06-11-24 • Not Too Much to Ask
Fanny: So disappointed in our citizens and the direction of the country over the last decade. Why do people want to embrace and normalize prejudice, threats, exclusion and violence?
That is natural human behavior in scarcity.
Fanny: Perhaps, but the world is going to face greater extremes of genuine scarcity of food, water and other actual necessities as global climate patterns shift. If we can't deal with temporary shortages or limited choices in the short term, it does not bode well for the future.
There is only one answer - sharing.
Fanny:I think many people creating hate-speech graffiti, violent threats and divisive social media are acting out of emotion driven by manufactured fear. We need to look at why people choose this response to complex problems. It is always easier to blame, hate or ostracize. But it solves nothing.
Humans brains have two modes of thinking, Fast and Slow. Fast thinking is easier and often consists of blaming, hating, ostracizing and other snap judgements. Humans CAN do the slower thinking that results in reasoning things through, choosing logical solutions, feeling compassion and empathy for the Other. But not when on their back foot.
One answer to this would be to limit the profit motive in journalism. That is the main reason for the manufactured fear.
One answer to this would be to limit the profit motive in journalism. That is the main reason for the manufactured fear.
Bette: Sharing? That’s only a human trait during times of plenty…during hardship the hierarchy of needs met goes, family, community, society…
If family is taken care of, the community gets attention, if the community needs are mostly met then society is cared for. But if the needs of the family aren’t met, all bets are off….
This IS a time of plenty. There is far more than enough for everyone, and the people who have it all have already taken care of their family. Now it's time for the plenty to go to the people who made it, community, society...
OldinAZ: As a couple who lives quite frugally and have to, there is not a need we have that we can't get for ourselves.
Neither of us expects the higher tier in the income ladder to share what they have. Why should we? They earned their wealth and it's theirs to do with as they choose.
Giving of time matters more, IMO, than sharing a wealth not earned by others.
Charity is far more than monetary giving, and many in those higher tiers DO give in different ways.
Hey AZ, I appreciate your views on charity, but what I am talking about is not charity. Thanks for giving me a chance to clarify.
I am talking about a fair share of the wealth of society going to the people who created it - the workers. This is not accomplished by individuals giving to charity. It's accomplished by regulating the actions of corporations. For one, corporations need to pay their fair share of the taxes to maintain a society that is safe to do business in, and comply with regulations meant to protect consumers and workers and the environment. For two, and even more importantly, they need to pay the workers a fairer share of the immense wealth they are creating, in the form of living wages that can support families and good lives.
When those things are done, as they were in the Labor Era (from the passing of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935 to the union-busting actions of Ronald Reagan in 1981), then there is widely shared prosperity, and ordinary people can have a decent life. This leads to the time and attention available for other injustices to be addressed - like in the Civil Rights era, by no coincidence right in the middle of the longest shared prosperity in history.
Of course I agree with you, some people work harder, they deserve more. The question is, to what degree? Is the current degree fair? Is it working? The answer is no.
Thanks AZ!
I am talking about a fair share of the wealth of society going to the people who created it - the workers. This is not accomplished by individuals giving to charity. It's accomplished by regulating the actions of corporations. For one, corporations need to pay their fair share of the taxes to maintain a society that is safe to do business in, and comply with regulations meant to protect consumers and workers and the environment. For two, and even more importantly, they need to pay the workers a fairer share of the immense wealth they are creating, in the form of living wages that can support families and good lives.
When those things are done, as they were in the Labor Era (from the passing of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935 to the union-busting actions of Ronald Reagan in 1981), then there is widely shared prosperity, and ordinary people can have a decent life. This leads to the time and attention available for other injustices to be addressed - like in the Civil Rights era, by no coincidence right in the middle of the longest shared prosperity in history.
Of course I agree with you, some people work harder, they deserve more. The question is, to what degree? Is the current degree fair? Is it working? The answer is no.
Thanks AZ!
Caron: It’s the age old “charity begins at home.” Maybe it's because I just flew home from my son's graduation, but I’m reminded of the typical safety instruction at the plane: put your oxygen mask first before assisting others. That’s because you can’t help others without looking for yourself first. You need to be OK before you expand your aid to others, and these expanding circles help as a guide.
I don't disagree, and congrats on your son's graduation! Great work Mom!
Again I would say that the people and the institutions which actually hold most of the wealth in society have already provided for themselves and their families a million times over and they should now be required to meet the needs of community and society before it self-destructs.
Again I would say that the people and the institutions which actually hold most of the wealth in society have already provided for themselves and their families a million times over and they should now be required to meet the needs of community and society before it self-destructs.
Caron: What do you mean?
Right now most of the wealth in society is not being used to make anyone's life better. It's going into big piles in order for the highest-status people to play a huge, stupid game of King of the Hill.
That's not going to cut it when real scarcity starts.
We have the technology. There are ways we could make the future more abundant and amazing than ever, even with climate change. We just have to have a mindset of shared prosperity, where everyone benefits from our progress. It doesn't all have to be equal, for God's sake, but it has to be enough. How is that too much to ask?
That's not going to cut it when real scarcity starts.
We have the technology. There are ways we could make the future more abundant and amazing than ever, even with climate change. We just have to have a mindset of shared prosperity, where everyone benefits from our progress. It doesn't all have to be equal, for God's sake, but it has to be enough. How is that too much to ask?
Caron: I think it’s nice when they wish to help others. But they shouldn’t be required to do so. They worked hard for their economic security or even affluence. They’re entitled to it, even if it seems unnecessary to the rest of us. It’s what they worked for. If they wish to use it to help others, that’s amazing and very commendable. But they shouldn’t be forced to do it.
I disagree and I think you do too, here's why. I'm sure you don't have a problem with corporations being "forced" to pay property taxes, or being "forced" to pay minimum wage, or being "forced" to stop dumping toxic chemicals into the local watershed, etc. Corporations should be required by law - "forced," in your words - to comply with regulations that are there to help stabilize society. Their compliance is not voluntary when you like the regulations and force when you don't. ALL laws and regulations are "force."
The question is, are we forcing them to do enough yet?
Look at the carnage, the poverty, the political destabilization all around the globe, billions of people suffering as a few rich luxuriate. Watch as governments crumble in the face of desperate migration. The answer is no.
The criteria for what corporations should be "forced" to do is WHAT WORKS for society. What we are currently forcing them to do is not enough. We need to force them to do more.
