I hesitantly checked St. Patrick's Day parade. I am not a parade person. However, back when they had the parade on March 17th every year, I would be working in the loop on that day, and was definitely part of the experience. One time eating lunch at Exchequer some guys with bagpipes and drums spontaneously walked in and played for a few minutes and then moved on. It was the best of both worlds, I got to experience the revelry and not have to stand for a long time.
The only other thing I have not ever done is go to the top of Willis Tower.
I share the same two “never have I” experiences including seeing part of the parade at lunch when I worked on Michigan Ave across from the Tribune building! I debated with myself and also decided it didn’t qualify as having attended the parade.
This is the only thing on the list that I did not particularly enjoy. We had a college age exchange student from Amsterdam that wanted the Chicago experience, so we took him down with our two pre-school kids. The event was fine, but I did not appreciate all of the drunks.
"...if we assume these average differences don’t matter, then we have no excuse for separating sports by gender identity at all." I thought the same thing when I read the comment.
The article below gives her props for her dominating 50-point performance 10 years ago, but explains why Brittany Griner, in her prime, could probably not make a men's college D1 program. "It is not lesser, it is just different."
Regarding your “Never Have I Ever” survey, the only thing I’ve never done is go to the top of the Willis Tower, despite the fact that I worked in it for 5 years.
Ms. Wilmer seems intent on arguing by refusing to address the argument you made. ONCE we segregate by sex, why would we allow those we allow those born male to participate in women’s highly competitive sports? Like you said, otherwise there is no justification for segregating at all. My personal view is that you eliminate anyone with a Y Chromosome from womens highly competitive sports. I don’t want to make rules which involve proof of secondary sex characteristics. Those with a Y chromosome should still be entitled to participate in less competitive sports activities on a team that matches their identity. I would include all in school sports before high school as well as all non Non competitive club and intramural athletics.
Oh, Jo A., but Ms. Wimmer did address the argument that Eric Zorn made. Trans men are men, and trans women are women. So if we segregate by sex, we should place trans women with the women, at least once they have been on hormone therapy long enough that their current testosterone levels are like those of any other woman. What you and Eric have not addressed is that the only genetic advantages trans women have once they have been on hormone therapy are, on the average, taller height and larger lung capacity, which should certainly not be disqualifying if there are cis-women (just not as many of them) with the same advantages. What gives me comfort is my belief that, years from now, when trans people have achieved full equality (which we will), our society will look back on those who fought to keep us out of sports the way we look back today on people who tried to keep black people out of professional or competitive sports.
Ms. Wimmer is on one side of this debate which says gender identity always takes precedence over biological or physical sex while the other side (name your favorite right-winger) says that biology/physical sex always takes precedence over gender identity. Instead, I would argue that there exists a middle ground in which there exist situations and circumstances in which neither “always/extreme” is correct, but instead the actual situation or circumstance determines whether “gender identity” or “biological sex” should take precedence.
One of these situations is the involvement of transgender women in the arena of post-pubescent competitive athletics.
1 – LEVEL PLAYING FIELD: Virtually all competitive athletics is predicated on the participants being guaranteed a level playing field in their contest. This is why so many distinctive leagues, divisions and categories of sport exist within which the various participants are divided. Personally, I spent 41 years coaching on the NCAA Division III level, a division which is defined by “No athletic scholarships permitted”. This is obviously a non-physical limitation designed to provide a more equitable “playing field” among those institutions who join membership in this division. So, while there are occasional Div. 3 athletes who can compete among the top 25 Div. 1 athletes, overall the athletic performances at the D3 level are less competitive than the D1 level. A similar pattern shows in male v. female sports.
2 – PHYSICAL RESTRICTIONS TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD: Competitive athletics also use physical measures to insure a level playing field in a sport. Consider wrestling, boxing, weight lifting and others which bracket their participants into weight classes for competition. This strategy is based upon the understanding that increased physical size can give “automatic” advantages among competitors that cannot be fairly compensated for without “bracket weight restrictions”. (Which is why Testosterone levels alone cannot equalize the male/female playing field.)
In a similar way, we see “age group” athletics separated into age restricted categories of competition. By example, while there are some size differences among the participants in the 9&10 age group swim meet events, everyone understands that permitting those from the 15-18 age group events to swim in the 9&10 age group is vastly unfair due to the overall physical maturation size that those older youngsters have obtained.
Likewise, we see that the Paralympic movement has nearly a dozen different categories of physical limitations within which the competitors must participate in order to insure a level playing field among those athletes.
3 – MALE/FEMALE RESTRICTIONS TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD: Most sports that designate separate competitions for men and women do so due to the physical differences between the two sexes/genders. That said, one must acknowledge that many Pre-Puberty sport contests do not show much competitive differences between the boy and girls participants. However, once the male participants and female participants have gone through puberty there is a significant (statistical as well as observational) difference in the performance levels in those same sports. This is due to the physical/biological advantages that the males gain from their sex.
Consider in point 2 above, that physical categories of the sport contest are NOT set aside for non-physical differences. We do not permit the 15-18 year old with an emotional or intellectual level of a 10 year old to participate in the sport contest in that lower age group. Nor do we permit the wrestler to move down to a lower weight classification for competition due to his “body image” perception that he is a “lightweight”.
4 – TRANSGENDER WOMEN IN FEMALE CATEGORY SPORT: The issue at hand in this debate is NOT whether her “gender identity’ is female, but rather whether a post-pubescent male body can be “refitted” into a body that does not give an “unlevel playing field advantage” to her participation in a particular sport. The NCAA established some testosterone reducing protocols to try and insure that collegiate transgender women would compete in a level playing field way. However, the recent case of U Penn Swimmer Lia Thomas established that these NCAA restrictions were inadequate to provide a level playing field.
