I don’t think she cares what the actual policy is. The point is, she gets to make noise about the right’s well-trodden favorite topic. What’s actually going on is of no concern.
100% agree, the hate is the point not the policy. It is a virtue signal to her deplorable people to say see I hate them just right now give me money.
This rhetoric has and will continue to get people hurt and killed.
That’s pretty much been her whole MO since it became apparent she was in real danger of losing her seat. Spout some antisemitic conspiracy theory buzzwords, clutch her pearls over trans people existing, and hope she can leverage the resulting public sentiment into an easier win elsewhere or a job as some political bobble head on a media network.
I mean, it’s working for her so far. What else is she qualified to make six figures at, let alone while not having to behave professionally or do any work?
If she believed in hell, I think she’d have some reservations, but as it is I think she’s probably pleased as punch about the result.
Of all the gigantic fish that urgently need to be fried, why the actual fuck do we put so much energy into legislating who can or can’t play a fucking game??
It’s boxing. Boxing.
Our planet is on fire. The Nazis are back. Most of us are wage slaves. Women are going to prison over their physiology. Multiple nations are currently at risk of being wiped off the map… and the folks with the power to contribute a shred of progress toward fixing any of those are wasting their time worrying about whether or not some fucker can participate in a game based on the dangly bits in their pants.
…not that Boebert would actually make the right decision on any of the actually important issues. Maybe I shouldn’t complain about that dipshit fixating on sports. But still, fuck!
Our planet is on fire. The Nazis are back. Most of us are wage slaves. Women are going to prison over their physiology. Multiple nations are currently at risk of being wiped off the map…
Conservatives care about all of those actually relevant things, but they’re trying to make them even worse.
Of course that wouldn’t be very popular, so instead they just scream about what’s in people’s pants and their voters eat it up
That’s the point. All this culture war bullshit is there to distract from climate change, nazis and all the wage slavery (and regular slavery) going on in the world today.
deleted by creator
Raging over things she doesn’t understand is literally all she is able to do.
This is an honest question and not intended to be inflammatory.
If a man goes through puberty, then undergoes gender reassignment surgery and is able to prove that their hormone levels are within the allowed ranges for four years, will their physique be comparable to that of a person who was assigned female at birth? Do they still have physical advantages gained through male puberty?
they’re gonna have physical strength similar to someone with their physique. hrt noticeably reduces muscle mass and many cis women (especially pro athletes) have higher testosterone levels than hrt levels aim for
The medical science on it says that two years of hormone therapy are enough to lose any sort of competitive advantage in trans athletes.
Four years is overkill, and is part of why this policy is considered one of the strictest in professional sports.
The argument that being trans gives you a competitive advantage always uses Lea Thomas as an example and always omits the fact that ciswomen swam faster than her.
The whole thing is bullshit.
Not a doctor or a trans woman, but from what I understand, you lose the physical advantages of self-produced testosterone over time.
Additionally, it’s not as simple as “hormone levels.” Some AFAB women have higher than normal levels of testosterone, and some AMAB men have higher than normal levels of estrogen (and/or just lower testosterone levels). There will always be athletes who have biological advantages, whether that’s a bigger heart, better lungs, longer/shorter legs, better eyes, stronger bones, etc.
We draw these boxes around perceived genders as if that’s a guarantee of fairness, but it’s not some panacea that effectively separates the able from the unable, just like gender is more than your genes.
Nobody gives an actual shit because its just fucking sportball. There are real problems in the real world that real adults need to deal with. Meanwhile the children pontificate about how how people should dress and how that may affect their precious sportball.
Who cares though? It’s time to stop segregating sports by gender. Sports are skill based, right? So let’s break them down that way. Break out divisions by skill, not by gender or physical location. If a woman can work her way to top-tier heavyweight boxing, let her do it.
E: Damn, y’all are really afraid of getting beat by a girl!
Barbell Medicine has an excellent article about gender in sports: https://www.barbellmedicine.com/blog/shades-of-gray-sex-gender-and-fairness-in-sport/
For now, developing clear and equitable division eligibility policies and subsequently, allowing transgender athletes to compete in the appropriate division is prudent.
So like creating divisions based on skill instead of gender so all people can compete with any other athletes of a similar ability?
Removed by mod
Whatba dumb shit take.