The question is, are we forcing them to do enough yet?
Look at the carnage, the poverty, the political destabilization all around the globe, billions of people suffering as a few rich luxuriate. Watch as governments crumble in the face of desperate migration. The answer is no.
The criteria for what corporations should be "forced" to do is WHAT WORKS for society. What we are currently forcing them to do is not enough. We need to force them to do more.
OldinAZ: In your opinion, what is a fair share?
Here's a chart showing what most Americans polled - 92%, Republicans AND Democrats - agreed would be fair:
OldinAZ: How does that share help lower the cost of rent, groceries, utilities, and any medical necessities?
Corporations should be regulated to prevent price gouging. Home ownership by corporations should be curtailed. We should have national health care like every other advanced industrial nation. That would make life a lot more affordable.
Great questions, thanks for asking!
Great questions, thanks for asking!
Plexy: Oh yeah, so what's a fair share!? Should Ben and Jlo give up the 60 million when they sell the house? Should Beyonce and Jay-z give up part of their wealth? Musk and Zuckerberg will jump at the chance.
Great question. It would be fair to ensure that every person has basic food, shelter, education and healthcare. It would be fair for the minimum wage employees of the corporations these folks run to make a living wage. All of that could be accomplished with crumbs from tables of Amazon and Walmart that JLo and Beyonce would never miss.
Please do really check this out and tell me what you think:
Wealth, to scale
Bezos wealth to scale
Please do really check this out and tell me what you think:
Wealth, to scale
Bezos wealth to scale
OldinAZ: A drawback for some who live in a national healthcare country is the wait times for necessary procedures and surgeries. For example.... specialists and even getting an appointment much more the necessary procedure or surgery.
Actually, that's not really what the data is showing.
"However, the data—both from other nations with universal coverage and from historic expansions of coverage within the United States—show that this is not the case. Patients in peer nations generally have similar or shorter wait times than patients in the United States for a variety of services, refuting the argument that universal coverage would necessarily result in longer wait times in the future."
The Truth on Wait Times in Universal Coverage Systems
Americans are paying more for healthcare than anyone else on the planet, we are getting far worse health outcomes, and we aren't even getting "faster service." Universal healthcare works better.
"However, the data—both from other nations with universal coverage and from historic expansions of coverage within the United States—show that this is not the case. Patients in peer nations generally have similar or shorter wait times than patients in the United States for a variety of services, refuting the argument that universal coverage would necessarily result in longer wait times in the future."
The Truth on Wait Times in Universal Coverage Systems
Americans are paying more for healthcare than anyone else on the planet, we are getting far worse health outcomes, and we aren't even getting "faster service." Universal healthcare works better.
OldinAZ: In your vision of what should be done, where does the fair share go?
First, into the pockets of workers. Millions of people in poverty are not sitting around...they are working, hard, but just can't get paid enough to live in security. They can't afford to get educated or be treated for preventable illness and so they slip easily into joblessness and deeper poverty. Almost every homeless or destitute person you see today has worked a lot in his or her life, but never got much for it. If they had been paid right when they worked, they could weather storms like lost jobs, a health crisis, etc.
Working people have been toiling for hundreds of years to build railroads and factories and databases and services to create the wealth of industrial society that tycoons control. Workers need a bigger share of the wealth THEY are creating. That is why it is fair.
Those people can in turn buy more, save more, pay their fair share of taxes, and support the base of the economy with a strong working class.
Second, the public weal - making sure the needs of humans are met. Providing great health care, great education, great parks and libraries and museums, a rich civic life. Providing a fair playing field for people to reach out and grow and thrive, a fair market for people with new ideas to create businesses in. A lot like what we have now, for many, but for all, and better.
I'm so glad we can discuss it, thanks Ladies!
Working people have been toiling for hundreds of years to build railroads and factories and databases and services to create the wealth of industrial society that tycoons control. Workers need a bigger share of the wealth THEY are creating. That is why it is fair.
Those people can in turn buy more, save more, pay their fair share of taxes, and support the base of the economy with a strong working class.
Second, the public weal - making sure the needs of humans are met. Providing great health care, great education, great parks and libraries and museums, a rich civic life. Providing a fair playing field for people to reach out and grow and thrive, a fair market for people with new ideas to create businesses in. A lot like what we have now, for many, but for all, and better.
I'm so glad we can discuss it, thanks Ladies!
Caron: I'm with Plexy! Should people not live in $50 million mansions or take trips worth hundreds of thousands of dollars or buy expensive cars or throw lavish parties? Should they settle for the simple life and give away the rest of the money THEY worked for? Should they stop trying to earn more money because at some point it’s “enough” wealth? What point is that?
No, no, no, and no. No and no. No. N/A. That's not what I said and just a jump to conclusions.
But what amazes me is that you are so quick to defend the right of a few people to unbelievable luxury against my suggestion that millions of ordinary people have a right just to what they need to survive. Why is that more important?
You needn't worry. We could provide for everyone and the wealthy could still have all the mansions and expensive trips and fancy cars and lavish parties they want, they would never miss it.
Please do look at the wealth to scale demonstration:
Bezos wealth to scale
There is NO moral or practical justification for the suffering of billions and the destruction of human civilization so that this pile never gets smaller. None.
But what amazes me is that you are so quick to defend the right of a few people to unbelievable luxury against my suggestion that millions of ordinary people have a right just to what they need to survive. Why is that more important?
You needn't worry. We could provide for everyone and the wealthy could still have all the mansions and expensive trips and fancy cars and lavish parties they want, they would never miss it.
Please do look at the wealth to scale demonstration:
Bezos wealth to scale
There is NO moral or practical justification for the suffering of billions and the destruction of human civilization so that this pile never gets smaller. None.
OldinAZ: Why do you keep posting the Bezos wealth chart?
I think it's important for people to understand the true scale of the amassed wealth we are talking about. We could take care of everyone's most basic needs with a fraction of this, and the parties would not be one iota less lavish. Eventually they would be more lavish because when people aren't struggling, the rich get even richer.
Most importantly, we could ensure ordinary people the basic needs of life and meaningful engagement and they would not be so idle and desperate that they are easily factioned and radicalized. As I said, when people have enough, then they care about preserving the civil rights of others and the stability of society. Surely that's worth an iota's less lavish party.
