Afternoon Ethics Warm-Up, 2/25/ 2019: Martina Navratilova A Gender Bigot? The Founding Fathers Nazis? Art Galleries Discriminating Against The Blind? WHAT’S HAPPENING?????

It would be a good afternoon if EVERYTHING WASN’T SPINNING OUT OF CONTROL!!!!

1. For the record, it appears that Facebook blocking Ethics Alarms posts has cost the site about 30% of its traffic. Mission accomplished, Thought Control Activists!

For now…

2. Did I call this, or what? In  October of 2017 I wrote about another example of tyranny by the disabled, when the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals gave Paul McGann, who can neither see not hear, a chance to show that movie theaters must provide him with a “tactile interpreter” under the ADA.

No word yet on how Paul is faring, but last October I wrote about yet another example, as described in the New York Times:

…Eight suits have been filed in federal court in Manhattan over the past two weeks, most recently against Hofstra University on Long Island on Oct. 4. In each case, lawyers for Emanuel Delacruz, who is blind, charged that the college’s website is inaccessible to their plaintiff and therefore in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

The filings are part of a growing number of actions involving accessibility and the internet.….Since January 2015, at least 751 lawsuits have been filed over the issue. The vast majority have focused on retailers and restaurants, according to a legal blog that tracks such suits… another website, which includes not only lawsuits but also government investigations into web or technological accessibility, lists 37 schools that have been accused of noncompliance with disability law.

I wrote, in part,

Next? Law suits against art museums for not having audio descriptions of every work exhibited. Law suits against sports stadiums, alleging that the ADA mandates play-by-play being blasted from the ballpark speakers. Then, I suppose, lawsuits against the world for not making being blind a pleasure.

From the Times last week:

“On Dec. 13, a blind Manhattan resident named Henry Tucker filed federal lawsuits against 10 art galleries, saying their websites were not accessible to people who could not see. The galleries’ names included Adam Baumgold Fine Art, Adelson, Agora, Albertz Benda and Acquavella. The next day, Mr. Tucker and his attorneys moved on to the B’s.”

3. Apparently American conservatives have always been Nazis! I watched the 1972 film adaptation of the musical “1776” yesterday, when TCM ran it as part of its run-up to the Oscars. For the first time I watched all of “Cool, Cool Considerate Men,” a number I detest and would cut from the show if I were directing the stage show. The number wasn’t included in the movie’s original release, which was a blessing, but the chorus number, the Act I finale on stage, is in the DVD versions and the one TCM ran.  The number is true hackery, musically, historically and politically. The song falsely portrays the more nuanced Declaration signers as reactionaries (no one who signed was a reactionary), lumps very different individuals with widely divergent political philosophies as rigid “conservatives”  in 1970’s terms, and, in a final insult, actually climaxes with the “conservatives” goose-stepping! That’s right: James Wilson, Lymon Hall, Edward Rutledge, Robert Livingston (who co-drafted the Declaration!) and John Dickenson, among others, patriots and heroes all, are compared to Nazis because they are (in the script) self-declared conservatives.

Meanwhile, on multiple blogs and websites around the web, theater and movie nerds write about how clever the number is.

4. Here’s the thing about brave gender activists: some of them are even brave enough to speak the truth. Martina Navratilova has earned Ethics Hero status by stating what everyone knows to be true but denies because of political correctness mandates and fear of being crucified by social media mobs. The gay tennis athlete icon entered the fray regarding trans athletes competing as women when she tweeted in December: “You can’t just proclaim yourself a female and be able to compete against women. There must be some standards, and having a penis and competing as a woman would not fit that standard.”

Then, in an op-ed in  the Sunday Times, Navratilova wrote that she had  promised to research the issue before saying more. She wrote,  “Well, I’ve now done that and, if anything, my views have strengthened. To put the argument at its most basic: a man can decide to be female, take hormones if required by whatever sporting organisation is concerned, win everything in sight and perhaps earn a small fortune, and then reverse his decision and go back to making babies if he so desires.“It’s insane and it’s cheating. I am happy to address a transgender woman in whatever form she prefers, but I would not be happy to compete against her. It would not be fair.”

Now she is being attacked by LGBT activists as “transphobic.” Meanwhile, in Connecticut, Andraya Yearwood, a s  from Cromwell High School, and Terry Miller, boy-now-female a boy from Bloomfield High School, took the top two spots in the women’s 55-meter dash at the state open indoor track championships, with Miller setting a record of 6.95 seconds, and Yearwood finishing in 6.95 seconds. The third place winner, a biological female, finished in 7.23 seconds. Last year, Miller and Yearwood finished in the top two spots for the state’s 100-meter state outdoor championships. Miller also won the 300-meter state indoor championship this season.

Yup! Sounds fair to me!

Boy, what a bigot that Martina Navratilova has turned into!


79 thoughts on “Afternoon Ethics Warm-Up, 2/25/ 2019: Martina Navratilova A Gender Bigot? The Founding Fathers Nazis? Art Galleries Discriminating Against The Blind? WHAT’S HAPPENING?????

  1. 1. Facebook is run by juvenile, ignorant, woke, hipsters who can’t wait to ship so many of us off to the camps after the resistance wins the final election in American history; blocking reason, free thought and speech from social media will have to do for now.

    3. This leftist crap has been going on over a half century. Hell, Noam Chomsky started his teaching career at MIT in 1957.

    • …can’t wait to ship so many of us off to the camps…

      Only after they manage to search every building in America to find and confiscate all of the guns. Good luck with needing bodyguards when THOSE searches begin. Bodyguards will be taken out willy-nilly at long range until lefties cannot get any more protection, and then the real action begins.

    • 3) One of the things that Chomsky says — it runs through all his work — is that intellectuals lie, and the intellectual establishment invests itself in lies and lying, usually the closer they get to state power.

      Maybe you are an intellectual, and maybe you are not — it doesn’t matter — but it is unfair (and it is a lie) to insinuate that Chomsky opposes free expression of ideas.

