why is everything so weird
Then they played the theme from "Titanic." Now it's "Funeral for a Friend" by Elton John. Whoever is in charge of the music is being either quite dumb or very subversive. https://t.co/bmF3osSyph
— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) January 6, 2021
"And then we're stuck with a president who lost the election by a lot, and we have to live with that for four more years. We're just not going to let that happen."
More from Parker Molloy
There are a number of reasons bills like these are wrongheaded. One is that it tries to implement the same kind of one-size-fits-all solution that opponents of trans inclusion claim to oppose.
But let’s get nuanced for a minute...
Do trans women and girls have an advantage in sports over other women and girls?
I’m here to provide a very unsatisfying answer: It depends.
What sport are we talking about?
How old are people competing in it?
What sort of hormone treatment has the person in question had and for how long?
Those are all factors that play into the fairness question.
Trying to implement broad policies in the name of ensuring fairness can actually have the opposite of the intended effect.
Take the case of Mack Beggs.
A few years back, Beggs was a high school student in Texas. He was a wrestler, and wanted to do it at the college level.
Beggs is a trans man, meaning his birth certificate said female on it. Like many trans guys, he takes testosterone as part of his medical transition.
He wanted to wrestle. Specifically, he wanted a spot on his school’s boys team.
He wasn’t allowed.
But let’s get nuanced for a minute...
NEW: Hawaii Rep. @TulsiGabbard introduces bill called \u2018Protect Women\u2019s Sports Act\u2019 \u2014 would clarify Title IX protections to be based on biological sex, which would impact transgender athletes participating in athletic programs for women and girls @KITV4 pic.twitter.com/VcDDgO1mFL
— Tom George (@TheTomGeorge) December 10, 2020
Do trans women and girls have an advantage in sports over other women and girls?
I’m here to provide a very unsatisfying answer: It depends.
What sport are we talking about?
How old are people competing in it?
What sort of hormone treatment has the person in question had and for how long?
Those are all factors that play into the fairness question.
Trying to implement broad policies in the name of ensuring fairness can actually have the opposite of the intended effect.
Take the case of Mack Beggs.
A few years back, Beggs was a high school student in Texas. He was a wrestler, and wanted to do it at the college level.
Beggs is a trans man, meaning his birth certificate said female on it. Like many trans guys, he takes testosterone as part of his medical transition.
He wanted to wrestle. Specifically, he wanted a spot on his school’s boys team.
He wasn’t allowed.
This is what pisses me off about the constant bad faith victimhood crap people on the right do:
1. They wildly misrepresent something innocuous (no, Pelosi did not “ban” anything).
2. They come up with a “gotcha” example of hypocrisy... that relies on their misrepresentation.
This same exact nonsense gets trotted out constantly. “Oh, so now we’re not allowed to call ourselves husbands or mothers or uncles or aunts or men or women?! Outrage!” But no one at all is doing that, nor have they ever been doing that.
Yet the right loses its shit over this every few months. A lot of the time it’ll be something like... a lawmaker will introduce a bill that would tweak applications for marriage licenses to say “spouse 1” and “spouse 2” instead of just “husband/wife” because the status quo ...
... will have been creating actual legal issues for gay couples who then have to put something false on legal documents designating one of them as “wife.”
It’ll be something like that, just meant to fix an issue that has no material impact on 99% of people.
And the right, like clockwork, will lose their minds over it as though anyone is trying to “ban” the concept of someone being a husband or a wife or a man or a woman or whatever.
From a few years back, here’s Bill O’Reilly doing that
1. They wildly misrepresent something innocuous (no, Pelosi did not “ban” anything).
2. They come up with a “gotcha” example of hypocrisy... that relies on their misrepresentation.
Shot/Chaser pic.twitter.com/NwAZg7TTrL
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) January 2, 2021
This same exact nonsense gets trotted out constantly. “Oh, so now we’re not allowed to call ourselves husbands or mothers or uncles or aunts or men or women?! Outrage!” But no one at all is doing that, nor have they ever been doing that.
Yet the right loses its shit over this every few months. A lot of the time it’ll be something like... a lawmaker will introduce a bill that would tweak applications for marriage licenses to say “spouse 1” and “spouse 2” instead of just “husband/wife” because the status quo ...
... will have been creating actual legal issues for gay couples who then have to put something false on legal documents designating one of them as “wife.”
It’ll be something like that, just meant to fix an issue that has no material impact on 99% of people.
And the right, like clockwork, will lose their minds over it as though anyone is trying to “ban” the concept of someone being a husband or a wife or a man or a woman or whatever.
From a few years back, here’s Bill O’Reilly doing that
Anyone who is legally eligible to cast a ballot in an election should be allowed to do so in whatever way is most convenient for them. If that's in-person on election day, great; by mail, great; in-person in the weeks leading up to an election, great.
That is the only acceptable way for a democratic republic to function. Voting should be easy and it should be encouraged. There should be:
- Automatic voter registration.
- No excuses needed to vote absentee.
This is not controversial.