Most importantly, we could ensure ordinary people the basic needs of life and meaningful engagement and they would not be so idle and desperate that they are easily factioned and radicalized. As I said, when people have enough, then they care about preserving the civil rights of others and the stability of society. Surely that's worth an iota's less lavish party.
OldinAZ: There are many articles to be found online regarding the pros and cons of universal healthcare and we'd be here all day. Here's one:
"Canadian Health Care Leaves Patients Frozen In Line"
It varies. Switzerland and Germany have universal healthcare and have shorter wait times than the U.S. So at best, there is no definitive evidence that "wait times" are a big problem in universal healthcare. But there is plenty of evidence to show that universal healthcare results in lower costs and better health.
Most importantly, "wait times" are not resulting in worse health outcomes.
In any case, I don't think it's a moral argument that poor people should suffer and die of preventable illness so that privileged people can get faster service.
Most importantly, "wait times" are not resulting in worse health outcomes.
In any case, I don't think it's a moral argument that poor people should suffer and die of preventable illness so that privileged people can get faster service.
OldinAZ: Finally, on a different topic, do you resent tycoons?
I have spent years studying the economics of inequality. I can tell you that tycoons are wielding power without a mandate. They are unelected. They make decisions that affect the lives of millions with no necessary consideration for those lives. They make decisions that harm society to benefit themselves. All of that is inherently immoral. Power should be checked.
Quincy: Excuse me for interjecting, but scarcity has nothing to do with antisemitic vandalism and violent protests in the US. This is filling a generational need to rebel and leave a mark like generations before them, but they are a generation that hasn’t experienced being silenced, gets much of their information from social media, easily influenced by propaganda, and were not really taught to think for themselves.
Of course, I agree those are primary causes in this case. But, political instability has been sharply on the rise the last few years, all around the world, and economic inequality is a major driver.
Caron: It’s so much complicated than that. Of the many factors that contribute to the recent environment of hate and violence, economic inequality is probably at the very bottom, if it’s even a factor at all. If that was the reason, we wouldn’t be dealing with Ivy League students as a huge part of the problem. Probably the main cause is the infiltration of radical Islamic ideologies into the educational system. It’s been very well documented. DEI, far left politicians and woke ideology have also contributed to the problem.
Sorry but that tiny group of privileged college students is not who I am talking about. I'm talking about all humans, everywhere. The question I bolded to answer was, "Why do people want to embrace and normalize prejudice, threats, exclusion and violence?" A very important question.
My answer is, it's because prejudice, threats, exclusion and violence are normal human behaviors which we evolved as competing bands living in scarcity on the edge of survival. ("That is natural human behavior in scarcity.") Humans have always embraced and normalized prejudice, threats, exclusion and violence, everywhere and in every time, with very few exceptions. The exceptions are times of shared prosperity. Only when there is great MUTUAL benefit, can people of different tribes or castes put that aside and willingly work together. Otherwise, prejudice, threats, exclusion and violence IS how normal humans act.
Why are we seeing it on the rise now? Because the brief period of widely shared technological abundance that was enjoyed by Western democracies since the post WWII boom is drying up. We have more technology, and more abundance, than ever. But the mechanisms that forced that wealth to be widely-shared, creating a large middle class in a few places, are mostly gone. Billions of people live on a few dollars a day while a few rich and powerful jet-set around deciding who lives and who dies. Everyone can see this better than ever.
People are not going to voluntarily participate in this system very much longer. Ordinary working people in this country are falling out of the middle class with no safety net. History shows that when that happens, people turn to authoritarianism. That, and the reactionary movement in response - e.g., the students - is where people are going to embrace prejudice and threats, exclusion and violence. It's natural human behavior returning in the decline of shared prosperity.
That is why I say the only answer is sharing, or a return to the shared prosperity that brought humans closer than anyone ever before to truly reducing prejudice, threats, exclusion and violence. We almost got there; we had seven years of real, almost complete civil rights, from 2015 when gay marriage was legalized to 2022 when Roe v Wade was overturned. So close.
It would take only crumbs from the tables of the wealthiest, which they would never even miss, to shore up the middle class and stabilize democracy. No one would be harmed, billions of people and the peace and freedom of prosperous civilization would be saved. Is there really an argument against a greater share for the worker?
My answer is, it's because prejudice, threats, exclusion and violence are normal human behaviors which we evolved as competing bands living in scarcity on the edge of survival. ("That is natural human behavior in scarcity.") Humans have always embraced and normalized prejudice, threats, exclusion and violence, everywhere and in every time, with very few exceptions. The exceptions are times of shared prosperity. Only when there is great MUTUAL benefit, can people of different tribes or castes put that aside and willingly work together. Otherwise, prejudice, threats, exclusion and violence IS how normal humans act.
Why are we seeing it on the rise now? Because the brief period of widely shared technological abundance that was enjoyed by Western democracies since the post WWII boom is drying up. We have more technology, and more abundance, than ever. But the mechanisms that forced that wealth to be widely-shared, creating a large middle class in a few places, are mostly gone. Billions of people live on a few dollars a day while a few rich and powerful jet-set around deciding who lives and who dies. Everyone can see this better than ever.
People are not going to voluntarily participate in this system very much longer. Ordinary working people in this country are falling out of the middle class with no safety net. History shows that when that happens, people turn to authoritarianism. That, and the reactionary movement in response - e.g., the students - is where people are going to embrace prejudice and threats, exclusion and violence. It's natural human behavior returning in the decline of shared prosperity.
That is why I say the only answer is sharing, or a return to the shared prosperity that brought humans closer than anyone ever before to truly reducing prejudice, threats, exclusion and violence. We almost got there; we had seven years of real, almost complete civil rights, from 2015 when gay marriage was legalized to 2022 when Roe v Wade was overturned. So close.
It would take only crumbs from the tables of the wealthiest, which they would never even miss, to shore up the middle class and stabilize democracy. No one would be harmed, billions of people and the peace and freedom of prosperous civilization would be saved. Is there really an argument against a greater share for the worker?
Caron: You and your talk about universal healthcare...my husband’s uncle lives in Canada and comes here to Mexico for medical treatment because the healthcare there is so bad!
That hardly recommends the U.S. healthcare system. Every other rich nation has universal healthcare and it's cheaper and they get better health.
Caron: Inequality will always be an issue. There will always be rich people and poor people. As long as the opportunities are equal that’s the best you can do. People have to do the rest.
