:sunglasses: 100 %
By Philip Marlow
#74343
Elon Musk has a trans daughter who actually disowned him a while back (to the point of renouncing the Musk name; she goes by Vivian Wilson these days) and had largely kept quiet since; understandable since Musk, besides being no prize himself, has some deeply unpleasant fanboys out there in the world.

Now, however, and since he can’t seem to shut up about her, she has evidently decided she’s had quite enough of his nonsense. The whole thing amounts to an absolutely beautiful demolition job.

Andy McDandy, Samanfur liked this
User avatar
By Crabcakes
#74855
Learn to interpret bias, please. That tweet:

1. Ignored Musk entirely and reframes it solely as something aimed at Rowling, when it is not - a blatant play to try and imply a specific misogynistic emphasis that just doesn’t exist
2. Ignores the fact the original tweet is making a boxing gag at the expense of 2 arseholes with tremendous international audiences because they repeatedly cyberbullied a young female boxer - it’s not some random call for violence to be meted out coming from no context
3. Reframes ‘boxing’ as ‘ritualistic beating’ from someone ‘much stronger’, a call back to Rowling and Musk’s original slanderous tweets that Velani can’t possibly be a woman because she’s too strong and masculine. And for bad measure throws in some cobblers about the author ‘fantasising’ about women being beaten. Which is a hell of a fucking interpretation of a 1-line gag which there aren’t even any lines to to read between.

As you say, some people can’t help themselves. But it’s not the person the reply guy thinks it is.
Abernathy, mattomac liked this
User avatar
By Crabcakes
#74929
The Weeping Angel wrote: Mon Aug 19, 2024 8:33 pm Nah it's fantasizing about seeing Khalif giving Rowling a good beating. Also considering the fact that Khalifi is a gold medal winning boxer I'd say they're in fact much stronger.
No it isn’t you absolute balloon. It’s a joke that someone oh so worthy has deliberately misinterpreted. It’s as tiresome as the always-on corbynistas deliberately (mis)reading anything in a desperate effort to interpret it in a way that suits them, it’s riddled with clues as to ulterior motive, and you fell for it because it reinforced your beliefs that people who hold a different opinion to you are “the baddies” and made you feel comfortable rather than having to question whether people you’ve previously supported are, in fact, wrong-uns.

Look objectively at it. This is the *entire* sentence:

“They should also have to fight Khelif in the ring.”

Point out where the author is “fantasising” about Rowling - and only Rowling, because that’s core to this deliberate misinterpretation-fest as well - getting a beating, using language like ‘I DREAM of seeing her get a pasting’ or ‘I’d LOVE to see her take a few punches’, or even ‘I WISH she had to fight Khelif’. You can’t because it isn’t there - “they should” is barely even enthusiasm, let alone fantasy. And there’s that troublesome (for you) “they” - showing it’s a jibe aimed at *both* people, not something that’s targeted misogyny. The rest of the language the guy complaining used like ‘ritual beating’ is equally deliberately provocative and equally pulled out of his arse to emotion up a non-thing.

Fact of the matter is this: 2 multimillionaires cyberbullied a young female athlete based on her not looking ladylike enough to make them comfortable. One of those 2 - who has a history of claiming she is pro women’s rights - tweeted 10+ times about this in 24 hours, and weighed in about another female athlete who apparently didn’t pass her personal and entirely subjective ‘woman test’ too, yet didn’t mention that the Dutch team had a convicted child rapist on their squad *once*. The only thing that interested her was she thought she had another opportunity to bash a trans person. And Rowling is now shitting a brick and gone radio silent because Velani has lawyered up. And then someone made a really obvious joke.

If you want to continue to support Rowling, that’s on you. But your desire to do that in no way precludes me pointing out when you’ve tried to pass off the very weakest of sauce as some sort of stone cold gotcha.