      One thing about Chomsky is that he fights hard to *tell the truth*, and he does this in relation to American state power as a system. It is impossible to dismiss Chomsky as an important intellect. He must be confronted on an intellectual plane — not easy to do when it happens that the one attempting it is *invested in lies*.

      • Ever so subtle and arrogant as ever.

        A man who advocates for ultimate state control over individuality and economic expression via capitalism is in favor of free speech?

        If you mean he is in favor of free speech until he and his state system of choice has power and can silence others, then sure.

        Leftism and Chomsky’s investment in it was the subject of my post. Do you deny he is a leftist? Do you deny the state he de facto espouses naturally resulting from leftism?

        So Chomsky is, by your definition, an intellectual.

        Who is invested in lies?

        • I think you think direct speech is ‘arrogance’?

          Since I doubt strongly that you have ever read his works — I doubt that anyone who writes on this blog has read him — I wonder if you have much of a position to critique him?

          If you doubt — despite the content of the video I included and the Robert Faurisson affair — that he is sincere about his dedication to free communication of ideas, you are within your rights to do so.

          I think the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ — more than ever today — are misleading and confusing. Certainly, according to standard definitions, Chomsky is on the Progressive Left. But then most working people and most members of society who are not part of the moneyed class — take as an example the American Populist Party (1890), will choose to favor their interests over, for example, that of capital.

          In my own view Conservatives and Republicans, to make themselves viable popularly, need to reestablish their connection with the popular sector and advocate for their interests. What would you call that, Communism? In my view it stems of our Catholic social teaching.

          There is no doubt that Chomsky is an intellectual. I have no idea how you would structure your argument to prove that he isn’t, but I have some doubts that you could define either intellectual or even intellect. (Sorry, my ‘direct speech’ is popping through! 😉 )

          Chomsky is actually an accomplished philosopher. See for example his talk “The machine, the ghost, and the limits of understanding“.

          Feel free to make references to the kind of State that Chomsky advocates for. Or any other claim. I did not defend him except insofar as he is adamantly resolved to protect the right to free speech.

          I think it is crucial, more than ever today, to confront lies and lying. In my view, we are all surrounded by layer upon layer of lie. But that is not merely a vain claim, I think I can prove it. And reading Chomsky has helped me to see the necessity of truthful speech. That is why, within limits, I defend him when he is slandered.

          • Alizia, Noam Chomsky despises the United States with every fiber of his body. It warps his every thought. He’s slick. Don’t let him reel you in. But of course, you don’t really have a dog in this hunt, you’re not an American. He doesn’t speak truth to power, he’s a tenured gnat.

            • Esteemed Other Bill: a couple of things . . .

              In my view, if and when we make definitive statements about people or events, we had better make sure that what we say is true, accurate, fair and well-reasoned. Having read a good deal of Chomsky’s books (over 7 years ago now) I know that what you say is flatly untrue. I can then only recommend that you review your assertion about him.

              The problem of being *reeled in* (like a fish I gather?) is an interesting one to me, and certainly if it is approached philosophically. The larger part of my *concerns* (philosophically, existentially) are Christian, as I often reveal. Therefore, the idea of being *reeled in* and avoiding being *reeled in* becomes acutely interesting and highly relevant. If ever you desire to talk this through let me know.

              It is fair — fair indeed, and accurate — to say that Chomsky is vitally and consistently concerned about issues relating to *power*. If he opposes something, what he opposes are structures of artificial power, or perhaps I might say inauthentic power which is a perversion of the use of power. For example, he sees *private corporations* (this is one example of private power, there are others of course) as being arbitrary, semi-fascistic in structure, and as being — as he would say — unaccountable to the demos. If this is so — and it certainly is — then private concentrations of power are a *problem* for democracy, if indeed democracy and the concept of it is taken seriously.

              If you said “But he’s a Marxist!”, I would say that he uses Marxian analysis as a reference, and yet he is actually more wedded to or ensconced in genuine liberal & philosophical traditions. Were you to know just a little bit more about him, and were you to choose to be more fair and more honest, you a) would know this or b) could quickly gain a proper understanding. In fact, he is deeply and constantly critical of Leninist modifications of Marxism. And — this may interest you to know — he sees the ideological position of someone like Walter Lippmann as having a Leninist element. That is, the idea that an intelligentsia holds power, defines ideological positions, feeds those opinions and views to a plastic and malleable mass who remain (as Chomsky says) *spectators* and not participants. This is a powerful idea, and what he has done to get to that clear idea is to have seen clearly the dynamic of power. The idea can be taken in different directions mind you. He tends toward dedicated egalitarianism and away from more private *identifications* (that is toward ethnicity, or religion, or race) and, in fact, his notions of Americanism are quite in the domain of the present regimes of thought, and ones that you and others here hold (without really thinking through the ramifications). He is a multiculturalist and he does accept the Lincolnian *proposition*: just like you-plural.

              But unlike you-plural, whose patriotism really means *service to giant concentrations of capital that are no part of ‘democracy’ in a meaningful sense* — a kind of perversion of genuine patriotism which cannot and should not defend what perverts it — he is acutely aware, and acutely critical, of the usurpious machinations of private power and their deleterious effect on people. In his defense of ‘the human’ (which you have no grasp of because you have not read his works and have no interest in genuinely confronting him as an intellect), his views in many respects coincide with Christian and Jewish humanism, though expressed in Enlightenment terms and philosophically. I personally understand him in these senses as being unrealistically idealistic, but I grasp what he says and why he says it.

              I know that no part of this can or will get through to you — bias does not only make us *stupid* it closes down the channels of intellectual thought — but I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my thinking in the face of hypocrisy and deliberate distortion. I have said and will continue to say: to make progress in our present involves a profound and revolutionary will to renovate and restore VALUES that have been etched away by processes of perversion and corruption. This is not a joke. It is a very serious affair and it has to do with the restoration of the values of Western Civilization. If one indeed takes this seriously, it must lead one to more serious thinking, and definitely to a willingness to confront the LIE and LYING generally.