I don't have a problem with inequality. I don't have a problem with there being "rich people" and "poor people." I have not suggested otherwise.*
However the opportunities are far from equal and this is far from the best we can do. We already set the level of poverty, and it's set somewhere above the starvation line in this country. We could set it above the homeless line, by guaranteeing a very basic and minimal housing. We could set it above the ignorance line, by providing a basic public education (lifelong.) We could set it above the ill health line by guaranteeing basic medical care to everyone. When people are not starving (check), or homeless, and they can be fully educated and healed, then I will agree that the opportunities are equal and people have to do the rest.
Is that going to get rid of inequality, get rid of rich people and poor people? Of course not. It just brings the extremes a little closer, shares prosperity just enough, so that people can relax on the prejudice, threats, exclusion and violence. People can live in peace with a lot of inequality. Just not this much.
*Actually, I do have problems with inequality and there being rich and poor people. But what I am recommending to my mom friends, a few minor changes in the status quo, would be good enough for now.
However the opportunities are far from equal and this is far from the best we can do. We already set the level of poverty, and it's set somewhere above the starvation line in this country. We could set it above the homeless line, by guaranteeing a very basic and minimal housing. We could set it above the ignorance line, by providing a basic public education (lifelong.) We could set it above the ill health line by guaranteeing basic medical care to everyone. When people are not starving (check), or homeless, and they can be fully educated and healed, then I will agree that the opportunities are equal and people have to do the rest.
Is that going to get rid of inequality, get rid of rich people and poor people? Of course not. It just brings the extremes a little closer, shares prosperity just enough, so that people can relax on the prejudice, threats, exclusion and violence. People can live in peace with a lot of inequality. Just not this much.
*Actually, I do have problems with inequality and there being rich and poor people. But what I am recommending to my mom friends, a few minor changes in the status quo, would be good enough for now.
06-11-24 • Hunter Biden Guilty!
Selena: A federal jury found Hunter Biden guilty on all three federal felony gun charges he faced, concluding that he violated laws meant to prevent drug addicts from owning firearms.
Varia: I think it's funny how much Democrats want more gun control, and here we have the son of a Democratic President doing shady shit with guns.
Every person who buys a gun while using drugs should face the same.
Varia: They do if it’s found out.
They don't if the drug is alcohol.
Varia: To have alcohol count I think you will need to change the law. Hunter wasn’t charged for alcohol.
I'd be fine with changing the law.
Selena: They don't if it's coffee for that matter.
Regulating that might be a harder sell. There isn't a very strong body of evidence demonstrating that caffeine and firearms are a dangerous combination. However there is for alcohol and firearms.
Alcohol Misuse and Gun Violence:
An Evidence-Based Approach for State Policy
1 in 3 gun homicides the killer was drinking;
1 in 3 gun homicides the victim was drinking;
1 in 4 gun suicides the victim was drinking;
Alcohol is a major contributing factor to deaths by gun.
This report proposes harm reduction by:
1) Limiting access to firearms by persons with a record of alcohol misuse
2) Limiting access to guns where alcohol is consumed
Alcohol Misuse and Gun Violence
Alcohol Misuse and Gun Violence:
An Evidence-Based Approach for State Policy
1 in 3 gun homicides the killer was drinking;
1 in 3 gun homicides the victim was drinking;
1 in 4 gun suicides the victim was drinking;
Alcohol is a major contributing factor to deaths by gun.
This report proposes harm reduction by:
1) Limiting access to firearms by persons with a record of alcohol misuse
2) Limiting access to guns where alcohol is consumed
Alcohol Misuse and Gun Violence
Varia: Hunter Biden lied on a form to a question about drugs. Alcohol is not mentioned as it is not a federally illegal drug.
You are so right. But if the laws that keep drug users away from guns make any sense at all, they would make even more sense applied to alcohol, because it is a much greater risk factor for death by gun.
06-09-24 • A Matter of Honor
Bendy: There are women who have been killed in these countries, or burned by acid, for not maintaining their husband's or father's "honor."
It's unfortunate so many women don't have agency over their own lives. They don't, even in the U.S. It's heartbreaking.
I don't disagree. But, a very strange thing happens if you start to tell women they are oppressed. Many begin to vehemently insist that they are not. So, not sure what to do.
Bendy: Oh I agree. IMO, women desire to be strong and independent and full of choices. When someone points out that they are not, there are two reactions. 1) of course you're right and I need to work to become so. 2) of course you're wrong and I choose to be in the situation I'm in.
Look at the whole "tradwife" phenomenon.
I'm particularly concerned with the oppression of women in patriarchal societies. In a recent segment on "gender apartheid," Bill Maher quoted activist Yasmeen Mohammed saying about the veil:
"It just suppresses your humanity entirely. It's like a portable sensory deprivation chamber, and you are no longer connected to humanity. You can't see properly, you can't hear properly, you can't speak properly. People can't see you, you can only see them. Just little things, passing people on the street, and just making eye contact and smiling, that's gone. You're no longer part of this world, and so you very quickly just shrivel up into nothing under there."
Yes, that is certainly how I would experience it. I lived in Saudi Arabia and I was shocked at the oppression women experienced.
But on the other hand, whenever I have spoken with women who wear ritual coverings from burkas to headscarves, they insist that it is entirely their choice and they definitley prefer it that way. It has nothing to do with male oppression; they are glad to be free of the prying eyes of men judging them by their figure or their hair. They don't want to be a distraction or a temptation to men, and this is just preserving their modesty, or showing their obedience to God. They don't consider it oppression in any way.
So Bill Maher thinks we should be fighting gender apartheid and my every instinct is to fight for women who are being brutally oppressed. But the women told me to butt out. So, not sure where Bill's fight is going to take place.
"It just suppresses your humanity entirely. It's like a portable sensory deprivation chamber, and you are no longer connected to humanity. You can't see properly, you can't hear properly, you can't speak properly. People can't see you, you can only see them. Just little things, passing people on the street, and just making eye contact and smiling, that's gone. You're no longer part of this world, and so you very quickly just shrivel up into nothing under there."
Yes, that is certainly how I would experience it. I lived in Saudi Arabia and I was shocked at the oppression women experienced.
But on the other hand, whenever I have spoken with women who wear ritual coverings from burkas to headscarves, they insist that it is entirely their choice and they definitley prefer it that way. It has nothing to do with male oppression; they are glad to be free of the prying eyes of men judging them by their figure or their hair. They don't want to be a distraction or a temptation to men, and this is just preserving their modesty, or showing their obedience to God. They don't consider it oppression in any way.
