Monday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Spikes and hooks are the least 'equitable' things out there? Why are Ivies so into them?" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. This thread is really another in a very long series of threads resulting from the trend among colleges and universities to make standardized tests optional for admissions applications. The original poster argues that "musical ability, theatre, and esoteric extracurricular and leadership accomplishment" are functions of privilege and, in fact, more inequitable than standardized tests. One of the criticisms of standardized tests is that they favor those privileged to have undergone intensive test preparation. The original poster turns this argument around and argues that factors that are highly regarded in holistic admissions policies such as musical or theatrical talent are developed through significant investment of parents' time and money which requires even more privilege. I've only read the first page of responses, but those posts show that some posters refute the original poster's argument and claim that their kids' talents were developed mostly through the children's own initiative with minimal parental support. The original poster is unrelenting in her insistance that only privileged children are capable of such accomplishments and that this exposes the hypocrisy of test optional admissions policies. Admittedly, I am not an expert in the topic, but based on my own observations, top athletes, musicians, or actors all have innate abilities. Yes, those talents must be developed for the individuals to reach top levels, but that does not always require the sort of investment the original poster imagines. Soccer and baseball, to name just two sports, are full of athletes from very humble origins. What privilege those individuals have is mostly a result of talent and hard work. Moreover, the original poster accepts as fact that dropping test requirements is purely motivated by "equity" concerns. I am not sure that argument is as well-founded as the original poster imagines. Similarly, the original poster implies that top athletes, musicians, and actors only pursue those activities in order to enhance college applications. In other words, in this poster's mind, there is no difference between a test preparation course and piano lessons. I think many would disagree with that assessment.

Second was a thread posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. Titled, "Chris rock special", the thread is, as you can guess, about Chris Rock's comedy show on Netflix. The thread starts off before the show even aired and then continues as Rock's performance is in progress. Fairly quickly, posters divided into groups with fans of Rock poised against supporters of Will and Jada Smith, and even a few outliers who don't like any of them. Some posters found Rock to be hilarious and insightful. To others, he was a misogynistic bore. Much of the discussion in this thread is a rehash of Smith's slap of Rock last year at the Academy Awards. Several posters believe that Rock was out of line at that time and deserved being hit. Due to the way Rock addressed that controversy in his Netflix show, some posters now think he deserves to be slapped again. Rock has never shied away from tackling racial issues. So, I suppose that it is fitting that many of the responses in this thread deal with racial angles with Rock being accused of pandering to white people. I haven't seen the show, but apparently there is something about discussing the color of a baby's skin. That generated quite a bit of debate in the thread with self-described Black posters coming down on both sides of the argument. Posters identifying themselves as Black women seemed particularly upset by Rock's treatment of Jada Smith, both in this show and earlier at the Academy Awards. Rock was criticized as a "incel" who hates Smith because she rejected him. On the other hand, Rock appears to have done a bit about Elon Musk that seems to have received near universal applause from those who mentioned it.

Next was a thread titled, "Same Sex Family Life Education" and posted in the "Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)" forum. This thread probably deserves an award for having one of the most confusing subject lines ever. Some posters understood the subject line as referring to education about same sex families and took offense that this would be considered something negative. "Family Life Education" or FLE is apparently what the Fairfax County Public Schools uses to describe "sex education". However, this does not mean that the original poster is asking about sex eduction involving the gay and lesbian community. No, the issue at hand is whether FLE classes should be segregated by sex or by including all students together in the same class. From what I understand, FLE classes are currently separated by gender but a committee that studied the issue has recommended that the classes be combined. Apparently, some sort of survey has been conducted that demonstrated overwhelming support for separated classes. Because a significant number of DCUM posters are convinced that public schools are exclusively focused on turning all students trans, a narrative has developed — and is articulated in this thread — that trans activists who are determined to sexualize children are behind the effort to combine students in order to normalize transgender individuals who will then be groomed. Moreover, FCPS is hiding the survey results that show opposition to this effort. Other posters disagree. According to these posters, the School Board has made no decision regarding FLE classes, much about the proposed changes and who is behind them consists either of outright lies or misrepresentations, and the survey was likely astroturfed and is of no value. Posters argue over whether or not their own classes were separated by gender with some posters remembering it one way and others remembering things the other way.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Mississippi bans trans health care for minors", the original poster says that Republicans always claim to support parental rights but then support laws such as this one that prevent families from providing medical care to their children. Threads of this kind remind me of a joke which paraphrased is something like this: two pilots have flown together for so long that they have memorized each other's jokes. Therefore, rather than telling the entire jokes, they have numbered them. One pilot will say, "joke 1" and the other pilot will laugh, and then reply "joke 2". Because the topic of transgender children has been debated so thoroughly and so frequently, I have essentially memorized every argument and every reply. Posters could save time by just typing "argument 1" and so on. As in all threads of this nature, opponents of gender affirming care ignore the reality of such treatment and, instead, create straw man arguments to debate. As such, these threads almost immediately lose any connection to reality and, frankly, are a big waste of time. Just like the imaginary pilots described above, I have repeated my thoughts on this topic enough times that I should number them and save the effort of repeating them. Position number 1, which for the uninitiated is that anti-trans politicians for the most part probably don't have strong feelings one way or the other about trans people. Rather, being unable to run in favor of any policies, they are limited to running against things. Gender identity has proven to be politically potent, so these politicians are using it to what they perceive to be their political advantage (whether it is a true advantage is debatable). In summation, these politicians could not care less about the health of children. They only care about the health of their political future. It is foolish for both proponents and opponents of gender affirming care to believe otherwise.