Tom D
@thinkert.bsky.social
Unapologetic pragmatic leftist, unironic social justice warrior, Arizona Cardinals fan, pro wrestling fan, and he/him. Not necessarily in that order.
Old enough for my 18th birthday to have kids.
I support the transgender mice.
Old enough for my 18th birthday to have kids.
I support the transgender mice.
Let's just grant the image for the sake of argument.
They don't share it with the blue "to be nice". They SELL it to the blue because the blue states have all the money, INCLUDING being the major contributors to the subsidies the food providers get.
They don't share it with the blue "to be nice". They SELL it to the blue because the blue states have all the money, INCLUDING being the major contributors to the subsidies the food providers get.
November 11, 2025 at 1:29 AM
Let's just grant the image for the sake of argument.
They don't share it with the blue "to be nice". They SELL it to the blue because the blue states have all the money, INCLUDING being the major contributors to the subsidies the food providers get.
They don't share it with the blue "to be nice". They SELL it to the blue because the blue states have all the money, INCLUDING being the major contributors to the subsidies the food providers get.
It's not "all existing evidence". I already posed a link of study evidence that contradicts that, so at your very best it's "most", not "all".
And there are a lot of caveats in the study you posted. Still going through it, but they're very careful to not be definitive in it.
And there are a lot of caveats in the study you posted. Still going through it, but they're very careful to not be definitive in it.
November 10, 2025 at 10:18 PM
It's not "all existing evidence". I already posed a link of study evidence that contradicts that, so at your very best it's "most", not "all".
And there are a lot of caveats in the study you posted. Still going through it, but they're very careful to not be definitive in it.
And there are a lot of caveats in the study you posted. Still going through it, but they're very careful to not be definitive in it.
Which is the case with most sports at the highest levels right now. (It might be 24 months in some.)
Very few are advocating for males to compete in female sports without significant long-term treatment outside of the most basic levels (like maybe middle-school sports).
Very few are advocating for males to compete in female sports without significant long-term treatment outside of the most basic levels (like maybe middle-school sports).
November 10, 2025 at 10:06 PM
Which is the case with most sports at the highest levels right now. (It might be 24 months in some.)
Very few are advocating for males to compete in female sports without significant long-term treatment outside of the most basic levels (like maybe middle-school sports).
Very few are advocating for males to compete in female sports without significant long-term treatment outside of the most basic levels (like maybe middle-school sports).
Without knowing what I was referring to as "long-term" that does nothing to indicate anything I said was "not true".
November 10, 2025 at 10:03 PM
Without knowing what I was referring to as "long-term" that does nothing to indicate anything I said was "not true".
Again, that's not what studies say. Right now consensus is that with most physical sports long-term hormone use negates most advantages and can cause disadvantages in some aspects.
I'll agree that there aren't enough longitudinal studies yet to be definitive, but what's there is fairly conclusive.
I'll agree that there aren't enough longitudinal studies yet to be definitive, but what's there is fairly conclusive.
November 10, 2025 at 9:44 PM
Again, that's not what studies say. Right now consensus is that with most physical sports long-term hormone use negates most advantages and can cause disadvantages in some aspects.
I'll agree that there aren't enough longitudinal studies yet to be definitive, but what's there is fairly conclusive.
I'll agree that there aren't enough longitudinal studies yet to be definitive, but what's there is fairly conclusive.
Don't get the relevance. No matter the sex I am, different chemicals affect me different ways. It's about the results after treatment.
Saying hormones don't make changes to males to make more like females in sports is like saying steroids don't make changes for people in sports. Obviously false.
Saying hormones don't make changes to males to make more like females in sports is like saying steroids don't make changes for people in sports. Obviously false.
November 10, 2025 at 9:35 PM
Don't get the relevance. No matter the sex I am, different chemicals affect me different ways. It's about the results after treatment.
Saying hormones don't make changes to males to make more like females in sports is like saying steroids don't make changes for people in sports. Obviously false.
Saying hormones don't make changes to males to make more like females in sports is like saying steroids don't make changes for people in sports. Obviously false.
Yeah, I've thought something similar to this since AEW increased the number of PPVs. It's a lot easier to attend Dynamite/Collision and pay for 4 PPVs a year than to do it and pay for 9 PPVs a year.
As you say, it explains PPV ticket sales & buys remaining steady while TV ticket sales decrease.
As you say, it explains PPV ticket sales & buys remaining steady while TV ticket sales decrease.
November 10, 2025 at 9:25 PM
Yeah, I've thought something similar to this since AEW increased the number of PPVs. It's a lot easier to attend Dynamite/Collision and pay for 4 PPVs a year than to do it and pay for 9 PPVs a year.
As you say, it explains PPV ticket sales & buys remaining steady while TV ticket sales decrease.
As you say, it explains PPV ticket sales & buys remaining steady while TV ticket sales decrease.
"Sexual Puritanism"? Dude, what you do with urine in the privacy of the bedroom is your business, PLEASE don't make it mine.
November 10, 2025 at 8:08 PM
"Sexual Puritanism"? Dude, what you do with urine in the privacy of the bedroom is your business, PLEASE don't make it mine.
Stephanie Miller is a liberal comedienne talk-show host, for those who don't know. I'm assuming this was an attempt to be funny, but I do agree that this isn't a great perception, tho.
November 10, 2025 at 8:05 PM
Stephanie Miller is a liberal comedienne talk-show host, for those who don't know. I'm assuming this was an attempt to be funny, but I do agree that this isn't a great perception, tho.
