No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
"Also at risk"
The fact that you equate cherry picked single instance anecdotes as comparable to entrenched violence and discrimination against trans folk as being somehow comparable is the part that makes it transphobia.
It was, yeah. Despite her "murdering" the opposition, from the very article you linked, Australia finished 5th.
There are 7 players on a handball team. She scored 23 goals across 6 games, for an average of just under 4 goals per game (3.83 to be specific).
The total goals scored by Australia in those games was 160, which works out to an average of 3.81 per Australian player across those 6 games. Her "murdering" of her opponents consisted of having a 0.02% higher average than her team mates.
The fact that you parrot lines like "murdering" and look at videos designed to make it look open and shut, whilst not bothering to investigate the reality of the situation is what makes it transphobic.
An article posted on the economist, who has Helen Joyce, a vocally transphobic journalist as one of their senior staff. Linking to an article that has been mostly circulated on various transphobic websites, calling out WPATH for being biased and getting in the way of evidence based research? Whilst defending the Cass review, which has been widely called out by many international medical bodies for its own bias and inconsistent approach to evidence.
The fact that you're worried about WPATH as the real issue here is telling...
You are misunderstanding.
Most reasonable, casual folks, who aren't up on who Helen Joyce is or other trans poli sco lore, these are all fairly reasonable takes. The Economist is generally regarded as one of the most reputable papers around and for good reason.
I've also not presented my beliefs, just "here's some pretty mainstream concerns." I made that pretty clear in my opening statement (and pointed out that pretty much this exactly would happen.)
You've clearly encountered these arguments before (definitely didn't watch the video which is fucking sympathetic). I'm not making these arguments.
I'm saying that reasonable people, who read one of the most reputable papers in the world can in fact have reservations on some trans issues. I can disagree with them but it's not just bigotry.
Yes, they're designed to seem that way.
Which is why I earlier stated that my issue wasn't with listing them, but specifically, the way you presented them.
You used the word "murdering" to describe a transgender woman playing sports with other women, despite her playing at a level comparable to them.
You absolutely presented your beliefs.
Oh come off it. Watch the video, she's a damn head taller than almost everyone she's playing against and God knows how many ppunds heavier.
If we don't want to be the crazy side we have to come to terms with arguments about issues, even important ones, not being only good or evil.
I went through the numbers to highlight her performance is on par with the rest of her team, and you still think that I'm being unreasonable
As I said, you presented your position quite clearly, which is why I called you out
I don't think you're unreasonable, you have more context than myself and any other casual North American sports fan who (shockingly!) hasn't learned the points per game rates of Aussie rules footie. BUT, for most who have a casual understanding of sports, seeing someone a foot taller than their competition makes us go "huh, that seems wild."
As we do when reading one of the most reputable papers in the world raising concerns about transgender health science methodology.
(For what it's worth, in my personal experience of playing mid level co-ed rec league sports in a large liberal city for awhile, I've played against a few teams, mostly their trans player was the best woman on their team and by not a small margin. We don't give a shit because, like I said, mid level co-ed rec league sports.)
The fact you feel compelled to "call out" someone trying to sincerely answer a reasonable question kinda speaks volumes.
Yeah, that's why you linked to transphobic hit pieces and described trans women in sports with hugely emotionally loaded terms
Because you're reasonable
As I said from the beginning, your comment was fine unti you let some of your more transphobic opinions out in the final paragraph. That paragraph was not "reasonable"
If you're at the point where you're calling articles in ond of the most reputable papers on Earth "transphobic hit pieces", you need go re-evaluate.
Edit: there's a reason trump always screams about the crooked media for their crime of factual reporting.