Thursday's Most Active Threads

Yesterday's most active discussion was titled, "JK Rowling's gender policing finally caught up to her", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. I am sure that by now everyone has heard about the controversy involving Algerian boxer Imane Khelif and the Olympics. But for anyone who has been locked away in a cave, here is a summary. Khelif was identified at birth as a female, raised as a female, and has competed in boxing as a female for several years. After she defeated a Russian boxer, the Russian President of the International Boxing Association, Umar Kremlev, claimed that tests showed that she has XY chromosomes and, therefore, is a man. Kremlev disqualified Khelif, along with Taiwanese boxer Lin Yu Ting, from competition. Notably, Kremlev has not revealed which tests were conducted or who conducted them. Nor have the results other than his general statement been provided. The International Olympic Committee has suspended relations with the IBA and rejects its findings regarding Khelif and Lin. It is important to remember that allegations that Khelif has XY chromosomes and tested high in testosterone come only from Kremlev and have not been confirmed otherwise. While many posters in this thread assume Kremlev's allegations are true, that remains an open question. Regardless, Khelif's participation in the Olympics led to a wave of on-line hate and bigotry towards her. Some prominent individuals, including J. K. Rowling and Elon Musk, joined in and encouraged those attacks. In response, Khelif has filed a complaint in French courts accusing those two and others of cyberbullying. The original poster of this thread is doubtful that successful legal action would do anything to temper Rowling's attacks on women who do not conform to her own rigid gender norms, but is happy that Rowling may at least suffer financial repercussions.

Most of the discussion in the thread is not about the legal action itself, though there is some of that. Rather, the thread is dominated by posters debating gender and biology. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has been criticized for refusing to answer when asked to define the word "woman". However, if anything, this discussion demonstrates that the answer to that question is not as straight forward as it might appear. Posters in this thread define "woman" in a number of different ways. Poster's with conflicting views all tended to claim their arguments were based in "science" and several of the posters claimed to be scientists. This discussion, or specifically the number of self-described scientists commenting, made me pessimistic about the future of science. According to multiple "scientists", sex is binary. There are XX females and XY males and that's it. When other posters pointed out that there are actually other combinations in existence, the "scientists" described those individuals as "errors". Posters then asked in which of the binary categories the "errors" fit. There was no answer. "Errors" exist, but apparently don't exist in a category. This was the first time I learned that the "No true Scotsman" fallacy has apparently been adopted as a scientific principle. The "scientists" repeatedly argued that the presence of a Y chromosome made a person male, regardless of the individual's sex organs. Another poster said sex depended on the gametes produced. Other posters pointed out that some humans produce no gametes. Are such people male or female? Again, no answer. For others, this is a question of testosterone. Produce enough and you are a man, regardless of any other physical characteristics. But this metric was also demonstrated to be flawed. Basically, the principle at work here for "scientists" was to declare that there are two sexes distinguished by a specific characteristic and then stick fingers in their ears while repeating "la, la. la" in response to posters pointing out individuals who did not adhere to that rule. Apparently, sex is binary except when it is not and when it is not it doesn't count. Probably the most ironic aspect of this entire controversy is that transgender individuals have argued that despite being assigned a specific gender at birth, they actually are another gender. Now, J. K. Rowling, perhaps the most vocal critic of such thinking, is making the argument that Khelif, assigned female at birth, is actually a male. Rowling seems to have gone from opposing gender transitions to demanding one.

Yesterday's next most active thread was posted in the "Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)" forum. Titled, "Just got disturbing email regarding English class for my rising freshman", the original poster copied an email sent by her child's Fairfax County Public Schools high school warning that students in the English 9 and English 9 Honors classes will be exposed to "sexually explicit content" as defined by the school system's policy. The email then goes on to describe the policy in a way that can only have been meant to cause as much fear and concern among parents as possible. The original poster concludes by asking if this is normal. Several posters explain that this warning is newly required for any material that has any sexual content whatsoever, no matter how mild. They blame Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin for the policy. Posters suggest that the original poster can ask which material specifically triggered the warning and examine it for herself. A number of posters, including a FCPS teacher, said that even "Romeo and Juliet" would cause this warning to be sent and most posters brush the warning off as unnecessary. The original poster later revealed that the email she received was caused by "The Poet X" by Elizabeth Acevedo. This is a young adult novel that chronicles a high school girl's struggles during adolescence as she transforms from a girl to a woman and gains awareness of her sexuality. The novel has won a huge number of awards and is highly acclaimed. While many posters go on rolling their eyes and complaining about "Romeo and Juliet" causing such emails, others argue that "The Poet X" is in an entirely different category and deserves such a notice. I have not read the book, but based on some quick online research, it does appear that the book is more graphic than might be expected. As those responding gain an understanding of what material is really at issue here, and that it is not, in fact, "Romeo and Juliet", more concern about the book is demonstrated. Some posters say that they will not allow their children to read the book. Some posters suggest removing the book as required reading while still leaving it as a class book that students may choose to read. A number of posters say that they have no issue with the novel and, in some cases, their children have already read it. One poster who quickly read the novel in light of this thread had considerable praise for the novel, saying that while it addressed sexual topics, it did so in a way that was respectful and praiseworthy. The main concern of some posters has less to do with the content of the novel but rather that schools are moving away from classics. They would rather their children read "The Crucible" or "The Grapes of Wrath" than "The Poet X". Another objection from some posters is that they believe the book is disrespectful of Catholicism and they would like it remove for that reason. Some posters were concerned that not only would students be required to read the book, but discuss it in class. This discussion of sexual activities might be embarrassing and awkward for many students. Posters also didn't like the idea of adult teachers being involved in discussing sexually graphic material with their kids, something they considered to be potential grooming.