              Now, as to your claim that *You are not one of us*, I say that because I am a naturalized American I am indeed American. Or, if you wish, that no naturalized American is actually American: a bit of a problematic position if you think it through! Though born in Venezuela I can assure you I am not Venezuelan (in identifications).

              If you talk about *hate* and believe that you can define it, you will also have to talk about *love* and what it means. It is a coherent proposition, don’t you think? What does it mean *to love*? What one loves, one serves. Love is service. So, while I will not say that I have an ultimate view of what Noam Chomsky is up to, and his ideas do not coincide with mine in many respects — for example I am chauvinist to some degree, believe in hierarchies if they are correctly founded, and tend to think that people require strong legal and cultural restraints and cannot handle unfettered freedom, a position directly in opposition to Chomsky’s post-romantic and idealistic views on the topic; in addition to being anti-feminist (s he would define it) and being a race-realist (as he definitely is not), nevertheless I can 1) understand his views and where he comes from, and 2) incorporate certain aspects. And, if you have read what I write you can see that I do share certain of his ideas about *power* and How Power Functions. (And I admit my confusion about how to resolve this deep problem).

              Ia m really interested in this notion of ‘slickness’: sophistry essentially, no? The false argument made to appear as the true one?

              All you need to do is to correct me if I am wrong. To explain exactly where I am wrong. And to demonstrate — precisely! — the alternative that you think I should have. You speak from a position of knowing what is true. Very good: reveal it in such a way that I am moved and convinced. It is a civic duty!

              • Since Chomsky came up, I watched this video: Chomsky on Classical Freedom, Liberalism and Democracy. He touches on a great range of ideas and views, more perhaps than you and many others here will bother to think in your whole life. [An arrogant joke].

                One very powerful idea I got from this video (about 2/3rds-3/4s in more or less) is his view that the more America is overpowered by business-interests, and the more that business usurps democratic power, the more it resorts to Leninist machinations for controlling people’s thinking and perception.

                Thus, the free society trades its freedom *for a mess of pottage*.

                I will discuss, debate and defend this assertion with anyone, anywhere, as it pertains to America in the present! Perhaps once America really did mean a commitment to genuine freedom and genuine truth. But things have gotten so perverted, and the lies have spread so deeply into people’s interior identifications, that it requires a kind of therapeutic disentanglement. It must be confronted.

                [You might wish to consider my “10 Week Internet Course!” It’s Changing Lives!® :-)]

                    • You mean I don’t think like you and you deem me to be a non-thinker. (You and Chomsky are meant to be. Hurry though, he’s no spring chicken.)

                      Thanks, again, for proving my point about the both of you.

                    • No, I mean that you actually do not think. You show that when confronted by the thought of another person that you can only reduce it, or perform a hack-job on it, or repeat some tropes that someone else repeated. That is as far as you go.

                      And for you, a reasoned response (what I gave) is a ‘symptom of complicity’. That is the only *idea* you have engaged with. You can do nothing better because you have nothing more to work with, apparently.

                      And don’t thank me. I am the one that owes you thanks! In my view your approach and your tactics are destructive to necessary intellectualism. I can prove it and I can demonstrate it. You help to illustrate this.

                      All you can do is to try to save face by strategic retreat . . .

  2. 1. I was able to post your article to FB. Second one this week. I have the shades down, the dogs are on alert, am awaiting the response with great caution and trepidation.

  3. OK, so they told me gender and sex were different. Remember what all those smug people said if you tried to equate sex and gender? Sex was supposed to be the person’s biological sex dictated by DNA and evident in physical characteristics. People are male or female with a few are intersex people. Gender is your emotional identity, which can be any one of dozens or hundreds of genders. You can switch genders at whim, it is just how you feel. That is what has been repeated for decades. So, a transgender person is….a thing that doesn’t make sense. Since gender and sex aren’t linked (as stated in gender theory) changing genders has nothing to do with changing your hormones, your sex organs, or even your clothes. Changing genders is easy, you just change how you feel about yourself, it is just a choice. You don’t even need to change your hair or buy new clothes. Changing your sex, however, is not possible under gender theory. Sex has nothing to do with gender, it is ingrained. So why are these people claiming to be ‘transgender’ demanding hormone therapy and surgery? That would be transexual, something not normal by gender theory standards. In addition, this idea that men need to become women and women need to become men reinforces the idea that there are only 2 genders and they are the same thing as sex. So, why do the transgender people state that claiming there are only 2 genders is bigoted? They themselves claim there is only female and male and you can be either one you wish. They do not recognize any other genders, transgender women are women, transgender men are men, there are only 2.

    So, are these people too stupid to understand their own theories or are they just lying to us as they try to destroy society in their quest for a Communist utopia?

  4. I saw “1776” for the first time a few months ago. I didn’t see the appeal of it, though William Daniels was marvelous as John Adams. I could have done without that Rutledge number, “Molasses to Rum”.

    • And I thought it was a good number. One of my favorite musicals, by the way. I believe that young man playing the courier stole the show with “Mama”.

      • In my version of 1776, “Mama,” not “Cool,” ends Act I. Much better. It’s a terrific musical, even with all its historical jiggering, and it introduced lots of previously ignorant Americans to Adams, his amazing letters with his wife, and Washington’s equally amazing letters to Congress. So it simplified and condensed the facts a bit. The Founders didn’t really sing, either.

        “Mama,” “The Egg,” “You should write it” and “Molasses” are top notch numbers, and more than make up for the duds, like “Violin” and “The Lees of Virginia.” I’d kill to direct it.

  5. Meanwhile, on multiple blogs and websites around the web, theater and movie nerds write about how clever the number is.

    There’s a similar thing regarding the official reviews for Star Wars: The Last Jedi and the newest season of Doctor Who (in both cases, compare the film-critic and popular review scores on Rotten Tomatoes, then check out the subject on YouTube; people there are still livid). I’m sorry if this triggers an influx of pigeonholed commentary, but the controversy around bought-and-paid-for ideological reviewing has become an object of serious concern even in other corners of the nerd circle. The extent of this great divide is something to behold.

