We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Women’s Rugby Safety In The Times, no less:
…evidence has emerged of letters from Dutch premier division women’s rugby teams and players expressing concerns about trans women players and specifically warning about injuries linked to one person…A rugby player knocked unconscious last year in a collision with the same athlete as King told The Sunday Times she had written to Rugby Nederland calling for clarity…
Safety is one thing. The article goes on to discuss consent and the risks to female athletes of speaking out on this topic.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
It is hard to believe that this is still a thing – but then the new Kettering Council (and the Police Commissioner who was elected a couple of years ago) may have me dealt with if I say anything more about this subject.
However, I am still not going to list my pronouns.
Re-introduce bloomers and tunics for women’s sports.
“Calling for clarity”.
What part is not clear?
Johnathan Pearce, “Calling for clarity” is an acceptable code for “calling for the rules to be changed”.
It is a tragedy that the assumption is so deeply embedded in the modern West that matters of this type have to be decided by rules set by some national body, or, worse yet, some national government. What that tends to lead to is violent swings between some rule and its opposite. In women’s sports it has gone from “you must always allow trans women to participate” (even when it results in things like the six foot eight Gabrielle Ludwig playing in a women’s basketball team) to banning transwomen from even minor level competition in sports where their greater average height and strength makes little difference. It seems beyond most people to even imagine a world where people just decided these things for themselves, which I am convinced would result in much more acceptance of transgender people – mostly because it wouldn’t be a question of accepting a whole category but of accepting an individual person.
I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but, as someone at my church pointed out, preaching to the choir is one of the duties of the minister.
@ Natalie Solent – but the ‘transwomen’ and their supporters simply cannot permit people to ‘decide these things for themselves’, because they know only too well that common sense will dictate that they will be excluded from women’s competition in any sport where size, strength and musculo-skeketal development give an advantage. And to exclude them, based on these common-sense parameters, totally upends their most basic (if delusional) belief, namely, that they somehow ARE women, in every mpossible sense. This cannot be allowed to appen, because once that domino falls, then all the other dominoes will fall as well, and their delusions stand exposed for what they are.
Two things are interesting to note. The first is that ‘transwomen’ do not seem to have the slightest interest in competing against biological women in sports where biological women have an acknowledged and consistent advantage over biological men. The sport that stands out in my mind, because it’s my personal interest, is skeet shooting, but there are others.
The second is that ‘transmen’ do not seem to have the slightest interest in competing against biological men in sports where biological men have an acknowledged and consustent advantage over biological women. There are no ‘transmen’ playing serious competitive physical sports with/against biologically-male players anywhere, for the simple reason that they’re not good-enough players to compete. This alone should seriously suggest that the whole ‘transwomen ARE women, transmen ARE men’ position is mere delusion.
I don’t know what it is about those ‘transwomen’ who used to be mediocre male athletes that compels them to continue to plays their games against women after they have ‘transitioned’. What do they get out of it? Who knows? But I have very little patience with those biologically-female athletes who championed the cause of ‘transwomen’ in their sports, or who stood by silently and allowed them in, and who are now crying the blues as their sisters get beaten or injured at the hands of
these deluded souls who seem to think that their delusions are somehow validated by their participation in women’s sports. The biological women control their sports by their participation, and they chose to allow this to happen. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
llater,
llamas
Oops. Finger trouble.
llater,
llamas
Question… why is there a separate division for women in chess?
llamas: “the ‘transwomen’ and their supporters simply cannot permit people to ‘decide these things for themselves’, because …”
One suspects that in most cases there is no “because”. That is, in itself, the end.
It’s funny, forcing women into spiritual and physical submission reminds me of something; can’t think what exactly.
Regarding trans-athletes. I keep thinking H L Menken would have something to say about feminism being the right of women to choose to play rugby against men. And they deserve…
llamas writes, “but the ‘transwomen’ and their supporters simply cannot permit people to ‘decide these things for themselves’”
True, if by “the ‘transwomen'” you mean the movement of activists who were so powerful until very recently. They tried to frame themselves as being the voice of transwomen, and used their power to punish anyone, transgender or not, who dissented. (It reminded me of the way that the United Nations General Assembly declared that the PLO was the “sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people” in 1974.) But I do not accept their framing, any more than I accept that the BLM activists are the voice of blacks.