So Bill Maher thinks we should be fighting gender apartheid and my every instinct is to fight for women who are being brutally oppressed. But the women told me to butt out. So, not sure where Bill's fight is going to take place.
06-06-24 • War Crimes
Clara: Israel is committing war crimes and genocide in Gaza! Almost all the casualties are on one side. It's a massacre.
StrongSupporterofIsrael: Israel is fighting a war! Never before has any other country been called into question for how they conduct a war. Where were these protesters when the U.S. killed 4.7 million Iraqis?
Clara: Some of us called that a massacre too.
StrongSupporterofIsrael: Americans were all for it!
We did call the U.S. invasion of Iraq a massacre and a war crime. We had the largest protests ever to try to stop it, in cities around the country and around the entire world. We protested continuously throughout the war and redoubled our efforts when the abuses at Abu Ghraib came to light. Even though I love America, and I will always be an American, I had no trouble recognizing that my country was doing the wrong thing.
StrongSupporter: Oh really?
Yes, really.
Lynn C: No, the largest protests ever were to protest Trump winning a free and fair election. Not a war that killed millions…
We didn’t go after the president that mercilessly murdered hundreds of thousands of children, we went after the presidents that got a blow job in the Oval Office and the guy that paid off his prostitute with donated funds… We, as a nation don’t *actually* care about slaughter, dismemberment and the poisoning of land for generations to come… we care about sex and money. That’s it…
The protest before the Iraq invasion were the largest ever *at the time*. Sheesh.
I have no idea what you personally care about but you don't speak for "a nation" or me.
I have no idea what you personally care about but you don't speak for "a nation" or me.
Lynn C: The largest organized protest against Trump was the day after his inauguration; millions protested on January 21, 2017, during the Women's March, with each individual city's protest taken into consideration, makes it the largest single-day protest in the history of the United States.
America’s largest protest was against Trump, not war.
If you think that somehow makes the Iraq protests small or insignificant, that's ridiculous.
Point is, the Iraq war protests were the largest ever at the time because many American people DID oppose the president that mercilessly murdered hundreds of thousands of children, slaughter, dismemberment, poisoning the land, etc. Your assessment of what "we" care about is wrong.
Point is, the Iraq war protests were the largest ever at the time because many American people DID oppose the president that mercilessly murdered hundreds of thousands of children, slaughter, dismemberment, poisoning the land, etc. Your assessment of what "we" care about is wrong.
Lynn C: I can DEFINITELY speak to which presidents in our history were brought up on charges and which weren’t.
The ones with raunchy sex histories got impeached. That's what Americans care about.
Trump did not get impeached for his raunchy sex history, lol.
Lynn C: I don't mean you, I mean we as America.
We go after presidents who commit crimes based on sexual deviancy, we do not go after presidents that commit war crimes.
Well then let's talk about what Trump actually WAS impeached for. First, he was impeached for trying to extort the president of Ukraine by leaning on him to make a false investigation into Joe Biden to make him look bad in case he was the eventual Democratic nominee. Second, he was impeached for refusing the accept the results of the election he lost and trying to have a mob of goons overturn the election by force.
Pretending that "we" only care about sex crimes, just because Trump also did sex crimes, is a bunch of conflating bullshit. Americans DO care about presidential abuse of power and that is what Trump was impeached for.
You might as well stop with the "we as America" thing and just speak for yourself.
Pretending that "we" only care about sex crimes, just because Trump also did sex crimes, is a bunch of conflating bullshit. Americans DO care about presidential abuse of power and that is what Trump was impeached for.
You might as well stop with the "we as America" thing and just speak for yourself.
Lynn C: Look at Trump's conviction - it's for nothing more than how he paid his prostitute.
Time will tell.
Lynn C: When it comes to today and the liberal mindset, Is Israel committing war crimes and genocide? Yes! We must stop them!
Is our president helping to facilitate that genocide by funding the means of their destruction ? Yes! We must put an end to this!
Are you going to vote him into power next time, or fight for him to be brought up on war crime charges?
We’re going to vote him in again. Because f**k it.
No, there are many liberals who think Biden is complicit with war crimes and genocide who won't be voting for him for that very reason. There are other liberals who don't agree that Biden is complicit with war crimes and genocide in Israel, or who think that preventing Trump from getting into office is more important. I think they will split the liberal vote and Trump will probably be re-elected.
Point is, there is no one "liberal mindset" and many do want to reject Biden entirely because they think he is complicit in war crimes and genocide in Israel.
Point is, there is no one "liberal mindset" and many do want to reject Biden entirely because they think he is complicit in war crimes and genocide in Israel.
05-12-24 • "Fine" America
Bae: Bad news, Ladies. Biden is sinking in the polls. I'm afraid Trump is going to win in 2024.
Tay: What a worrywart! Who cares if Trump wins? America is going to be fine!
If Trump had succeeded in retaining power illegitimately in 2020, we would now be a dictatorship. That could happen again. How do you figure that's "fine"?
Tay: America was fine before him,
America was fine during his presidency,
And America is fine after him…
The fear mongering just doesn’t work anymore…
But, Trump does not respect the peaceful transfer of power. Providing he lives that long, are you 100% confident that he will peacefully step away from the Presidency at the end of his term? Even if the winner is a Democrat?
*crickets*
Later:
I'm asking, are you fine with American dictatorship?
*crickets*
Later:
I'm asking, are you fine with American dictatorship?
Bae: What do you mean?
Many Americans seem either fine with it, or unconcerned with the risk. For anyone who thinks the next Trump Presidency will be "fine" for America, which is it?
Tay: I don’t think he’ll be a dictator. I think it’ll be the same as last time, and he wasn’t a dictator then either… Even if a couple thousand of his supporters freaked the fuck out on the last day…
Trump abused power from his first day as president, when he ordered Sean Spicer to go out and claim that Trump's inauguration crowd was bigger than Obama's, when every living human could see with their own eyes that it was not. Was that "being a dictator"? No. Not yet.
But, it was followed by abuse after abuse of power, from obstruction of justice to extortion, replacing reality with ever more outrageous lies. Trump eventually removed the "normal" administrators and replaced them with toadys. The Jan 6 insurrection wasn't just "the last day," it was months of Trump refusing to concede when he lost and his team trying every possible lie and scheme to retain illegitimate control.