Summary: As a male competing on the U Penn swim team Lia Thomas never qualified to participate in the Men’s NCAA Division I Swimming Championships. But after following the limited NCAA protocols she competed as woman on that same U Penn swim team and not only qualified for the Women’s NCAA Division I Swimming Championships, but actually Won the 500 yard Freestyle Title. This move from “male non-qualifier” to “female champion” in both high school and college sports like swimming, track and field and cross country by transgender women is happening more often these days and this is patently unfair to the cis women in these sport contests.
5 – BROAD BRUSH ERRORS: The NCAA as an institution has often been guilty of making rules and regulations that “paint with a broad brush” across sports which are very different from each other. In the case of transgender athletes the same broad brush errors are being made by politicians and sport administrators. Instead of trying to create a UNIVERSAL standard of “equitable” transgender women restrictions to apply to all sports (or Title 9), each competitive sport organization should be charged with creating the categories/limits that insure that the Female participants in that sport are able to compete on a level playing field with transgender women, and if it is not possible to achieve such for that particular sport, then the females must be given sole representation in that sport’s “women’s competition.” By example, the international swimming organization FINA has established puberty as the line of demarcation while international track and field until very recently had established very different lines of demarcation for their transgender women participants.
Lia Thomas won the 500-yard freestyle race, but cisgender women beat Lia Thomas in the other races in which she competed: four cisgender women beat Lia Thomas in the 200 yard race, and seven cisgender women beat Lia Thomas in the 100 yard race. Genetic advantages play a role in all sports. I’m sure the cisgender women who beat Lia Thomas in the 200 yard and 100 yard race had genetic advantages that contributed to their success over other women swimmers. But, according to you and the others who would restrict transgender equality, the genetic advantages of cisgender people are “fair” and “pure.” But to the extent that a person’s genetic advantages bear any relation to her being transgender, the genetic advantages are “unfair” because, for purposes of swimming, you refuse to recognize Lia Thomas as a woman. I get your position: cisgender genetic advantages “good” and “fair,” transgender genetic advantages “bad”
and “unfair.” And people wonder why I think that’s invidious discrimination, especially when it is cisgender people writing the rules.
Your observations on Lia Thomas failing to beat ALL Cisgender women reinforces why we must look at the LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. What Lia's performance as a woman demonstrates is that she is a MUCH BETTER "ATHLETE" as a woman than she was as a man, which reinforces why a BIOLOGICAL boundary is necessary for fair sport. As I pointed out, Age boundaries are a part of sports' level playing fields, weight class boundaries are a part of sports' level playing fields, Paralympic boundaries are a part of sports' level playing fields and ALL 3 OF THESE ARE BIOLOGICAL, just as male/female separations for certain sports are ALSO BIOLOGICAL and are legitimate, not an issue of MORAL "GOOD" OR "BAD" as you wish to make the transgender participation be considered.
Sport discrimination exists in order to provide fair competition. For example, restricting high school football teams of large school size from competing for a state title in the smaller school division IS DISCRIMINATORY, but for GOOD REASONS that have nothing to do with morality.
I hate to break it to you, Jon, but *all* genetic advantages are biological. (And writing biological in all caps doesn’t make your argument more convincing.) Yet you have no problem saying it is fair to allow people who are seven feet tall to play college basketball even though they have a tremendous biological genetic advantage in the sport of basketball over other shorter participants. Your view that some biological genetic advantages are fair, but that those biological genetic advantages related to someone being transgender are unfair is simply invidious discrimination. Contrary to your position, this is absolutely an issue of MORAL “GOOD” or “BAD.” And not allowing transgender people to compete in sports like everyone else is BAD. It is like not allowing black people to compete in sports like everyone else. Finally, as discussed in the TED talk below, transgender women are BIOLOGICAL women. Cheers!
Claiming that transgender women are Biological women does not make them so when the biology of female sport boundary is based upon the naturally occurring puberty growth PHYSICAL differences between males and females (maybe physical is a better term than biological, but the physical differences developed from their biological difference). Your argument on race or ethnicity prohibitions actually reinforces prohibitions against transgender women. Race or ethnicity prohibitions applied to both men's and women's sports. No one complains about the transgender male participating in men's sports, because those transgender athletes have No gained advantage over cisgender men. For example, a few years ago a transgender man swimmer transitioned taking hormones, top surgery, etc. and improved from a level of an NCAA Div. III national scorer as a woman to being an NCAA Div. III low level scorer at just the conference level.
The transgender woman sport issue is all about equitable competitive levels, which thanks to objective timed sports like swimming and track and field always demonstrates that the transgender woman places MUCH higher in the female sport competition than she ever did in the corresponding male sport competition (NCAA women's D2 400 mt. hurdle winner never qualified for the D2 meet in his male competition days). Likewise, my transgender woman swim alumnus was a mid-level scorer in our conference championships as a male. If his transitioning matched that of Lia Thomas' 200 Freestyle, he would have been a top 5 finisher in the National level in our women's team competition. This is the issue of competitive fairness for women's sports.
I’m sorry, but until you start protesting about the “unfairness” of letting tall people play college and professional basketball, I can’t take you seriously. You are obviously okay with certain biological genetic advantages, but not those that might be related to a person’s transgender status. What does that tell me?
I am not qualified to make this argument, I was born in Northeastern Indiana and moved to the suburbs in 2004. But former longtime WGN radio host Nick Digilio, a native of and still a resident of Chicago, regards deep dish pizza as a tourist thing. True Chicagoans like their pizza thin and cut into squares according to Mr. Digilio. I have had deep dish pizza and I do like it but my preference is thin cut into squares. Nick also believes no one under 6 should put ketchup on a hot dog.
I have lived in the city for 43 years yet still may qualify as a "tourist" by some local standards. I really like deep dish and stuffed pizza, though it may be a category error to describe them as pizza. An omelette is not a quiche.
BTW you can edit your own comment to remove an error. Click on those three dots at the bottom of the comment and there will be an "edit" feature that should pop up in a drop down menu.
I'll go one step further than Eric and flog for Chicago Pizza and Oven Grinders' "pizza pot pie" style. It's even further from traditional pizza - and one of my favorites.
