but hobbies typically have actual engagement from the hobbyist. There are a lot of people whom watching television/movies is a real hobby, and for those people you can tell that's the case.
In my experience for most people it's strictly a time wasting/filling/background noise activity. If you are spending a considerable amount of time watching television to time waste then you probably should try and find more fulfilling activities. This is not prescriptive of what those would be.
When I was in my 20s I used to hold this belief as well. And as I’ve gotten older I’ve realised those opinions weren’t because TV viewers were wasting their lives, it was because there was so much I wanted to do with my time that I was scared of wasting my life. I was actually getting angry because I couldn’t pack everything I wanted to do in a day.
Needless to say, I now focus on my own free time rather than thinking about how others should spend theirs.
Also, now I’m in my 40s, I treasure the couple of hours I spend a week watching TV with my kids. We play games, sports and such like too. But sometimes it’s nice to cuddle on the sofa and share an experience in comfort.
> Telling people to just go without a TV is a little more than a “perceived” inconvenience.
From personal experience, it really really is barely even an inconvenience. Especially in a world where YouTube exists and is accessible for free from a desktop computer. There's barely been anything good on TV for decades, and the older stuff probably only seemed good because of the difficulty of publishing any competition.
It really depends on the individual. I barely watch any TV and have been like this for the 30+ years that I’ve been old enough to own a display. For a while, I did go fully in with media centres. Even running XBMC on an original Xbox. But I honestly just don’t really care for video content all that much regardless of how it’s delivered.
But I also know a hell of a lot of people who still massively prefer watching content the traditional way. As in, not just TV shows, but on a TV too. And I have no more right to tell them how to consume video content as they do to tell me how I should consume the stuff I want to read.
But that’s not the same thing as saying “people shouldn’t own a TV and instead find themselves a hobby”. Which is the original comment that people objected to.
Lol, your position is, don't watch tv, just watch YouTube. That's not really a radical shift.
Fine if it works for you, but TV has plenty of things going for it... big screens, watch from 10 ft away on a couch, watch with other people, regular schedule (i.e. Jeopardy on the same time every day), live sports, local news, shows with generally high production values. But probably most importantly, passivity - yes that is a feature.
> Telling people to just go without a TV is a little more than a “perceived” inconvenience.
The TV I have has never had an antenna cable plugged, or an internet connection. It’s, from day one, been a large HDMI monitor to an Apple TV, a Nintendo Switch and a C64 Maxi with some other devices plugged in from time to time.
It IS possible to ignore the TV’s software most of the time (mine, luckily, isn’t intrusive at all) and use it as a conduit for a much cheaper and easily replaced (or hacked) device.
I remember how surprised the engineers at [manufacturer redacted] were when I told them they had everything needed to turn their TVs into thin clients and meeting room monitors right into the Linux firmware just a compile away. I’d totally love a 35” X terminal in 2008 with Ethernet and a couple USB ports.
Yes, we’ve all done that. I mentioned earlier about how I used XBMC on an original Xbox.
But we aren’t normal people. Normal people wouldn’t even know how to set up a media centre. And the Nintendo Switch famously has next to no video streaming platforms on it.
I remember some brand was caught connecting to nearby TVs of the same brand to send telemetry to their corporate masters through the neighbour’s internet connected TV. Not sure how far they went with downloading new firmware.
Please make a list of things you don't need so that in case of any issues with the company or system that allows access to them you will know to just stop using them.
The list is longer than you'd probably think. Keeping a principled stance might involve taking on some inconvenience, which could be a problem for some people.
I've dropped many things in the past because of issues with the company/service. Amazon Prime, every single streaming service, I've been car free for over 3 years, and there are more.
Are there some things I would struggle with if suddenly there were issues? Sure. I had to significantly increase my internet spend because of the (much) cheaper option going to complete shit. I require the internet for my career but unless the entire world collapses I doubt I'll run into any true blocker that would prevent me from using it for work.
Most people are just afraid to change their lives substantively. I am too, but I'm also willing to do it for causes I believe in.
I think you underestimate the meaning of the word 'inconvenience'. Hot water is a convenience.
My point is that your list is one list which you are making, but someone else could look at your life and make a different list. Your argument only goes so far you can extend into your own life. If you really cared about something's place in your life, you wouldn't classify it as a convenience, so you are conveniently applying your own classifications to other people's lives, which you don't have a right to do.
This is why we have democratic institutions and authority -- to make these limits about what is tolerable and intolerable -- not what people's conveniences are.
> Please make a list of things you don't need so that in case of any issues with the company or system that allows access to them you will know to just stop using them.
If you didn't expect me to be introspective to MYSELF then why even bother asking? Of course my list is personal.
While it is personal, it also can apply to others. The reality is that most people are completely unwilling to inconvenience themselves.
Go without hot water? Okay, sure. I take cold showers, they are better for your skin. I wash my clothes with cold water. The only thing I use hot water for is dishes. I think that might be a bit weird, but I think dish soap is anti bacterial so it's probably not an issue? Now you can reply to this saying: "well YOU can do that but other people will feel differently." No shit. But most of the world goes without hot water so who cares.