EDIT: made an overly rude part a bit milder, because I’m less annoyed than I was earlier and it’s been bugging me. Point remains the same though.
Last edited by Crabcakes on Tue Aug 20, 2024 4:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Andy McDandy, Samanfur, Yug and 2 others liked this
User avatar
By The Weeping Angel
#74959
Crabcakes wrote: Tue Aug 20, 2024 9:19 am
The Weeping Angel wrote: Mon Aug 19, 2024 8:33 pm Nah it's fantasizing about seeing Khalif giving Rowling a good beating. Also considering the fact that Khalifi is a gold medal winning boxer I'd say they're in fact much stronger.
No it isn’t you absolute balloon. It’s a joke that someone oh so worthy has deliberately misinterpreted. It’s as tiresome as the always-on corbynistas deliberately (mis)reading anything in a desperate effort to interpret it in a way that suits them, it’s riddled with clues as to ulterior motive, and you fell for it because it reinforced your beliefs that people who hold a different opinion to you are “the baddies” and made you feel comfortable rather than having to question whether people you’ve previously supported are, in fact, wrong-uns.

Look objectively at it. This is the *entire* sentence:

“They should also have to fight Khelif in the ring.”

Point out where the author is “fantasising” about Rowling - and only Rowling, because that’s core to this deliberate misinterpretation-fest as well - getting a beating, using language like ‘I DREAM of seeing her get a pasting’ or ‘I’d LOVE to see her take a few punches’, or even ‘I WISH she had to fight Khelif’. You can’t because it isn’t there - “they should” is barely even enthusiasm, let alone fantasy. And there’s that troublesome (for you) “they” - showing it’s a jibe aimed at *both* people, not something that’s targeted misogyny. The rest of the language the guy complaining used like ‘ritual beating’ is equally deliberately provocative and equally pulled out of his arse to emotion up a non-thing.

Fact of the matter is this: 2 multimillionaires cyberbullied a young female athlete based on her not looking ladylike enough to make them comfortable. One of those 2 - who has a history of claiming she is pro women’s rights - tweeted 10+ times about this in 24 hours, and weighed in about another female athlete who apparently didn’t pass her personal and entirely subjective ‘woman test’ too, yet didn’t mention that the Dutch team had a convicted child rapist on their squad *once*. The only thing that interested her was she thought she had another opportunity to bash a trans person. And Rowling is now shitting a brick and gone radio silent because Velani has lawyered up. And then someone made a really obvious joke.

If you want to continue to support Rowling, that’s on you. But your desire to do that in no way precludes me pointing out when you’ve tried to pass off the very weakest of sauce as some sort of stone cold gotcha.

EDIT: made an overly rude part a bit milder, because I’m less annoyed than I was earlier and it’s been bugging me. Point remains the same though.
1. Ah right so because it was aimed at both people that it alright see he only wanted to see Khalifi beat Rowling and Elon Musk silly me. That makes it so much better.

2. I don't think Rowling has handled this well.

3. I see so because Rowling didn't tweet about steven van de velde that means she doesn't really care about women's rights. Since you were so keen to cite the IOC as the final say on the matter over Khalifi I'd like to remind you that the IOC were fine with Van de Velde competing at the Olympics.

4. Why don't you just come and out say it was just banter.
User avatar
By Crabcakes
#74961
The Weeping Angel wrote: Tue Aug 20, 2024 5:48 pm
1. Ah right so because it was aimed at both people that it alright see he only wanted to see Khalifi beat Rowling and Elon Musk silly me. That makes it so much better.

2. I don't think Rowling has handled this well.

3. I see so because Rowling didn't tweet about steven van de velde that means she doesn't really care about women's rights. Since you were so keen to cite the IOC as the final say on the matter over Khalifi I'd like to remind you that the IOC were fine with Van de Velde competing at the Olympics.

4. Why don't you just come and out say it was just banter.
First, her name is Imane Khelif. Get it right.

1. Speaks to intent. Reply guy made out it was entirely aimed at Rowling, with the poster fantasising about her getting a beating. It wasn’t - it was an aside about 2 twats, not a sinister targeting of a woman. So silly original poster, and silly you for being happy to swallow it without going “hang on…” and applying any critical thought.

2. You don’t think she’s handled it well? Christ alive, she’s been accusing a young woman of being a man, a cheat, and a gleeful, sinister woman beater, to a global audience of millions - including a considerable number of violent bigots who might decide to act on what she stupidly says. And that’s merely just not well?