I like all categories of pizza. Nick & Vito's, neopolitan, deep dish, Detroit, St. Louis, you name it. And, yes, I am putting Nick & Vito's into its own category. I suspect Mr. Digilio is trying to get a reaction with his comment. Deep dish is clearly not just for tourists. The best deep dish is on the far far north side on Clark St, where there are no tourists.
Um so not true regarding deep dish. Everyone I knew grew up in the 1970's was a deep dish eater. We made trecks to the city for Gino's East and were excited when the original Lou Malnati's opened in our suburb. It is 100 percent NOT just "tourist" thing. My born and bred Chicago best friend had her rehearsal dinner at Gino's East. My daughter who grew up here just attended a rehearsal dinner of a friend at Lou's.
I was however taught that a sign of becoming not a child was no longer needing ketchup on your hot dog. A Chicago Dog does NOT have ketchup on it. Period. End of Story. If you need Ketchup on your hotdogs, you simply don't like Chicago Dogs. You like a different food. The same way that putting sugar on your noodles makes a delicious Kugel but you ain't eating Fettucine Alfredo.
. . . or simply like the flavor of ketchup on hot dogs. Jo A. is absolutely correct that a Chicago Dog has no ketchup. But I disagree that a flavor preference for a dog with ketchup must be characterized as a "need." Can't we stigmatize something/someone more deserving instead? Melissa Conyears-Ervin comes to mind.
Let me put it this way, if you don't want a hot dog without Ketchup, then you are not someone who likes Chicago Dogs. To me, ketchup does ruin the savory flavor of a hot dog by adding something sweet to the dog. Yuck for me.
We completely agree! I love Chicago dogs, but my spouse, who grew up far from here, prefers dogs with less vegetation and with ketchup. I just need to gently challenge pejorative about that choice (which never gets called a Chicago Dog). If my spouse weren't involved, though . . .
Wrong about dogs and deeply wrong about pizza. Like Eric, I moved here from Michigan, and the "tavern cut" pizza thing baffles me. "Slice cut" allows one to eat pizza with one's hands without getting any (or copious amounts of) grease on your fingers, unlike "tavern cut".
As a kid, I only put catsup/ketchup on my hot dogs. As an adult, it's usually mustard and raw onions - but sometimes the nostalgia for the red condiment overrides my normal predilections, and I'll add the Chicago "thou shalt not" condiment to my other toppings.
And I've never outgrown my preference for Detroit-style Coney Island hot dogs. (Meatless chili on the dog with mustard and raw onions - no cheese.)
go ahead & eat ketchup on your hot dog - i'm all in favor of free minds, free markets, free speech, and personal choice of condiments on your hot dog. just understand it's not The Chicago Way [term shamelessly borrowed]
i don't eat deep dish pizza anymore - only thin crust - but i used to eat deep dish, and liked it. maybe it used to be a key Chgo experience, and just isn't anymore.
Matt, you are 100% correct on no-ketchup-on-hot-dog. anyone, go ahead and eat a hot dog with ketchup - but that is decidedly a non-Chgo expereince.
As to the terminology “natal males” and “natal females,” I’m not a big fan because that suggests that transgender people are not born the way we are, or that physical genitals take precedence over the brain or mind in determining someone’s sex or gender. Why not use cisgender males and females, or nontransgender males and females?
Ramaswamy's jab at Nikki Haley is simple and obvious to anyone of color: He is trying to "out" her for passing for white, or for trying to. Or is this just his way of complaining to her detriment that having a complexion a shade or two richer than hers has disadvantaged him because, as perceived by whites, who, in America, are the most color-conscious population on Earth, he gets challenged more often than she does?
Haley IS a phenomenon in that sense, having foound acceptance in a moderately prejudiced part of our United States (the border South), inasmuch as from innocent childhood, she grew up among white kids. (Kids accept all other kids on he basis of likeability and collaborativeness; they would happily integrate if their parents would let them, but instead, kids are TAUGHT sin color prejudice, followed by appearance & manner of speech aside from complexion.)
In American society, smooth, straight (or moderately curly) hair is favored over tightly-curled (kinky?) hair. Which is preoccupation with FORM, inasmuch as ALL hair is made of the same basic material: Keratin, the same substance that toenails and fingernails are made of. The shape of the hairshaft derives from the shape of its follicle (the root bulb of the hairshaft) just under the scalp: If the follicle is straighnt and situated perpendicular to the plane of the scalp, the hairshaft will grow out straight. If the follicle is slightly curved, the hairshaft will emerge curly. If the hairshaft is very curved, the hairshaft will emerge supercurly, often classified as "kinky." But place a "kinky" hairshaft in a saucer of water and watch it form a circle consistent with the tightness of its curve or curl.
Chemically speaking, there is no difference between a straght hairshaft and a curly hairshaft. It's all genetically decided and passed down as one of many traits, like freckles or eye color. But back to Ramaswamy vs. Haley. One would need to Google to learn whether Haley is an East Indian family name, or an adopted Western name as a tactic to "fit in." Or, maybe her father is white, and named Haley. ) Given her appearance, the second guess is shaky on its face, given her rich complexion, which nevertheless is lighter than that of many East Indians, whose complexions range from almost white in the Anglo sense, to quite dark, darker even that Mahatma Ghandi's.
It would be easy to assume Ramaswamy's sensitivity in this matter derives from their disparate experiences gaining acceptance from Anglos. Advantage: Haley, whose upbringing even endowed her with Anglo social and socializing habits, unspoken nuances of gesture, behavior, pronunciation, etc. that silently signal membership in a social group.
Example (without straying too far afield on this point): Though clearly Negroid in appearance, Sidney Poitier was born and reared in The Bahamas, so spoke in a manner that differentiated him from American-reared blacks. This worked in his favor in our prejudiced society, setting him apart for further social consideration. He had no "South in his mouth." That, plus a winning, outgoing personality and genuine acting ability worked to his advantage. He also studied our speech patterns by listening to "American" as spoken on the radio, mimicking it, to fit in, like any white British actor in a film role cast AS an American.
