whaletail

World Athletics (T&F governing body) does allow DSD women this opportunity. Semenya argues that HRT has too many side effects (psychological and physical), hasn't been proven safe for DSD women, and finally, that she should be able to compete as she was born. Although I still support the WA policy (at least tentatively), it's worth noting that DSD women have female genitalia, are raised as female, and unless they happen to show world class running ability, may never even know they're biologically different. They can't have children, and might learn about their condition as a result, but I suspect very few East African villagers seek western medical treatment because they can't conceive (I'm pretty sure DSD has never been documented outside of Kenya, Namibia and Botswana). So the idea that DSD athletes are either pretending to be women, or cheating in some fashion is absurd.

My ambivalence regarding whether DSD athletes should be allowed to participate in women's sports reflects my own ignorance as well. Although I constantly read that they are 'biologically male', I've not seen that phrase defined with precision, let alone the assertion substantiated. Nor have I seen any research documenting their testosterone levels, and how they compare vs. elite female athletes. The intersection of biology and our cultural perspectives regarding "level playing fields" and allowable advantages etc. is also relevant to the DSD athlete debate. Finally, as an odd aside, these debates always leave me thinking about Spencer Lee vs. Anthony Robles, and the nature of disability/advantage. Specifically, why it seems taboo to even consider Robles' potential advantage(s) (and to a much lesser extent, Spencer's) and what that says about our obsession with level playing fields.

Never heard of Richard Posner? Chicago's law school and econ department aren't left leaning at all.

Rebut my argument

Just because he hasn't managed to criminalize dissent yet, doesn't mean we needn't worry. Honestly, if I hadn't been born here, I wouldn't even feel comfortable commenting as I have. If I were a legal immigrant, with a green card or a visa, I would be trying my absolute best to remain as under the radar as possible. I'd be terrified of being reported to ICE etc. as a malcontent. And that is already so far beyond acceptable that I'm gobsmacked every time someone minimizes/dismisses the idea that America's sliding into fascism. Our government is already kidnapping legal immigrants off the street - in terrifying fashion, and often enough, illegally deporting them, sometimes to godda^n prison. That they'll also knowingly, shamelessly, and repeatedly lie about these kidnappings is pretty scary as well. Moreover, given the administration's willingness to ignore the judiciary when displeased with rulings, and the fact that every one of them is an unqualified sycophantic lapdog, we have no idea what insane executive order the next 30 days will bring, and any confidence that we're safe from persecution is honestly poor judgment. And we haven't even begun to discuss how modern surveillance tech like Palantir and Clearview etc. immeasurably assist in monitoring populations, searching for dissent, finding anyone they'd like, and incredibly quickly. Finally, I doubt I'm the only one who already censors themselves on here. I very much hope I have nothing to worry about, but I'd be stupid to believe so.

Unfortunately, it seems Biden's utterly abysmal judgment, may well provide significant cover for Trump's obvious cognitive issues (which themselves pale in comparison to so many of his other issues). Although Biden was a milk toast centrist most of his career, and occasionally pretty scummy (see his treatment of Anita Hill during Clarence "Uncle Tom" Thomas' confirmation hearings), he appears to have been an excellent president. But to insist on running for re-election when he knew he was fading fast borders on the unforgivable. Whether it was delusion, conceit or simply bad judgment borne from incompetence, the decision to run was bad enough. But to actively hide your infirmity, and ask your closest supporters to assist in the cover-up - when the country you claim to "love" is facing an existential crisis - is absolutely mindblowing (and embarrassing). And for so many high-ranking dems to willingly assist in such a charade - whether out of loyalty, sense of obligation, or whatever, is even crazier.

That you're probably right is one of the fundamental reasons he - and his administration - are unfit for office.

Although I'm not an expert, I'd certainly imagine that our social welfare programs have added plenty of fraud. I suspect a lot less than many conservatives believe, but still a substantial amount. To me, however, the existence of fraud doesn't diminish the needs of the powerless and those suffering, or the value associated with programs that combat such suffering. In my opinion, it's a cost of doing business, much like a certain percentage of gross retail revenue is consistently offset by shoplifting. Retailers hire security etc. to minimize shoplifting losses, and raise prices to compensate for the unpreventable losses. Completely eliminating shoplifting, much like govt fraud, is either impossible or so expensive it might as well be.

I'm neither fiscally, nor socially conservative because: 1. I think the world is fundamentally unfair, and some groups obviously suffer disproportionally, and in myriad ways, as a result. Although I have enough trouble worrying about myself and those I love, government can certainly alleviate at least some of that suffering. Therefore, I think government should function to improve the lives of its entire citizenry, but especially those with the greatest need. 2. Therefore I think governments, especially those of the wealthiest nations, should spend money toward that end, providing services like universal health care (both mental and physical), universal access to shelter, clean water, food and other utilities, and try to alleviate as much poverty as possible. I also think it should patronize the arts and science as it did prior to Trump. As this is off the top of my head, I suspect I'm missing a number of other important areas where I think government spending is appropriate. 3. Although I'm not against government spending at all, I think it needs to recoup what it spends (and not pass debt down to later generations). Thankfully, we can easily pay for such services through increased taxes on large corporations and our wealthiest citizens. They've benefited tremendously from this country, both tangibly and intangibly, and can absorb such taxes without the suffering. 4. I also believe in an immutable separation of church and state, as well as a fundamental right to privacy and free thought. Although I view our Constitution as an incredible innovation, it must be a "living, evolving document". Our founding fathers were as human as anyone else, and the notion that 250 year old mandates must be followed as if sacrosanct is utterly absurd. Thus, I don't think government should legislate morality, save where safety and/or security are necessarily implicated. So, abortion would be universally legal prior to the approximate time when a fetus can survive outside the womb (~23 weeks IIRC), while assault and murder, etc. would remain illegal. That's my general ideology, its justification, and practical application via government.

