BC SOCIETY
Saved by @Jacobtldr

Since it is a lovely peaceful Saturday morning, I clearly have to rectify that. Therefore: the World Rugby Transgender Policy and Nye Bevan.

Thread.

 This is the WR policy, and explanation by Ross Tucker, who was part of the Working Group. I presented to the Workshop in February on liability, but wasn’t part of the Working Group itself. It’s worth reading this before going further. https://t.co/8JFNztvC9V
And this is the statue of Nye Bevan in Cardiff. Anyone who goes to matches in Cardiff knows it. It’s right by the Castle; more importantly, it’s right by the Rummer. Please God, we’ll get back to see it on a match day soon.
However, what I'm talking about here isn't his comment that he learnt everything he needed to know about politics by dealing with rugby committees, but the one that made the title of the last decent Manic Street Preachers album:

"This is my truth, tell me yours."
What has struck me in the debate/flame-war over the proposed policy is that a large part of this is conflicting truths.

I know that sounds impossible. The truth is the truth is the truth, right? There can only be one truth, not truths, right?

Wrong. Here's why.
It is something lawyers in practice get to see from the off that two people can swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and clearly be absolutely telling the truth, but give very different accounts. Both are telling the truth, but *their* truth.
That's the first truth. Subjective truth, the truth as you see it, as you live it.

"Lived experience" is this form of truth. It is your individual truth. It is entirely true for you because it is your experience of what happened.
The problem with this is that there is no hierarchy of subjective truths. Each is entirely true for that person. If lived experiences clash, then you have two differing truths. The problem is, sometimes you have to prefer a truth to come to a decision or policy.
It is, I would suggest, a weakness in putting "lived experience" as central in policy-making that it cannot provide a basis for making policy when it cannot provide a means for preferring one over the other.

Two such means are other truths: legal and scientific.
Scientific truth is - and this is the view of a non-scientist - best described as "objective truth", not in the sense that it *is* necessarily objectively true but that it prioritises objective measurements and data. A thing is true (or at least, non-falsifiable) if data exists.
To decide what is or is not so for the purposes of scientific truth, you need data and to extrapolate from data. Sometime the data is limited, but it is what it is and is there in the open to be critiqued within the framework of the scientific process.
Subjective and objective truth don't really get on very well in the human condition. That your lived truth is just anecdote or an outlier in terms of data measurement and science doesn't mean your lived truth isn't true for you; but lived truth doesn't displace the data, either.
Then you get legal truth, or, at least, the manner in which law prefers accounts or decides what it will treat as true.

In the Common Law world, the key word here is "reasonable". Decisions must be reasonable; "beyond reasonable doubt"; "reasonably foreseeable".
Thus, a judge deciding a civil claim such as a PI action will look at two people giving their account of their lived truth and will decide which is more likely that not and ascribe liability if the the law says it is reasonable to do so.
It's not that one is entirely true or not, in terms of objective truth or that one person is not telling their subjective truth; indeed, judges frequently state that everyone is doing their best to tell the truth. It's about what's more likely that not and then what's reasonable.
Policy-making in a framework of potential liability has to take account of what the law says. It is, I am afraid, inescapable, especially in a collision sport which exists within the implied consent to battery and only so long as it can remain insurable at reasonable cost.
Thus, a policy set in accordance with legal requirements need not be absolutely in accordance with data to be reasonable; and it is, inevitably, not going to accord with everyone's lived truth because lived truths always clash. Like Nye Fawr said: this is my truth, tell me yours.
I would note, however, that if you think insurers are going to prioritise subjective lived truth over actuarial tables and avoiding liability, then all I can say is you've never seen a claims manager's response to plaintiff medical reports. Let's just say they tend to scepticism.
Thus, the driver of policy is probably going to be the legal truth: what is reasonable in terms of the evidence available.

It does have the advantage that lawyers are used to being blamed. For centuries, we have been the Millwall of professions: nobody likes us, we don't care.
In truth, I feel a driver of what will happen in practice is insurance costs. Insurers will price for anything. That doesn't mean the price will be affordable. If they feel they don't want to insure a given risk, it'll be priced out pretty rapidly. We will see what happens there.
However, a policy must still be set, once you become aware of data and risks, and it must be reasonable.