The same with Niki Haley. Her social behaviors, manner of speech, education and acquaintances from childhood all worked in her favor to gain acceptance by middle-south whites who normally snub people of color, especially if they come without references from whites, or confreres (fellow credentialed achievers of color). Visitors from Europe, Africa or elsewhere overseas are flummoxed by all these subtle complications of social life in America, a carryover from our history of slavery that has caused adoption of a crazy quilt of behaviors based on appearances that even vary from place to place in the South, ground zero for appearance prejudices. Face it: Americans are the most socially provincial on our planet; lacking in worldly sophistication, self-centered in their whiteness if indeed they happen to be white. This blanket statement pertains only to, say, 95% of our white population, so take heart, Mr. Ramaswamy: be patient and tolerant, for we are so underexposed to our fellow humans who display visual & social characteristics different from their own. Educating them is hard work. They make poor students because of their preconceptions which are invalid outside our borders.
Ramaswamy's jab at Nikki Haley is simple and obvious to anyone of color: He is trying to "out" her for passing for white, or for trying to. Or is this just his way of complaining to her detriment that having a complexion a shade or two richer than hers has disadvantaged him because, as perceived by whites, who, in America, are the most color-conscious population on Earth, he gets challenged more often than she does?
Haley IS a phenomenon in that sense, having foound acceptance in a moderately prejudiced part of our United States (the border South), inasmuch as from innocent childhood, she grew up among white kids. (Kids accept all other kids on he basis of likeability and collaborativeness; they would happily integrate if their parents would let them, but instead, kids are TAUGHT sin color prejudice, followed by appearance & manner of speech aside from complexion.)
In American society, smooth, straight (or moderately curly) hair is favored over tightly-curled (kinky?) hair. Which is preoccupation with FORM, inasmuch as ALL hair is made of the same basic material: Keratin, the same substance that toenails and fingernails are made of. The shape of the hairshaft derives from the shape of its follicle (the root bulb of the hairshaft) just under the scalp: If the follicle is straighnt and situated perpendicular to the plane of the scalp, the hairshaft will grow out straight. If the follicle is slightly curved, the hairshaft will emerge curly. If the hairshaft is very curved, the hairshaft will emerge supercurly, often classified as "kinky." But place a "kinky" hairshaft in a saucer of water and watch it form a circle consistent with the tightness of its curve or curl.
Chemically speaking, there is no difference between a straght hairshaft and a curly hairshaft. It's all genetically decided and passed down as one of many traits, like freckles or eye color. But back to Ramaswamy vs. Haley. One would need to Google to learn whether Haley is an East Indian family name, or an adopted Western name as a tactic to "fit in." Or, maybe her father is white, and named Haley. ) Given her appearance, the second guess is shaky on its face, given her rich complexion, which nevertheless is lighter than that of many East Indians, whose complexions range from almost white in the Anglo sense, to quite dark, darker even that Mahatma Ghandi's.
It would be easy to assume Ramaswamy's sensitivity in this matter derives from their disparate experiences gaining acceptance from Anglos. Advantage: Haley, whose upbringing even endowed her with Anglo social and socializing habits, unspoken nuances of gesture, behavior, pronunciation, etc. that silently signal membership in a social group.
Example (without straying too far afield on this point): Though clearly Negroid in appearance, Sidney Poitier was born and reared in The Bahamas, so spoke in a manner that differentiated him from American-reared blacks. This worked in his favor in our prejudiced society, setting him apart for further social consideration. He had no "South in his mouth." That, plus a winning, outgoing personality and genuine acting ability worked to his advantage. He also studied our speech patterns by listening to "American" as spoken on the radio, mimicking it, to fit in, like any white British actor in a film role cast AS an American.
The same with Niki Haley. Her social behaviors, manner of speech, education and acquaintances from childhood all worked in her favor to gain acceptance by middle-south whites who normally snub people of color, especially if they come without references from whites, or confreres (fellow credentialed achievers of color). Visitors from Europe, Africa or elsewhere overseas are flummoxed by all these subtle complications of social life in America, a carryover from our history of slavery that has caused adoption of a crazy quilt of behaviors based on appearances that even vary from place to place in the South, ground zero for appearance prejudices. Face it: Americans are the most socially provincial on our planet; lacking in worldly sophistication, self-centered in their whiteness if indeed they happen to be white. This blanket statement pertains only to, say, 95% of our white population, so take heart, Mr. Ramaswamy: be patient and tolerant, for we are so underexposed to our fellow humans who display visual & social characteristics different from their own. Educating them is hard work. They make poor students because of their preconceptions which are invalid outside our borders.
Re Vivek vs Nikki- For what it is worth Haley is her married name. I don't see using it as a cover-up. I know lots of women who didn't keep their birth names upon marriage because they were happy about the new name for all kinds of reasons!
re: never have I ever...
I hesitantly checked St. Patrick's Day parade. I am not a parade person. However, back when they had the parade on March 17th every year, I would be working in the loop on that day, and was definitely part of the experience. One time eating lunch at Exchequer some guys with bagpipes and drums spontaneously walked in and played for a few minutes and then moved on. It was the best of both worlds, I got to experience the revelry and not have to stand for a long time.
The only other thing I have not ever done is go to the top of Willis Tower.
I share the same two “never have I” experiences including seeing part of the parade at lunch when I worked on Michigan Ave across from the Tribune building! I debated with myself and also decided it didn’t qualify as having attended the parade.
I also ran into the St. Patrick's parade; on my way home from jury duty and got pickpocketed on the way. Not my favorite memory!
This is the only thing on the list that I did not particularly enjoy. We had a college age exchange student from Amsterdam that wanted the Chicago experience, so we took him down with our two pre-school kids. The event was fine, but I did not appreciate all of the drunks.
Never have I ever used the awful expression, "Willis Tower,"
I stand with Johanna!
As do I!
A third vote with Johanna!