It's telling how people defend more restrictive voting methods. Look at this ridiculous quote from Pete Hegseth about how everyone being able to easily cast a ballot somehow stripping people of the "recourse" of the ballot box.
https://t.co/4AcTPT2HfD
They know there's not widespread fraud. It's not about "fraud." It never was.
They just want to put as many obstacles in the way as humanly possible, to make it more difficult for people to vote.
"We could've voted in person. I can go to Walmart. I can go to a store, I can go to a restaurant, I can go to sports games in some places. You tell me we couldn't have voted? I just don't buy it."
No one stopped you from voting in person, Pete!
That is the only acceptable way for a democratic republic to function. Voting should be easy and it should be encouraged. There should be:
- Automatic voter registration.
- No excuses needed to vote absentee.
This is not controversial.
It's telling how people defend more restrictive voting methods. Look at this ridiculous quote from Pete Hegseth about how everyone being able to easily cast a ballot somehow stripping people of the "recourse" of the ballot box.
https://t.co/4AcTPT2HfD
They know there's not widespread fraud. It's not about "fraud." It never was.
They just want to put as many obstacles in the way as humanly possible, to make it more difficult for people to vote.
"We could've voted in person. I can go to Walmart. I can go to a store, I can go to a restaurant, I can go to sports games in some places. You tell me we couldn't have voted? I just don't buy it."
No one stopped you from voting in person, Pete!
This is a good piece by @AaronBlake. I've been scratching my head over claims that there was something in this trove of emails that implicated Fauci in something bad because pretty much everything matched up with what was being said publicly at whatever time the emails were from.
One thing that's occurred to me over the past few years is that there's a sense that the mere *existence* of emails is seen as evidence of wrongdoing, which is obviously nonsense.
It played out that way when it came to the DNC and Podesta emails in 2016, the Hunter Biden e-mails in 2020, these e-mails in 2021. It wasn't that there was much that was damning in, say, the DNC emails that helped sink Clinton's candidacy, but just their existence ...
... gave off a sense of corruption/scandal/etc., that weighed more heavily on people's perception of them as the result of them taking the form of a leak/data dump.
And it's kind of similar with the Fauci e-mails (which weren't leaked, but were FOIAed).
Anyway, again, @AaronBlake's post is a good and methodical breakdown of some of the bizarre claims being thrown about. If there's anything we didn't already know contained in those e-mails, I haven't seen it.
Analysis: The alleged Fauci \u201csmoking gun\u201d emails https://t.co/DH0EOElMii
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) June 3, 2021
One thing that's occurred to me over the past few years is that there's a sense that the mere *existence* of emails is seen as evidence of wrongdoing, which is obviously nonsense.
It played out that way when it came to the DNC and Podesta emails in 2016, the Hunter Biden e-mails in 2020, these e-mails in 2021. It wasn't that there was much that was damning in, say, the DNC emails that helped sink Clinton's candidacy, but just their existence ...
... gave off a sense of corruption/scandal/etc., that weighed more heavily on people's perception of them as the result of them taking the form of a leak/data dump.
And it's kind of similar with the Fauci e-mails (which weren't leaked, but were FOIAed).
Anyway, again, @AaronBlake's post is a good and methodical breakdown of some of the bizarre claims being thrown about. If there's anything we didn't already know contained in those e-mails, I haven't seen it.
More from Government
Caveat: This article is sourced from @Daily_Express !!!
"End of Sturgeon?"
Frankly, an appropriate response from @NicolaSturgeon might be to quote the infamous Mark Twain response to an erroneous 'obituary' known to all...
"The reports of my demise are greatly exaggerated."
https://t.co/Ce1xVVISR2
More accurately, the media have quoted:
"Ms Sturgeon said she had a “real job to do” and was focused on guiding Scotland through the Covid-19 pandemic."
It's very reassuring to hear that @scotgov and @ScotGovFM have prioritised safeguarding lives and Scotland, above all else.
"I’ll leave others to play games or politics. I have got a real job to do and people can decide themselves whether I am doing it well or not, but I am absolutely 100 per cent focused on leading this country through a pandemic."
💯% 😀👍
Making her priorities crystal clear!
“That’s what I’ve done since this time last year and it’s what I’m going to continue to do for absolutely as long as necessary.”
And again, making it absolutely crystal clear!
"End of Sturgeon?"
Frankly, an appropriate response from @NicolaSturgeon might be to quote the infamous Mark Twain response to an erroneous 'obituary' known to all...
"The reports of my demise are greatly exaggerated."
https://t.co/Ce1xVVISR2
More accurately, the media have quoted:
"Ms Sturgeon said she had a “real job to do” and was focused on guiding Scotland through the Covid-19 pandemic."
It's very reassuring to hear that @scotgov and @ScotGovFM have prioritised safeguarding lives and Scotland, above all else.
"I’ll leave others to play games or politics. I have got a real job to do and people can decide themselves whether I am doing it well or not, but I am absolutely 100 per cent focused on leading this country through a pandemic."
💯% 😀👍
Making her priorities crystal clear!
“That’s what I’ve done since this time last year and it’s what I’m going to continue to do for absolutely as long as necessary.”
And again, making it absolutely crystal clear!