3. It makes her a hypocrite, and speaks to her prejudices, because unless she simply forgot she quite clearly only cares about *some* women’s rights - because I know a hell of lot of people who actually do care about women’s rights certainly thought it was worth mentioning.

And for the record I think the IOC were fucking awful letting Van de Velde in. Similarly, I think it’s pretty fucking awful to try and make some sort of parity between the inexplicable inclusion of a convicted child rapist and the zero-issue inclusion of a female boxer who’s only ‘transgression’ was the alleged failing of some sort of undisclosed test issued mid-contest by a corrupt and entirely separate boxing organisation. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that this was just some clumsy whataboutery and you weren’t attempting to suggest that if I think the IOC are at fault and I’m in favour of banning a convicted rapist, I should also therefore find all their decisions unacceptable and be in favour of banning an athlete who has broken no rules and committed no crime because some bigots decided to rig a competition so she couldn’t win it, giving cover for other bigots to claim she’s a man. Because that would be abhorrent.

4. Oh get over yourself. You fucked up and promoted a stupid tweet that made out 2 + 2 was 5000 and got pulled up on it. Own it, learn to be more objective, and move on.
User avatar
By The Weeping Angel
#74974
Incidentally this piece by Helen Lewis I thinks sums this whole situation up well and whose to blame.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... if/679410/
In the past few days, Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting, the two boxers at the center of a storm over their eligibility to compete in the women’s category at the Olympics, have been subjected to brutal public scrutiny and appalling abuse. But the International Olympic Committee should never have allowed the ugly spectacle to happen. Both athletes are now guaranteed to win medals—Algeria’s Khelif as a welterweight, Taiwan’s Lin as a featherweight. But both still face questions, a year after the International Boxing Association (IBA) publicly raised the issue, over whether they have XY chromosomes and a disorder of sexual development—also known as an intersex condition—which give them an unfair advantage over other women. Some boxers who have lost to Lin or Khelif at the Paris Games have protested by making double-X gestures, a reference to female chromosomes, with their fingers.

The Olympic bosses have screwed this one up with their ill-preparedness, buck-passing, and passion for incomprehensible language. (The “Portrayal Guidelines” issued ahead of the Paris Games instruct journalists that the phrase biologically male is “problematic,” but without that phrase, explaining the debate becomes impossible.) Social-media commentators have confused and inflamed the situation with inaccurate posts. Right-wing politicians and influencers have piled on, suggesting that these athletes are simply men punching women. Meanwhile, traditional media have often floundered, unable to describe accurately where the disagreement actually rests. The result is a bitter debate fueled by misinformation on many sides, in a sport where matching the size and strength of competitors is vital for safety as well as fairness.

Last year, the IBA disqualified both Khelif and Lin from its Women’s World Championship, saying that the boxers had failed tests to determine their eligibility to compete. The IBA’s leadership has since indicated without providing detail that these were genetic tests that revealed that the two women have XY chromosomes. The IBA and the Olympics fell out several years ago over claims of corruption and mismanagement, and boxing federations in the United States and Britain have broken with the Russian-led association. The IOC argues that the IBA’s testing is flawed and used its own eligibility guidelines for women’s boxing—a passport check, which both Khelif and Lin passed. The Olympic rules state that, as a general principle, athletes “should be allowed to compete in the category that best aligns with their self-determined gender identity.”

In boxing, though, biology really matters. One of the most established sex differences between male and female bodies is upper-body strength, which in boxing means that men can punch much harder. The women’s category is not just about fairness, but about safety. That is why it was such an incendiary moment when Italy’s Angela Carini stopped her match against Khelif after taking a punch to the face, telling reporters afterward, “It could have been the match of a lifetime, but I had to preserve my life as well in that moment.” (She has since apologized for how she handled the fight.)
Olympic bosses have taken to giving press conferences where they seem annoyed to be asked questions, which they then answer inaccurately. Why have the IOC’s statements been so misleading and nebulous? Perhaps because it does not want to compromise the athletes’ privacy by discussing their medical details without consent. And perhaps because the IOC’s leaders are not prepared to defend their own rules, which state that even if Lin and Khelif do have XY chromosomes, they are allowed to compete in Olympic women’s boxing.

