Losing the TERF War

THE WAR ON STANDARDS, WOKE U.S. ARMY EDITION

The U.S. Army apparently has decided to gender-norm scores on the test it administers for combat fitness… women will be judged based on how they perform in relation to other women.

This radical change is a response to the unsurprising fact that women are failing the Army’s combat fitness test to a disproportionate extent. The test in question evaluates soldiers in six events: dead lifts, a two-mile run, push-ups, a shuttle run, a medicine ball throw and leg tucks, in which soldiers must hang from a bar and bring their knees to their elbows. About 54 percent of women and 7 percent of men failed the test last year.

Wait a minute. If trans women ARE women, every soldier is potentially a woman. But biological females can’t compete on the same physical fitness curve as biological males?

The NCAA could not be reached for comment.

A league of their own?

You know those very annoying CAPTCHAs – nine blurry images arranged in a 3×3 square that ask you to click on all the fire hydrants, or buses, or crosswalks, etc., etc. – to prove you’re “not a robot”?

CAPTCHA is a lame acronym, iteratively cross-dressed into: “Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart.”

Well, today I’m giving you the first look at the “Other Club Turing test to Unautomatedly separate the Guys from the Gals,” or OCTUGG. TOC doesn’t employ a team of highly paid acronym inventors.

OCTUGG has only 4 choices instead of 9, and hi-res images so the yellow fire hydrant isn’t camouflaged by the school bus in the background. You might think it’s simpler and clearer than CAPTCHA.

We’ll see. Your job is is to think about which images below you’d click given the instruction: “Click on all the males.”

The correct answer is click all of them.

Upper left to lower right, they are Laurel Hubbard, Hanna Mouncey, Kataluna Enriquez, and Fallon Fox. All transwomen. Three of them claim to be female athletes. Three of them are narcissistic bullies. One is a paler, slimmer rendition of RuPaul.

Laurel Hubbard is a Kiwi weight lifter, who set womens’ world records – keeping an XX chromosome female off the medals podium. Hanna Mouncey is an Aussie rugby player (6’2″/220) who has significantly injured more than a few women. Kataluna Enriquez is a Nevada beauty pageant winner (Miss Silver State), about to compete for Miss Nevada. And Fallon Fox is an American MMA fighter who broke an XX chromosome opponent’s eye socket in a fight even Liz Warren would not have called fair.

So. It’s not as easy to identify who should be allowed to play on your collegiate women’s sports teams as the South Dakota legislature assumed.

I mean, Miss Silver State isn’t going to be recruited to the wrestling team even by some woke athletic director. If they had a female wrestling team. Only the males capable of crushing females would be of interest. Fleeting interest, once all the marginal males figure out they can be stars in strength and speed competition with females.

Let them compete, I say. With each other. Out and proud, right?

Emphasis mine in the following. Parker citation link omitted. The science is settled in the case of human sexual dimorphism. There are two sexes. The scientific definition of this is that human:

[f]emale gametes are larger than male gametes. This is not an empirical observation, but a definition: in a system with two markedly different gamete sizes, we define females to be the sex that produces the larger gametes and vice-versa for males (Parker et al. 1972), and the same definition applies to the female and male functions in hermaphrodites.

There is a longer discussion of this here: Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes

Why are there girls and why are there boys? We review theoretical work which suggests that divergence into just two sexes is an almost inevitable consequence of sexual reproduction in complex multicellular organisms, and is likely to be driven largely by gamete competition. In this context we prefer to use the term gamete competition instead of sperm competition, as sperm only exist after the sexes have already diverged (Lessells et al., 2009). To see this, we must be clear about how the two sexes are defined in a broad sense: males are those individuals that produce the smaller gametes (e.g. sperm), while females are defined as those that produce the larger gametes (e.g. Parker et al., 1972; Bell, 1982; Lessells et al., 2009; Togashi and Cox, 2011). Of course, in many species a whole suite of secondary sexual traits exists, but the fundamental definition is rooted in this difference in gametes, and the question of the origin of the two sexes is then equal to the question of why do gametes come in two different sizes.

The secondary sexual characteristics, of course, are where we get into errors like those of the South Dakota legislature. It isn’t always obvious who is male and who is female. They might as well have tried to set height and weight limits, akin to the strictures we place on youth sport by banding the competitors in age groups.

Or they could try a routine genetic test. No more intrusive than vaccine passports.

