news

809 readers

881 users here now

A lightweight news hub to help decentralize the fediverse load: mirror and discuss headlines here so the giant instance communities aren’t a single choke-point.

Rules:

Recent news articles only (past 30 days)
Title must match the headline or neutrally describe the content
Avoid duplicates & spam (search before posting; batch minor updates).
Be civil; no hate or personal attacks.
No link shorteners
No entire article in the post body

founded 7 months ago

MODERATORS

dude@lemmings.world

162

Transgender women athletes banned from women’s Olympic events by new IOC policy (apnews.com)

submitted 2 days ago by quantumlover@lemmy.zip to c/news@lemmings.world

127 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Domi@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm not going to assume malicious intent from you but what you're doing in practice is JAQing off.

If you care about getting to the facts to form an opinion, as you say you do, then you could have carefully read through the study I linked, or even the ones you posted, before you posted them. That's what the several people who responded to you did.

I'm going to disengage now. Good luck to you on your fact finding mission.

[+] Tmiwi@lemmy.world -10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Just Asking Questions" (JAQ; known derisively as "JAQing off")[a] is a pseudoskeptical tactic often used by conspiracy theorists to present false or distorted claims by framing them as questions.

As you don't want to engage with me and just quiet me then fine, but it seems disingenuous to claim that I'm a conspiracy theorist.

You could of answered my questions with facts and engaged in an actual conversation but, oh well...

[–] Domi@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

You could of answered my questions with facts and engaged in an actual conversation

I did, and i did.

it seems disingenuous to claim that I'm a conspiracy theorist.

I didn't say you were a consipiricist and I specifically didn't ascribe to you malicious intent.

Perhaps in the spirit of learning, you could maybe read into that rhetorical technique a little. The wikipedia article maybe focuses a little too much on conspiracy theorists but it's a well-developed concept and it is in fact what you are doing.

You are crowding the conversation with questions that you've not sincerely attempted to answer for yourself, instead you saw my comment, googled for 30 seconds and dumped two links in here, that you didn't read, as if they were some kindof gotcha. You've forced several other people to take time to engage you in the substance of your questions, which they, and I, did.

Nobody is silencing you, I'm disengaging because this is the sum-total of the amount of energy I'm willing to put into this conversation with a stranger, whose motives I don't fully trust. You are of course free to continue crashing out.

[+] Tmiwi@lemmy.world -12 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

My point was that there isn't consensus.

You refuse to engage with that conversation.

Every comment you've made has tried to ascribe malicious intent, from claiming my thoughts aren't my own, to telling me that asking questions is somehow malicious.

No you haven't you've just attacked the person questioning the validity of what you posted

I haven't forced anyone to do anything.

You posted the wiki article, not me, I just quoted it.

What is this nonsense about crowding the conversation? I just took part in it, it seems clear that you only want to engage with people who share your opinions, fine but why even bother replying?

And as to your attempt to belittle my position by claiming I'm "crashing out", childish

Anyway, enjoy your day.

[–] Havoc8154@mander.xyz 14 points 20 hours ago

The first link does not support your position. It comes to broadly the same findings as the one I linked. The second link is to a DW article that haphazardly hyperlinks to a couple of small-scale studies (that were themselves included in the meta-analysis from your first link).

The idea of a preturnatural sporting advantage for trans women in womens sports is taken as an axiomatic truth by most people when this issue comes up. In fact the evidence suggests that over the first few years of GAHT, trans atheletes' physical performance approaches that of their cis peers. They tend to remain in the same percentile of performance for their true gender post transition as they achieved in their assigned gender pre-transition.

The article I linked was a large-scale meta-analysis (52 studies, n=6485) that is looking at a broader evidence base. At the very least, it is reasonable to question the base assumption that there is an obvious performence difference in the first place. Especially when that assumption is being used to justify the exclusion of trans people from yet another aspect of public life, both in professional sports and in for-fun, low-stakes highschool and local sports.

This was him attempting to engage you in the conversation. You completely ignored it and continue to play dumb so you can pretend to be the victim here.

You're either a complete idiot or a troll, and my money is on the latter.