The IBA fired back with its own press conference. It was a chaotic, unpleasant event in which the group’s leader, Umar Kremlev, ranted in Russian about the supposed disrespect to Christianity shown by the opening ceremony. (With Russia banned from the Paris Games, the Kremlin must be enjoying the IOC’s embarrassment on this issue.)

Both sides have demonstrated a lack of interest in women’s sports, and the well-being of all its competitors, that is tantamount to contempt. A simple cheek swab could clear this up, revealing the presence (or not) of a second X chromosome. If either athlete was XY instead, she could have further genetic testing to get a precise diagnosis and determine if it affected her ability to participate fairly. If Lin and Khelif are straightforwardly female athletes with XX chromosomes, they could have appealed their IBA bans to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, an independent body based in Switzerland. (Lin did not do so, according to the IBA, while Khelif withdrew her appeal. The process can be costly for athletes.)

In recent years, most controversies over eligibility for women’s sports have involved trans athletes. IOC President Thomas Bach dismissed the past week’s debate as a “culture war,” which might be true—many newly minted women’s-boxing enthusiasts have emerged with strong opinions—but ignores the fact that addressing intersex conditions is an ongoing challenge in women’s sports. Trying to suppress people’s questions doesn’t work, and just makes life harder for the athletes involved.

For years, doubts over the South African runner Caster Semenya were deemed to be racist, and rival runners who questioned her eligibility in the female category suffered abuse and death threats. Yet the court’s judgment in her case revealed that she was not simply, as she had often been described, a female runner with “naturally high testosterone.” She had male XY chromosomes and a condition called 5ARD.

Although genetically male, people with the condition lack a crucial enzyme, 5-alpha reductase, which means that as fetuses, their bodies cannot process a masculinizing hormone called DHT, which helps determine how the reproductive system develops. They are therefore born with internal testes but external female genitalia—and thus many are raised as girls. At puberty, their internal testes start to produce a different masculinizing hormone, testosterone, which their bodies are able to metabolize. And so they develop typically male muscle mass and proportions, and their genitalia take on a more male appearance. At this point, some people with 5ARD feel more comfortable identifying as men rather than as women.

This is why the IOC’s insistence that Lin and Khelif were “born as women”—a phrase banned by its own guidelines, but never mind—is unenlightening. With 5ARD, a child can be registered as female at birth, but later develop a significant athletic advantage during puberty from the effects of testosterone. Some other intersex conditions, such as complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, in which a genetically male body is completely unable to process masculinizing hormones in the womb and throughout puberty, provide no edge in sports and so are not a barrier to competing as a female.

After the court ruling, Semenya was asked to reduce her testosterone levels to compete in the female category; she declined. “For me I believe if you are a woman, you are a woman,” she said at the time. Semenya, who retired from athletics and is raising a young family with her wife, has since written a book about how she found the scrutiny over her case humiliating and degrading. Many athletes subjected to previous forms of sex verification—which involved genital inspections and even “naked parades”—have said the same. Added to that, many people with 5ARD have no idea of their condition until adolescence, when they are forced to reassess their identity at a profound level. To have your sense of self challenged like this must be an extraordinarily tough experience—even more so amid a social-media circus.

World Athletics, the governing body for running, track and field, and related sports, has tightened its rules since Semenya was competing, as have authorities in other sports—and the IOC defers to them, having scrapped its own sex testing in the 1990s. World Rugby, in particular, should be praised for holding a long and impressive consultation period during which the organization heard from all sides. Sporting bodies regulate the use of shoes and swimsuits that give competitors even a tiny boost, so it’s no wonder that they would need policies governing athletes who identify as women but have male chromosomes and high testosterone levels. “The performance gap between males and females becomes significant at puberty and often amounts to 10–50% depending on sport,” the academics Emma Hilton and Tommy Lundberg found after analyzing the data. The fastest women’s 100-meter sprint time is 10.49 seconds, a record held by Florence Griffith-Joyner; the men’s record, held by Usain Bolt, is nearly a whole second faster, at 9.58 seconds. Victory hinges on far smaller margins; 0.005 seconds separated the gold and silver medalists in the men’s 100-meter sprint earlier this week.