Newspeak Progressive Revanchists

South Dakota Governor Bars Transgender Sports Through Executive Order : NPR

“After failed negotiations between South Dakota Republican Gov. Kristi Noem and the state’s House lawmakers, the governor issued two executive orders Monday designed to limit participation on women’s and girls’ school sports teams to people assigned female at birth.”

Translation:
After refusing to sign poorly drafted legislation preventing unfair competition in womens* sports from stronger, faster, heavier humans masquerading as female – supporting the clear intent of Title IX – South Dakota Republican Gov. Kristi Noem issued two executive orders Monday designed to prevent male assault on female athletes.

Fixed that for you NPR.

* Humans with XX chromosomes, AKA females.

Rules for Radicals v1.0

A friend sent the the first quote following the other day as a post topic, and I’ve added another from the same source:

“Undermine the enemy first, then his army will fall to you. Subvert him, attack his morale, strike at his economy, corrupt his leaders, sow internal discord. Destroy him.”

“All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.”

― Sun Tzu

For the Chinese, The Art of War remains current doctrine. But it is more than an ancient (~5th century BC) Chinese military treatise on strategy and tactics.

Consider it as Rules for Radicals v1.0. Saul Alinsky wasn’t such an original thinker. His major contribution (maybe V1.05?) was no more than an amoral gloss: Glorifying personal mendacity, celebrating corrupt nihilism, and justifying individual persecution by the mob.

War” does make for a much punchier title than “Business, Sports, Politics, Strategy, Tactics, and Life in General.” But, Sun Tzu’s advice is often general. With Alinsky’s help it applies to American Leftist academicians and authoritarian politicians as much as to the present day Chinese People’s Liberation Army; and to our SJW Community Organizers as much as to the Russian CyberKommand. Even though they all are enemies.

If you’ve been paying even slight attention, you easily can supply many recent examples of the Chinese Communist Party’s deceitful undermining of the United States. The list includes attempts at subversion, demoralization, economic disruption, corruption of high officials, and sowing of internal discord. That would be in line with Sun Tzu’s advice. I hope we’re doing it to them. But their Fifth Column is much better than ours.

That is, the Chinese have had a lot of help with their efforts. While we can draw parallels to Art of War, more damage results from domestic application of Rules for Radicals. As a few of Alinsky’s aphorisms will illustrate:

“The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”

“The organizer’s first job is to create the issues or problems… The organizer must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression.”

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.”

“Human beings do not like to look squarely into the face of tragedy. Gloom is unpopular.”

“A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism…”

“To say that corrupt means corrupt the ends is to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles.”

“Accuse the other side of that of which you are guilty.”

“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.”

“Always remember the first rule of power tactics; power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”

And my favorite – which you never hear – in these days of BLAMTIFA and ‘gender’ chaos:

“The fact that people are poor or discriminated against doesn’t necessarily endow them with any special qualities of justice, nobility, charity or compassion.”

Anything strike you about Alinsky’s advice and current events?

Mask mandates? Lockdowns? Riots, looting and arson unopposed by civic leaders? Pronoun wars? Cancel culture? Election fraud? Destruction of small business? Dollar gutting multi-trillion dollar pipe dreams? Self-debasement of our media? Objections to “Wuhan Virus” as racist?

Further reading:

“In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is…in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”

– Theodore Dalrymple

“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were- cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?”

-George Orwell, 1984

We’ll let Sun Tzu have the final word:

“The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.”

C’mon, Man!

I’d like to supply a link to the WaPo or NYT on this point, since that makes it nearly impossible for Progressive useful idiots to deny. But Wapo and NYT seem to be MIA.

Since I participate in neither Twitter nor Facebook, I cannot say if it has been shadow banned, buried, or otherwise demoted on those plotforms. (Not a typo.)

It is reportable news that far more than half of Americans would like to ponder (Trump voters plus Democrats who don’t believe men can just decide they’re women for purposes of Track or Rugby), from a video of a Chuck Schumer press conference. It should be highlighted by the papers which editorially support the idea, but reporting it might disturb the somnolence of some mail in voters.

Schumer Says He Agrees With Biden On Giving Transgender Students Access To Sports, Bathrooms, And Locker Rooms

What I want to know is how Chuck Schumer even dare comment? Let me show you why, in SJW speak:

Schumer: “Speaking as an ancient, privileged, white, elite, heterosexual male – who championed the Biden/Clinton 1994 crime bill in the House… I fully support Joe Biden’s idea that the Federal Government should ensure females of any age have no protection from males in contact sports, are forced to share shower facilities, and cannot feel secure in public bathrooms generally.”

Isn’t this the very epitome of cultural appropriation? “Woke” is a culture, right?