[fmnxl]

This worldview where one side is evil/authoritarian and the other is good/free/liberal is the root of a lot of suffering in the world.

It's a flawed worldview that made Americans end up with dysfunctional politicians, because you reward ideological rhetoric more than real, pragmatic long-term planing.

[skinkestek]

You might be meaning something smart and good or something not so smart and good, but I only realized on my second reading.

What I mean is there is absolutely room somewhere between the current situation (examples from Norway) where:

- every road end up costing more than in comparable countries because no decision is final and everyone has a say

- school problems because teachers are not allowed to act, even in clear cases of abuse

- police have no tools against people under 14

but the solution is absolutely not to give politicians (or bureaucrats) unlimited power, bring back harsh physical punishment in school and turning a blind eye towards police violence.

In my understanding the problem seems to be that of polarization (examples sourced more globally):

- Why do I have to choose between 1. people who deny that trans people exist and 2. people who think that it isn't a problem when one inmate gets another inmate pregnant in a women's only prison? Or in sports, were womens sports, were people who were male athletes who never had a chance can transition and easily win as women? There certainly is a lot of room between these options.

- or why do I have to choose between 1. people who hate certain groups of people and 2. people who think it is OK when others arrive here and openly abuse our hospitality? Why did it take years to expel an internationally wanted terrorist?

List goes on.

[mschuster91]

> - Why do I have to choose between 1. people who deny that trans people exist and 2. people who think that it isn't a problem when one inmate gets another inmate pregnant in a women's only prison?

And how often has the latter actually happened? That is part of the polarization issue: absolute nothingburgers are blown way out of proportion or outright manufactured as a "strawman" strategy. Besides, the threat for women in prison aren't fellow trans inmates, it is guards whose power is completely unchecked in prison.

> Or in sports, were womens sports, were people who were male athletes who never had a chance can transition and easily win as women?

"Easily" is not the word I'd describe. An actual transition is very risky and taxing on the body, being on 'roids or whatever is more comfortable than that from what I hear.

In any case, segregation of men and women in sports is a relatively new thing in history, dating back to around 1920-ish when the first bans for women appeared under the guise of "protecting their health / modesty". Plain and simple, men were afraid that women were just as competitive as they were, most sports are skill sports and not brute-strength sports.

Additionally, what even makes a man and a woman? Simply nailing it down to penises and vaginas doesn't cut it, there's quite a ton of different hormonal disorders that give you an XX person presenting as a man or an XY person presenting as a woman. Often enough that's only caught when they grow up to be adults and discover they're infertile because everything else "just works". And then come all the other examples in the spectrum between the poles. Where does one want to draw the line?

The more sensible thing is to rank athletes on other metrics: body weight and body fat/muscle distribution, age, or skill level like chess (mostly) does.

> - or why do I have to choose between 1. people who hate certain groups of people and 2. people who think it is OK when others arrive here and openly abuse our hospitality?

It's not OK but JFC there is no 100% foolproof system that allows for no cheating like the anti-migrant crowd tends to suggest. No matter what there will always be a certain percentage of fraud in any system.

> Why did it take years to expel an internationally wanted terrorist?

Dunno about this specific case since it lacks context, but everyone has the right to due process, including non white people.

> There certainly is a lot of room between these options.

Yeah, not to even engage in discussions with people who just want to cause pain and drama and manufacture problems. A lot of that is manufactured by Russia or other enemies anyway - turns out "think of the children" can be modernized to "think of the women", it's a perfect wedge issue since it is very hard to argue against the emotional message with facts.

[1] https://daily.jstor.org/gender-incommensurability-in-sports/

[bobalob]

> And how often has the latter actually happened?

Often enough to demonstrate that incarcerating males in women's prisons on the basis of self-declared "gender identity" is harmful policy that needs to be removed and cancelled everywhere it's been implemented.

It's worth keeping in mind that the reason we have sex-segregated prisons in the first place is because mixed-sex prisons were so demonstrably harmful to female inmates, who were subjected to physical violence, sexual assault, rape, impregnation by male prisoners.