Next was a thread titled, "W&M vs Richmond - thoughts?", and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster says that she is in New England and heard about DCUM from a friend. Her daughter is a track athlete and is considering both William & Mary and Richmond University. The original poster is interested in hearing the pros and cons of each school. First, I am happy that someone discussed DCUM with a friend and didn't warn them to avoid it. Second, I am even more happy that, at least for the first several pages, those responding justified the recommendation. There were a number of posters who had detailed knowledge, not just of the schools, but their track programs as well. In terms of a comparison of the two universities, there was general agreement that in terms of academics and outcomes, there is not much to separate them. The differences were in size — W&M is much larger — and location, Richmond is more isolated. Many posters argue that Richmond's student body tended to be wealthier and more preppy, with a strong fraternity and sorority scene. Unfortunately, by about the 5th page the discussion started to degrade. Posters brought up other colleges to discuss and DCUM's traditional bickering reved up. Without much of significance separating these schools, posters resorted to arguing about statistics that they believe favored one college over the other. For instance, W&M was said to be more diverse because its percent of White students is 60%. Richmond's percentage is 61%, so I guess W&M wins, but really? However, it then turned out that the poster was really referring to "vibes" which we all know can be precisely measured. According to this poster, Richmond is less "woke". Also, at about this same point in the thread, the trolls came out. Assuming that the original poster didn't fling her computer against the wall and curse her friend for ever mentioning DCUM at this point, there continued to be many helpful posts. It just took weeding through an increased amount of garbage to find them. Basically, this thread shows both the best and the worst that DCUM can offer.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Off-Topic" forum, though it might have been better off in the "Food, Cooking, and Restaurants" forum. Titled, "Poor people can't afford healthy food", the original poster describes being raised by a single mom who worked for minimum wage, yet was able to feed the family healthy food. The original poster suggests that this demonstrates that the often-expressed notion that poor people can't afford healthy food is not true. The original poster's mom was from southern Africa and the food she served was mostly stews. She would make a large pot that the family would eat for several days. Grocery shopping was limited to once a week and required a bus trip. The family might be able to eat out once a week. The original poster believes that poor families could follow this example and have affordable, healthy diets. Before getting to the responses to this post I have my own comments. The original poster's mother came from southern Africa. As such, the stews she prepared were probably her traditional diet. The food was likely something that she was used to eating, knew how to cook, and generally enjoyed. Many other poor people, especially those who are trapped in generational poverty, likely don't know how to prepare such meals and may not have a taste for them. When Vice President Harris says, "You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you", this is exactly the sort of thing to which she is referring. For all the problems that may have existed in southern Africa that motivated the original poster's mother to move to America, her past prepared her well for the circumstances she faced here. The same is not universally true for others. Still, I think the original poster has a valid point. Poor people could eat healthier, it is just that they face a huge number of obstacles to doing so. Many of the posters responding in this thread disagree with the original poster, often finding her judgmental and lacking empathy. Other posters, who in some cases actually are judgmental, agree with the original poster that poor people could eat healthier. One factor causing much of the discord in this thread is that while the original poster is actually sympathetic to poor people — despite many posters perceiving her otherwise — there are many responding who are not. Those defending poor people tend to lump the original poster and those like her in with those that have disdain for the poor. This is a disservice to the original poster and ignores the reality that many poor people could make better choices. Posters explain the hurdles that poor people face. Those absolutely exist, but instead of making excuses and letting it end there, perhaps more effort could be made to overcome those obstacles? This of course, gets to an essential truth. It is unlikely that any truly poor person who is suffering from food insecurity is reading DCUM. As such, this debate is really happening between a bunch of well-fed people. It is really just a theoretical discussion when it comes right down to it.