Notices by Radek Czajka (rcz@101010.pl)

@ErikUden
Please don't devalue terms like “FOSS” and “open source” by redefining them to mean “you can download and run it locally”. FOSS advocates spent considerable amounts of time explaining that these terms emphatically do *not* mean that, and looking for ways to avoid confusion.

There is a perfectly good word for software which can be downloaded and run for free: “freeware”.

Those are freeware models.

@rysiek
Yes, I am very clear that political discussion around sex-based spaces, sports etc., including advocates for such spaces, should definitely be allowed as political speech — whether you agree with these advocates or not.

EFF is very clear that these voices shouldn't be allowed. I take it that you agree with EFF's position here, which is for not allowing such voices.

I do respect the belief there are “better solutions” for specific issues and that these advocates are incorrect. You might be correct on this. As you say, we don't have to into a long debate. People can disagree.

I do not respect the attempts to silence such disagreement.

BTW, this stance would seem to mean that even just saying that yesterday's federal court decision was correct (https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/TennesseeAppellateOpinion.pdf) would seem to cross such narrowly defined line of acceptable speech, as it involves arguments for sex-based spaces. This is a very weird understanding of “freedom of expression”. EFF should just ditch this term if this is their stance on it.

@rysiek
Ah.

So EFF stands for free expression and freedom of political speech, as long as it is correct speech with which they agree. It'd be good if Meta allowed more “sex worker advocacy groups, LGBTQ+ advocates, Palestine advocates”, but it becomes “hateful content” once they allow “advocating gender-based exclusions”. So women (a word which doesn't appear once in this article discussing various vulnerable groups) advocating for single-sex sports and spaces is too much for EFF's conception of free expression.

This is just so disingenuous.

I think there are things to complain about in the Meta's new policy. I don't see any reason to allow “insulting language in the context of discussing political or religious topics, such as when discussing transgender rights, immigration, or homosexuality” — I'm very much against that, I think insulting language harms freedom of expression, and I think the two of us have shown that discussion of such topics is very much possible without resorting to insulting language and better for it. I also see no reason to allow “allegations of mental illness” in these context, where it's obviously used to stigmatize.

But EFF goes much further. In EFF's view, the discussions we've been having here shouldn't have taken place at all, in any form.

This is bigotry on EFF's part, this assumption that positions which they do not share can be defined as “hate” and shouldn't be ever allowed to be uttered.

Much freedom of expression.

Once they put it like this — that there should be more LGBTQ+ advocates, but single-sex spaces/sports advocates shouldn't even be allowed to speak — one has to ask questions. They say: more sex worker advocates — should then Nordic model advocates be allowed to speak, or not? They say: more Palestine advocates — should then Zionists be allowed to speak, or not?

This is very thinly-veiled bigotry, plain and simple. They don't want “more political speech”. They want more of their political tribe's speech and no questioning it, because questioning is “hate”.

@rysiek
Yep, that's the note I was referring to.

@rysiek
EFF seems to be mostly correct here. This does seem to be a step towards less arbitrary corporate censorship masquerading as responsibility, and more transparency. I'm willing to have my mind changed, but really nothing seems to be set on fire here.

It is slightly weird that they're dancing between applauding “fixing over-censorship” to allow more political speech, and then adding this note about “concerning” changes in the Hateful Conduct policy, where bulk of the changes seem to be about just that: allowing more political speech (particularly and explicitly in the area of sex and gender). EFF does not specify what they mean by this concern, though, and I could also point to a few specific places in the revised policy where I think the line around insulting language is set in a wrong place, so I'm not really passing judgement on that.

And it's not like I agree with EFF on everything. They just seem to be mostly correct in this instance.

@stfn
head -n -1 | tail -n +2 | base64 -d | qr | lpr >> wallet

@rysiek @darnell
I'm not against sex testing in male sport. The reason I predict it would mostly affect female sport is I assume the main objective for tests is to catch cheaters (people who know they would fail such a test, but enter the competition if there is no test), and obviously there isn't as much motivation for females to cheat their way into male sport as it is for males to cheat their way into female sport.

We see that in the trans issue: there is a lot of discussion about how awful it would be for transwomen having to compete in male category, while transmen seem relatively comfortable competing in female category.

Even in your example, the female enters the male category just to be treated unfairly. Why would she do that to herself, if she can enter the female category?

But this assumption might be wrong, if we think that people just genuinely don't know. Then testing everyone in both categories would be correct, yes.

Also, I think these tests should be done early, when people start competing on low level — to avoid unnecessary public exposure and painful breakdowns of sport careers in which people already put huge parts of their lives. And also for people with DSDs it's just useful information in itself to be diagnosed as early as possible, if they already hadn't until that point.

(Side note: I very much try to steer clear of accusing you of things like misogyny, bigotry etc., while you venture into such accusations repeatedly. I'd really like you to stop that, it's not constructive.)

@rysiek

I did ask you what your position was, but if I'm asked what my position is on some issue, and I just add without any justification: “and by the way, your position on this issue reminds me of nazism, I don't know, just a thought” — then that wouldn't be explaining my position on the issue, it would obviously just be smearing my opponents moral character. I wouldn't do it.

I'm fine with continuing the conversation, and I'm absolutely fine with a slower pace, and I'll happily answer your specific question, but I do need to have something cleared up first.

