At best this is willful ignorance. By many measures, there is an active persistent march towards a Denial of Identity genocide against transgender folks in the US and other countries.
I think you're falling for Sticker Swap Fallacy. The goal is to have fair match-ups in sports. Gender and sex are two possible labels to use to assist with this, but they're imperfect enough that we probably ought to not use them as the primary differentiator.
The solution is simple: class every sport like boxing.
Pick a sports-relevant metric and split into divisions. Some sports will naturally fall into gendered divisions, while others will have varying degrees of co-ed competition among competitors of similar ability.
The way out of this is not to pick a better scissor of sex or gender, it's to pick a better scissor of ability.
This "solution" can really only be proposed by someone who has not played sports. This would simply result in women being unable to compete in sports professionally, outside of a couple small niches like ultra long distance swimming and a couple sub-disciplines of gymnastics.
It really depends on the way classes are divided. Dismissing the general concept demonstrates a fear of change rather than a legitimate openness to fair play.
No it doesn't, and no it doesn't. Proposing this concept demonstrates a profound ignorance of what competition at the top level of sports actually looks like.
The concept is just bad, unless your goal is to prevent women from being able to make a living playing professional sports.
The thing is, we're already using a scissor for ability, just a poor one with the exact problem you describe - it renders trans women unable to make a living playing professional sports. Throwing one group under the bus for another cannot be avoided so long as sex or gender are part of sports divisions.
You are clearly out of your depth. Have you ever competed in high level sports? Please don't speak on things you know nothing about. It takes a lot of gall to tell someone 'please let go of the need for this' when they are pointing this out. I will do no such thing, but I likely will give up trying to educate you.
I won't respond further unless you pick an example sport, and propose how your "scissor for ability" would work, in concrete detail. If you do this, I will be happy to explain why this would result in neither women _nor trans women_ having any chance to make a living as professional athletes.
I have competed in reasonably high level sports, and my wife was US Masters duathlete of the year a few years ago (with me as her coach). I think you're wrong, though it's easy to see why.
Currently, with sex-based categories, a woman can be declared "the best in the world" and most people won't waste much time on the question "yeah, but could she beat the best men?" (granted, some will). They will accept that, e.g. she has the fastest time over 26.2 miles in the world right now, even though a few hundred or a few thousand men worldwide are faster.
If you use performance based metrics to create the categories (the way that road cycling does, for example, though still within gender divisions), that "title" would go away, and likely a woman would only be "the best in the world in division X", other than in (as you noted) some endurance, climbing and gymnastics sports where an elite subset of women could potentially be the best of "top" category.
It isn't completely obvious that this is a negative - how much of a change it would be would depend on a lot of other changes (or lack thereof) in how sport was organized. Certainly if it continued to focus on only the top division, then women would be shut out of most opportunities to be professional. But that's not inherent in the design. I do concede, however, that it is quite a likely outcome of such a category structure.
If we are talking about amateur sports where the stakes are low, the concept of slotting athletes into divisions makes sense.
In elite sports, no one wants to see "best in division X". They want to see the best hockey players, the best golfer, the best skier, etc. The money incentives are considerable.
Implicit in what you're saying is that they want to see the best sex-identified athletes in a given sport. If that wasn't true, women's sports would have no audience and we know now (finally!) that this is not the case.
I personally think that we'd live in a much better world where you compete against others who broadly speaking are in the same performance category as you.
But I do appreciate that the transition to such a world would, indeed, destroy women's professional sports, and thus I do not attempt to really advocate for that transition. If it could happen overnight (it cannot), perhaps I would, but that's not where we live.
WNBA is being sponsored by men's NBA and they would not have survived without.
The merr existence is not an evidence of success.
Kids' little leagues also exist, but can't be compared, with actual professional men's sports.
Where is women's American football? Women's baseball? Crickets...
Women's icehockey is in such a state, that there are only 2 decent countries dominating everybody, and they would get destroyed by men's amateur players.
There are only few women's sports disciplines that are actually popular on their own. Like figure skating and tennis. And the athletes would get annihilated by their male counterparts.
The world's best female ultradistance runners, rock climbers (particuarly sport and bouldering, but lead also), ultradistance swimmers, are all on a par with their male counterparts and occasionally better.
Since I personally don't have any interest in team sports of any type, I have nothing to say about your observations, though I will continue to wear my "I'm here for the women's race" t-shirt whenever I can.
I said that I would only abolish them if we could get to the endpoint overnight. Which clearly is impossible, ergo, I would not happily abolish them at all.