"Project 2025" is a plan to gut the government of ordinary civil servants and any checks and balances. And have you noticed that Trump is also asserting that as President he would have legal immunity and freedom to commit any crime?
That's how authoritarians gain power. It's not by claiming they are a dictator on day one. It's by getting society to perform a series of Enabling Acts to hand them more and more power.
If Trump is president again, the Jan 6 level is where he will start. Welcome back to Muslim bans and family separation policies, only worse. Based specifically on what actually happened last time, Trump can't be trusted to concede an election even if he loses.
I don't care if you call that a dictator, but it's NOT democracy. You should be concerned.
But, it was followed by abuse after abuse of power, from obstruction of justice to extortion, replacing reality with ever more outrageous lies. Trump eventually removed the "normal" administrators and replaced them with toadys. The Jan 6 insurrection wasn't just "the last day," it was months of Trump refusing to concede when he lost and his team trying every possible lie and scheme to retain illegitimate control.
"Project 2025" is a plan to gut the government of ordinary civil servants and any checks and balances. And have you noticed that Trump is also asserting that as President he would have legal immunity and freedom to commit any crime?
That's how authoritarians gain power. It's not by claiming they are a dictator on day one. It's by getting society to perform a series of Enabling Acts to hand them more and more power.
If Trump is president again, the Jan 6 level is where he will start. Welcome back to Muslim bans and family separation policies, only worse. Based specifically on what actually happened last time, Trump can't be trusted to concede an election even if he loses.
I don't care if you call that a dictator, but it's NOT democracy. You should be concerned.
Tay: There was never a Muslim ban…look it up, I'll wait.
Grab em by the pussy. I'll wait.
Nira: Hey, Trump himself called it a Muslim ban.
BeesKnees: This is America! Jan 6 could never have succeeded. One person doesn't have all the power in America! This fearmongering about Trump is crazy!
I'd like to be clear that the threat Trump represents to democracy is not just about him as a person, or his personal actions. Political scientists who study authoritarianism are concerned that in order to support Trump, the Republican party has had to become a "personalist party," as opposed to party which advances particular policies.
"Personalist parties, as political scientists call them, are a threat to democracy because they lack the incentives and ability to resist their leader’s efforts to amass more power."
Authoritarian Scholars Warning
If you think of the way non-loyalists have been purged from the party I hope you will see that this is not healthy for democracy.
______________________________________________
These are not just partisan Democrat talking points. International legal scholars are concerned about the authoritarian threat:
Trump allies and a broad sweep of conservative political groups in the US have adopted what they are calling ‘Project 2025’ – a detailed agenda to fire tens of thousands of civil servants in the US bureaucracy and replace them with appointees loyal to Trump. It’s a deceptively radical plan that would push presidential power beyond its present legal limits to effectively sabotage government agencies and programmes from the inside, making it impossible for them to pursue their lawful missions.
‘We should take him at his own word, which is that a second term will be as he puts it, a moment of retribution, where he will again in his own words, rather gleefully lay claim to the powers of a dictator’, says William Howell, the Sydney Stein Professor in American Politics at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy. ‘At a re-election, he will claim – and not unjustifiably – a popular mandate to push back against democracy, and small “d” democratic checks that are meant to limit the exercise of presidential powers. He’s been completely forthright about what he intends to do. This is not a case of a would-be autocrat hiding his ambition.’
Authoritarian Threat to America
That is the concern.
"Personalist parties, as political scientists call them, are a threat to democracy because they lack the incentives and ability to resist their leader’s efforts to amass more power."
Authoritarian Scholars Warning
If you think of the way non-loyalists have been purged from the party I hope you will see that this is not healthy for democracy.
______________________________________________
These are not just partisan Democrat talking points. International legal scholars are concerned about the authoritarian threat:
Trump allies and a broad sweep of conservative political groups in the US have adopted what they are calling ‘Project 2025’ – a detailed agenda to fire tens of thousands of civil servants in the US bureaucracy and replace them with appointees loyal to Trump. It’s a deceptively radical plan that would push presidential power beyond its present legal limits to effectively sabotage government agencies and programmes from the inside, making it impossible for them to pursue their lawful missions.
‘We should take him at his own word, which is that a second term will be as he puts it, a moment of retribution, where he will again in his own words, rather gleefully lay claim to the powers of a dictator’, says William Howell, the Sydney Stein Professor in American Politics at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy. ‘At a re-election, he will claim – and not unjustifiably – a popular mandate to push back against democracy, and small “d” democratic checks that are meant to limit the exercise of presidential powers. He’s been completely forthright about what he intends to do. This is not a case of a would-be autocrat hiding his ambition.’
Authoritarian Threat to America
That is the concern.
BeesKnees: People always bring up "Grab em by the pussy!" You know who else was a sleazeball to women? President Clinton.
Of course, but I would still say that personally taking advantage of women is a whole different thing than actually working to change the country so women have fewer rights. Both are sleazeball but only one of those is a threat to democracy.
BeesKnees: And what about Biden's shenanigans? He lies, there's no border control, have you seen the gas prices? We can't even make a decent living anymore! He was going to make $15 hour minimum wage and now that isn't even enough anymore! He claims rising gas prices are good for us because it will discourage people from wanting to ruin the environment with cars, now we all have to get electric cars which we can't even afford!
Well that's a lot of grievances. In my view, some of this is exaggerated, some of it is not Biden's doing or in his control, but the basic premise, that people are getting screwed, is spot on.
BUT, the ONLY way that can change is by strengthening systems that hold the powerful accountable...NOT by giving them more unchecked power.
Biden may not be a great president but he is not trying to change what it *means* to be President. Trump and the Republicans are, and that's dangerous.
BUT, the ONLY way that can change is by strengthening systems that hold the powerful accountable...NOT by giving them more unchecked power.
Biden may not be a great president but he is not trying to change what it *means* to be President. Trump and the Republicans are, and that's dangerous.
BeesKnees: Biden just claimed that inflation was 9% when he came to office! He's trying to blame Trump! That's some pretty dictator-y shit right there!
Bae: He could have misspoken. Inflation was 9% at one point, now it's 3% - he wants credit for bringing it down. That's neither "dictator-y" nor authoritarian.
If Biden doubled down and said his claim was accurate but that the Bureau of Labor Statistics was infiltrated by Republican plants who were cooking the books and publishing inaccurate inflation rates to make him look bad and he was backed up by the liberal media as well as democrats in Congress, then maybe that could be seen as authoritarian. As it is, no.