I guess I do as well...think I don't know enough about the musicians to understand the humor. Or maybe I'm over thinking this
"...if we assume these average differences don’t matter, then we have no excuse for separating sports by gender identity at all." I thought the same thing when I read the comment.
The article below gives her props for her dominating 50-point performance 10 years ago, but explains why Brittany Griner, in her prime, could probably not make a men's college D1 program. "It is not lesser, it is just different."
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1558226-could-baylors-brittney-griner-play-on-a-mens-college-basketball-team
Regarding your “Never Have I Ever” survey, the only thing I’ve never done is go to the top of the Willis Tower, despite the fact that I worked in it for 5 years.
...or maybe because you worked in it.
Ms. Wilmer seems intent on arguing by refusing to address the argument you made. ONCE we segregate by sex, why would we allow those we allow those born male to participate in women’s highly competitive sports? Like you said, otherwise there is no justification for segregating at all. My personal view is that you eliminate anyone with a Y Chromosome from womens highly competitive sports. I don’t want to make rules which involve proof of secondary sex characteristics. Those with a Y chromosome should still be entitled to participate in less competitive sports activities on a team that matches their identity. I would include all in school sports before high school as well as all non Non competitive club and intramural athletics.
I have never been to the top of the Sears tower. I'd rather have a drink at the Signature Lounge at the John Hancock.
I've never been to a Cubs game anywhere.
I've never been to a St. Patrick's Day parade. The only thing worse that a huge crowd is huge drunk crowd.
I've had deep dish pizza once. Never again. And I've never had an Italian beef sandwich (I assume that's what you meant)?
Also - I don't get the Howard Cosell tweet.
Howard Cosell is shown with BRUCE Jenner and OJ Simpson. What have they done in the intervening years that people then would not have believed?
Thanks. I didn't recognize either of them.
The Howard Cosell picture has been around for a long time.
I'm with Johanna.
Oh, Jo A., but Ms. Wimmer did address the argument that Eric Zorn made. Trans men are men, and trans women are women. So if we segregate by sex, we should place trans women with the women, at least once they have been on hormone therapy long enough that their current testosterone levels are like those of any other woman. What you and Eric have not addressed is that the only genetic advantages trans women have once they have been on hormone therapy are, on the average, taller height and larger lung capacity, which should certainly not be disqualifying if there are cis-women (just not as many of them) with the same advantages. What gives me comfort is my belief that, years from now, when trans people have achieved full equality (which we will), our society will look back on those who fought to keep us out of sports the way we look back today on people who tried to keep black people out of professional or competitive sports.
Ms. Wimmer is on one side of this debate which says gender identity always takes precedence over biological or physical sex while the other side (name your favorite right-winger) says that biology/physical sex always takes precedence over gender identity. Instead, I would argue that there exists a middle ground in which there exist situations and circumstances in which neither “always/extreme” is correct, but instead the actual situation or circumstance determines whether “gender identity” or “biological sex” should take precedence.
One of these situations is the involvement of transgender women in the arena of post-pubescent competitive athletics.
1 – LEVEL PLAYING FIELD: Virtually all competitive athletics is predicated on the participants being guaranteed a level playing field in their contest. This is why so many distinctive leagues, divisions and categories of sport exist within which the various participants are divided. Personally, I spent 41 years coaching on the NCAA Division III level, a division which is defined by “No athletic scholarships permitted”. This is obviously a non-physical limitation designed to provide a more equitable “playing field” among those institutions who join membership in this division. So, while there are occasional Div. 3 athletes who can compete among the top 25 Div. 1 athletes, overall the athletic performances at the D3 level are less competitive than the D1 level. A similar pattern shows in male v. female sports.
2 – PHYSICAL RESTRICTIONS TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD: Competitive athletics also use physical measures to insure a level playing field in a sport. Consider wrestling, boxing, weight lifting and others which bracket their participants into weight classes for competition. This strategy is based upon the understanding that increased physical size can give “automatic” advantages among competitors that cannot be fairly compensated for without “bracket weight restrictions”. (Which is why Testosterone levels alone cannot equalize the male/female playing field.)
In a similar way, we see “age group” athletics separated into age restricted categories of competition. By example, while there are some size differences among the participants in the 9&10 age group swim meet events, everyone understands that permitting those from the 15-18 age group events to swim in the 9&10 age group is vastly unfair due to the overall physical maturation size that those older youngsters have obtained.
Likewise, we see that the Paralympic movement has nearly a dozen different categories of physical limitations within which the competitors must participate in order to insure a level playing field among those athletes.
3 – MALE/FEMALE RESTRICTIONS TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD: Most sports that designate separate competitions for men and women do so due to the physical differences between the two sexes/genders. That said, one must acknowledge that many Pre-Puberty sport contests do not show much competitive differences between the boy and girls participants. However, once the male participants and female participants have gone through puberty there is a significant (statistical as well as observational) difference in the performance levels in those same sports. This is due to the physical/biological advantages that the males gain from their sex.
Consider in point 2 above, that physical categories of the sport contest are NOT set aside for non-physical differences. We do not permit the 15-18 year old with an emotional or intellectual level of a 10 year old to participate in the sport contest in that lower age group. Nor do we permit the wrestler to move down to a lower weight classification for competition due to his “body image” perception that he is a “lightweight”.
4 – TRANSGENDER WOMEN IN FEMALE CATEGORY SPORT: The issue at hand in this debate is NOT whether her “gender identity’ is female, but rather whether a post-pubescent male body can be “refitted” into a body that does not give an “unlevel playing field advantage” to her participation in a particular sport. The NCAA established some testosterone reducing protocols to try and insure that collegiate transgender women would compete in a level playing field way. However, the recent case of U Penn Swimmer Lia Thomas established that these NCAA restrictions were inadequate to provide a level playing field.
Summary: As a male competing on the U Penn swim team Lia Thomas never qualified to participate in the Men’s NCAA Division I Swimming Championships. But after following the limited NCAA protocols she competed as woman on that same U Penn swim team and not only qualified for the Women’s NCAA Division I Swimming Championships, but actually Won the 500 yard Freestyle Title. This move from “male non-qualifier” to “female champion” in both high school and college sports like swimming, track and field and cross country by transgender women is happening more often these days and this is patently unfair to the cis women in these sport contests.
