If China tried to invade a country, that would give the US an excuse to come to that country’s defense, and China does not have the resources to deal with that. Since they can’t use hard power, they’re using soft power.
Expecting altruism in geopolitics is hopelessly naïve.
They don’t have capacity to deal with the US intervening. If not for that, they would 100% be steamrolling everything they could. They’ve done it many times before and they’ll do it again, just like everybody else in history.
Why should chess and darts be treated differently? There’s evidence that males have an advantage in darts:
https://www.mdx.ac.uk/news/2023/2/linda-duffy-darts-psychology/
Given how many sports that males have an advantage in, it certainly seems reasonable to have sex-based competitions as the default.
If it makes it easier, focus on another example then. The actual part that needs answering is this:
Do you agree that women have the right to not compete against biological males, when they’re saying very strongly that they do not want to?
Julie Peterson is one concrete example so that’s it’s not just theoretical handwaving. The general question is what’s important though.
I’m confused why you apparently doubt that puberty affects teenagers in high school, but that’s not really relevant in the end.
I mention AB Hernandez because it’s in the news, and the women involved are emphatically expressing that they don’t want to play against biological males. Pick another situation if you want, like Julie Peterson refusing to take the podium in protest after taking second place to someone that has the advantage of male puberty.
The general point is what I’m asking about. Do you agree that women have the right to not compete against biological males, when they’re saying very strongly that they do not want to?
It seems you’d really like me to be somebody else, that you can rail against for other opinions. It feels good when you can properly hate someone with moral conviction.
But it’s not that easy. HRT is great for people that need it, but it can’t erase the effects of male puberty. In the case of AB Hernandez, do you think the women have a right to not play against biological males?
Agree 100% sex =/= gender and blue/pink are culture, etc. What about where it matters, like sports? If women want sex-specific leagues, should we support them? Do you support the young women that don’t want to play against biologically male players such as AB Hernandez?
Some people want to be inclusive in their language and define woman by gender, and that’s great! Some people like the historical sex-based definition, and that’s fine too. Biological sex is real, and wanting to acknowledge that doesn’t make someone right-wing.
I focused on those athletes because they’re the motivating factors behind this decision. DSD males and trans women both have the innate advantage of male puberty, which is why the IOC is making this move. To focus specifically on trans women, here’s one example out of many on why we have separate competitions for men and women (not a sympathetic article, but factual):
In 2016, a Portuguese-American athlete named Hannah Caldas participated in the female category of the “Monstar Games,” a large fitness competition held in Rio de Janeiro. The Games included a weightlifting challenge run by Brazil’s Fortify Equipamentos sporting-goods retail chain, whereby contestants were scored on how many times they could lift heavy balls over their heads in the space of a minute.
An event official asked Caldas to choose between one of two balls—weighing thirty and seventy pounds, respectively.
“How about the 120?” Caldas replied, pointing to a third, much larger ball.
According to Caldas’s subsequent recollection, the official explained that this wasn’t a realistic option for contestants registered in the female category, since “no girls had been able to pick it up.”
“Challenge accepted!” Caldas later wrote on Instagram. While a fellow athlete named Joyce Rodrigues filmed, Caldas proceeded to heave the 120-pound weight into the air no fewer than sixteen times.
The idea that biological males don’t have an athletic advantage over females is plainly, obviously wrong
USMS records indicate that it was 23 January 2009 when a new swimming sensation identified as “Hannah Caldas” suddenly appeared on the women’s USMS racing scene. Despite being a complete unknown, Caldas immediately began dominating the competition in the 30–34-year-old age group—including winning five out of six events at Caldas’s inaugural tournament in Charlotte, NC. The performances were so astounding that Caldas reportedly almost hit a benchmark time for Portugal’s women’s Olympic swimming team (missing the cut by a mere 0.3 seconds).
This would be a shockingly impressive athletic run for anyone—let alone a (nominal) rookie such as Caldas, who was able to blast past former NCAA swimming stars with ease despite having no collegiate training as a female athlete; and who was, by this point in life, a full decade past the prime age for Olympic-calibre swimmers.
That’s why the argument that trans women are only 0.X% of competitors doesn’t hold any water. They can still dominate a sport and deny medals to any cis women competing. This is now becoming an issue at the Olympic level which is why the IOC is addressing it, but people have tracked many more cases at sites like https://hecheated.org/. Whether or not you like the people behind that or similar sites, it’s more about the facts.
Imane Khelif, Lin Yu Ting, and Caster Semenya are all biologically male (not trans, DSD males incorrectly assigned female at birth). No cis women won a medal in the 2016 Rio 800m, all of the medal winners were DSD male. That would likely continue to be the case except they are no longer eligible for the women’s category.
Michael Phelps’ records have already been surpassed. DSD males competing in women’s sports set records that cis woman will never surpass. It is not surprising that the vast majority of people find this unfair. The IOC is doing the right thing.
You appear to be using the term “capitalism” in a confusing way. From etymonline:
The meaning “political/economic system which encourages capitalists” is recorded from 1872 and originally was used disparagingly by socialists.
Words can change meaning and all that, but when people complain about capitalism, they don’t mean what you’re talking about. You seem to mean something like “well-regulated free market”, and other people mean “broken, exploitative system that worships greed”
Genuine question, what happens in an anarchist utopia when your neighbors decide that they like your land? If you fight back en masse, doesn’t that involve creating a military with a hierarchy that’s ripe for seizing power? How can you maintain the social organization for building fighter jets or aircraft carriers or spycraft without those being taken over and used against the people? If you just don’t, what happens when your neighbors are a global superpower that has all that?
It seems even more impractical and idealistic than Communism, which at least has an answer to that.
Far fewer people hate AI in the general population as a percentage than on Lemmy. Your average person either doesn’t care or has found it useful in some way.
The “people will never vote for a woman” crowd is sort of right. A woman will never be elected with the current DNC, but only because they view a woman candidate as an excuse to be shittier. They think their base will hold their nose and vote for a worse candidate just because of what’s in her pants.
AOC might get elected because she’s interesting on her own merits and has enough name recognition to not be buried by the DNC. They’ll do their best to prevent it though.
When military action is more beneficial and profitable to China, they will not hesitate to use it.