    Yes, the circle has corners. Metaphors were made to be mixed.

    • I’ve been following the SF people calling out the progressive stands. They are focusing on exposing it early so the more casual can skip woke projects like Captain Marvel, after Star Wars, Star Trek, and Dr. Who lost it to overkill messaging. Non ‘soy’ efforts like Alita: battle angel and Shazam are being suggested because they’re not about any messages like supporting the handicapped, but writing them as 3D heroes. Some of the numbers analysis about how this messaging is shooting them in the foot is hopeful. Few studios can afford to alienate their audiences, sadly Disney is acting like they can. ‘get woke, go broke is common in this resistance to the resistance in the SF trenches.

      • I saw that Battle Angel very recently because of this YouTube outrage. I expected to be disappointed. It had themes of innocence and honesty portrayed as positive qualities against a cruel dystopian backdrop. The heroic acts were earnestly, unapologetically heroic. I was somehow moved by this CGI action manga adaptation; and I’m seldom moved. My steady diet of active social deconstruction and selfish antiheroes created the perfect backdrop for that movie to stand against. It’s themes reverberated from the screen out into the world around me. I craved this tale of virtue and heroism from my youth. Where are the knights rescuing maidens fair? Where are the horse and the rider? “Here’s a female protagonist cyborg with big, creepy eyes”, replied a trailer which would never have garnered a second look from me. I’ve become convinced beyond all doubt (beyond all reason!) that I should get my scifi/action/fantasy reviews exclusively from that camp of angry YouTube nerds. My loyalty was won with gusto.

        • I’ve never been much into anime based stories, but I’ve come to believe the deconstruction and devaluation of the hero (no matter what they look like) accelerating in the mainstream in the 70s was a canary for cultural rot. Once the hero is beaten down, the values, the goals and the deeds were bleached away as well. SF resisted it to a degree, but that ended in the last decade, with most major franchises being broken by veering from the hero’s journey to a misunderstanding of the passive heroine’s jounrney. Mu-Lan was on a hero’s journey, Rom-Coms are usually the heroine’s journey. The themes andcharacters cannot be interchanged.

          But geeks don’t really care as much for convention, what outsiders say they should think. They are culturally libertarian, though of all stripes politically. They can be distracted by cool ideas or good FX, but that does not last long. Cameron benefitted by having Alita come out as its reaching a boil. I’m expecting the Shazam comedy to benefit from the pushback too. (He was Captain Marvel first, in 1939, long before Marvel was the name of a company) I think tanking box will force some reduction in SJ at the least.

          • It was tactical of them to include a Shazam trailer before the movie, then. It seemed apolitical – maybe deliberately so. Maybe this anti-movement movement will get me the allegedly-cliché and suspiciously sparse heroic knight’s tale I’ve pined for. To my eyes (born post-1970) the subversion of the trope is the cliché. I was even ecstatic about Peter Jackson’s LOTR at its time despite the careful and thorough extraction of all Catholicity – like a broken, trained beast contented with scraps.

            That Hobbit travesty, though! I speak the name of Jackson through gritted teeth since then. If Tolkien isn’t portrayed shouting the Latin responses in a Novus Ordo Mass in this upcoming film, I’ll single-handedly riot.

            That’s quite a tangent even for me. I like it enough not to delete it though. A one-man riot: it’d take a one-man army to stop me! The consciousness flows out of me like a constant stream.

            • A Shazam trailer before which movie? I get my trailers and analysis on Youtube.

              As much as I liked LOTR movies, I had no interest in stretching a slim one volume novel into a trilogy. The Simirilian was backstory, not saga. Tolkein and Lewis were buds, so religious aspects in both being trimmed is no shock. I’m not sure trimming hurt the stories as a lot of the symols and relationships remained as traces,and the trimming was done well for some movies. That is the ig question in adapting some original that had biases or religion: do you keep it as heavy handed as the source, which was a different media and ward off the people you’d like to get your main message to, or do you dilute it for the century later culture and concentrate or a ripping story?

              • A Shazam trailer before which movie? I get my trailers and analysis on Youtube.

                It was before Alita. I wonder if they intended to associate it with Alita’s own messagelessness. We’ll see if they keep that implicit promise, and if that tactic works.

                As much as I liked LOTR movies, I had no interest in stretching a slim one volume novel into a trilogy.

                I do agree. The LOTR trilogy was a very well-made adaptation. It was successful for nearly all the same reasons The Hobbit was a complete cinematic failure. It’s a mystery how they came from the same production team. Well, no. The love of money, and all that…

                Tolkein and Lewis were buds, so religious aspects in both being trimmed is no shock. I’m not sure trimming hurt the stories as a lot of the symols and relationships remained as traces,and the trimming was done well for some movies.

                Lewis’s work was explicitly religious. Tolkien’s was very subtle, though. All of the religious aspects were hidden in the themes as though the story itself was designed to draw men not only to be excellent men but to reject temptation to sin which corrupts the world in far-reaching and previously unexpected way. But all of it is an underlying, unstated premise from which everything flows and ultimately to which everything points without ever actually saying a word to that effect. I don’t think there’s been anything before or since quite like it. Tolkien took the tools deconstructionists and turned them toward construction. It was cultural guerrilla warfare at its finest. I think even that description sells it short, though.

          • I’ve never been much into anime based stories…

            Me either, Starblazers aside (ah, the freedom of youth and the dearth of TV channels)

            However, there is a little SF movie that my son heard about that is worth the viewing: “Your Name.”

            It is exceptionally well done, and the premise is fresh and interesting.

      • Aw, that’s too bad! I’m only aware of gamergate by name. It’s so sub-cultural that I suspect few sources I could find would have an honest, fleshed-out summary, and how could I know the difference? Still, I did apologize for potentially starting an irritating tangent. That would seem insincere if I egged you on any further.