Well, nobody has ever accused her of being smart…so this makes a lot of sense.
Yeah, man, If there was some issue that Boebert clearly understood, that would be the huge news story.
Actually, that sounds like a good story for The Onion. “Lauren Boebert criticizes bill for legitimate reasons that she completely understands.”
She doesn’t need to understand it. As long as she makes enough noise- she’ll get the coward’s vote she needs.
She’s likely totally OK with Buck Angel competing, right? Oh, but Buck wouldn’t be allowed since he hasn’t completed re-assignment surgery.
There are just so many things Lauren doesn’t understand.
A high school dropout that needed several tries to obtain their GED
She finally got it only a couple of years before she went to congress.
And people elected this woman.
Why does she look like she’s giving a terribly toothy blowjob in every pic I see of her?
Gotta stop looking at theater security footage…
Lauren Borbert rages……
GOOD.
deleted by creator
I mean the sport already has a mechanism to determine ability.
I am not a specialist in this question, whether trans-women has inherit advantages, so I asked ChatGPT4. This is what I got:
The question of whether a transgender woman (male-to-female, transitioning after puberty) who has been on hormone therapy for four years has physical advantages is complex and can be addressed from multiple perspectives: biological, physiological, and in the context of sports performance.
Biological and Physiological Perspective:
- Skeletal Structure: Post-puberty, individuals assigned male at birth typically have larger bone structure, greater bone density, and different muscle-to-fat ratios compared to those assigned female at birth. Hormone therapy, even after several years, does not significantly alter bone structure. The potential advantage here could be in terms of leverage, strength, or mechanical efficiency. However, quantifying this advantage is challenging and varies significantly among individuals.
- Muscle Mass and Strength: Testosterone is a key factor in muscle development. Hormone therapy reduces testosterone levels, leading to a decrease in muscle mass and strength. Studies suggest a significant reduction in muscle mass and strength within the first year of hormone therapy, with continued but slower reductions over subsequent years. The extent of reduction can vary, but it’s reasonable to estimate that after four years of hormone therapy, a trans woman might retain some muscular advantages associated with male puberty, although significantly reduced.
- Cardiovascular and Respiratory System: Male puberty enhances the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood and lung capacity. Hormone therapy may not completely reverse these changes. This could impart some advantage in endurance-based activities.
… (the rest is not relevant)
While I clearly would not support the language Boebert using, it looks to me that trans women do have advantages, which in sports, where fairness is one of the most important principles, may be considered unfair to the rest of women competitors. While I am strong supporter of transgender rights in general, I think that fairness in sports is something we need to consider too, and do not immediately call people transphobic if they are against participation of trans-women in women sports.
Imagine using predictive text as a source.
First of all, precisely because it is LLM, it is good to point out that it is a source.
Second, the LLM and chat GPT4 in particular can often summarize information quite well. Yes, there are cases when it hallucinate, but at this point it is very rare for GPT4. So, when I do not have hours and hours to spend on some topic like this, asking ChatGPT4 is a valid strategy to get reasonable probability correct answer, with much higher probability than random claims here in fediverse.
So, I will defend the method as reasonable, and will ask you, do you claim that what is stated is false?
You are posting a position you don’t even necessarily understand. You are providing what might be facts or maybe not. Might be subject to bias in training data. What do you think this adds to the discussion? You want someone to disagree with stuff you don’t even know?
I don’t have time for that bullshit so I asked ChatGPT to write a rebuttal. I’m not even going to post the whole thing, just the following excerpt:
“It’s crucial to understand that transgender women are individuals whose gender identity is female, regardless of their assigned sex at birth.”
This right here is why posting AI answers is garbage. It’s not just flat out wrong, but insists that this nonsensical garbage is crucial to your understanding.
And for what it’s worth I’m a big fan of AI. I use it all the time. I’ve written applications that leverage it. I’ve had it help me with coding issues. But I never, ever trust it.
I am not saying ChatGPT4 is fool proof, but neither is any source. And if I actually will try to understand the original sociological research paper, it may increase my chances of misunderstanding the data.
Let me put this this way - start asking ChatGPT4 (not 3.5) biological and medical questions and keep tally of correct answers. You would see how accurate it is. I would say with 95% probability it would answer such questions correctly. And this is how much credence I put in its answer.
So, when you say that I was providing the fact that may be right maybe not, yes, that’s correct. But it is not 50/50, far from it.