I'd happily wear a "I'm here for the D2a race" shirt in such a system.
Most people's paths as sports participants (not spectators) is that they enter a tiered system and remain there. Only a tiny percentage of people rise through that system to become truly national or internationally competitive.
One of the central problems here is that there are conflicts between what's good for the participants and whats good for fans/spectators. They are not always in conflict, but in several important ways, they truly are. 99.99999% of people who run marathons are not Eliud Kipchoge, and are not interested in a system that is designed around his level of performance and competition. But 90%+ of the people who would pay to watch marathons have little interest in a system that isn't built around talents like his. The same is true of almost all sports - solo or team - but it doesn't show up for 80% of them because there is no market for paid viewing of them. Or rather ... there wasn't until YT became what it is today. "The Finisher", a film about Jasmin Paris, the first woman to finish the infamous Barkley Marathons, has had 1.8M views, something it would never have achieved in "legacy" media.
Why would you name it "division 2"? If you're going to test for SRY as the way to assign participants, then you should name the divisions "SRY-pos" and "SRY-neg". At least that would be correct.
That's the exact opposite of what I'm suggesting up-thread.
Categories would be assigned based on performance criteria for the sport in question. One simplistic approach, loosely modelled on how road cycling works, would be to have categories based on race performances - you enter an "open" category, and after N finishes above a certain level, you are required to move up to "division 4". After N finishes above a certain level in div4, you are required to move up to "division 3". And so on. The idea is that you're racing against your performance peers, regardless of their gender (or age).
Let's use the present scissor and the current state of affairs, which at present excludes some women for the sake of others. Which, I'll remind you, comes with all of the problems we currently experience.
His proposal is to make divisions by whatever way it would be the justest way. If that would be the man/woman division for a given sport, than keeping it is part of his proposal. His proposal is not going to be less just than the current rules by definition, but it IS a bit vague.
Men are stronger, faster, have more dense bones, have bigger lungs, bigger hands, etc, etc, etc. Men and women are different in hundreds of ways it's not just 'lean body mass'. Men are better at sports than women. Do you even live in reality? Have you ever completed in anything in your life?
For what conceivable reason would you want to recreate the male and female division using a dozen or more proxies for sex instead of just using sex, to wind up with people being placed into the same buckets they would have been if you just went by sex in the first place? This seems ideologically motivated.
The controversy in these comments answers that question nicely. It seems likely that such a change would obviate these edge cases, though they may introduce their own; that seems worthy of consideration.
Really, the question seems better turned around: why use a known bad proxy for physical ability when another one might be better?
Those divisions already exists. Most sports have different leagues. There are international leagues, national leagues, regional leagues, all the way down to hobby leagues or beer leagues. If we assign everyone into a league independent of gender, the highest leagues (the most popular and most lucrative ones) will be exclusively men and women will only be present in the lower leagues. No one can want this outcome.
And then you get a situation with as many divisions as there are people and everyone get a gold medal, everyone is a winner. The true woke paradise.
Fortunately, most people don't like to live in this hell and are against clear attempts to destroy women's sports by the clueless and/or purposefully malicious activists.
Good lord. Absolutely nobody is going to watch boxing divisions based on lung size and bone density.
Did you actually think that lean mass would be a sensible way to separate divisions in a gender neutral fashion? That would, again, just result in women being unable to compete professionally in virtually any sport. They would be relegated to Division N, for some very large value of N. Competing alongside multitudes of biologically male amateurs, where nobody cares and nobody pays to watch. To even entertain this idea betrays a total lack of understanding of the matter at hand.
Right now you are acting like Elon Musk storming into the government and having 20 year olds cut everybody's budget. You may think you're coming in with fresh outsider perspective and an open minded way to look at things and improve them, but everyone actually involved in the domain can see a trainwreck in progress. It's not a good look.
I am quite certain it's not your intention, but you're really coming across as someone who hates women's sports, and doesn't want them to exist. On behalf of my wife and sister and a lot of the women I've known in a lifetime of playing sports - kindly keep your awful ideas to yourself. Women fought tooth and nail for the right to have their own professional sporting opportunities. Don't you dare try to take it away from them.
Venezuelan oil is very heavy, but the US oil industry is literally designed to process this type. The US exports their sweet crude elsewhere because they can't process it.
This is a false equivalence. We as a society generally accept that people can change their name, and as a matter of common decency take steps to use that name in the future.
This has nothing to do with how encyclopedias present fringe scientific ideas.
The policy the GP is talking about is not the policy of referring to people by their current name, but rather, then policy that former names should never be mentioned unless the person was notable under that name, which seems a bit excessive.