        • No worries, I was just riffing on that it is a very similar setup the showbiz media is facing as Gamergate did (minus the sex-for-good-reviews claim). I don’t mind talking about it, but it takes a ton of time. Mostly because a partner team at my job back in the day had to deal with the fallout. And as usual, the view from the inside is quite different.

          I think this write-up (warning: long wall of text) is a fair summary of the whole thing:

          Just to make it clear, I’m not irritated or annoyed; just that lunch hour is over and I should go back to work. 🙂

  6. I call this the “semantic shuffle.”

    1. Claim (falsely) that an opinion is “scientific fact” when in reality the science is either inconclusive, unknown, or contrary.

    2. Use Step 1 to enshrine your opinion by making it the law of the land, or by shaming, shouting, and protesting until your opinion is accepted as common knowledge.

    3. When the body of scientific evidence eventually comes down HARD against your opinion, proving you were wrong, shift over to claiming that no one can REALLY understand the issue using science or logic because it’s all a matter of semantics, popular consensus, or personal feeling anyway.

    4. Accuse anyone opposing your now-debunked opinion of trying to attack a cherished fundamental right or truth, even if said debunked opinion has only been widely believed for a short time, and even if the results have already been catastrophic.

    • You can plug all sorts of nonsense into this scenario…

      “Okay, so human life begins at conception, whatever, it’s only murder if you kill a PERSON, and that’s different from being human because I say it is, and when personhood starts is a matter of opinion, not science.”

      “Okay, so males and females are completely genetically different, whatever, what REALLY matters is gender, and gender is different from sex now because I say so, and gender is whatever you think it is, this, males can compete in women’s sports.”

      “Okay, so we lied when we said that divorce doesn’t hurt kids, and that kids don’t need dads, and that women would be happier if they chose careers over parenting, and that it was better to screw around until you’re 40 and marry late, and that condoms mean you don’t have to worry about STDs…and now everyone is miserable because we turned out to be objectively wrong about everything, but you still need feminism because being happy and prosperous was never really the goal, it’s all about progress, and progress isn’t about what’s best for you anymore because we say so, and do you really want to undo all the progress we’ve made for you?”

  7. re 2:

    re 4: Why do we keep making the rules complicated? You are born male or female, you compete in that category. You switch? Fine, but first we need to confirm you are who you say you are (long, complicated, invasive, and subjective process) and then we do antidoping. Are you taking any PEDs, including male or female hormones (both are banned by most sports federations)? Sorry, you can’t compete until the clear off your system. Did you take them long enough to modify for physiology in the long-term? Sorry, there is no cooldown period in that case, you’re a cheater and can’t be allowed to compete.

    • Yes, but if you spend your first 15 years developing as a male, you have now gotten a massive leg up on all of your female competition that they can never over come.

      • True. My suggestion addresses that:

        >confirm you are who you say you are
        That would rule out men-by-birth competing in female categories before transition is complete.

        >you take them long enough to modify for physiology in the long-term
        This would rule out competing as a female after transition.

        Also applies the other way around. It is just phrased in a way that it is clear the intent is to ensure a fair playing field.

    • There is no possible drug cocktail, therapy, or surgery that can change one’s gender. There are over 6,000 genetic differences, affecting everything from the skin to the brain. The very “best” options are still merely cosmetic.

      • There is no possible drug cocktail, therapy, or surgery that can change one’s gender.

        The evidence strongly suggests that’s correct. Once set in the womb by neural development in the third trimester, the resultant development paths are tightly constrained, regardless of post natal hormonal environment. Of course, as physiological characteristics such as genitalia are formed earlier, gender and sex may be discordant.

        There are over 6,000 genetic differences, affecting everything from the skin to the brain.

        But a bone marrow transplant changes that. Or can do.
        See Bone marrow-derived cells from male donors can compose endometrial glands in female transplant recipients by Ikoma et al in Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Dec;201(6):608.e1-8 & Transplanted human bone marrow cells generate new brain cells by Crain BJ, Tran SD, Mezey E. in J Neurol Sci. 2005 Jun 15;233(1-2):121-3 :

        It’s really only important when measuring statistical sensitivity to various chemicals. 46,XY mothers exist. 46,XX fathers exist (though far fewer than 46,XY mothers, apparently). And of course 47,XXY people exist.

        The very “best” options are still merely cosmetic.

        A matter of opinion. Womb transplants have proven to be very successful for some Intersex women. It’s only a matter of time before they’re made available to Trans women with similar physiology. And in order to justify that “cosmetic” opinion, you’d have to justify why you’re picking one set of physiological characteristics – say height – over another, say bust size. Or vice versa.

        I think you’re right in your opinion, but I have no idea how I’d go about justifying that, and could easily be persuaded to change my mind.

        It’s anything but simple. Sorry.

        • Great comment! And thanks for the details.

          Yes, it is complicated. And I have nothing but support and encouragment for people dealing with a transition. For some reason in my industry there are more of them, or they are at least more open about it. And without exception they have all been humble and understanding to those of us on the outside.

          I feel bad about them not being able to join in to competitive sports, but many others can’t for reasons as mundane as “having been born a couple of inches too short”, and my transgender acquaintances would probably agree that this is unfortunate but acceptable.

    • Are you taking any PEDs, including male or female hormones (both are banned by most sports federations)? Sorry, you can’t compete until the clear off your system. Did you take them long enough to modify for physiology in the long-term? Sorry, there is no cooldown period in that case, you’re a cheater and can’t be allowed to compete.

      That would ban nearly all humans. Only a tiny handful of people who survive past age 2 don’t have both male and female hormones in their system. Around age 12-14, the levels and permanent physiological effects become extreme, though some require artificial hormone replacement therapy at that age if things go awry.

      It’s not even the amounts that infallibly count, as there are conditions like Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS) that means male hormones have little or no (in CAIS – complete AIS) effect.

