Judge Gives Green Light for Transwomen Athletes to Compete in Women’s Sports

The ACLU is doing a victory lap on a case that risks demoralizing many woman athletes and dissuades them from competing at all. Here's the ACLU Tweet:

We now have a competing-frames argument like we do in the abortion debate (my body vs. don't kill babies). In transgender sports, the competing frames are A) It is insulting and unfair to exclude trans people from women's sports, versus B) Trans women are so much stronger, faster and larger than bio women (because they went through puberty as men) that they are dominating the competition. This competing Frame flips between two principles and also flips between the perspectives of the two parties to this dispute.

In reaction to the ACLU Tweet many people are applauding this court decision as kind and decent, the correct thing to do for trans women. Laudable first principles are important, but so are the overall consequences for women's sports. What if this court case destroys the careers of aspiring women athletes in order to invite athletes who went through puberty as men to compete as women? I believe that this decision will demoralize many women athletes and convince them give up careers as women athletes. Regardless of how well-intentioned it is to be "inclusive," this decision is likely to hurt attendance and destroy the carefully constructed spaces that most women athletes want and need in order to fairly compete. My concerns are echoed by the concerns of many women who have responded to the ACLU Tweet. Here are some excerpts from numerous comment Tweets to the above Tweet, all of them by women:

This is definitely not a victory for girls and women. It is a victory for trans identified males.

How is this a victory? This is a kick in the teeth for women in sports

Girls are going to drop out of sports if they know that they don't have a fair competition.

All these transwomen are way taller than the average woman/girl yet even seeing this obvious physical difference they deny the Male body that these transwomen inhabit. Why don't female hormones shorten these transwomen to a normal woman's height? A: Because Trans science is false

If women and girls to walk off the field, who will biological men race /play against then ?

Seriously, this left has lost its mind. I’m tired of wondering where sanity went and expecting it to come back.

The fact that every left wing person in this country isn’t screaming about the damage this will do to our girls tells me the left I knew no longer exists.

Let this sink in. A rights organisation is fighting not to keep boys out of girls sports but to PUT THEM IN.

This is so worrisome. A female cannot compete with a transwoman, especially if they transitioned after male puberty. Most bone and muscle mass for a transwoman will have already been built as a male. For a biological woman to compete, she would have to take testosterone.

A tragedy for women/girls! The ACLU actively works against women/girls to steal their existing rights! The ACLU attempts to steal opportunities of girls to compete, steal their scholarships.

What’s the point? Sport is competitive. Looking at World Rugby’s analysis, allowing TW to play against women is not remotely competitive. It is dangerous. Who wants to compete in, or watch that?

It will kill women’s sport taking the little revenue it had with it.

Continue ReadingJudge Gives Green Light for Transwomen Athletes to Compete in Women’s Sports

“Race” is Like Astrology

The concept of using "race"--physical appearance--as a proxy for character is as absurd as astrology. I'm well aware that people look different from each other, but the concept of "race" is scientifically baseless. The concept of "race" embraces the logic of astrology: shoving individual people (each of whom is complex) into a handful of simplistic superficial categories and then drawing conclusions that are evidence-free (or often, contrary to evidence) based upon these unwarranted simplistic cartoon-like categorizations. The concept of "race" should be constantly ridiculed the same way that intelligent people ridicule astrology. Any attempt to classify another human being by "race" or birthdate is a lazy ham-handed anti-scientific and pernicious claim that one knows what it is impossible to know--the complexity of that human being--without investing time and effort to get to known them. That is the point of Morgan Freeman:

This enormous flaw with the modern use of the concept of "race" is a conceptual hole so vast that one could easily drive a truck through it. Yet the concept of "race" is rarely attacked at the root.  The first racist act is categorizing people by dividing them into simplistic categories such as white or Black. Without this first move, racism would be impossible.  What is especially distressing is that this widespread exuberant willingness to mis-categorize people into simplistic categories is embraced by both White Supremacists and those who claim to be seeking social justice by embracing critical race theory. These two groups are now in complete agreement that we can somehow know people merely by looking at their physical appearance.