As noted, going by "reasonable" doesn't mean people will be happy. When a subjective truth isn't preferred, people feel hurt. There is no way around that to make policy.
I would, however, note that while Nye made no mean fist of invective himself, he didn't say: "This is my truth, yours is wrong."

It was: "This is my truth, tell me yours."
Whether you agree or not with the outcome, the policy-making process by World Rugby was an exercise in trying to hear those different truths. That's to be commended. Not getting the outcome you wanted doesn't mean the process was wrong or rigged, any more that a court is.
And it is fair to note that if you want to persuade people of your truth, you need to understand it may not be the only one Likening African-Canadian chairs to the KKK isn't going to do that. Invective may proclaim your truth louder but won't engage with the other truths.
As with Nye himself - the manic street preacher - "This is my truth, tell me yours" does mean you might occasionally have to listen to that other truth. Even lawyers might have to, come to that.

More from Society

Indian Rwanda Radio
Indian Rwanda Radio
@IND_RwandaRadio
Nearly a year ago, the Tablighi Jamaat controversy took over India’s media. Around 3,500 foreign nationals had visited India to attend the Tablighi Jamaat event at the Nizamuddin Markaz Mosque in Delhi.

With the lockdown being announced on March 24, 2020, several attendees had moved to different parts of the country to attend smaller gatherings in local mosques.

Around 960 foreign nationals were held at quarantine and in states like UP, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Karnataka, etc. were sent straight to prison.

There was an outpour of Anti-Muslim bigotry in much of Indian news media with this event where it ramped up its demonisation of the community.

For weeks, the attendees of the Tablighi Jamaat event were named the “super-spreaders” of COVID and in several cases, Maulana Mohammad Saad was called a terrorist and “the maulana of death”.
SOCIETY
Kate Julian
Kate Julian
@katejulian
1/ Something strange is happening with people’s sex lives. 20-somethings are having sex later and less frequently than previous generations. I spent several months digging into this for @theatlantic. https://t.co/5ehzmWY9wi


2/ This phenomenon—I’m calling it a Sex Recession—really surprised me. It seemed improbable in the age of Tinder, digital porn, and attitudes that are generally permissive and sex-positive.

3/ What’s happening isn’t exclusively American: Similar trends are being observed in other countries, including Japan, Australia, the U.K., Finland, and the Netherlands.


4/ One cause is obvious: Adults under 35 are less likely to be living with a partner than in recent decades, and more likely to be living with their parents—which, it’s safe to say, isn’t great for one’s sex life.

5/ But I also found other explanations, each with profound implications. The first, unsurprisingly, has to do with internet enticements. Netflix and other online entertainment may be substituting for sex.
SOCIETY
Advertisement
Noah Smith
Noah Smith
@Noahpinion
Remember: Just because an idea is old doesn't mean it's good.

Knowing whether old ideas are more likely to be good requires understanding whether conditions have changed in important ways.

Horse archery was an amazing method of warfare for over a thousand years...then people invented guns, and suddenly this great idea that had stood the test of time became obsolete.

Then again, when underlying conditions don't change much, tried-and-true approaches are probably better.

"Learning the lessons of history" usually just means assuming ergodicity and stationarity in an informal time-series model...

(end)
SOCIETY
Paul Matzko
Paul Matzko
@PMatzko
Having spent 2020 telling covid denalists that they were overly optimistic about the pandemic, I now look forward to spending 2021 telling covid maximalists that they are overly pessimistic about the end of the pandemic.

Telling a denialist in May that we shouldn't open bars back up = telling a maximalist in February that we should open schools back up.

Look, folks, the math is straightforward. ~13% of Americans have been vaccinated as of this

And the 7 day average continues to rise; we're approach 2 million vaccine doses per day. Meaning that we'll double that ~13% much faster than the two months it took us to get there.


So it's entirely reasonable that absent any other intervention, we should expect to hit ~30% vaccinated by the end of March.
SOCIETY
Bradly Mason
Bradly Mason
@AlsoACarpenter
Okay, let's do this summary again since there seems to be a collective amnesia relating to Christian Abolitionism in America.

