the_dunk_tank
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
view the rest of the comments
you keep saying 'women' in this comment when referring to cis women, which is the main issue here - it's not like trans women are winning and then secretly going 'yes, another victory for men', but rather it's cis women who are not seeing trans women as part of the same team. So what if some trans women get socialised in such a way that they have an advantage in pool? The only reason this is an issue is if you fundamentally see a victory for trans women as a loss for cis women. The fact this is being shown as oppositional (and being played as such) is the major issue here - if a cis woman had gone through the same experiences, and had the same advantages, would she also be considered an unfair competitor?
if we're going down that path, shouldn't we separate anybody who has had a parent who played pool from people with parents who didn't play? And then shouldn't we separate those based on who owned a pool table at home from those who didn't? At what point are we drawing the line, if 'might have had a Dad who pressured them into sports' is an acceptable metric? Not to mention that basing your opinion on 'tropes' is how this discussion was started - people who's only experience is seeing 'Men In Dresses' tropes on TV and then developing their opinions on trans people's right to equal participation in society from that.
That is exactly my thoughts on the matter. There are many potential advantages some women will have over other women. Same with any other catagory of competitors, unless we just put everyone into an open category. But I don't think that's going to help the woman in the post.
I'm sorry you feel I'm being reductive, but that's honestly how this is coming off. I'm not denying socialogical differences, and of course different lives lead to different outcomes - I am cautioning against painting every AMAB person with that brush as a way of excluding all of them from participation. Again, I'm asking you to be careful cos this is getting close to saying there are just unsolvable differences that can never be overcome, but ONLY when it comes to trans people.
This erases the gendered harassment eggs face and is pretty offensive, comrade.
it's not an on-off switch, and you would be surprised at the amount of people who pick up on 'queer' vibes before you yourself have picked up on it harass you accordingly
is clearly quite poor when it comes to the experiences of trans people. maybe listen to us more and talk about us less.
This just seems like every just so story explanation for bigotry. Like just because you can come up with a story that sounds plausible doesn't mean anything, unless you have data showing that trans women have some kind of statistical performance advantage over trans women then nothing else matters. And yeah ofcourse transphobes will come up with plausible stories that make them sound reasonable, few people are so self aware that they are just bigoted because they are bigoted, oftentimes the person the have to most convince is themselves.
integration of sports was a mainstream feminist position back when that label actually meant something. now that we've just collectively accepted that women can never be equal to men, the only solution is individual striving and a narrow politics of representation.
Yeah this is true but also the pool of trans women playing professional pool has got to be real real small, yeah? Are there any sports where trans women are overrepresented for their gender?
Consider the following: no one should devote their entire life to pool. It's an asinine waste of resources
Lol, a semi-uncharitable reading of your comment would just be "don't have hobbies, or fun".
Why not devote your life to pool, or any other sport? Seems a lot less of a waste than, like, golf.
how? Golf and pool are at the same level, not skills which apply to other areas, not useful to society, and not in this case creating community. Pool can be a hobby, but a complaint that anyone can't make a living off of it is absurd.
One giant difference between pool and golf (I'm putting off work by posting to hexbear and now you have to suffer my nitpicking, I'm so sorry) is that golf is a massive waste of water and land, water and land that could be a dope ass park or wildlife preserve or literally anything other than a golf course. But pool is just an overly expensive (and heavy) table, a few balls, and a couple of sticks.
Pool is way better than golf, is what I'm saying.
That's fair and I agree with it, but in terms of career path they are identical.
You shouldn’t have professional hobbies according to Marxist theory, luxuries are bad.
Is this an actual valuable thing though? The "experience" here I mean. If there is one horrible thing perpetuated by that "10,000h makes you an expert" urban legend is that not only that was for music(piano) but one specific point is that bad practice will make you worse.
Essentially you'll never just bullshit around for 10,000 hours and become a world renowned expert, instead it only means through consistent and thoughtful practice, that is the ballpark time investment required.
In any case if one wanted to talk about natural learning that is just the domain of children anyway, even teenagers and certainly any adult can't just learn through just experience.
So I don't want to contest your comment entirely, but I want to make it clear its not that simple at all, shitty experiences and bad practice affords you no actual real advantage at all over someone that spent less time but more productive, focused time.
This makes sense yeah, I was thinking on the amateur literal bullshitter scenario though, person who plays pool once week for 2h isn't "practicing". But on the other hand if you're at a point you're committed to actualy playing and even join a league then yes its different I agree.
Ok I'll rephrase it, the specific reason I mentioned the 10k hour myth is this scenario:
Person that thinks they'll have an "advantage" learning to play piano as an adult because they had like 1 lesson a week for 2h during for a couple of years back in highschool or whatever. Unless you actualy reached a profficient level before that it is almost negligible or we can pretend it is. That versus an adult complete beginner age 25-35.
The first person will have an advantage maybe for a the very basic stuff(again assuming the first person didn't actually achieve anything, its why I said "BS around") that takes maybe a few dozen hours to catch up, it would make no actual meaningful difference towards becoming a pro.
The biggest sin of the 10k myth is bad practice e.g just repeating and playing the same song over and over. It wont make you better no matter how much you do it. Worse than that without an actual teacher we often just keep practicing bad habits and mistakes become even harder to fix compared to a complete beginner.
This is what that 10k hour myth was all about. People in general tend to behave as if just "doing it" is good enough and end up making exaggerated goals and expectations, but also neglecting the need for real teachers and a real planned and effective practice method/schedule.
Your example is a good point because there is no "wrong way" to play that game, everything they did was useful and a learning experience. This is not true for some other sports and definitely not true for a lot of hobbies etc. You can and most people indeed do spend a lot of time doing stuff that doesn't improve their skill. I think a blanket statement of "I spent X hours doing Y before therefore I have an advantage" is possibly disingenuous without clarification, like what did you actually do with that time?
This is a great comment. Explaining the material causes of a problem makes it make more sense.
wait so if trans people win at things they need to be excluded? got it
We're allowed to compete but not to win, and we should be grateful for that privilege
I'm so glad that the cis arrived to tell me that my experience in men's locker rooms was actually fostering my growth as an athlete and not in any way gender violence that would push people out of sports. I felt so coddled and supported in my athletic pursuits
It must just be a coincidence that this Just Asking Questions shit in this thread leads to the same conclusion that virulent transphobes reach
(Fr though this guy assured my that the sexual harassment I faced as an egg was definitely not as bad as a woman would face and I want him to fuck off and die)
fr I tried to gently correct at first and dude just kept rolling