So much of the arguments around trans women in sports put forward paint sports as an issue of winning. They do not put sports forward as a civil human right to be able to participate in society. There are so many comparative opportunities made for disabled people to participate in sport that use those arguments but here is a group that faces barriers of social ostracization and they are basically told that they aren't worthy of being tolerated. That they must accept a dramatically smaller access to society.

What is the purpose of sport? Does it have just one purpose and does that override every other good and enriching thing it offers?

You can't have a certain category of crime for which all accusations are be taken at face value and truthful by default.

Point of order - that is not what is being advocated for here.

No one said "Let's ruin people's lives based on taking an accusation without any proof"

They said "Consequences for rapists" and somehow that jumped to "there's no way to prove rape happened" like it is a crime that leaves behind no physical evidence or corroborated accounts of repeat patterns from multiple often unrelated victims who have no knowledge of each other.

A lot of the weaknesses of the everyman American is a sort of America centric myopia. Smaller countries have to have their finger a little more on the pulse of soft power - diplomatic moves, reputation and mutual back scratches that make world politics function. The US international soft power moves have not exactly been front and center news when the domestic news is constantly fought with inter-state domestic conflict with the federal government, gun violence and bombastic over the top cultural gossip. The fact the US has a lot of hard power in the form of post WWII advantages that were built in a decimated landscape it survived mostly unscathed from means that they had the privilege of being the big stick weilder in the room.

Everyone was mostly content to let America be the world power it was because it did so under the guise of being a protector... And then it threatened somebody. An ally. Entirely for it's own interest. Suddenly everyone realized that they were dependent on the US and they'd let their own militaries, food sovereignty and political hard power wither.

And that has happened before. In Greece. It's ancient history now but everybody realized that they had walked onto that same landmine but it hadn't gone off yet. Whether deliberately or not Trump opened his mouth and gave the game away and nobody wants that future. So now America is getting treated like the landmine it is and the world is dumping efforts into rebuilding without America in the room.

And America is powerful enough right now to handle a rainy day but not rain that just keeps on pouring. The trust that was the hidden cornerstone of American power just got cracked in half by a guy whom America voted in not just once but twice the first time might have been an accident. The chaos he caused on the world stage might have been a fluke but everybody knows now it isn't.

Americans have not begun to see the hard times that are on the way and I do not say this with any pleasure. I have a lot of people I care for inside those borders and I am so fucking scared for them all.

Off the top of the dome

• Creating a sensible universal policy that creates standardized guidelines on what medical requirements allow prisoners to be housed in the prison matching their sex. At present you can be fully physically transitioned with a vagina, fully sterile from having ones testicles removed and on feminizing horomones and still be forced to be housed in mens prisons creating the conditions for guaranteed rape and endemic exploitation by both guards and inmates.

• Rights that protects trans prisoners from forced de-transition. Removing horonone treatments from prisoners is effectively creating situations where trans prisoners are effectively put into menopause or face issues like bone loss.

• Rights that allow trans people to change their legal documents to reflect their chosen sex. This allows for less discrimination as employers and law enforcement individuals should not be privy to someone's medical history and often being forcibly outed causes potential harassment from bigoted people in a position of power.

• Rights to protections against hostile work conditions based on sexual characteristics

• Rights to be protected from having the children of trans people either removed by the state OR trans kids themselves remanded into foster care on the basis they or their parent is trans

• Rights to access bathroom facilities of their choice and not be barred or harrassed in bathrooms

• Rights to bodily autonomy, in the case of adults to be able make the choice to medically transition. In the case of minors to allow the guardians of the minor, a panel of doctors, social workers and psychiatric professionals to prescribe blockers and hormone interventions once appropriate signs of proof that the transition is in the best interest of the minor with veto of continuity of treatment from all parties if signs of distress or incongruence are shown

For the most part it boils down to the right being largely status quo. They want to go back to a state that while in it's own way is anachronistic and a fantasy is still based on something old and familiar and easy to envision. The left, at least in the places where it isn't already the status quo, is always somewhat nebulous due to the desire for progress but there is a host of splits based around individual peoples comforts and privileges or their view of what new things and societies to attempt and what those things should look like. You see similar divisions in art spaces because there's multiple visions and disciplines and means of achieving a similar goal.