5 – BROAD BRUSH ERRORS: The NCAA as an institution has often been guilty of making rules and regulations that “paint with a broad brush” across sports which are very different from each other. In the case of transgender athletes the same broad brush errors are being made by politicians and sport administrators. Instead of trying to create a UNIVERSAL standard of “equitable” transgender women restrictions to apply to all sports (or Title 9), each competitive sport organization should be charged with creating the categories/limits that insure that the Female participants in that sport are able to compete on a level playing field with transgender women, and if it is not possible to achieve such for that particular sport, then the females must be given sole representation in that sport’s “women’s competition.” By example, the international swimming organization FINA has established puberty as the line of demarcation while international track and field until very recently had established very different lines of demarcation for their transgender women participants.
Lia Thomas won the 500-yard freestyle race, but cisgender women beat Lia Thomas in the other races in which she competed: four cisgender women beat Lia Thomas in the 200 yard race, and seven cisgender women beat Lia Thomas in the 100 yard race. Genetic advantages play a role in all sports. I’m sure the cisgender women who beat Lia Thomas in the 200 yard and 100 yard race had genetic advantages that contributed to their success over other women swimmers. But, according to you and the others who would restrict transgender equality, the genetic advantages of cisgender people are “fair” and “pure.” But to the extent that a person’s genetic advantages bear any relation to her being transgender, the genetic advantages are “unfair” because, for purposes of swimming, you refuse to recognize Lia Thomas as a woman. I get your position: cisgender genetic advantages “good” and “fair,” transgender genetic advantages “bad”
and “unfair.” And people wonder why I think that’s invidious discrimination, especially when it is cisgender people writing the rules.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/lia-thomas-trans-swimmer-ron-desantis-b2091218.html
Your observations on Lia Thomas failing to beat ALL Cisgender women reinforces why we must look at the LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. What Lia's performance as a woman demonstrates is that she is a MUCH BETTER "ATHLETE" as a woman than she was as a man, which reinforces why a BIOLOGICAL boundary is necessary for fair sport. As I pointed out, Age boundaries are a part of sports' level playing fields, weight class boundaries are a part of sports' level playing fields, Paralympic boundaries are a part of sports' level playing fields and ALL 3 OF THESE ARE BIOLOGICAL, just as male/female separations for certain sports are ALSO BIOLOGICAL and are legitimate, not an issue of MORAL "GOOD" OR "BAD" as you wish to make the transgender participation be considered.
Sport discrimination exists in order to provide fair competition. For example, restricting high school football teams of large school size from competing for a state title in the smaller school division IS DISCRIMINATORY, but for GOOD REASONS that have nothing to do with morality.
I hate to break it to you, Jon, but *all* genetic advantages are biological. (And writing biological in all caps doesn’t make your argument more convincing.) Yet you have no problem saying it is fair to allow people who are seven feet tall to play college basketball even though they have a tremendous biological genetic advantage in the sport of basketball over other shorter participants. Your view that some biological genetic advantages are fair, but that those biological genetic advantages related to someone being transgender are unfair is simply invidious discrimination. Contrary to your position, this is absolutely an issue of MORAL “GOOD” or “BAD.” And not allowing transgender people to compete in sports like everyone else is BAD. It is like not allowing black people to compete in sports like everyone else. Finally, as discussed in the TED talk below, transgender women are BIOLOGICAL women. Cheers!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YdeChkf68eU&pp=ygUda2FyaXNzYSBzYW5ib25tYXRzdSA1IHNlY29uZHM%3D
Claiming that transgender women are Biological women does not make them so when the biology of female sport boundary is based upon the naturally occurring puberty growth PHYSICAL differences between males and females (maybe physical is a better term than biological, but the physical differences developed from their biological difference). Your argument on race or ethnicity prohibitions actually reinforces prohibitions against transgender women. Race or ethnicity prohibitions applied to both men's and women's sports. No one complains about the transgender male participating in men's sports, because those transgender athletes have No gained advantage over cisgender men. For example, a few years ago a transgender man swimmer transitioned taking hormones, top surgery, etc. and improved from a level of an NCAA Div. III national scorer as a woman to being an NCAA Div. III low level scorer at just the conference level.
The transgender woman sport issue is all about equitable competitive levels, which thanks to objective timed sports like swimming and track and field always demonstrates that the transgender woman places MUCH higher in the female sport competition than she ever did in the corresponding male sport competition (NCAA women's D2 400 mt. hurdle winner never qualified for the D2 meet in his male competition days). Likewise, my transgender woman swim alumnus was a mid-level scorer in our conference championships as a male. If his transitioning matched that of Lia Thomas' 200 Freestyle, he would have been a top 5 finisher in the National level in our women's team competition. This is the issue of competitive fairness for women's sports.
I’m sorry, but until you start protesting about the “unfairness” of letting tall people play college and professional basketball, I can’t take you seriously. You are obviously okay with certain biological genetic advantages, but not those that might be related to a person’s transgender status. What does that tell me?
I'm with Joanna.
Here is my list of made up songs:
1. Too much time on my hands by Rob Delaney
2. I am right by Johanna Zorn
3. Goofy taste in humor by Eric Zorn
4. Talking the talk, but not walking the walk by Brandon Johnson
5. Take me out to the ball game by Mike Ditka
6. I will always love you by the Trump all white men’s choir
7. Happiness is a warm gun by the NRA boys.
8. War! What is it good for? By the Putin string band
9. Maybe baby by the Republican platform kazoo group
10. Go Cubs Go by the citizens of Chicago.
Now these are pretty funny...
Ditto that.