Now, one can argue that the benefits of male puberty are overstated: The sports scientist Joanna Harper, who is herself a runner and a trans woman, has queried just how big an advantage biologically male athletes who suppress their testosterone really have. That’s a question that can be investigated and answered empirically. But too many people who have sprung to Khelif’s and Lin’s defense have assumed that bigotry is the only possible motivation for their opponents. “Challenge: find a single person whining about trans people in women’s sports who has done or said anything supportive of women’s sports previously,” David Roberts, a popular science influencer, posted on X. Okay then, challenge accepted: the tennis legend Martina Navratilova. The boxing champion Nicola Adams. The former swimmer Sharron Davies. Shall I go on?

This debate is not about whether to accept someone’s sense of their own gender, or about an intolerance of gender nonconformity—both Navratilova and Adams are lesbians who faced abuse for their appearance during their career. After all, a transgender boxer is competing in these Games with absolutely no pushback at all. Hergie Bacyadan, a Filipino trans man—a biological female—is competing in a women’s event. He has no sporting advantage, because he has chosen not to take testosterone to masculinize his body. During the same American collegiate swimming season when the transgender woman Lia Thomas became a national talking point, another trans swimmer was competing in the female division. His name was Iszac Henig, and he was a trans man who had undergone a mastectomy but stayed off hormones. Henig also competed fairly against other biological females, with no backlash at all.

Those two examples show that the current debates over gender and sports are not simply driven by prejudice—although the subject has undoubtedly attracted bigots and provocateurs. The debate should be a respectful one grounded in evidence about the effects of testosterone and male puberty. Sporting categories are not inherently offensive or degrading: We don’t let flyweights take on heavyweights. Having clear, transparent, and well-accepted rules would stop individual athletes from being subjected to cruel and embarrassing questions—and would prevent the discussion from being hijacked by culture-war bomb-throwers.

Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting have been through hell over the past week, and the determination and discipline they have shown are admirable. But if the questions around their eligibility remain unresolved, the medals they win will always have an asterisk next to them. That isn’t fair to them, or to their opponents.
User avatar
By Crabcakes
#74982
The Weeping Angel wrote: Tue Aug 20, 2024 10:13 pm I should also add if you really want to piss me off then one way to go about is to talk down to me.
I really couldn't care less how pissed off you are given you started this nonsense by posting up that tweet and adding your own content to it, so whatever sense of outrage you feel is entirely self-inflicted. But as you seem happy to keep digging, let's really put this to bed shall we?

The person who originally posted the reply to the Mail's tweet - a guy called BlackKnight10k - doesn't seem like he posts a particularly great deal about trans-related issues, doesn't make a habit of going after Rowling (in fact I can find no mention of her in his tweets at all other than in the one in question), and in general just seems to be a pretty decent guy not keen on people who are arseholes - he's anti-MAGA, anti-racist, doesn't like Andrew Tate and so on. There's no context here whatsoever to suggest his line that they should have to get in the ring with Khelif is anything more than a jibe that - given Khelif is a boxer - makes sense. You can argue it's crude, not funny or whatever, but it's an incredible stretch to make out it's some sort of female-hating face value statement of fantasising about wanting to see a woman get beaten. Nothing in the context of who the author is suggests it's anything more than a throwaway line from someone rightly angry at Musk and JKRs behaviour. Not even 'banter'.


The guy who posted the reply you liked so much, however - portraitinflesh - has history of sticking up for Rowling. To the point that, even when he's actually trying to be balanced about her, he doesn't make a very good job of it:



In that one tweet he does say he's disappointed, but still offloads blame to the IOC and misgenders Khelif - thus perpetuating the erroneous claim she's male. Why's he going to bat for JKR now and previously? No idea and to be honest I don't care. Maybe he's a big Harry Potter fan. Maybe he wants to be a white knight character. Maybe it's sunk cost fallacy and he can't properly bring himself to reassess someone in light of new/accumulating evidence to the contrary. Regardless, he's got form, and so his reply does have relevant context - he's following his pattern of sticking up for JKR whatever the issue, and as such he has deliberately or emotionally read far too much into Mr Blackknight's tweet, then replied as if how he sees it is obvious to everyone rather than an overblown concoction that makes quite a few mental leaps.