In this thread, you agreed with @eric that “what I'm doing is not civil”, and you contrasted it with “staying civil yourselves”. I take issue with that. Specifically, you pointed to ”discussing the living breathing person affected by this” as an example when discussing me allegedly being uncivil. But now you're also specifically asking me to go back to discussing the living breathing players. And you are specifically asking about the facts about these people which do, as we discussed, relate to their identities.

So, can we set this record straight?

Can we actually have a civil discussion — on both sides — about this issue? And can we, after all, have a civil discussion involving facts relating to identities of real people?

@mjg59

I'm not interested in pivoting to that discussion, certainly in this form. I've had enough contact with priests in my life to recognize it for what it is.

What you're doing here is assuming that everyone either shares your metaphysical beliefs or is immoral. This is an extreme form of prejudice, bigotry.

It's certainly fine to attach moral judgement to sharing moral beliefs, e.g. “everyone deserves dignity” — if you don't believe that, people will rightly judge you.

But it becomes bigotry when moral judgement is attached to sharing metaphysical beliefs, like “people have souls”. Even if you believe there's a moral value connected to that metaphysical belief, like if you think: “if people don't believe they have souls, they'll have no reason not to kill one another!” — you *are* bigoted if you assume that people who don't believe in souls are immoral.

This distinction is important. People are entitled to have different metaphysical beliefs than you are they aren't immoral for it. If you start judging them for that, that's just your bigotry.

What you're presenting is clearly a metaphysical belief, not a moral one — there's no inherent moral value to being a man or a woman. You might connect some moral value to that metaphysical belief in your worldview, but that's on you.

So what you're presenting is bigotry, by virtue of saying: either everyone shares my metaphysical belief, or they are immoral.

You're being bigoted.

Stop that.

@rysiek @darnell @lxo

@mjg59

You're certainly entitled to that prejudice.

@rysiek @darnell @lxo

@mjg59

“This argument cannot be made because it leads to a conclusion I don't accept” is literally the definition of prejudice.

@rysiek @darnell @lxo

@cyplo

Not true.

@mjg59 @rysiek @darnell @lxo

@rysiek

Oh!

I'm not going to lie, I am taken aback that you chose not to tag me in a post discussing me personally, even after specifically making a point about how I earlier untagged some people I had never even had any contact with. Why would you do that? This looks like disingenuous engagement on your part, while pretending to have some moral high ground in terms of civility.

I'm very happy, as I think I've shown, to move the discussion to hypothetical people. I'm also doing my best to steer clear of ad hominems, which you are not. But if you have any more requests with regards to my civility, please do not hesitate to make them, I'll do my best to oblige.

In my view, this self-satisfied discussion here, ostensibly about my alleged lack of civility, isn't actually about finding a civil way of having this discussion. It is, instead, about replacing the discussion, in any form, with taking offense.

I have patiently answered your sarcastic questions, and I'm quite convinced you already know that your view at the start of this conversation (that the story is about “attacking a cis female” by “implying she's trans” because “she's too buff”) was substantially wrong.

Instead of acknowledging that (even though you did move the discussion in a different direction, to whether sex categories in sport are needed), what you did is to repeatedly try to smear my position, without slightest justification, just based on what it ”reminds you of”, as equivalent to racism, homophobia, misogyny.

No, you are not staying civil. Not even close.

You're just wrong, and desperate not to acknowledge it.

Thank you for this conversation, anyway.

@eric @MisuseCase@twit.social

@rysiek @darnell

What you did in your hypothetical is to point to a (theoretical and unspecified) safety concern NOT related to sex, and complain that sex category didn't remove it. You're applying an impossible standard: you demand that when sex category is established, then no safety concern must ever present for any reason ever, even theoretically.

We don't expect that standard from any other measure.

Yes, sex testing would mostly affect female sport, that's true.

No, for nearly all athletes, except only for the very rare cases where more diagnostics after screening is required for health reasons anyway, it's a cheek swab. This is not invasive.

@rysiek @darnell
Still, you're proposing highly invasive testing based on a hypothetical problem. You only proposed that there could theoretically be such people — who are these people?

There could be 8 year old boys who have the physique of 15 year old boys — it is possible! — which would prove a safety concern in children sports based on age categories. Do we now, based on that possibility we have now identified, say that age categories have failed, and do we seriously propose replacing them with extensive invasive testing across the board?

@rysiek @darnell
Yes.

@rysiek @darnell
I don't know, but let's say it is.

@rysiek @darnell
What you proposing is more invasive testing which would still end up with Amal in the category with all the males. Why would you want to do that? Just to avoid the word “sex”?

I mean, think about it: age affects a lot of sport-related things, that's why we have age categories — so you could also measure those things instead of checking a person's age.

Sure, but why?

@rysiek @darnell
I did bring chromosomes into the hypothetical scenario for clearer context, yes. I did not say chromosomes define sex. They don't.

BTW, I do also think there is a valid case for some XY people to be included in female sport category. 5-ARD is just not one of these cases.

I don't think there is a singular test to clearly and unambiguously establish sex. Chromosome testing is a fairly good screen, but there can be more diagnostics needed in some rare cases (diagnostics which provide information which those people need anyway for health reasons).

Men with XX chromosomes should not be considered female, because they don't follow female development path.

@rysiek @darnell
Surely!