> In any case, segregation of men and women in sports is a relatively new thing in history, dating back to around 1920-ish when the first bans for women appeared under the guise of "protecting their health / modesty". Plain and simple, men were afraid that women were just as competitive as they were, most sports are skill sports and not brute-strength sports.

You are confusing two separate things here: access to competitive sports, and having a separate female category in competitive sports. The former was denied to women for the same reasons that women were denied access to many aspects of society that men could freely enjoy. Whereas the latter - eliminating male physical advantage from competition - is necessary for fairness and, in the case of contact sports, for safety.

> Where does one want to draw the line?

Evidence-based policy approaches typically draw the line at the male physical advantage of testosterone-driven development.

So for example a male athlete with CAIS (complete insensitivity to androgens) may be permitted to compete in the women's category because testosterone was entirely ineffective from development in utereo onwards.

Whereas a male athlete with 5-ARD (impaired conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone) won't be, as the phenotype of micropenis and less facial hair doesn't eliminate the male physical advantage in sport.

[mschuster91]

> It's worth keeping in mind that the reason we have sex-segregated prisons in the first place is because mixed-sex prisons were so demonstrably harmful to female inmates, who were subjected to physical violence, sexual assault, rape, impregnation by male prisoners.

The problem then are male prisoners, are they not? In fact, trans women are 13 times more likely to be assaulted in prison [1] than cis-male ones.

The solution is obvious - more guards in prison, segregate prisoners with a violence or sexual assault history, and maybe imprison less people in the first place because many prisons are plain and simple overcrowded.

> Whereas the latter - eliminating male physical advantage from competition - is necessary for fairness and, in the case of contact sports, for safety.

Regarding the safety aspect in contact sports - I think the better solution is to leave that decision to the women themselves, but generally I'd more argue to ban or seriously restrict contact sports because a looot of them have had very nasty links to brain injuries uncovered.

> Evidence-based policy approaches typically draw the line at the male physical advantage of testosterone-driven development.

The question remains: do we really want to require athletes to submit to full-blown genetic and hormonal assays? Do we really want to require minor athletes to submit to genital examinations for no medical reason? The obsession a lot of people have with genitalia is absurd.

[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/23/us/trans-women-incarcerat...

[bobalob]

The problem is male prisoners, yes. Which is why segregating prisoners by sex is an essential component of safeguarding. And then further separation of vulnerable prisoners within each prison. If, in a male prison, there are inmates who desire to be women and are deemed to be at risk based on this, they should be separated from the general prison population, like other vulnerable prisoners are. Not transferred to a female prison.

Regarding the female category of sports, a sample of cells taken via a cheek swab can be used for karyotype testing, which would be sufficient for screening female athletes. This is much less intrusive than the anti-doping tests - which involve having blood taken and being observed urinating - that for many athletes is a requirement to compete. In the unusual case that the athlete has something other than 46,XX sex chromosomes, further analysis could be done - with the athlete's permission - to understand the underlying condition and, from this, determine eligibility to compete in this category.

No-one is advocating for all female athletes, including children, to undergo genital inspections. It isn't necessary and it's not being asked for.

[skinkestek]

> And how often has the latter actually happened?

Exact amount of times it happen doesn't matter as much as the fact that one side tries to pretend it isn't a problem.

> there is no 100% foolproof system that allows for no cheating like the anti-migrant crowd tends to suggest. No matter what there will always be a certain percentage of fraud in any system.

That is not what I am suggesting.

And I think you are actually proving my point here.

[mschuster91]

> Exact amount of times it happen doesn't matter as much as the fact that one side tries to pretend it isn't a problem.

I'm not saying it is not a problem at all - I am simply saying that it is a nothingburger compared to the amount of "ordinary" rape and violence going on in prisons. Trying to blast on trans people while ignoring the much larger elephant in the room is dishonest and reminds me of a Bible quote: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" [1]

[1] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207%3A3...

[skinkestek]

I guess this is what is called the strawman argument?