Why? And what role do you think government should serve in society? Finally, as such a fiscal conservative, how can you possibly stand Trump? Not only will his Big Beautiful Bill balloon the national debt, it'll likely include more pork barrel spending than any previous bill in history. Moreover, he's probably been associated with as much fraud as any other elected official in modern history. From his real estate days, to his association with Trump University, and on to his various, current pay-for-access schemes, Trump's not just an ethics dumpster fire, he's a monumentally expensive dumpster fire. If you want the receipts with respect to the above allegations, and much, much more, read Lucky Loser. The authors spent two years forensically analyzing Trump's tax returns for the NYT (IIRC, obtained from Mary Trump, who received them as part of the discovery phase in Trump's lawsuit against her), and despite suing anyone and everyone for defamation, he won't sue these authors.

? BTW, I apologize for claiming your pork/fraud conflation is either dumb or disingenuous. It may be one of those two, but since some extreme examples of pork spending surely are basic fraud, the distinction can sometimes may seem semantic. But pork spending is a direct consequence of our quid pro quo legislative process, and only the most austere of fiscal conservatives would consider such spending to be universally wasteful (let alone fraud). We'd probably all agree that "hiding" so much spending in otherwise unrelated legislation is unfortunate (and probably inefficient as well), but until our legislative process is fundamentally revised, very few bills will get through the House and Senate without the inclusion of pork incentives.

Since it sounds like you were at least familiar with her prior to the documentary release, do you know anything about it's backstory? Notably, how it was financed, and how did such a complete nobody - whose story isn't even interesting*, come to the attention of such a seemingly 'high end' film crew? * beyond true crime fans' potential interest in her mother's murder, and how long Eve was subsequently alone with her body.

If Evans' allegations are correct, the NGO is almost certainly committing fraud. The initial contract may have been pork, but that's an entirely separate discussion. More broadly, whether Scouts Honor is being disingenuously obtuse, or just isn't too bright, I don't know, but jesus christ are these threads revealing. Whether its Vak Attack, Uncle Bernard or Scourge pulling the trigger, every one is as one-sided as shooting fish in a barrel. And if Socra-tease or Billy Hoyle ever enter the fray, wow, this place'll be an abattoir.

I'm only 15 minutes in, but I'd love to hear the thoughts of a non-wrestler (or someone completely unfamiliar with the sport). Would they recognize the absurdity of her goal/journey etc., or view her as a legitimate participant (an underdog, but someone who's at least prepared enough to win a few matches)? Would they realize her story wasn't really worth telling (at least not her wrestling story)? That she hadn't earned the opportunity to scrap with a wrestler like Mallory Velte, and even further, that her "holding her own" would actually have devalued the sport itself. I'm also curious how this came about. Did she finance it, and hire a film crew etc., or did someone actually meet her and decide her story was worth telling? Because as uninteresting as her wrestling "journey" really is, the film crew is clearly very competent. At a glance, this was as well made a documentary as any I've seen. In fact, the early U.S. Open wrestling sequences were incredible. From the camera angles to the sound mix, I'm not sure I've ever seen wrestling appear so viscerally violent. Finally, Eve herself is much less delusional than I expected. She doesn't pretend to be better than she is (at least not in the 15 minutes I've seen), nor does she seem to think she's better than she is. She seems to know she's going to get steamrolled at the Open, and even mentions she's only going because she couldn't find an online fight or submission grappling opponent that weekend.

Considering Fox News has become America's mainstream media, I agree. Well, I'm not sure their anchors outright lie, but their opinion hosts (Hannity et al.) absolutely do (see Dominion v. Fox News for details). And both their news anchors and op ed hosts aggressively promote right wing talking points, without any real attempt to be "fair and balanced". MSNBC seems pretty left wing, but IMO they're nowhere near as partisan as Fox News. If you can point me to research etc. that suggests otherwise, I'll certainly read it. I'm sure most reporters probably do lean left, but also bend over backwards to appear unbiased. Which is how we end up with the NYT mentioning Biden's age in a negative context much more often than Trump's age, propensity to babble, and even his constant dishonesty. But if you don't realize that Fox News has become America's mainstream media, just look at their market share. Edit: BTW, who has lied on this airplane issue, and how? And are you seriously claiming to suddenly believe an administration that has told two or three different stories about this plane since the story broke? When Pam Biondi claims Abrego Gracia is an MS-13 gang member, without any evidence at all, do you believe her? Do you believe her claims that the 2020 election was stolen, despite all 64 court cases being thrown out? Trump's been gloating about owning this airplane from the beginning, and the admin has been trying to craft a narrative that somehow reconciles his claims with American law.