World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Silly question, why does chess, a mental activity, need gendered leagues?
Chess at pro level is brutal. One can get mentally mauled if the adversary has a superior, trained for cruel psychological warfare, mind.
Men just don't stand a chance.
Because the whole idea of gendered leagues in games that ultimately don't matter at all is about segregation and control, not physiology.
Bring on the down votes from the "but muh sports 'tegridy!" clowns.
Edit: some of yall need a class on statistics lol
I don't really follow. Do you mean only non/minimally physical competitions or all competitive sports/games/activities?
For things like chess, fishing, and spelling bees gender segregation doesn't make sense. But for things like martial arts or weight lifting I think it makes sense.
It at least makes sense if the goal is competition between roughly similar groups of participants, and not just a single open class dominated by a particular physiology.
Why not set up divisions, among sports where the physiological differences do matter, based on the actual weight, strength etc of the individual participants, whatever traits are relevant to that sport, rather than by gender? Even if the average woman and the average man have, say, a strength difference, there are still going to be some women who are evenly matched with some subset of men, after all. I feel like such a system, if done well, could make things more competitive than simply sorting by gender, because it enables sports where the people who are not on the stronger end of what their gender is capable of to still face equivalent opponents, and would remove the whole reason for debate regarding trans athletes, because they could get put into the same categories as anyone else without their identity being invalidated or having any relevance to their performance.
There are tons of ways to makes sports more inclusive. The issue has never been "we're all out of ideas," but rather "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas." Also "tRaDiTiOn"
Fair point. If your argument is that physiological factors matter, but gender is an insufficient variable to segregate on then I don't disagree.
I think it comes down to a matter of practicality. In most cases is gender a good enough heuristic? Maybe, or maybe not. I don't really know, but it's probably one of the simplest variables to consider. Perhaps it would be better if a more complete (but complex and harder to measure) set of factors were considered.
The only concession I can think of is things like crossfit games or Olympic weight lifting, where raw strength is the one and only point, or so central to the point that it'd be pointless to have men and women competing against one another. But things that require strategy or finesse like most sports, and definitely martial arts, women could absolutely be top contenders.
As humans we have hunted mammoths together, gone to the moon together, created computers together, etc. I think we can handle throwing and catching the balls together too.
TLDR there are many more aspects to most sports than raw physical strength, which is the only physiological "advantage" men have over women.
I think you're right that there's a spectrum, where one end is bound by raw physical strength and the other end is bound by technique. However, I'd draw the line for segregation closer to the strength end than you, I think. Granted, this is ultimately all just subjective.
I think for many sports the physical advantage men have (on average) would outweigh any technique advantage a woman may have. Especially if we consider professional sports, where the skill (technique) of all participants is already exceptionally high.
I'm not a martial arts expert, but I would argue that the existence of weight classes in most martial arts is evidence that raw strength is a factor that can't be ignored. It's a fact that for an athletic man and an athletic woman of equal weight, the man will be stronger.
Men will still be stronger at equal weight than women though the difference isn't as drastic any more.
About martial arts in particular though women have an advantage when it comes to actually being mentally capable of learning proper technique early on. You can tell your ordinary 16yold guy as often as you want that they should trust technique, punch with their legs, etc. it won't get through their skull and they'll over-tense to "feel the strain" the moment you turn your back on them. They just love their 3rd class levers. Probably even makes sense from an evolutionary POV as doing things inefficiently is strength training.
It's definitely possible for a woman to get better than a random street punk (though not with "feminist self defence" type of classes, those are generally bullshido). Against a properly trained man, though? Let's say that the only thing my SO manages to be is a handful when I try to tickle her and it's kinda hard to tickle when you don't have a free hand.
Right. It's not a fact that the man will be a more skilled or successful fighter (or insert any sports position here) than the woman based on strength alone, so why should we assume that it is?
I agree that technique is absolutely a critical component that women can be equal to men on.
I'm just arguing that a woman would have to have an incredible technique advantage to overcome a man's strength advantage (in most martial arts). Is it possible? Certainly. Is it a realistic situation, especially at the professional level? I'm not so sure.
That's why I brought up weight classes. Sure, a lighter weight class athlete has the potential to beat a heavier opponent with superior technique. But the skill gap necessary for that to happen isn't realistic, therefore the playing field is leveled by strength (weight class).
I definitely disagree with the martial arts point. If it's simple point sparring where technique is most important like in karate or taekwondo then yes, men and women can compete. If it's MMA or any kind of grappling then no, men will dominate at the higher levels.
This will be true of any sport where strength, endurance or speed of the human body is a deciding factor. Which is, unfortunately, most sports.
So is your argument that women are inherently inferior at chess or...?
What you have just said is that there is a cultural difference and I agree with that. Dont confuse that with a difference based on sex, or physiology, in other words.
Obviously, men and women on a 1:1 basis have equal potential to excel at chess, based on their sex, right?
You did see the numbers? I mean, what else do you need?
Anyone know what the highest rated trans male and trans female chess players are? Would be interesting to know if this rule is even currently necessary.
I can't find any trans men ranked, but the highest rating I can find for a trans woman is Natalia Pares Vives with a ranking of 2213, or about 325th on the chess.com women's rankings.
If chess.com's rankings are to be believed, none :/
In girl chess the pieces are pink.
All of the pieces. On both sides of the board. Mentally it's much more taxing keeping track of which pieces are yours. We guys have it really easy with the whole black/white pieces.
Actually women are just better at seeing colour and for them what looks like the same pink to us is actually 17 different shades.
And on average, they only start out with 80% of the pieces of the men's set.
shaun did an excellent video on exactly this. TL;DW: stereotype threat & harassment.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=ZHFZOXiM9SM
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
As is tradition
Fucking hell some of us can be idiots...
Have you met chess bros?
I can see why women would want their own league.
The average chess bro is not a trans woman.
The average trans woman chess player was assigned chess bro at birth.
It doesn't in principle, and it's not really either.
There is the main league, which is open for everyone, and an extra league for women only to offset the male dominance of the main league.
Why they feel the need to exclude trans women from that I have no idea. Even many of the physical sports allow trans women under certain conditions and only to prevent any unfair advantage due to increased muscle growth during puberty.
So women can play chess without the added mental burdens that come along with being a women in a male dominated space.
Women have more places to hide the sex toys.
Edit: it's a bad joke referencing the recent cheating scandal
That's exactly what I was thinking.
Yeah I don't get it either
It’s not gendered. If there is a female super GM she will be invited to the most prestigious tournaments. But there isn’t any… and that’s a whole other debate