• 0 Posts
  • 19 Comments
Joined 13 days ago
cake
Cake day: June 25th, 2024

help-circle
  • they have found that going through male puberty gives a person who transition afterwards an advantage over cis women

    Did they also find that short women have an advantage over tall women? How about lighter women having an advantage over heavier women? How about women having an advantage for having more muscle mass? How about people with androgen insensitivity syndrome? Or XX male syndrome? Intersex people?

    My point is people will always have advantages somewhere (and there’s no clean place to draw the line); no two people are built the same, which means you absolutely can have – and do have – trans women (who went through a male puberty) with no advantage over cis women. The UCI won’t even allow those women on a case-by-case basis, which is absolutely 100% transphobic.

    An actual solution is to divide racers up by skill class and stop gender segregating sports, and to stop caring so much about who wins, but that will never happen as long as money is involved.

    Everyone cries about “fairness to women” and “fairness in women’s sports” when what they mean is “keeping sports exclusively for cis women”; trans women are women, but almost no one cares about fairness for them.





  • I think it’s to send a message that many people feel disinterested in the olympics for whatever reason.

    For me, I am disgusted that the the olympics have turned into a corporate money making machine. Hosting countries will pick a huge chunk of land to “terraform” into a games site, with little regard to the people who live there or nearby. They’ll displace residents, make people build the infrastructure for low wages and in poor conditions. They’ll spend billions to try and make snow where snow doesn’t naturally occur. The ecological impact alone is massive. There’s also the issue of the housing for the Olympians being substandard and dangerous. I’m not claiming that this happens every time in every country, but it’s certainly a problem and I don’t want to be part of it.

    There’s also the issue of banning trans athletes from competing, which continues to be rooted in ignorance and hypocritical disagreements around what we define as fair. (Bring on the downvotes, I don’t care.)

    I debated posting this at all because it’s off topic, but the question was asked so I gave my perspective.


  • Yep. Google treats their service like television, but it’s not television. We all watch the videos on computers and computers are owned by users and each user gets to decide what their computer does, full stop.

    The ad model for youtube will always be circumvented by the fact that our computers can run whatever code we want it to (despite Microsoft’s and Apple’s efforts). If that means that youtube goes subscription only, so be it. If that means youtube can’t sustain itself as a business with ad revenue, then so be it. It would mean that decentralized alternatives gain popularity and it would most likely be to the benefit of everyone who isn’t a corporation.

    Youtube has a stranglehold on creativity, open speech, and fair use. Youtube will demonetize a video for saying too many swear words. They’ll demonetize or restrict a video for talking about non-sexual lgbt content. They’ll take down legal and legitimate videos for copyright infringement even though it’s fair use.

    Youtube is bad for creators and it’s bad for users.