Erik Haugen @ech@qoto.org

@ruffin @pikesley So I guess in some sense, if "she was playing her best", I could just stand there and ~probably get a point or two across the entire match.

(Of course, if she was in on it and trying to stop me from getting a point, then as you note she could just dial her serve back a bit and I would almost certainly get no points. Or even return anything.)

@RowinSpeez @pikesley @starkos Sure, but those men/boys teams are *really good* – definitely way better than 7/8 of men. They're more like .1%ile, not 12%ile.

@csstrowbridge @pikesley Unfortunately for us men, I think if Williams was playing against a 12th percentile male tennis player, she could dial her serves back enough to basically never fault.

@pikesley Accurate tweet: this is what would happen to you if the ball was going fast enough. Turns out it wouldn't throw your body back against the fence like you see in movies sometimes.

@Wikisteff @Andres @pikesley I'm not 100% sure I'm parsing you correctly, but even if the question was: "if you played a 5 set match against Serena Williams, do you think you would score a single point in any of the at least 30 games?" well, then 1/8 is still absurd.

There's a Dude Perfect video with Williams, and they manage to return a serve by having all 5 of them ready to receive at the same time. She easily gets the point anyway. They're far better than 7/8ths of men at tennis, of course. (The injuries they sustained in the video aren't as bad as the tweet, but still no points.)

The 1/8 is Dunning–Kruger at its finest.

@queenofnewyork @futurebird @keyboardworrier@lgbtqia.space Well, I won't say "never" – you make a good point that anything's possible.

But one thing to consider about those examples is that major political movements have been trying to undo affirmative action and make abortion illegal for a very long time, and they've been very explicit about it the whole time.

"Keep trans people out of an activity (like chess) open to only non-trans" is really not what I'm hearing anyone saying these days – it's not just that people are lobbying for that but have no political power to speak of.

In that sense, at least, this would be different from those examples.

@keyboardworrier@lgbtqia.space @queenofnewyork @futurebird Seemed a bit dickish the way it was worded so I took it back; beg pardon! But yes – any chance to wrestle with the cognitive dissonance?

@queenofnewyork @keyboardworrier@lgbtqia.space @futurebird Strictly about this specific prediction, I really don't see that happening: a chess tournament open to everyone, male or female, as long as they're not trans? (In some sports it sort of happens indirectly – trans men can compete with cis men usually *unless* they're using hormone treatments, for example.)

@queenofnewyork @keyboardworrier@lgbtqia.space @futurebird Not really – most chess tournaments are just "open", no gender. Women can play against men without forfeiting their other titles.

@futurebird "Trans men will be stripped of all chess titles won" IIUC only stripped of *women's* chess titles won, yes? They wouldn't be stripped of titles from open tournaments, right?

@Sinistar7510 https://44bbdc6e-01a4-4a9a-88bc-731c6524888e.filesusr.com/ugd/0813a9_6b0ea3c8b15a48cab92db4f0fd7991b7.pdf From Crenshaw herself. I think this is more or less what conservatives who use the term mean by the term, isn't it? I don't think this canard about nobody knowing what it really is is very useful.

@floppyplopper @stavvers seems similar in most of those: mostly open contests, mostly men participating therefore most at the top level are men, occasional women's-only events.

@dpnash@mastodon.online @stavvers "At high levels, this is a large performance difference." Isn't it just a "bigger pool of people" and not any known "performance difference"?

@timo21 @gwensnyder Even libertarians "censor" – i.e. have strong opinions about for example what their kids read.

It's just a question of process.

To that end: Chatgpt makes me concerned. Is it making bad decisions I wonder? I don't know.

@revere23@stranger.social @DeanObeidallah Well, he did more than just question the election: he did things like pressure Pence to not count some states' votes due to ongoing disputes about their veracity. (Pence I assume was well aware that those questions had had their day in court and all failed spectacularly, so rejected the request.)

Your point remains, though: I'm having trouble finding anything in these indictments that isn't "going through the front door". Like, was Trump involved in some effort to get armed attackers in place to take over congress or something? I don't think so? (If so wow did he fail spectacularly, there were instead only like 2 guys with zip ties. If he were trying to do this, wouldn't there be more of a force there on the day of?)

@Ulrich_the_Elder@mastodon.social @amaditalks @ami_angelwings @stavvers IIUC it mostly isn't. There are women's chess events/tournaments, though. Why? Well, why not?

@GrayGooGirl @stavvers I'm sure that was someone's motivation at one point or another, but certainly isn't the main thing going on. In any case, not having women's sports would mean inequity in things like college scholarships. There's real money involved. (I guess one solution to that would be to not have athletic scholarships, but what about pro sports?)

"excluded from the """real""" league" Women's sports is very much real. (And a lot of "men's" sports orgs don't actually ban women (MLB is an exception).)

I think most men understand that there are plenty of women who can absolutely crush them at any given sport. :)

@skipchris @stavvers Yeah, mostly IIUC tournaments don't have different categories for different genders.

@randahl except right above this in /explore I was seeing Gargron pushing the stickers and mugs.