And if you do not want to provide rebuttal, it is your right, of course. But then, what’s the point of your post? We just need to believe your statement when you itself refuse to provide zero evidence?? You understand how it looks, right?
Fool proof*…
Thanks, corrected.
You aren’t correcting anything. You are using chatgpt as a source and using adjectives you don’t even understand. You failed the test.
Its actually foolproof… Well in your case, maybe not so much.
In the short term, yes. What this leaves out is that two years of HRT is enough to negate those physical benefits. Hormones are powerful shit.
Also, no it fucking isn’t a reasonable method. It has neither the credentials to know what it’s talking about, nor any obligation to verify that what it says is true. Imagine reading 10,000 shitty sci-fi novels and 1 textbook and thinking you can piece together advanced physics. It literally cannot tell the difference between fact and fiction, nor does it care. It’s a machine. Garbage in, garbage out.
I suggest you to ask ChatGPT4 questions in medicine and biology, and keep tally. If you truly think ChatGPT4 is garbage, you will be surprised. I spent lots of hours interacting with it, and I understand its limitations and strengths. And these kind of questions it usually answers quite well.
I spent lots of hours interacting with it, and I understand its limitations and strengths.
Considering you think it’s a substitute for a scholarly source, I doubt that. Once again, this is a machine designed to repeat things it heard. It’s a mechanical parrot. ChatGPT4 did not earn a degree. It did not study. It does not fact check. It does not give a solitary fuck about the scientific method. If you cannot see why this would be a problem for its credibility, then I can’t help you.
The rest of it
You just tried to use a glorified markov chain in an argument. Suffice to say I do not believe that you are the best judge of factual accuracy in regards to said tally.
I suggest you yourself test it, do not rely on me. It is experimentally can be shown as quite good predictor for these kind of questions. Don’t want to test yourself and don’t believe me? There a lot of tests were done of these models showing that they are already at the level to pass many exams. Your claim that it does not have any credibility is totally unfounded.
Also, I never claimed that it is a substitute for scholarly source, I would never use it in a scientific paper. But I would not use Wikipedia either. But we are on internet on discussion board, the standards here are different. At least I supplied a source, majority of posts here don’t do that, including your statements, by the way, implying that ChatGPT4 has no credibility.
You’re not a specialist, so you asked a computer algorithm to spit words at you. Fucking galaxy brain move.
Oh, FFS. Here we go. “I did my research” == “I plunked letters into a box until the computer used words I don’t know. Science, bitch!”
We’re so fucked.
If your claim that what is posted is incorrect, then state so, and provide reasons. Otherwise, I do not understand why using tools such as ChatGPT4 you consider as something bad? Do you use search engines? They are tools too. Do you use wiki? That is a tool too. Or do you spit sarcasm on anyone who does not produce original research?
If your claim that what is posted is incorrect, then state so, and provide reasons.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens.
You do not consider ChatGPT4 as any sort of evidence? Go ahead and ask it questions in medicine or biology and keep tally how many answers are right and are wrong.
I do admit that there is low probability that it is wrong, but simply dismissing it as no evidence at all is intentional dishonesty.
ChatGPT4 is a fucking toy that regurgitates random shit it finds on the Internet. The only evidence it provides is the lack of understanding its user has.
I do admit that there is low probability that it is wrong
By your own admission it can get things wrong, yet you’re arguing it should be trusted at face value.
but simply dismissing it as no evidence at all is intentional dishonesty.
The whole point of citing a source is so that you can confirm the veracity of the how the source came to its conclusion.You have no idea why the LLM gave you the answer it did. You don’t know how credible its input data was. Hopefully those involved in these discussions on both sides are searching for truth. The critical examination of the data and the origin of that data is the bedrock of that. Simply pasting raw LLM output doesn’t allow any of that to occur.
LLM/AI ML can have a place in these discussions as a tool you use for yourself, and then you can search for supporting sources to back up the LLM’s claim. However, that’s work you have to do. Its not my job when you’re the one trying to convince me of your LLM’s conclusion.
Dishonesty is passing off raw LLM output as researched fact. Its also lazy.
I am arguing that it should be given relatively high credence, not “trusted at face value”. Same as with Wikipedia, by the way. As an indication that likely things are true. On Internet forums it is much higher credence than most of the people supply. I am not writing scientific paper here, I am discussing topic with you. Would you rather me stating acts without any sources at all?