A lot of the division on the left exists due to a fairly foundational theory held by some but not others : that minority rights and protections are nessisary in all cases because if you can argue effectively against removing one set of rights then that argument will prove effective in the removal of other civil rights. The most vulnerable need protection not just because it is the right ethical thing to do but because in the game theory of protections it's the only locktight way to ensure safety for everyone's rights.

However many prejudices exist. Many leftists want exceptions to protections because defending all is difficult. When you exist in a democracy one has to appeal to the many and the prejudice against "the undeserving" whatever state that implies is always a hard sell to people who cannot apply empathy. Hierarchy is important to many people even though they might not think of it in those terms. They want to be the "deserving" over the "undeserving" and with that moral authority strip the protection from others. The shattered left is not immune to this desire, it just tends to be more choosy. Some look at incremental change as abhorrent and as a moral and ethical betrayal, others see the sacrifice of the hardest to protect as a temporary means to buy time and power so that change can be made and you can see some of those people make too much peace with the literal blood toll associated with that action by doubling down.

To be leftist is to be aware of a multitude of pains and since we all individually have only so much mental space to triage everyone prioritizes differently.

Absolutely would call myself a feminist and here's the reason. Calling yourself a feminist is a declaration that you aren't in performance for brownie points for men's sake and you aren't going to fade to the background the first second the going gets tough. Feminists don't "hate men" but the fact that their issues get sidelined the minute anybody's feelings about their personal masculinity gets hurt means most of the time any discussion about women's issues become about mincing around insecure men.

Feminism is egalitarianism, it is strictly NOT female superiority. The issue with calling feminism egalitarianism is it tends to be a label summerizing the passive part of the movement that asks nothing of people.

Systems that aren't artificially adjusted just end up replicating the same shit they always had over and over and the adjustments don't feel fair or equal to the people who have always benefitted before the change. Justice sometimes meaning giving up something to the party in need. Damn near everyone is up for equality in theory, but the moment they are asked to give up anything suddenly it's women's superiority. They don't look at being passed over for the promotion in favor of an equally deserving and more generally underrepresented woman as being just or needed when it's them who doesn't get chosen. They still in their heart of hearts believe that whenever a woman comes out on top it's not because she deserves to be there.

And it's hard. It's hard to put justice first. It's hard to hire someone who isn't your close personal friend who looks just like you and instead choose someone who acts or looks different who you won't be as comfortable around. It's hard to change your culture to be mindful of needs you don't personally have to make someone else comfortable. The whole POINT is that it's hard. Everything that is hard for you is a comfort, a point without personal friction you have, a PRIVILEGE that you are purposefully choosing to not cash in on anymore because that privilege was never on the table for someone else.

If you aren't willing to face the minor discomfort of being devisive and calling yourself a feminist and gaining the ire of other men what other comforts are you not going to give up?

This isn't really the biggest issue for those cis men. Testosterone is something different bodies behave differently to. Testosterone levels and what constitutes a healthy level of testosterone is unique to individuals. Someone who seems low by a universalized metric might actually be at the perfect level or them because their body is more sensitive to the Horomone. If something isn't actively the reason for a horomone treatment then you are risking elevating your blood pressure, putting strain on your liver, increasing infertility issues and causing a bunch of mental health side effects which are detrimental for a demographic already plagued by post career mental health issues.

This is an occupational health hazard that is going to be felt further down the line by these men and their families..

Hey. Just a question. Say there's a woman and she goes on a theoretical date. She gets tipsy sfter being plied with drinks and allows herself to be convinced to go back to a guy's apartment. He insists "just to hang out" during that time he coerces her into some kind of act. Could be sex entirely or maybe sex without protection.. When she sobers up she starts freaking the fuck out because under sober circumstances she would never of said yes to that.

You tell this story to a bunch of people and what's the generalized perception of what went wrong? She should never have gone back to his apartment. She should have known better. She participated in a risky behavior and while everyone probably agrees the guy in the situation is absolute scum it remains - this outcome was horrible but culturally predictable.

Also your assessment of whether that three percent is an even split is forgetting a lot of other data. Across the board your chance of encountering any kind of violence is 4-8x more likely to be perpetrated by a man rather than a woman. 1 in 5 women have experienced rape and that number jumps up to 1 in 3 when you broaden the term to sexual assault. About 90% of those reported sexual assaults are perpetrated by men. That means if you are a woman between 20% to 60% of all the other women you know statistically speaking have been sexually predated on by a man at some point and that's just the ones we know are reported because a lot of people cope with sexual assault by never speaking of it to anyone.

