Isn’t the whole issue that sports themselves have meshed gender/sex together. And now it’s back to the drawing board of sex only regardless of your gender which then brings in “inclusion” issues all of a sudden. So aren’t we seeing that the sports themselves haven’t figured out the difference between sex and gender if it’s decided at the end user level (currently how usat lets you choose your category)?
IE WT’s category is based on sex. USAT’s current category system is based on gender, so it’s not as if the sports themselves are distinguishing them any better.
And @Lurker4 saying not all non inclusion is bad, is that similiar to saying you’re a little bit pregnant? I always thought if your non inclusive that by definition was meant as “bad”. So back to my point if a sport turns it to sex based categories and all sexes are allowed, saying it’s “non inclusive” but just not the bad noninclsion doesn’t really make sense. So now there is bad inclusion and sometimes not bad inclusion scenarios?
I’ve never heard anyone reference non inclusion in the “it’s not meant badly” way when reference non inclusion. But I’m just an idiot tri coach so I may not be as sophisticated as others.
No the issue is that sex and gender are two different things and if people interchangeably use them it makes a conversation about any number of issues related to sex and gender difficult.
Using gender vs. sex for sports categories is a different issue.
Now within triathlon which is the whole point of the discussion for most people or it would be a lavendar room topic. WT acting as the governing body of the sport is defining categories based on sex (atleast for women and for this new ruling). It’s own individual federations are basing categories on any which way the want, whether it’s sex or gender based; USAT bases it’s categories on gender. So thus by almost default it’s meshing sex/genders, even if yes they are 2 completely different things. Which creates even a bigger issue of if the sport’s governing body has different rules then it’s own constitutes are going to have and/or follow, what in the wild world of sports is going on.
I could go on quoting your use of quotes around so many words and phrases…what does it all mean?
If you want an opinion, and you probably don’t but this is a forum after all, because you haven’t got your head around the Why, you are super focussed on challenging the How and What of the various things we’ve put in place to protect people.
The way you conceive or think about “all of this” is the fundamental issue, if you address this then you won’t feel the need to challenge anything that flows from it. If you don’t, I dare say you’ll be banging your head against it for years to come.
I’ve always read when talking in forums or text that you put " " around key wprds when putting emphasis on something. Since we aren’t talking and you can voice inflict differences when your talking in a converastion that replaces that in a text/forum world. So it’s more for putting emphasis, I assumed that was common knowledge, I’ve seen that in all types of forums and post/texts.
Read through the forums and the 1st feeling I got was doom and gloom from this ruling. It was automatically percieved as anti inclusive. Which I’m willing to raise my hand and not sit behind anonymity as well and say “wait can’t we be happy for biological women”. Which is funny cus everyone is like “yes this was the right rule” and yet seems most are upset at either them actually doing it or how they are doing it. Which if you base it on sex which is what WT is doing and not on gender (USAT is doing), how do you actually do it any other way?
I mean like if it’s just the general sense of dread, like I get it because this seemingly automatically is percieved as non-inclusive, but I also kinda say…wait if this is non-inclusive now, how is it any different if you are pro TG and then “anti biological woman” stance? Does it have to turn into a one or the other, because doesn’t someone always lose, we can’t be inclusive + fair play right within the parameters of today’s gender/sex world’s view?
So it’s an interesting thought process. Everyone is basically willing to say this is the correct rule, it’s just that it’s a bummer to those affected. So my question then becomes what would make it “right”, if we also acknowledge “yes this is probaly the right/fair rule”. Essentially how far do you have to go for everyone to feel inclusive?
And again you then have a meshing of gender/sex within our own sports governing bodies. You got WT ruling within sex basis, you got national federations ruling on a gender basis. So for most people who are in the fun and social category, this will never apply to them if USAT stays within the gender classification (if your an American). As far as I know they aren’t going to change their current categories. So it really only affects athletes who then want to compete at worlds or specific WT governed events. Obviously I don’t know what Belguim or Spain or NZ is doing within their rulebooks, but I know what British had more of a WT stance even what 2 years ago now with their gender rule book. So you got 1 big ruling body that not even it’s own federation constitutes are likely to follow.
Word have meaning.
I’d like a cheeseburger, but please don’t include the onions, means I’m discriminating against onions. It’s ok because it’s an object.
I’d like to compete in the 20-24 AG, but please don’t include 30 year olds is also non-inclusive and discriminates against that 30 year old. But the point needs to be made that it justly discriminates against the 30 year old. Just as someone who is vision impaired is justly excluded from being a bus driver.
Sometimes based on skill, sometimes based on innate qualififactions, and ironically, in this case it’s based on an innate biological physical superiority. You’re too good for this category, so you have to play someone where else is very different than you are an inferior person so you need to drink from a different water fountain.
Where it gets muddled is the “too good” feels singled out by all of the mocking and judgement of their lifestyle. But that has nothing to do with the specificity of the exclusion in this case. And we shouldn’t take an idea from affirmative action and try to right all the wrongs via policy when it comes to sport.
I’d say that the way you’re using them conveys sarcasm or otherwise undermining the use of these words, i.e. you’re saying you don’t think diversity equity and inclusion efforts are genuine.
To emphasise, I would use asterisks to italicise the words you are emphasising or perhaps bold for major emphasis.
The fairest way to read quotes is that the writer is using the specific word of another person and calling a distinction to their definition of that word or phrase. To my reading it’s slightly different than what italics convey. See the below quote from Brooks with two different formats and how they read quite differently.
One of them is questioning the definition of the word, the other is presupposing an agreed definition.
Across lots of platforms that involve text vs voice conversations.
@JoeX thanks for the “advice”. I’m 43 with a technology brain of a 78 year old (dear god don’t ask me how to share a file or whatever within emails, or else I need IT). I know how to shift button + quotations when typing stuff out, I don’t know where the bold/italics button is unless the platform provides it. (ST has that capability; when I text to to text someone I dont use italics or even know how to make a word italics, so thus when I’m talking about emphasis on something, I’ve added qutations…you asked what it meant/why I did, I answered you, if you don’t think it’s correct, cool, but you asked what it mean and I answered)
Personally I use single quote marks round words of phrases to indicate that I appreciate that people may have different interpretations of what I mean by said word/phrase, in an effort to avoid diving into discussion about it, hoping to keep to the broader point.
I think the idea of it denoting facetiousness or sarcasm is a rather perjorative take.
For me ‘double quotes’ is best reserved for reported speech: quoting what someone else has said. Brooks said “Thanks for the advice.”
A lot of comments about what SafeSport does or does not do and who it applies to. In the sport where I work, there was an incident several years ago where the individual fled the country. He had applied to be the NT coach which was funny, he publicly said the reason he left was because they went in a different direction. Well he got a 10 year ban. I have to take the course every year, and will tell it 100% applies to adult interaction.
The Coach Who Will Not be Named has a worldwide life ban and is allowed to coach in this industry because the World Federation won’t punish the Athletes, but that piece of crap has built wealth off the athletes he’s coached. So if you ever bring up Wellington has some type of moralist just understand her coach was a monster so she’s not really someone to look up to. Same with the Bird.