Tay: So, it's only authoritarian if Trump lies...it's just fine if it's Biden.
No, Bae is right, it's not the lying, it's insisting that the lie is the truth in the face of all fact checking and reality to the contrary that is authoritarian. That's the difference.
We are not going to get a politician - or a person - who never lies, but we do have one option that is not authoritarian. Trump wants to make the president above the law. That is some dictator-y shit you should definitely care about.
Don't take my word for it. I'd urge you to please study authoritarianism, and you will see for yourself why Trump and current Republican party fit that definition while Biden and the Democrats don't. We can handle another lying politician without losing democracy. But once people enable authoritarianism, they give up the tools to get rid of it. What then?
We are not going to get a politician - or a person - who never lies, but we do have one option that is not authoritarian. Trump wants to make the president above the law. That is some dictator-y shit you should definitely care about.
Don't take my word for it. I'd urge you to please study authoritarianism, and you will see for yourself why Trump and current Republican party fit that definition while Biden and the Democrats don't. We can handle another lying politician without losing democracy. But once people enable authoritarianism, they give up the tools to get rid of it. What then?
05-02-24 • Anti-trans Athlete Law
Elba: Good! Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Governor of Arkansas, just signed a new executive law to protect women!
Gov. Sanders signed the new order in response to Biden’s TITLE IX changes that added protections for transgender athletes.
The new law states:
“Students must not be forced to shower or undress with members of the opposite sex.
Female students must not be denied equal athletic opportunities or forced to risk their safety by having biological males placed into female-designated sports leagues.”
I don't think students should be forced to shower or undress with *anyone.* Gross. And this does nothing to "protect women."
Reba: Agreed, it's just more prejudice against trans people.
Elba: What are you saying?
So when the top scientists in the field tell us that men have “ larger heart, greater lung capacity, greater muscle mass, more red blood cells, and less body fat”
Do you believe those scientists are wrong?
Reba: That's true of different sizes of men in comparison to each other also. That's why we invented handicapping in sports.
Elba: It's just a fact that they never use handicapping in high school, college or professional sports, so it could never work.
I don't think the challenges of grouping athletes by size and ability are insurmountable, forever.
Elba: Does that mean that you believe at some point we will be able to get rid of weight classes in boxing?
How are they going to be able to be overlooked in the future while maintaining a fair sport?
No, exactly the opposite. I think weight, strength and ability classes should be created right now for every sport where people of vastly different sizes participate. The featherweight swimming class might be all female, or it might include some really small males or FTM competitors who are of about the same size and ability. So what?
Elba:Because a guy who’s 5’4 and 120 pounds will have a physical advantage over a girl who’s 5’4 and 120 pounds.
Again, heart size, red blood cell count, body fat, ect…
It’s just plain unfair to the girls.
They could use a sliding scale. They could figure out a competitive range. Eventually they will find compatible points where abilities are matched and tested. There's no way that's just impossible, forever.
Elba:Fact is, the male body differs from the female body and that equates to a benefit for the top athletes.
No one seems to be able to answer… maybe you can,
Why do you think Flo Jo was slower than Usain Bolt?
Is it because she didn’t try hard enough, or train hard enough, or is it because Usain Bolt had a physical advantage?
There is no way Oscar Collazo (105 Lbs, Strawweight Boxing Champion) could ever beat Oleksandr Usyk (200+ lbs, Heavyweight Champion) and yet Oscar is still a world champion boxer.
Nobody thinks Usain doesn't have a physical advantage over Flo Jo because he's male. But there ARE males who don't have a physical advantage, who are smaller or shorter than Usain, who could give Flo Jo a run for her money, but who she could still beat. That's who she would race - Usain would be in the "heavyweight class" while Flo Jo would be in the "featherweight" class and even smaller men and women - who have no chance at all in most sports right now, frankly - would have Flyweight and Strawweight classes they could compete in. Maybe we would have to allow slightly larger women to compete against smaller men to make it fair, or maybe they would have to handicap it, etc. Point is, you can look at many factors like height, weight, ability and skill to match up competitive athletes. It doesn't have to be by gender. Is it a challenge? Yes, but it's not insurmountable.
All it would take is for Oleksandr Usyk to realize that he is actually a woman (it can happen to the Wheatiest boxes of athlete) and suddenly you DO have a woman who can compete as a heavyweight. So what?
Nobody thinks Usain doesn't have a physical advantage over Flo Jo because he's male. But there ARE males who don't have a physical advantage, who are smaller or shorter than Usain, who could give Flo Jo a run for her money, but who she could still beat. That's who she would race - Usain would be in the "heavyweight class" while Flo Jo would be in the "featherweight" class and even smaller men and women - who have no chance at all in most sports right now, frankly - would have Flyweight and Strawweight classes they could compete in. Maybe we would have to allow slightly larger women to compete against smaller men to make it fair, or maybe they would have to handicap it, etc. Point is, you can look at many factors like height, weight, ability and skill to match up competitive athletes. It doesn't have to be by gender. Is it a challenge? Yes, but it's not insurmountable.
All it would take is for Oleksandr Usyk to realize that he is actually a woman (it can happen to the Wheatiest boxes of athlete) and suddenly you DO have a woman who can compete as a heavyweight. So what?
Elba:You are a science denier if you don’t believe men and women’s bodies differ.
Never said they don't, and that isn't the point.
Elba: You’re trying to advocate for getting rid of men and women’s categories in sports.
That is exactly the point.
Not because I don't believe men and women's bodies differ. All human bodies differ and sports are already divided into categories by difference.
Elba:The best female track star vs the best male track star…
Can that competition be held fairly?
No…
So once again, women have to take a backseat to men in your perfect world.
The best strawweight boxer vs. the best heavyweight boxer...
Can that competition be held fairly?
No...but gender has nothing to do with it, and strawweight boxers are not taking a backseat to heavyweights. They are just competing in a different class, that's all.
Can that competition be held fairly?
No...but gender has nothing to do with it, and strawweight boxers are not taking a backseat to heavyweights. They are just competing in a different class, that's all.
Elba:There are no women who could compete with Usain Bolt. Your method would handicap women and make sure they never have a chance at competing against the best…therefore they would never be the best again…
No, Flo Jo could still beat men in her class.
Elba:Yeah, her handicapped class…And yet… there are no women who could compete in Usain Bolt’s class.