There is only one way to get to know a person, and that is to take the time to learn about them, one by one, by talking with them, getting to know what they've done with their lives, reading about them or watching them interact with others. Complicating things, people change over time, so getting to know who they are requires non-stop effort.  Getting to know someone else requires careful consideration of real world facts and this takes considerable and concerted effort. Taking the time to get to really know other people before casting judgment on who they are is incompatible with making snap judgments but, as we are increasingly being tuned by social media, we are increasingly people who insist on making snap judgments.

Every day, "race" arguments wildly launch off into a thousand directions like fireworks. The basic premise of most of these arguments is the incoherent concept of "race," a concept so completely and irrevocably broken that most of these discussions are a waste of time before the discussion even begins. Imagine the time we could save--time we could redirect to working on solving the immense social problems that are very real indeed (many of them correlated to the physical appearance of groups of people)--if only we cut off most discussions of "race" at the root by calling out the invalidity of the concept of "race."

I will be writing more on this emotionally-charged topic in coming months. At this point I should make two things clear.

A) As I hope I've made clear, "race" is a irretrievably flawed pernicious concept. I believe that the concept of "race" should be thrown in the dustbin of history and we should all enter a new post-racial era. Unfortunately, other people continue to believe in the reality of "race." This idiotic willingness to divide complex people into simple colors makes racism possible. For this reason, I fully acknowledge the existence and destructiveness of racism. Many people mistreat others based upon physical appearance. To do this is unfair. It hurts people, sometimes badly, sometimes leading to deaths. Racism oppresses entire groups of people and has done so systematically over long stretches of time, through the entire history of the United States and many other places. Wherever we encounter racism, we should attack it vigorously in two ways: socially (by calling it out publicly and condemning those who mistreat other people in this way) and through the use of the legal system (e.g., through civil rights laws).

B) The concept of "race" itself is bad science, and this problem needs to be pointed out whenever discussing racism. Every single time.  Even young children know that "race" makes no sense but we socialize them to think otherwise. To fail to point out the absurdity of the concept of "race" whenever discussing racism will lead to more of the same. We will never be able to solve the "race" problem as long as we assume that there is such a thing as "race." One way to do this is to consistently put the word "race" in scare quotes, which is now my habit.  Every time we discuss "race," we need to call out that the the casual, unthinking idea that there is such a thing as "race" is reckless and dangerous. We need to constantly call out that it is impossible and destructive to judge other people by the use of immutable physical appearance. It is, indeed, as insane as believing in astrology, phrenology or palm reading. The unthinking use of the word "race" is utterly unscientific and destructive, even when used by well-intentioned people. The concept of "race" is a mental virus that hurts people and most of those who are infected are unable to see that they are infected. To use "race" uncritically (or "critically," as is de rigeour among the Woke) is to succumb to the banality of evil--unthinking destructive acquiescence to bad ideas.

In sum, racism exists because millions of misguided people believe in the incoherent and unsubstantiated notion of "race."  It will take great effort to break this bad habit because many well-meaning people who are (oftentimes heroically) fighting racism refuse to jettison the concept of "race."  Until large vocal swaths of society simultaneously and consciously embrace both A and B (above), racism will tear us apart.  I'm not optimistic.

Continue Reading“Race” is Like Astrology

Greg Palast Discusses the Many Big Problems with Mail Voting

Greg Palast is keeping me up at night. Here's an excerpt from his discussion with Mike Papantonio:

Papantonio: Let’s start with the elephant in the room, the vote by mail. A lot of developments there in the past few days. Tell us what this administration's done and give us the whole Greg Palast vote by mail 10,000 foot, so we can move on to the next question. What's your take?