      Moreover, there are conditions like my own, CAH – Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia. Most forms of CAH don’t do much to people with 46,XY chromosomes, but they masculinise to a greater or lesser degree those with 46,XX chromosomes. PCOS – polycystic ovarian syndrome – which affects 12-21% of postpubescent women has similar hormonally disruptive effects.

      It’s a real conundrum, deciding which physiological characteristics – such as Marfan syndrome, which gives advantages in swimming – are considered allowable variations, and which are assumed to give unfair advantage. Somewhere a line has to be drawn – but where?

      Maybe you should consult Diana Moon Glampers, the US Handicapper General.*

      * See

      • I don’t know about recent tests, but two decades ago they checked for synthetic hormones with high confidence, although I was too busy training to learn the details. I’m sure there are ways around it, and I’m sure there are more sophisticated tests. I’m less worried about the mechanisms and more about setting the rules clear. 🙂

        • The safe hormones are all bio identical. That is, the molecules are identical to ones synthesised within the body.

          There are many anabolic steroids that have similar (not identical) effects, and are far more powerful. This is because, unlike bioidentical hormones, they are not easily broken down by the liver, and survive several passes through it. A molecule that survives seven passes would be seven times as powerful as the natural equivalent.

          When they do break down though, they form all sorts of interesting compounds not found in nature. Some of which are likely to be carcinogens or otherwise toxic. Bioidentical hormones break down into harmless compounds, soon metabolised.

          Testosterone does increase both bone density and muscle mass. However, while the effects on the skeletal dimensions are pretty permanent, the effect on muscle mass is not. Worse, while estrogen is not easily aromatised – converted naturally- into testosterone, the reverse is not true. Too much testosterone can cause increased estrogen, with feminist effects.

          One thing both estrogen and testosterone do is to increase bone density. It is recommended that post menopausal women take some estrogen supplementation to decrease risk of osteoporosis. How much – see your endo. This is not medical advice, it’s advice to seek expert professional and qualified medical advice.

          If they prescribe 17b estradiol, estradiol valerate, or estadiol cypronate, all of which by losing a water molecule or two become 17b estradiol in the bloodstream, fine. If they prescribe other, more powerful and cheaper estradiol like molecules, run do not walk away, as they don’t know what they’re doing and haven’t kept up with the literature.

          All but a few birth control pills contain these estradiol like molecules. Hence the research showing the “dangers of taking estrogen”.

          Getting back on point – there’s no way of detecting bioidentical hormones that are synthetic. You can detect anomalous levels, but those may be entirely natural. People vary.

          You know I said it wasn’t simple? It’s worse than that.

  8. Let me take this off-topic for a second:

    Colorado’s Democrat-controlled legislature has sent a bill to Gov Polis (D) to join Colorado to the National Popular Vote initiative. This is a collection of states that will send their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote (only after enough states join the initiative where their combined electoral count reaches 270.)

    Couple this with NJ’s law that will keep Trump off their ballot if he doesn’t release his tax returns. If NJ doesn’t put him on the ballot under normal conditions, oh well, NJ was going to go blue no matter what….but with the NPV – NJ has great incentive to keep him from racking up votes and keeping him off the ballot. If not for tax returns, I’m sure they’ll come up with another reason.

    Then when the Republican states realize the game, they’ll look for reasons to keep Democrats off their ballots and we’re looking at a bit of a cold civil war.


    • The NJ law is a non-starter, completely unconstitutional, and I suspect the NPV initiative is too. And even if it isn’t, it will last until a Democrat would win while losing the popular vote.

    • Sounds like voter suppression or voter nullification. Either way if this were allowed to stand the entire Constitution is at risk. Thus, this NPV initiative is in direct opposition to the Congressional members oath of office as they are attempting to change the Constitutional methods of electing Presidents or amending the Constitution. Therefore they should step down. It seems to me that 270 electoral votes does not make a ratifying number of states to amend the controlling document.

      • Yeah – I don’t know. Other states have gotten to choose how to allocate their electoral votes (Maine / Nebraska) so why can’t these states determine that their electoral votes will be allocated nonsensically? When these states abdicate the individual responsibility of allocating their electoral votes to the whims of other states, they certainly will have no standing to complain when the process is hijacked.

        • It seems unlikely. The Article 3 of the Constitution suggests states producing a defacto amendment by creating an extra-Constitutional election compact would require at least the consent of congress, and arguably an amendment. I suspect that an attempt to nullify the electoral college and replace it with a popular vote, even if done by the plenary power of the states to determine the manner of choosing electors, would be seen as a bridge too far by the court.

          Theoretically, a state could make their decision for electoral apportionment contingent on the roll of a die weighted according to the popular vote (plenary power, right?), or even force all electors selected to be of one political party, regardless of who they are charged to vote for.

          But the Court would likely find that broaches the intent of the Constitution as adopted, just as this compact would. With the consent of congress, it is possible the court would accept it, though.

          • As always, this is a great idea until it benefits a non-progressive… then it becomes magically Unconstitutional!

            If the shoe were on the other foot, and the Red States were trying this little power grab, the Left would howl long and loud!

            • Oh, you betcha!

              Not only that, the fact that this is very likely unconstitutional is not lost on the Left. It’s part and parcel of their plan to attempt an overthrow of our representative republic by any means necessary, and turn it into a pure majoritarian government which they think benefits them.

              And in truth, it benefits any political party who offers to confiscate wealth or property from one class and redistribute it to a more populous class. For the moment, that happens to be the Democrats.

              Consider that they are already making arguments against equal suffrage of the states in the Senate. That’ll be the next target.

  9. 4. Well, Martina, great points. But what are we going to do about lesbians and amazons dominating “women’s” sports? Babe Didrickson Zaharias was the greatest “woman” golfer of all time. She is reputed to have been able to play with Ben Hogan, of all people, head to head. For money. I remember seeing Beth Daniel checking into a flight at the airport. Great golfer. Built like guy. No wonder she was good. Almost all dominating “women’s” athletes are lesbians. Billie Jean King, anyone? They benefit from having masculine body types. But is that fair to the girly girls who want to play sports? No. So, Martina, be honest. How about separating lesbian sports from women’s sports from transgender sports. Capice? Or how about just sports. You want to dominate women’s tennis, go ahead because physically you can. But don’t act as if you don’t have an unfair physical advantage being a lesbian.