So far though, all we really have is someone over-reacting to a tweet. It's the internet, it happens.

But then we come to you. You see the reply Mr Flesh wrote, and you decide to present it to us as evidence of...something..., with the following additional flavour:
A lot of TRAs can't help themselves.
Problem is, although Mr Flesh got on his high horse about what was posted, he didn't accuse or claim Mr Blackknight was a trans rights activist. In fact, no one did. No one except you. And that speaks volumes to *your* biases, or sunk cost fallacy, or whatever. You've read a clapback tweet that appealed to your established beliefs, not bothered to think about whether the person being accused of fantasising about seeing a woman being beaten has actually said anything like that, and then you've spread it further AND you imply that Mr Blackknight has repeat form for this sort of thing because - based on nothing other than the single tweet you've already taken painfully literally and the reply to it that's equally misguided - you call him a trans rights activist in the most pejorative sense of the phrase.

So if you don't like being talked down to, I suggest the following:

1. Do your research
2. Don't jump to conclusions
3. Definitely don't jump to wildly negative conclusions about someone's behaviour, embellishing someone else's jumping to conclusions, and then post on an internet forum about it
4. Maybe stop digging now?

You posted your message in this forum hoping for a reaction. You got one. But your message was a shit take of a shit take - so sorry if the reaction was "this is blatantly cobblers" rather than a round of applause, but that's not on me.
User avatar
By The Weeping Angel
#75011
His name is Tomos actually and he is right that the IOC are to blame for this situation in between your smug talking down to me you have nothing to say on the article I linked to which pointed out how the IOC are to blame for this situation. Possibly because you can't accuse Helen Lewis of bigotry.
User avatar
By Crabcakes
#75013
The Weeping Angel wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2024 5:47 pm His name is Tomos actually and he is right that the IOC are to blame for this situation in between your smug talking down to me you have nothing to say on the article I linked to which pointed out how the IOC are to blame for this situation. Possibly because you can't accuse Helen Lewis of bigotry.
I didn’t say he wasn’t called Tomos - I just used his Twitter handle. Though as you mention it I notice he’s someone else who can’t be arsed to spell Khelif properly.

Anyway, no I didn’t respond to that post because the whole thing (by the way, maybe cut it so there’s no issue with copyright?) is irrelevant to the actual thing we’re discussing, which is your promotion of a tweet that made something out of nothing and accused someone of fantasising about some really quite unpleasant stuff, which you then added to with an equally baseless bit of accusatory labelling.

That is what pissed me off in the first place, so do you stand by your claim that the guy is a trans rights activist that can’t help himself, and if so, why?

And while we’re at it, do you still think Imane Khelif is a cheat (which, I remind you, you stated a few pages back)?
User avatar
By The Weeping Angel
#75014
I believe he is a trans right activist in the sense that he is pro-trans and he can't help but be appalling misogynists whether it's wanting to see Imane Khelif beat up Rowling and Musk in the boxing ring to sending death threats online or trying to hound women who dare to disagree with them out of public life.

As for Khelif being a cheat I refer to you to the article that I linked which blames the IOC for creating this situation.
User avatar
By Crabcakes
#75094
This absolute bin fire can fuck off. Even with a DNA test they wouldn’t be happy and they’d find some other arbitrary bar to be met. All because of a mistranslation of an emotional opponent’s withdrawal, and a hugely controversial and likely politically motivated disqualification from a discredited boxing org whose own statements on what tests were done to justify their actions are contradictory.



And guess who chose to retweet this as her first tweet in 2 weeks? Looks like someone is still annoyed her lawyers told her that yes, maybe she should delete a lot of stuff :roll:
  • 1
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 25
long long title how many chars? lets see 123 ok more? yes 60

We have created lots of YouTube videos just so you can achieve [...]

Another post test yes yes yes or no, maybe ni? :-/

The best flat phpBB theme around. Period. Fine craftmanship and [...]

Do you need a super MOD? Well here it is. chew on this

All you need is right here. Content tag, SEO, listing, Pizza and spaghetti [...]

Lasagna on me this time ok? I got plenty of cash

this should be fantastic. but what about links,images, bbcodes etc etc? [...]