That's no lightning strike. That poster lowballed you significantly on those statistics .

Women are taught to interact with men the same way you are instructed to interact with city traffic and they aren't nessisarily wrong to do so. Remember, that 1 in 5 or 1 in 3 is still happening in a world where women are instructed to minimize risk by altering their behaviour. This is under circumstances where women are educated of those dangers and treat men as risks which means they have mitigated some of the attempts. Don't leave your drink, don't enter a car of a man you aren't 100% aware of, meet perspective dates or those you aren't sure of in public, Don't be alone where others can't hear you, Don't go out after dark, when someone warns you about an individual take that seriously, here's the code you can tell your bartender to eacape an attempt, let your friends and parents know where you are and are gunna be, here's the weapons to out in your purse, here's the red flags to look out for...and they still are 1 in 5 and 1 in 3.

If your intention is to approach politics as team sport then your post makes sense but what about anything I said makes you think I am defending Carney? Polivere is simply the bigger asshole of the two and his economic policy was vibes based -but they are both shit and the Conservative base is just too hung up on minute differences to see that their shit also stinks. Until we actually reform the voting system we're stuck in this duality of it all going to shit as the Overton window shifts right and rights trickle away.

I'm not interested in playing defend or compare the assholes. You asked why he got voted in, that was all the point I had to make. He got voted in because he played conservative better than the Conservatives. It would have been their election otherwise. If you're thinking I give a shit what any conservative platform whether the label on the front is red or blue you can piss off.

Poilievere ran with a cabinet that had constant issues of candidates calling out support for MAGA-like policies and conduct across the board. He threatened jail time for political rivals, had issues with various perspective MPs talking about their personal stances on repealing abortion protections or saying things regarding indigenous affairs that were racist or in denial of a well documented genocide. He made clear his position as anti-trans which many queer people rightly see as being simply the first domino to fall in the repeal of queer and a whole host of women's rights.

His economic policies were very much out loud every thing that Carney is up to now and perhaps you forgot that. Carney was in effect a traditional conservative politician with a liberal coat of paint. He wasn't talking about vote reform or taxation policies on billionaires. The kind of person you run when you want to shore up Conservative style financial values while basically not actively threatening civil rights issues like your opponents do. He was a traditional Conservative wet dream of basically everything a Whig government wants without the culture war bullshit If you think progressives actually liked Carney at the point of voting him is that's bloody insane. The man's a banker who has been strengthening old colonial ties and wheeling and dealing during a sovereignty crisis where the US, our historical trading partner is softly threatening annexation. The only reasons Conservatives are critical is because they think "Conservative" means "fiscally Conservative" and not the branch of political philosophy of the likes of Edmund Burke that thinks channeling money into the hands of the rich and conserving a social hierarchy that keeps certain people at the bottom and punishing deviance from a social norm, removing safety nets because "families" are easier to control than individuals. Meanwhile "Conservative" government spending has never actually been fiscally conservative historically. They just pump money into whatever makes their friends rich because that's kind of the point. It doesn't matter who is in the seat for government if they don't gave the pretty label that seems to say to them "This guy won't waste money" you can what if any scenario where your guy wouldn't be doing the same or worse. At least Carney had the shame to not say that shit out loud and feels like he needs to court the public instead of getting tacit endorsement for that kind of behavior right out the gate on election day the way Poilevre would of had.

Because literally the Conservative candidate was dramatically worse on progressive policies and there was only the slimmest chance of avoiding that fate. Until we reform voting the whole song and dance of strategic voting will favour the traditional tradeoffs of these two parties. Without vote reform we're more or less doomed to be the frog that boils slow.

Honestly I think the difference perceived by the "too woke" brigade is that a lot of the older storylines featured what felt like exceptions to the norm. Smaller instances of people being accepting. An example might be a trans person existing was a whole storyline usually with a gimmick rather than just a given that was treated as the norm that requires no explanation. Individuals being chill very rarely is their problem. It's when someone tries to get them to change their ways and accept something as "normal" that they go bonkers

But yeah... Woke is such a non term referring to any cultural advancement of acceptance at scale that of course Star Trek was always "woke" it was culturally transformative and minority aware from the beginning