Pretending I only care about one thing and then pointing out that it is stupid to only care about one thing?

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> one side tries to pretend it isn't a problem

It's referred to as a "strawman argument" because it's like arguing with a person made out of straw (evoking images of a person fighting against a straw man for training); such a person is not a difficult opponent and one is not required to put in effort for a fight against them. One might consider who you are arguing against when you say "one side tries to pretend it isn't a problem".

[timeon]

> The Authoritarian Regime Survival Guide

Article describes what is happening in my home country. I'm not American. What seems more American is that all these articles are being flagged here in true spirit of American free speech: where everything is technically allowed, but in practice, there is lot of censure and self-censure.

[EasyMark]

I call a duck a duck. I had my criticisms of republicans and democrats in the past, but they generally respected the institutions and took their turns. The current regime is trying to scrap all that and make the President a King (or dictator?), that's why people are fighting back and calling what walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, "why that's a duck, tater!"

[jredwards]

The worldview where "both sides" must have valid points is also extremely problematic. There's no need to give equal time to fascists. Sometimes one "side" is wrong and the only appropriate thing to do is say so.

[g-b-r]

Uhm yeah everyone is authoritarian so let's embrace dictators right? :facepalm:

[alabastervlog]

The shift from “the President should surrender control of his peanut farm to avoid conflicts of interest” to “eh, this (gestures broadly) is fine, what are you complaining about?” has been really damn fast.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

The shift from "The president can't partly forgive some student loans without congressional approval" to "The president's unelected tech support guy can fire entire government agencies without it" took a month or two. Roughly the same time, but clearly not held to the same standard. That seems a lot like the "permission to cross legal boundaries" that the original article mentions.

[fmnxl]

No, my point is Trump isn't bad because he's "authoritarian". He's bad because he's completely mismanaging the country, and putting oligarchs in charge of the government.

Even for "authoritarian regime", that'd be a horrible way to run a country.

It's not like the democrats aren't full of oligarchs themselves, like the likes of Pelosi.

[dragonwriter]

> No, my point is Trump isn't bad because he's "authoritarian".

But, you're wrong, he is wrong for that reason.

> He's bad because he's completely mismanaging the country

He's also wrong for that reason, which is also not completely unrelated to the former reason.

> and putting oligarchs in charge of the government.

And for thet reason, which is mostly a rephrasing and slightly more specific form of the first reason.

> Even for "authoritarian regime", that'd be a horrible way to run a country.

Actually, its pretty typical of authoritarian regimes to (1) have a narrow elite (oligarchs) making decisions with no effective accountability for their own benefit, and (2) for this to, from any other perspective but the immediate perceived self-interest of those decision-makers to be complete mismanagement. (It’s also pretty typical for it to be mismanagement from any reasonable view of the elites actual interests, and paranoia driven by fear of being displaced either by outsiders or other members of the elite leads to suboptimal elite decision-making, because authoritarianism does not support conflict resolution processes that enable trust, and makes losing intra-elite disputes very high stakes.)

[fmnxl]

That's what I'm trying to say. You judge based on the denomination first, like how protestants use to think all catholics are inherrently evil. That was the ideological war of the 16th century, and looking bad do you see how pointless it was?

Sure the Pope and the catholic clergy were corrupt, but they weren't bad because they're catholics or authoritarian. Corruption was the issue, not catholicism itself nor authoritarianism. To think so is to force a narrative.

[dragonwriter]

> You judge based on the denomination first

“Authoritarian” isn't, and isn’t analogous to, a religious denomination like “Catholic" or “Protestant”.

> Corruption was the issue, not catholicism itself nor authoritarianism

“Authoritarian” as a descriptor is more like “corrupt” than it is like “Catholic”. Not that the claim that being Catholic—or, for those positively inclined toward Catholicism, Protestant or Muslim or Secular Humanist or Satanist (Church of Satan) or Satanist (The Satanic Temple)—is not bad in and of itself is an uncontroversial pillar on which to rest an analogy,

[g-b-r]

Who downvoted this?