For this discussion if you have different opinion, with better argumentation and sources please do so, and I will change my view. This is what discussion on discussion board suppose to be.
And you can absolutely confirm the veracity (or not) of ChatGPT4 itself. You can ask the question yourself. You can collect statistics how likely it gives correct answers to similar questions, or find already published data about this topic. Based on that you can calculate probability that the statement is true. And it is much higher than 50%.
In short, don’t attack the messenger, attack the message.
I am arguing that it should be given relatively high credence, not “trusted at face value”. Same as with Wikipedia, by the way.
I know you are, and I disagree. Your example of Wikipedia is a great differentiator.
The reason that Wikipedia is generally a good source is that it too cites its sources. If a Wikipedia entry makes a claim, I can see where that data came from or if its not cited, I know the claim is suspect and not to trust it. ChatGPT has none of that.
I am discussing topic with you. Would you rather me stating acts without any sources at all?
From my perspective not citing any source is exactly what you’re doing. ChatGPT isn’t a trusted or challenge-able source
And you can absolutely confirm the veracity (or not) of ChatGPT4 itself. You can ask the question yourself. You can collect statistics how likely it gives correct answers to similar questions, or find already published data about this topic.
If you want ChatGPT involved, that’s your job. Why is it you can’t use ChatGPT to find the real source which backs its claim?
Based on that you can calculate probability that the statement is true. And it is much higher than 50%.
"much higher that 50% is way way too low a bar to be considered a factual source.
In short, don’t attack the messenger, attack the message.
I can’t attack the message, its not backed by any sources to question it. My only option is to trust it absolutely, which is absurd.
You do not consider ChatGPT4 as any sort of evidence?
When it comes to science? No. ChatGPT does not write peer-reviewed journal articles.
This pre-supposes that the trans person in question has actually gone through a male puberty which is one things trans advocates are trying to make medically optional and anti trans protesters are trying to take off the table. A lot of trans girls don’t want to be forced to go through the puberty that will cause them to be looked down on BECAUSE it will be used as a basis for villification and exclusion from multiple facets of society for the rest of their lives…
But the majority at large would rather have these two conversations separately because transphobes don’t want to have young trans women going through a female puberty with the consent and blessings of their parents and a panel of specialists. Heaven forbid! No, they want to make sure that they have justification to make trans girls these monstrously powerful beings who are always supposed to be some kind of threat because they should be forced, like men, to be transformed into animalistic beasts with raw unbridled physical prowess and unfettered lusts that we cannot allow into the careful guarded cloisters alongside the delicate tissue paper likes of womankind.
There is never allowed to be a win condition because there’s never even a tiny concession on any front in favor of trans people. If trans advocacy got what they wanted in the realm of trans healthcare for young trans people we could be having a very different discussion about both endocrinology and trans women in sport. Instead we must always assume in these examples that there’s zero healthcare options that delays puberty and averts the puberty of one’s birth sex and THEN face regular preaching about how policing the fairness of essentially silly games is cause to label us all completely unreasonable while painting trans women as cheats and monsters. It is an embittering Catch 22.
I have no opinion whether trans women should be allowed or not to go through transition before. I would trust medical doctors about this (and not trans community and neither transphobic “community”, which are non-specialists).
But the fact is that the boxing organization does not even allow for trans people to participate in sport in category other than birth sex before age 18, so it assumes that the rules are applicable for those who transition after puberty, and I do see valid concern here from fairness to sic-women point of view. I personally do not have strong opinion here on how to balance fairness for cis-women with freeness to trans-women, but obviously it is not a clear cut question and any solution here would be a compromise with positive and negative sides.
But what amazes me is how quickly some people here get to calling me transphobe just for pointing this. Such extreme binary thinking does not serve community at all.
Again you are taking these arguements as two separate categories. Let’s take a theoretical and start figuring out instead what you think is unacceptable where the line is of what is acceptable. Should a professional sport accept anyone unambiguously if they, with full medical assistance, took a regime of puberty blockers until the age of 16 and uninterrupted courses of HRT as soon as they are eligible (this requires the consent of a guardian) and thus never went through a male puberty?
Have you read that? The last time I saw that many hedges I was through the looking glass.