Palast: Wow. Okay. Here's the problem. 22% of all mail in ballots don't get counted. That's an MIT study. That's not Greg Palast. A one in five ballots is junked. Now, how does that happen? One in 10 people never get their ballot who've asked for them. By the way, that’s why we had those long lines in Georgia, those are African Americans in Atlanta who never got their mail in ballots, but it requested them. Including, by the way, the husband of the head of the ACLU in Georgia. So people don't get their ballot, that's number one. And number two, once you send them in, one in 10 is junked for any type of reason. Anyone can challenge your ballot in America. They don't like your signature, you didn't put your middle initial when you signed and you registered with the middle initial. Postage due cost a hundred thousand votes in 2016. 3.3 million ballots in 2016 that were mailed in were never counted…

Papantonio: What we have here is an election that's tightening up. The Democrats thought they had the leisure of Biden's double digit lead. It's shrinking as we speak. It’s shrinking in states that really matter, swing States. But the Democrats, I literally heard James Carville say, well, Biden can just stay down in the cellar and he's going to win this election. Doesn't that sound a lot like what they were talking about with Hillary Clinton? So I wonder, the vote by mail could be important. How safe is vote by mail? How safe is it?

Palast: Not in the least and this is the big problem. Because you can have all these jerks in Hawaiian shirts, the Boogaloo Boys, the Proud Boys, they're going to go in… Trump’s calling for 50,000 volunteers. It's not an intimidation army. People have that wrong. The real danger’s that are going to go in and say, I don't like that signature on that ballot. That ballot was taped shut instead of a sealed shut by licking the envelope. I'm not kidding. And if you think it's just Republicans who do that, in New York this past last week the Democratic Party challenged the counting of 28,000 mail-in ballots, — the Democratic Party. Once they established that precedent, how many ballots do you think Trump's people will challenge? How many millions I should say. So it's not safe to mail in your ballot.

Continue ReadingGreg Palast Discusses the Many Big Problems with Mail Voting

Why the University of California System Stopped Using the SAT

Why did the UC system stop using the SAT? This article by Andrew Conway offers some insight "The University of California and The SAT: Speaking the Truth?." Here is an excerpt:

Here are two main conclusions from the report:

“Overall, both grades and admissions test scores are moderate predictors of college GPA at UC. The predictive power of test scores has gone up, and the predictive power of high school grades has gone down, since the 2010… study of this issue. At present, test scores are a slightly better predictor of freshman grades than high school grades are. Both grades and scores are stronger predictors of early outcomes (freshman retention and GPA) than of longer-term outcomes (eventual graduation and graduation GPA).”

“Test scores contribute significant predictive power across all income levels, ethnic groups, across both first-generation and non-first-generation students, and across all campuses and majors.” Based on these results (and more), the special task force recommended that the UC continue to use the SAT in the admissions process.

But then, on May 21, 2020, the University of California Regents released a statement. They announced their decision to drop the SAT requirement for all applicants to all UC schools. I was shocked. Drop the SAT? Why?

Continue ReadingWhy the University of California System Stopped Using the SAT

Missouri Republican Politicians Attempt to Commit Fraud on Gerrymandering Ballot Measure: Slapped Down by Court

Excellent court ruling today on the upcoming Missouri proposed Amendment, as reported by "No on 3," which opposes this upcoming ballot measure (because it unravels anti-gerrymandering provisions Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved two years ago). The court scolded the Republicans who crafted the ballot language. The court then rewrote the ballot language. The judge ruled that the Republican proposed language was “misleading, unfair, and insufficient.” In making this ruling, Judge Patricia Joyce prevented a massive fraud on Missouri citizens.

"No on 3" spokesperson Sean Soendker Nicholson sums it up:

Politicians may lie to our faces about what they’re trying to do with Amendment 3, but they can’t lie in what appears on the ballot,” said Sean Soendker Nicholson, Campaign Director for the No on Amendment 3 campaign. “Everyone needs to understand that politicians are trying to trick voters by hiding a deceptive gerrymandering plan in the state constitution. The whole goal of their plan is to protect incumbent politicians in rigged maps drawn in back rooms by lobbyists and political operatives.

Continue ReadingMissouri Republican Politicians Attempt to Commit Fraud on Gerrymandering Ballot Measure: Slapped Down by Court