    As I’ve said here before, the solution to all this gender baloney in sports is no more men’s and women’s anything. Just sports. Anyone can play. Martina, if you want to take on Roger Federer or Rafa Nadal, be my guest, honey. And good luck. Just play TENNIS. Let the best player win.

    • “Coming on strong: gender and sexuality in twentieth-century women’s sport” by Susan K. Cahn p 111

      …Olympic governing bodies of the 1950s once again considered eliminating several women’s track-and-field events because the competitors were “not truly feminine”.

      In the discussions that followed, Olympic Official Norman Cox sarcastically proposed that rather than ban women’s events, the IOC should create a special category for the unfairly-advantaged “hermaphrodites”, who regularly defeated “normal” women, those less-skilled “child-bearing” types with “largish breasts, wide hips [and] knocked-knees.”

      You know. A special category just for Black women.

    • A Twitter friend suggested that for competitions not having head-to-head matches just to record everyone’s time and relevant (or irrelevant) feature you care about. Then you dump everything into a publicly accessible database. And now you can query for the winner and runner-ups of the under 5’11” males, born in 1976, excluding redheads category. 🙂

    • Almost all dominating “women’s” athletes are lesbians. Billie Jean King, anyone? They benefit from having masculine body types. But is that fair to the girly girls who want to play sports? No. So, Martina, be honest. How about separating lesbian sports from women’s sports from transgender sports. Capice? Or how about just sports. You want to dominate women’s tennis, go ahead because physically you can. But don’t act as if you don’t have an unfair physical advantage being a lesbian.

      Sillier than usual OB. Where DO you get your all your misinformation from? don’t tell me: you make it up. Queers of both sexes (or genders) are people who like people of their own sex (or gender). Period. We come in all sizes, colors, shapes and abilities. Seriously, some of us guys and gals may look — and act — exactly like you though I would hope they don’t hold the same idiotic prejudices based on the same nonsense (debunked a couple of generations ago) that you do. As far as professional athletes go, people who use their muscles, look muscular: it is not a “masculine” attribute. The gentleness of a man holding his baby in his arms, and cooing or talking to it in a higher register than usual does not lend him “femininity.” Get over it.

      And, while I’m at it, so long as homophobic stereotypes like yours persist in our society, the more hurtful it is, not only to gay men and lesbians but to the millions of straight people – especially kids – who don’t fit your very own idea of what boys and girls and men and women should look and act like. You are the kind of adult (in age, if not in maturity) who encourages discrimination and bullying in children and the weak-minded and easily influenced around you. It is cruel. For that alone, even if you have to go on believing your horrible beliefs, you should keep them to yourself.

      • It’s an interesting topic, and more complex than immediately is apparent. So many pro women’s basketball players are gay that there have been discrimination claims from straight players. Straight female tennis players have commented now and then that they are in the minority, but there have certainly been man straight champions—Chris Evert, Margaret Court, Serena (I think, though he husband seems to be invisible). On the other side, an overwhelming majority of male figure skaters are gay. I remember laughing out loud as a news story in the 80s that expressed confusion that the curse of AIDS seemed to be falling so hard on the ranks of male skaters. “Why? What strange appetite does the scourge have for this one sport?”

        • Of course it’s complex. One of the reasons for that complexity is that the syllogisms are the wrong way round. Taking your two examples, I would say that there are more gay men in figure skating than in, say, speed skating because gay men with grace, as well as the will to undergo the training and discipline it takes to compete at top levels, do better than those without; the same as in ballet. Canada’s unquestionably non-gay Elvis Stojko is a good mirror example: Stojko won three World championships and two Olympic silver medals without exhibiting any particular grace at all; instead, he was the first person to land a quadruple-double jump combination. And a couple of dozen other major wins. That’s because figure skating has that “figure” side that concentrations on strength and precision. Either “side” can overwhelm the other (the “artisitic” side often does so in women’s figure skating), but muscle and a sense of timing can be acquired. Grace, ease and smoothness of movement can also be acquired (usually starting at a very early age) but since we have labeled them “feminine,” and feminine is equated with gay, and gay continues to be seen as undesirable — non-gay boys are not going to be encouraged to participate. On the other hand, gay men with the sought-after qualities (1) have become more acceptable, even admired as those who stand as champions for their school, state or country (2) non-gay boys are more frequently discouraged by themselves or others to enter the sport because of continuing stigma (3) thus there are more openings for gay men …. of a particular body type: slender, strong, graceful and unashamed of it.

          Swimming, track, Another sport that attracts gay men is diving, though they are less recognizable by people who think their “gaydar” goes one millimeter beyond the obvious, such as Greg Louganis, 4 times gold medal Olympic champion, a so-far unbeaten record. More recently, Tom Daley, a double World champion in the 10-metre platform event — that’s diving from 32.8 feet up in the air, folks. Gay men, you know, are supposed to be wimps and cowards, right? He was 15 and 17 years old respectively when he marked those achievements and has continued to rack up awards.

          That’s what stigma, and homophobia and so-called “normal” people do to those who are different. These are the ones who stand out from the crowd by no choice of their own and become targets. They have two ways to go. They can exaggerate their difference – this is not the place to go into the psychology of that – or they can excel in some way that raises their difference above the commonness of their tormentors, gay or not. (The pretty people compete on more sustainable grounds, sometimes continuing the masquerade into adulthood, flying under the gaydar, so to speak.) That’s the reason someone like burly Raymond Burr with 90 bad-guy movie credits and the legend of Perry Mason behind him still has a percentage of disbelievers in his fan base who would deny him that 33 years of (openly secret) gay partnership. So too Tchaikovsky, da Vinci, Robert Reed, Grandpa Walton, John Ireland, William Blain “Bill” Richardson, Will Geer, (no, I won’t get into the Cary Grant/Randolph Scott relationship), and excrescences like Bernard King — — can shrug it off, even from the grave (perhaps more easily from there since, besides the nil nisi bonum stricture, the more manly or untouchable they appeared, the more respectable or above-the-crowd their lives, the more any suggestion of homosexuality was and is denied, even when it was publicly (or legally) acknowledged.