That's not a problem now. I don't see why it would become one.
The only reason for grouping sports by gender in the first place is to sort by ability. Alas, it turns out that simple sorting system has failed us in so many ways, because now that we are not hidebound by religious bigotry, people can admit that the original gender classes don't work for everyone. We have to develop more sophisticated sorting systems, and pretending it can never be done is limiting people to the old bigotries and failing to acknowledge that not everyone fits.
I think we can reach a point where everyone can grow and stretch and strive and have a chance for glory in sports no matter their gender. We just need to work to figure out the best system.
The only reason for grouping sports by gender in the first place is to sort by ability. Alas, it turns out that simple sorting system has failed us in so many ways, because now that we are not hidebound by religious bigotry, people can admit that the original gender classes don't work for everyone. We have to develop more sophisticated sorting systems, and pretending it can never be done is limiting people to the old bigotries and failing to acknowledge that not everyone fits.
I think we can reach a point where everyone can grow and stretch and strive and have a chance for glory in sports no matter their gender. We just need to work to figure out the best system.
Elba:The BEST female heavyweight boxer right now is Clarissa Shields weighing in at 165 pounds…
The BEST male heavyweight boxer right now is Tyson Fury weighing in at 278 pounds…
So fuck you to all women who have worked their whole lives for this, you don’t get to be heavyweights anymore because there’s no chance you’re going to be able to compete against the men… sure, heavyweight boxers make the most money, but you’re not good enough.., so go sit down.
I'm really not heartbroken at the thought of changing the name of a class. Right now it's fuck you to all transgender athletes, and there are probably more of them than there are female heavyweight boxers. Why is it okay to fuck and exclude transgender people to maintain your world of perfectly matched gender sports?
Elba:Once you get to the top most level of many sports, men are bigger, faster and stronger. The fastest woman was 5’7, the fastest man is 6’5… the best female heavyweight is 165 pounds, the best male heavyweight is 278 pounds. In your method of being more fair, women will never again have a chance at being in those uppermost levels.
Oscar Collazo will never have a chance at being the heavyweight champion of the world. He is STILL in the uppermost levels, the strawweight champion of the world. That's nothing to be ashamed of.
Point is, we can't exclude trans people. What's your solution?
Elba:I think we should make a whole category for them...because let’s face it, it’s not fair to female to male transgender people who aren’t able to compete as heavyweights either…
I'm fine with that too.
Elba:Women DO have a heavyweight class…
You would take that away from them, because you just don’t care…
Try not to get too upset, I already said I think your suggestion is a possibility too.
Elba: This is a conversation about sports and the physical ability differences that comes with sex that have been proven by science.
So you truly believe your feelings should override scientific facts…
Welcome to the world of republicans! That’s exactly what they think too… crazy how you can actually have so much in common with people you dislike, huh?
The conversation about fairness in sports is way too complex and important to reduce to simplistic legislation. That conversation still needs to be had, just like we are having it, and I don't think we (or "science") have all the answers yet.
However this rush to legislation, right now, is way more about othering transgender people and driving a wedge issue during a hot election season than about finding a fair way for kids to enjoy sports. The sports issues are affecting a very small number of people, but the opportunity to scare Americans that transgender athletes are coming for their daughters serves a very specific political purpose - scapegoating.
However this rush to legislation, right now, is way more about othering transgender people and driving a wedge issue during a hot election season than about finding a fair way for kids to enjoy sports. The sports issues are affecting a very small number of people, but the opportunity to scare Americans that transgender athletes are coming for their daughters serves a very specific political purpose - scapegoating.
Elba: So many women athletes are happy about this.
Most women athletes will never have to deal with this in their lifetime, but the hate and fear stirred up about transgender people will enable fascists, so I don't agree this was a proportionate response to the issue.
Elba: Most women athletes care about fairness in sports…
Transgender people are not threatening "fairness in sports" so much that we need to outlaw them, but it sure makes a pile of red meat. That is a WAY bigger problem for women if these crusaders ride to power on it.
Canadian Sports Mum:
Women have fought for their leagues, trained their whole lives for these sports as they are! Now you want to make their efforts null and void??
Maybe new sports leagues which don't discriminate by gender could be introduced alongside current systems. Maybe the new systems could be introduced gradually, so current athletes could continue just as they have been, but young people just entering sports could find different classes available to them. Perhaps new versions of sports will be created that rely less on size and more on strategy and skill.
The point is, the world has changed and we can't lock transgender people out of sports, so we have to find some way to be inclusive. I am positive we can find ways to make sports fun and competitive for everyone without making knee-jerk legislation that scapegoats trans people in sports like they are a national threat - while ignoring the real national threat.
The point is, the world has changed and we can't lock transgender people out of sports, so we have to find some way to be inclusive. I am positive we can find ways to make sports fun and competitive for everyone without making knee-jerk legislation that scapegoats trans people in sports like they are a national threat - while ignoring the real national threat.
Canadian Sports Mum:
That is offensive stating that these top tier athletes got where they were based on size! Watch a NHL game, and watch the skill and strategy these top players possess. How many women would we have to have per team in your version?
Sorry, didn't mean to offend, I don't think being top tier is only based on size - that's my point, actually. And I can't predict exactly how every sport would work in an ideal world. But I know that fair means fair to everyone. I don't believe that in this life we can only be fair to cis athletes OR trans people but not both. We can find a way.
And it's not legislation like this, which is just meant to throw red meat to Christian nationalists and actually endangers trans people.
And it's not legislation like this, which is just meant to throw red meat to Christian nationalists and actually endangers trans people.
Elba: Then start a new sports league... Invent a new sport… No one is stopping you… I think you might just be waiting for somebody else to do it…
Maybe when I retire, lol.
In the meantime, what we have is a very tiny number of trans people trying to find room to exist in sports and half a country in a full-blown moral panic over it. It's not warranted. Whatever benefit you think will be gained for women by this legislation will be more than offset by the harm to trans people from being singled out and barred from sports, and by the larger losses to women and society from enforcing traditional rigid gender orthodoxy.
In the meantime, what we have is a very tiny number of trans people trying to find room to exist in sports and half a country in a full-blown moral panic over it. It's not warranted. Whatever benefit you think will be gained for women by this legislation will be more than offset by the harm to trans people from being singled out and barred from sports, and by the larger losses to women and society from enforcing traditional rigid gender orthodoxy.