> If you really cared about something's place in your life, you wouldn't classify it as a convenience, so you are conveniently applying your own classifications to other people's lives, which you don't have a right to do.
Most people don't actually care about TV in their life - they just have never thought for a minute to consider the reality of not having one.
> This is why we have democratic institutions and authority -- to make these limits about what is tolerable and intolerable -- not what people's conveniences are.
Not sure how this is relevant. I'm all for consumer protection. But the most apt way to protect yourself is to vote: first for politicians, and then with your wallet.
My point is that it isn't about the individual. You can go without hot water if you like but it isn't going to solve any problems, it will just make you miserable. Going without TV isn't going to make smart TV manufacturers stop spying on people, because they don't know why you aren't buying a TV. They could conclude anything they want from you not buying a TV. The only thing that makes them stop spying on people is a law that says they can't spy on people.
That was my whole point. You are making this about personal choices when it isn't, and using it as a way to judge people who don't make the same choices you do.
This is not a statement of Republicans and Democrats being the same, but a statement of Republicans going off the deep end in during and after Reagan.
Obama was a very moderate Democrat for his time. If you go back in time a moderate Democrat and Republican were similar because the "center" was more reasonable. Now the "center" is just people that are ashamed that they vote Republican.
> Being attractive gets you all sorts of unwarranted hatred, targets on your back etc. for doing nothing.
I'm not aware of what fantasy land exists where attractive people are hated and being fat is the new style trend. Certainly not there one where GLP-1s become the hottest new pharmaceutical.
This isn't even true. OSRS was on life support with very few players for years until they started giving it updates.
Turns out the 2007 version of the game was ROUGH for a lot of reasons - they picked the time because, IIRC, it was the most complete backup they had.
OSRS has now had nearly a decade of consistent updates, a large team, and typically 10x the online player count of the "modern" game. The catch is that OSRS is not the 2007 version of the game, it's an alternative update timeline which broke off at the 2007 version of the game.
It's not that you can remember a song and therefore copyright infringement when you sing.
For 99.999% of people that are singing a song, it's not a replacement for the original in any way shape or form, hard stop. Let's not pretend it could even get anywhere close.
For the last 0.001%, we would call it a cover and typically the individually doing a cover takes some liberties of their own, still making it not a replacement in any way. Artists are typically cool with covers.
>For 99.999% of people that are singing a song, it's not a replacement for the original in any way shape or form, hard stop. Let's not pretend it could even get anywhere close.
You realize that lyrics are often written by someone other than the actual singer, and whoever wrote the lyrics is entitled to compensation too? The "amateur singing isn't a replacement for the studio album" excuse doesn't work in this context. Also courts have ruled that lyrics themselves are protected by copyright.
Clearly the team, if it is a team, that is entitled to the copyright is entitled to the copyright of the song, that's a silly statement to make. Copyright belongs to some entity, obviously.
You were specifically calling out individuals singing a song, not publishing lyrics online. These are not the same thing. Again your distribution/consumption model matters here.
On artists being "cool" with it - if the copyright holder doesn't pursue you then does it matter? The only valid argument I would see here is if the copyright holder doesn't know about the infringement and therefore cannot seek remedies, but we can fish for illegal scenarios all day if we would like: that's not useful though.
>Clearly the team, if it is a team, that is entitled to the copyright is entitled to the copyright of the song, that's a silly statement to make. Copyright belongs to some entity, obviously.
>You were specifically calling out individuals singing a song, not publishing lyrics online. These are not the same thing. Again your distribution/consumption model matters here.
I'm not sure why you're so confidently dismissive here. I wasn't trying to claim that nobody owned the lyrics. I brought that point up because even in the case of an amateur singing a song, even if you accept the "for 99.999% of people that are singing a song, it's not a replacement for the original in any way shape or form" excuse, you're still infringing on the copyright of the lyrics, because it's a derivative work. Moreover it's unclear whether that excuse even works. If you make a low cost version of star wars, copying the screenplay exactly, that still seems like copyright infringement, even if "it's not a replacement for the original in any way shape or form".
>On artists being "cool" with it - if the copyright holder doesn't pursue you then does it matter?
Virtually nobody got sued for torrenting with a VPN on. Does that mean it's fair to round that off as being legal, because "if the copyright holder doesn't pursue you then does it matter"?
> Moreover it's unclear whether that excuse even works. If you make a low cost version of star wars, copying the screenplay exactly, that still seems like copyright infringement, even if "it's not a replacement for the original in any way shape or form".
Are you being intentionally obtuse here? Intention matters here.
> Virtually nobody got sued for torrenting with a VPN on.
Let's not use obviously illegal actions which are done covertly to act as an example that is in any way similar to singing a song in the "open."
"I'm against the solution which has been shown to work for [unsubstantiated reason]." Without providing any other proven-to-work solutions is basically advocating for the problem.
It’s not the solution, it’s one intervention among others in a focus program. They had at least one other intervention going on at the same time (essentially, decriminalizing truancy—a “proven-to-work” solution by your standards, and one I do support), and probably more.
Well, when you add in the '$' and ';' tokens the "let" example is still shorter. Also as another person replied to you, those other two examples are declarations in other languages. So 0 for 3 there.
reply