          I’m using the gay male image sample rather than the lesbian because it is the simpler correlation, Apart from the fact that “butch” lesbians often became/become competitive in tennis, for instance, or in track, golf or other individual athletics, for the same reason gay men do – to be tough enough to withstand the bullying, mental and physical that often comes — as it does with the gay male victims — not only from non-gay people but from the straight-looking, straight-acting, popular, pretty people who pop out of their closets every day to jump on other queer folks so they can feel better about themselves, women have historically been ignored, not taken seriously, compared invidiously and ridiculously to men in the same sport (publicity stunts notwithstanding), jeered and sneered at, exposed and embarrassed, assaulted and worst of all, excused for being their sex. They need to develop tougher hides than their “lipstick lesbian,” girly-girl counterparts who can shelter behind them or form liaisons of their own. In our culture, it is far easier for a feminine looking lesbian to hide, to “change her mind” and her looks like a chameleon, to nest with a man out of convenience, to be the “sister” in the three-some. These are the great unseen. And that is one reason why lesbian volleyball players … and gay skaters … stand out.

          The other reason is that America is not yet used to, and is rather resentful of, having “out” people jumping around having hissy fits on the tennis court when they are supposed to be keeping their heads down in sin and in shame. Too late to build the wall now, m’dears.

          • 1. Wonderful post. COTD.
            2. Will Geer WAS Grandpa Walton! Unless you mean the first one, Edgar Bergen, but he wasn’t gay, unless there was something between him and Charley McCarthy….
            3. Cary was bi-sexual, as were Steve McQueen, Spencer Tracey and many others. The number of gay or bi- Hollywood legends would stun the average American fan. My actor relation, George Coulouris, had some stories to tell…
            4. Burr is a great story. Worthy of a movie. He was a lifetime advertisement for gay men—a class act, loved by virtually everyone, generous, transparent.

  10. 1 Facebook

    “Democracy dies in darkness.” So does truth, rationality, fairness, honesty, equanimity, ethics, and liberty.

    Facebook is doing its best to make sure none of them survive the social media apocalypse, lest they interfere with the revolution. Up “progressivism” (whatever that is). Down with the opposition.

    The only answer is regulation, and typing that disgusts me.

    4 Transgender activists

    What we are seeing is the wages of Leftist thought. Men are women. Boys are girls. Up is down. Right is wrong.

    Disagree, and you are ostracized, especially if you are one of their own.

    Leftist women running against men claiming to identify as women are getting exactly the fairness they have laid up for themselves. They have no right to complain.

    • At the risk of being tediously repetitious :

      Male–to–female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus. Kruiver et al J Clin Endocrinol Metab (2000) 85:2034–2041
      The present findings of somatostatin neuronal sex differences in the BSTc and its sex reversal in the transsexual brain clearly support the paradigm that in transsexuals sexual differentiation of the brain and genitals may go into opposite directions…

      Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation Garcia-Falgueras A, Swaab DF Endocr Dev. 2010;17:22-35
      The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation

      These are not political or ideological articles. Some of the experimental data has now been around for over 20 years, checked, rechecked, replicated.

      What those facts mean – whether someone should be classified according to their original genital anatomy at birth, current genital anatomy, neurology, etc can be argued. But to call these facts a Leftist political matter is not factual.

      In the case of athletics, I think it reasonable to classify on the basis of current physiology, height, weight, muscle mass etc. In some areas, one or more of these would be irrelevant, in others, predominant. That would have it’s own problems though, consider Xena vs Gabrielle.

      According to Brynn Tanhill, 54,000 Olympic events over 8 Olympiads have allowed Trans competitors, without issues so far.

      Given that Trans women must have had surgery and a standard female hormone level for two years, as well as legal recognition of their female sex in their country of origin, to imply that a “man could just identify as a woman that day” and enter is at best misleading.

      Conversely, to imply that the increased skeletal dimensions caused by late transition are completely irrelevant is not true. In some cases, a disadvantage, as the corresponding muscle mass isn’t there, and this disadvantage may even be dangerous to the athlete, so entry should be prohibited. In other cases, it may be advantageous, and then you’d really have to see if it’s well outside not the norm or average woman bounds, but those of the extreme athletic woman. So far there’s no evidence of that.

      • I guess my point was that ultimately, if we are going to recognize biological men as women (note: I don’t care one iota, for the purposes of this commentary, what gender they think they are or should be) that we cannot complain if a biological man who’s allowed to compete athletically as a woman wins over biological females.

        What I do care about is the idea that these minority persons, whether confused, lying, or genuinely affected by the result of their development, deserve a special place in society. Since athletics are very much dependent upon genetics, and since in most athletic contests placing a premium on strength, endurance, dense musculature and large skeletal structure men are biologically superior to women, placing a biological male in a competition intended for females is transparently unfair. It renders the competition a social experiment, and a bad one at that. It may make the trans person feel loved and validated, but it flies in the face of our social dynamic and cultural norms.

        What it does do is validate the Leftist position that every normal must be made to suffer so a minority does not, or to redress prior suffering.

  11. I have the somewhat fringe opinion that sex segregated sports are a bad idea in the first place, because they promote an unconscious and false belief in sex equivalency. There are real differences between the sexes even without getting into edge cases. Transgender rights are not compatible with sex segregated sports which ban hormonal supplements.

    I don’t think physical strength should be nearly as important as society makes it in the first place, making those differences relatively unimportant. But that also seems to be a fringe opinion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.