I am not qualified to make this argument, I was born in Northeastern Indiana and moved to the suburbs in 2004. But former longtime WGN radio host Nick Digilio, a native of and still a resident of Chicago, regards deep dish pizza as a tourist thing. True Chicagoans like their pizza thin and cut into squares according to Mr. Digilio. I have had deep dish pizza and I do like it but my preference is thin cut into squares. Nick also believes no one under 6 should put ketchup on a hot dog.
* no one OVER 6 is what I meant to type.
He's right about the pizza and wrong about hot dogs.
I have lived in the city for 43 years yet still may qualify as a "tourist" by some local standards. I really like deep dish and stuffed pizza, though it may be a category error to describe them as pizza. An omelette is not a quiche.
BTW you can edit your own comment to remove an error. Click on those three dots at the bottom of the comment and there will be an "edit" feature that should pop up in a drop down menu.
I'll go one step further than Eric and flog for Chicago Pizza and Oven Grinders' "pizza pot pie" style. It's even further from traditional pizza - and one of my favorites.
I like all categories of pizza. Nick & Vito's, neopolitan, deep dish, Detroit, St. Louis, you name it. And, yes, I am putting Nick & Vito's into its own category. I suspect Mr. Digilio is trying to get a reaction with his comment. Deep dish is clearly not just for tourists. The best deep dish is on the far far north side on Clark St, where there are no tourists.
Um so not true regarding deep dish. Everyone I knew grew up in the 1970's was a deep dish eater. We made trecks to the city for Gino's East and were excited when the original Lou Malnati's opened in our suburb. It is 100 percent NOT just "tourist" thing. My born and bred Chicago best friend had her rehearsal dinner at Gino's East. My daughter who grew up here just attended a rehearsal dinner of a friend at Lou's.
I was however taught that a sign of becoming not a child was no longer needing ketchup on your hot dog. A Chicago Dog does NOT have ketchup on it. Period. End of Story. If you need Ketchup on your hotdogs, you simply don't like Chicago Dogs. You like a different food. The same way that putting sugar on your noodles makes a delicious Kugel but you ain't eating Fettucine Alfredo.
. . . or simply like the flavor of ketchup on hot dogs. Jo A. is absolutely correct that a Chicago Dog has no ketchup. But I disagree that a flavor preference for a dog with ketchup must be characterized as a "need." Can't we stigmatize something/someone more deserving instead? Melissa Conyears-Ervin comes to mind.
Let me put it this way, if you don't want a hot dog without Ketchup, then you are not someone who likes Chicago Dogs. To me, ketchup does ruin the savory flavor of a hot dog by adding something sweet to the dog. Yuck for me.
We completely agree! I love Chicago dogs, but my spouse, who grew up far from here, prefers dogs with less vegetation and with ketchup. I just need to gently challenge pejorative about that choice (which never gets called a Chicago Dog). If my spouse weren't involved, though . . .
It is because the stakes are so low that the politics are so fierce.
A couple of hot dog places where I eat have a sign that say “This establishment is rated NK-17. No ketchup unless under the age of 17.”
ha ha 😅 - i love it!
Wrong about dogs and deeply wrong about pizza. Like Eric, I moved here from Michigan, and the "tavern cut" pizza thing baffles me. "Slice cut" allows one to eat pizza with one's hands without getting any (or copious amounts of) grease on your fingers, unlike "tavern cut".
As a kid, I only put catsup/ketchup on my hot dogs. As an adult, it's usually mustard and raw onions - but sometimes the nostalgia for the red condiment overrides my normal predilections, and I'll add the Chicago "thou shalt not" condiment to my other toppings.
And I've never outgrown my preference for Detroit-style Coney Island hot dogs. (Meatless chili on the dog with mustard and raw onions - no cheese.)
go ahead & eat ketchup on your hot dog - i'm all in favor of free minds, free markets, free speech, and personal choice of condiments on your hot dog. just understand it's not The Chicago Way [term shamelessly borrowed]
i don't eat deep dish pizza anymore - only thin crust - but i used to eat deep dish, and liked it. maybe it used to be a key Chgo experience, and just isn't anymore.
Matt, you are 100% correct on no-ketchup-on-hot-dog. anyone, go ahead and eat a hot dog with ketchup - but that is decidedly a non-Chgo expereince.
“…natal males and natal females (if that terminology is acceptable)”
So naysayers would have to reply… “unacceptable?” 😂
As to the terminology “natal males” and “natal females,” I’m not a big fan because that suggests that transgender people are not born the way we are, or that physical genitals take precedence over the brain or mind in determining someone’s sex or gender. Why not use cisgender males and females, or nontransgender males and females?
Ramaswamy's jab at Nikki Haley is simple and obvious to anyone of color: He is trying to "out" her for passing for white, or for trying to. Or is this just his way of complaining to her detriment that having a complexion a shade or two richer than hers has disadvantaged him because, as perceived by whites, who, in America, are the most color-conscious population on Earth, he gets challenged more often than she does?
Haley IS a phenomenon in that sense, having foound acceptance in a moderately prejudiced part of our United States (the border South), inasmuch as from innocent childhood, she grew up among white kids. (Kids accept all other kids on he basis of likeability and collaborativeness; they would happily integrate if their parents would let them, but instead, kids are TAUGHT sin color prejudice, followed by appearance & manner of speech aside from complexion.)
In American society, smooth, straight (or moderately curly) hair is favored over tightly-curled (kinky?) hair. Which is preoccupation with FORM, inasmuch as ALL hair is made of the same basic material: Keratin, the same substance that toenails and fingernails are made of. The shape of the hairshaft derives from the shape of its follicle (the root bulb of the hairshaft) just under the scalp: If the follicle is straighnt and situated perpendicular to the plane of the scalp, the hairshaft will grow out straight. If the follicle is slightly curved, the hairshaft will emerge curly. If the hairshaft is very curved, the hairshaft will emerge supercurly, often classified as "kinky." But place a "kinky" hairshaft in a saucer of water and watch it form a circle consistent with the tightness of its curve or curl.