I have good news for you afpx! We don't have to pick either of those options in the real world. This is all the more telling for the folks who have chosen fascism despite not needing to.
This isn't weird, really. Rational people tend to not like being associated with fascists, and with Elon at the helm Tesla is strongly associated with American Fascism at the moment.
> Rational people tend to not like being associated with fascists
This is fair, but I don’t even think it’s that. They just don’t want everyone walking into their garage to immediately associate them with Musk. This is true for folks on the left, who call out his fascism. But it’s also true if someone with MAGA leanings walks in.
My personal favorite is the Tesla apology bumper sticker. I want to signal I care, but I only care about 20$. Love the virtue signaling while driving round a 50k$ donation to Elon.
I have people posting long apologies on LinkedIn about how they needed a new car but they disagree with (insert rant). It’s embarrassing they even post it. No one on LinkedIn even needs to or cares to know what car you drive, it’s just platitude virtue signaling
I'm extremely puzzled why you're bringing transgender people into this. You could've said "an opera in Columbia" and have had an equally valid argument about fiscal responsibilty and America's meddling in other countries. You, however, felt that it was morally necessary to mention that this was to benefit transgender people trying to live their lives as if that's a unique negative to be avoided.
I brought it up because if you took a poll of the Americans, the vast majority would be against spending money on it. And comparing it to just “an opera in Columbia”, I’d wager even less would support a transgender opera.
Are they, though? I'm not trying to be flippant. Rather, it's entirely unclear to me any positive outcome for these individuals or American citizen in general as a result of this effort. Can you provide vetted sources that accurately communciate actual benefits as a result of this effory for anyone other than Elon Musk and Donald Trump as individuals?
> Can you provide vetted sources that accurately communciate actual benefits as a result of this effory for anyone other than Elon Musk and Donald Trump as individuals?
Can you provide such sources that communicate the benefits of this effort for only Elon Musk and Donald Trump? I have seen a lot of speculation on the matter, with much of it plausible, but nothing concrete and nothing that really stands up to intense scrutiny.
At this point we're all working on a near-total information vacuum. To claim you know anything with certainty is presumptive, at best. To claim, with anything short of first-hand knowledge, that you both know exactly what is happening and exactly why it is happening is unbelievable.
Or at least it should be, but as discussion around this topic indicates, it's actually quite believable. Which is really a shame.
Alas, dbt Labs has developed a reputation for rug pulling functionality from dbt Core and gating most of their differentiating features behind dbt Cloud. I cannot see this type of consolidation being in the best interest of the dbt community.
dbt Labs is a Series D company with hundreds of millions in funding and a 4.2 billion USD valuation at their last round.
Their CEO and founder spoke of an IPO in 2022.
Let's not pretend they are still remotely close to their humble beginnings or were able to get this far without credibly demonstrating they have a plan for how to make enterprises bleed through their nose for their product.
That's the future.
On the flipside, building a dbt adjacent product enhancing or complementing capabilities is basically a sure way of how to get bought.
I've been on the lookout for a lighter, faster version of dbt and I was hoping sdf might be it.
For our (https://www.definite.app/) use case, I'd love to have something that compiles client-side, but in general dbt just feels like a lot of work to set up for what most of our customers actually need (simple transform to create tables and views).
Yeah my experience is much closer to that, I generally point my clients to core over cloud even if they're indifferent to the cost. (Sorry dbt guys, love your product, but somebody read the strategy memo backwards and you've got lock-out not lock-in. Replacing my IDE, ci/cd, or orchestration are "dealbreakers", not "features")
Could you point to some functionalities removed from dbt Core? I love dbt and use it where applicable but I have not yet encountered a loss of features upon upgrade yet - it would be useful to be aware what kind of features get removed
A brief list of features withheld or removed from Core:
- The dbt docs functionality is no longer maintained in favor of dbt Explorer in dbt cloud. A natural consequence is that larger dbt Core projects simply cannot leverage local docs due to performance defects.
- Multi-project support was widely discussed in the core repo w/ tooling contributions from the community, but that was locked behind enterprise-tier dbt cloud accounts
- Metricflow was a full OSS application that used to work in tandem with dbt Core. Post-acquisition, the original code was re-licensed and the functionality added to Cloud only (and you have to pay per semantic layer query now).
At best this is willful ignorance. By many measures, there is an active persistent march towards a Denial of Identity genocide against transgender folks in the US and other countries.
https://lemkininstitute.com/so/e2PpT6aRi
reply