Here again is a summary of the Christian Abolitionists’ arguments against enslavers’ appeals to the Scripture: Thread
SOCIETY

You May Also Like

Dr Naomi Wolf
Dr Naomi Wolf
@naomirwolf
1/Just had an interview scheduled with @goddeketal, Dr Simon Goddek, the post-doctoral researcher at the Faculty of Mathematics and Statistics in the field of biotechnology, at an unnamed Dutch university. This researcher has been publicly pointing out that the paper that...

2/ the PCR test as the gold standard underlying global "lockdowns" was passed after maximum ONE day of peer review, as opposed to the average at that same journal of 172 days in 2019. Also that several authors have conflicts of interest. Unfortunately we were forced to cancel..

3/ because he was strongly advised by his university to maintain silence and not speak publicly -- to step back from this issue. I learned from a source that his university was heavily assailed by many complaints. Other scientists who have signed the review criticizing the PRC..

4/test, the "Retraction Request Letter", a critique that got worldwide attention, have also been bombarded with attacks, their relatives are being called at night, and their universities assailed. Some are at risk of losing jobs. Even former employers are being harassed. I..

5/ Note : scientists around the world are being silenced and harassed if they speak up in normal criticism of the scientific methods or conclusions used to advance the lockdown agenda and COVID testing. This is not post-enlightenment scientific discourse, this is how scientists
SCIENCE
f1talks.pl
f1talks.pl
@f1talks
According to @RadioZET_NEWS PKN Orlen (major Polish oil refiner and petrol retailer) is considering entering F1 as a fuel sponsor (supplier) and personal sponsor of Robert Kubica. #F1

Yesterday Kubica was at Orlen's headquarters and met with Polish Prime Minister. #F1
ALL
Advertisement
Patrick McKenzie
Patrick McKenzie
@patio11
So the cryptocurrency industry has basically two products, one which is relatively benign and doesn't have product market fit, and one which is malignant and does. The industry has a weird superposition of understanding this fact and (strategically?) not understanding it.


The benign product is sovereign programmable money, which is historically a niche interest of folks with a relatively clustered set of beliefs about the state, the literary merit of Snow Crash, and the utility of gold to the modern economy.

This product has narrow appeal and, accordingly, is worth about as much as everything else on a 486 sitting in someone's basement is worth.

The other product is investment scams, which have approximately the best product market fit of anything produced by humans. In no age, in no country, in no city, at no level of sophistication do people consistently say "Actually I would prefer not to get money for nothing."

This product needs the exchanges like they need oxygen, because the value of it is directly tied to having payment rails to move real currency into the ecosystem and some jurisdictional and regulatory legerdemain to stay one step ahead of the banhammer.
CRYPTO
James Clear
James Clear
@JamesClear
My top 10 tweets of the year

A thread 👇

https://t.co/xj4js6shhy


https://t.co/b81zoW6u1d


https://t.co/1147it02zs


https://t.co/A7XCU5fC2m
BUSINESS , ALL
Jonathan Ware
Jonathan Ware
@ReassessHistory
So when it first appeared in Normandy, the Sherman Firefly and it's meaty 17 pounder represented an ideal combo of reliable chassis, great gun and devastating firepower right?

Ummm...

Truth is a bit more complex. /1
#WW2 #SWW #History


Deliveries of Firefly to units only commenced in April 1944,
just a few weeks before Overlord & left minimal time for familiarisation.

Armoured Regiments mostly utilised Fireflies on a basis of 1 per troop of 4 tanks. /2


Finally each armoured regiment troop had access to integral, meaty, anti-tank firepower capable of dealing serious damage to any German AFV likely to be encountered. /3


The dual purpose 75mm gun was quite capable of laying down a reasonable HE shell or AP round for dealing with Panzer III or IV.

Firefly's 17 Pounder had.... problems with HE, but excelled at tank killing. So Tigers and Panthers would need to be wary. /4


Firefly's design history dated back to March 1943 when the General Staff published "Policy on Tanks" which effectively stated the majority of tanks should have a good HE weapon and...

[See image below] /5
HISTORY