Chemically speaking, there is no difference between a straght hairshaft and a curly hairshaft. It's all genetically decided and passed down as one of many traits, like freckles or eye color. But back to Ramaswamy vs. Haley. One would need to Google to learn whether Haley is an East Indian family name, or an adopted Western name as a tactic to "fit in." Or, maybe her father is white, and named Haley. ) Given her appearance, the second guess is shaky on its face, given her rich complexion, which nevertheless is lighter than that of many East Indians, whose complexions range from almost white in the Anglo sense, to quite dark, darker even that Mahatma Ghandi's.
It would be easy to assume Ramaswamy's sensitivity in this matter derives from their disparate experiences gaining acceptance from Anglos. Advantage: Haley, whose upbringing even endowed her with Anglo social and socializing habits, unspoken nuances of gesture, behavior, pronunciation, etc. that silently signal membership in a social group.
Example (without straying too far afield on this point): Though clearly Negroid in appearance, Sidney Poitier was born and reared in The Bahamas, so spoke in a manner that differentiated him from American-reared blacks. This worked in his favor in our prejudiced society, setting him apart for further social consideration. He had no "South in his mouth." That, plus a winning, outgoing personality and genuine acting ability worked to his advantage. He also studied our speech patterns by listening to "American" as spoken on the radio, mimicking it, to fit in, like any white British actor in a film role cast AS an American.
The same with Niki Haley. Her social behaviors, manner of speech, education and acquaintances from childhood all worked in her favor to gain acceptance by middle-south whites who normally snub people of color, especially if they come without references from whites, or confreres (fellow credentialed achievers of color). Visitors from Europe, Africa or elsewhere overseas are flummoxed by all these subtle complications of social life in America, a carryover from our history of slavery that has caused adoption of a crazy quilt of behaviors based on appearances that even vary from place to place in the South, ground zero for appearance prejudices. Face it: Americans are the most socially provincial on our planet; lacking in worldly sophistication, self-centered in their whiteness if indeed they happen to be white. This blanket statement pertains only to, say, 95% of our white population, so take heart, Mr. Ramaswamy: be patient and tolerant, for we are so underexposed to our fellow humans who display visual & social characteristics different from their own. Educating them is hard work. They make poor students because of their preconceptions which are invalid outside our borders.
Ramaswamy's jab at Nikki Haley is simple and obvious to anyone of color: He is trying to "out" her for passing for white, or for trying to. Or is this just his way of complaining to her detriment that having a complexion a shade or two richer than hers has disadvantaged him because, as perceived by whites, who, in America, are the most color-conscious population on Earth, he gets challenged more often than she does?
Haley IS a phenomenon in that sense, having foound acceptance in a moderately prejudiced part of our United States (the border South), inasmuch as from innocent childhood, she grew up among white kids. (Kids accept all other kids on he basis of likeability and collaborativeness; they would happily integrate if their parents would let them, but instead, kids are TAUGHT sin color prejudice, followed by appearance & manner of speech aside from complexion.)
In American society, smooth, straight (or moderately curly) hair is favored over tightly-curled (kinky?) hair. Which is preoccupation with FORM, inasmuch as ALL hair is made of the same basic material: Keratin, the same substance that toenails and fingernails are made of. The shape of the hairshaft derives from the shape of its follicle (the root bulb of the hairshaft) just under the scalp: If the follicle is straighnt and situated perpendicular to the plane of the scalp, the hairshaft will grow out straight. If the follicle is slightly curved, the hairshaft will emerge curly. If the hairshaft is very curved, the hairshaft will emerge supercurly, often classified as "kinky." But place a "kinky" hairshaft in a saucer of water and watch it form a circle consistent with the tightness of its curve or curl.
Chemically speaking, there is no difference between a straght hairshaft and a curly hairshaft. It's all genetically decided and passed down as one of many traits, like freckles or eye color. But back to Ramaswamy vs. Haley. One would need to Google to learn whether Haley is an East Indian family name, or an adopted Western name as a tactic to "fit in." Or, maybe her father is white, and named Haley. ) Given her appearance, the second guess is shaky on its face, given her rich complexion, which nevertheless is lighter than that of many East Indians, whose complexions range from almost white in the Anglo sense, to quite dark, darker even that Mahatma Ghandi's.
It would be easy to assume Ramaswamy's sensitivity in this matter derives from their disparate experiences gaining acceptance from Anglos. Advantage: Haley, whose upbringing even endowed her with Anglo social and socializing habits, unspoken nuances of gesture, behavior, pronunciation, etc. that silently signal membership in a social group.
Example (without straying too far afield on this point): Though clearly Negroid in appearance, Sidney Poitier was born and reared in The Bahamas, so spoke in a manner that differentiated him from American-reared blacks. This worked in his favor in our prejudiced society, setting him apart for further social consideration. He had no "South in his mouth." That, plus a winning, outgoing personality and genuine acting ability worked to his advantage. He also studied our speech patterns by listening to "American" as spoken on the radio, mimicking it, to fit in, like any white British actor in a film role cast AS an American.
The same with Niki Haley. Her social behaviors, manner of speech, education and acquaintances from childhood all worked in her favor to gain acceptance by middle-south whites who normally snub people of color, especially if they come without references from whites, or confreres (fellow credentialed achievers of color). Visitors from Europe, Africa or elsewhere overseas are flummoxed by all these subtle complications of social life in America, a carryover from our history of slavery that has caused adoption of a crazy quilt of behaviors based on appearances that even vary from place to place in the South, ground zero for appearance prejudices. Face it: Americans are the most socially provincial on our planet; lacking in worldly sophistication, self-centered in their whiteness if indeed they happen to be white. This blanket statement pertains only to, say, 95% of our white population, so take heart, Mr. Ramaswamy: be patient and tolerant, for we are so underexposed to our fellow humans who display visual & social characteristics different from their own. Educating them is hard work. They make poor students because of their preconceptions which are invalid outside our borders.
Re Vivek vs Nikki- For what it is worth Haley is her married name. I don't see using it as a cover-up. I know lots of women who didn't keep their birth names upon marriage because they were happy about the new name for all kinds of reasons!