I ignored your hand-waving away of actual data, yes. You've given me no reason to believe that your intuition and "logic" should override actual scientific studies.
November 10, 2025 at 6:43 PM
I ignored your hand-waving away of actual data, yes. You've given me no reason to believe that your intuition and "logic" should override actual scientific studies.
Also, and I'm not sure you noticed this, it's invalid anyway because it's "boys", not trans women with years of hormone therapy.
November 10, 2025 at 6:37 PM
Also, and I'm not sure you noticed this, it's invalid anyway because it's "boys", not trans women with years of hormone therapy.
That's not true, that was one misrepresented incident where the female professionals were doing training, the squad was split up, and most times they played high school boys they beat them.
That just shows me you're listening to right-wing talking points on the subject and not actual data.
That just shows me you're listening to right-wing talking points on the subject and not actual data.
November 10, 2025 at 6:36 PM
That's not true, that was one misrepresented incident where the female professionals were doing training, the squad was split up, and most times they played high school boys they beat them.
That just shows me you're listening to right-wing talking points on the subject and not actual data.
That just shows me you're listening to right-wing talking points on the subject and not actual data.
The piece links to several studies to support their conclusions. You can "nuh-uh" the science away if you want, but that just means your position is feelings-based, not facts-based.
The IOC has to play political games. But there's a reason trans women aren't dominating the olympics right now.
The IOC has to play political games. But there's a reason trans women aren't dominating the olympics right now.
November 10, 2025 at 6:16 PM
The piece links to several studies to support their conclusions. You can "nuh-uh" the science away if you want, but that just means your position is feelings-based, not facts-based.
The IOC has to play political games. But there's a reason trans women aren't dominating the olympics right now.
The IOC has to play political games. But there's a reason trans women aren't dominating the olympics right now.
"they retain male advantage"
That's not what the studies show. So far the data suggests that in most things after years of hormones trans women perform on par or worse in most metrics with cis women.
www.transresearch.org.au/post/trans-w...
That's not what the studies show. So far the data suggests that in most things after years of hormones trans women perform on par or worse in most metrics with cis women.
www.transresearch.org.au/post/trans-w...
Trans Women in Sport: What Does the Science Say?
Research suggests trans women have minimal to no performance advantage over cisgender women.
www.transresearch.org.au
November 10, 2025 at 5:49 PM
"they retain male advantage"
That's not what the studies show. So far the data suggests that in most things after years of hormones trans women perform on par or worse in most metrics with cis women.
www.transresearch.org.au/post/trans-w...
That's not what the studies show. So far the data suggests that in most things after years of hormones trans women perform on par or worse in most metrics with cis women.
www.transresearch.org.au/post/trans-w...
Well, it harmed the approval of the GOP, put spotlight on the subsidies and made sure GOP would be blamed. Only harm to Dems was perception of caving, but not sure that isn't just in those already mad at Dems anyway.
"Win" or "not-loss", I think it's net-positive for Dems, net-negative for GOP.
"Win" or "not-loss", I think it's net-positive for Dems, net-negative for GOP.
November 10, 2025 at 5:37 PM
Well, it harmed the approval of the GOP, put spotlight on the subsidies and made sure GOP would be blamed. Only harm to Dems was perception of caving, but not sure that isn't just in those already mad at Dems anyway.
"Win" or "not-loss", I think it's net-positive for Dems, net-negative for GOP.
"Win" or "not-loss", I think it's net-positive for Dems, net-negative for GOP.
This is probably closest to my thinking as well. The problem with these situations is that there's no clean win. Could we have forced ACA subsidies since the GOP/Trump were being blamed? Maybe, but the harms would mount and no guarantee.
This isn't the best possible win, but it's "a" win.
This isn't the best possible win, but it's "a" win.
November 10, 2025 at 5:33 PM
This is probably closest to my thinking as well. The problem with these situations is that there's no clean win. Could we have forced ACA subsidies since the GOP/Trump were being blamed? Maybe, but the harms would mount and no guarantee.
This isn't the best possible win, but it's "a" win.
This isn't the best possible win, but it's "a" win.
That's underselling it, there were a LOT of noteworthy wins this week:
- Dems won all Gov races
- Virginia statewide Dem sweep and picking up 13(!) seats in state House
- Dems broke of GOP supermajority in MS House
- Prop 50 (redistricting) passed overwhelmingly in CA
- Voter ID failed in Maine
- Dems won all Gov races
- Virginia statewide Dem sweep and picking up 13(!) seats in state House
- Dems broke of GOP supermajority in MS House
- Prop 50 (redistricting) passed overwhelmingly in CA
- Voter ID failed in Maine
November 8, 2025 at 3:50 PM
That's underselling it, there were a LOT of noteworthy wins this week:
- Dems won all Gov races
- Virginia statewide Dem sweep and picking up 13(!) seats in state House
- Dems broke of GOP supermajority in MS House
- Prop 50 (redistricting) passed overwhelmingly in CA
- Voter ID failed in Maine
- Dems won all Gov races
- Virginia statewide Dem sweep and picking up 13(!) seats in state House
- Dems broke of GOP supermajority in MS House
- Prop 50 (redistricting) passed overwhelmingly in CA
- Voter ID failed in Maine
So one transparently manipulative endorsement is enough to invalidate a person's entire political affiliation?
I suppose I can't say it's not the case, since it happens so infrequently, but let's just say I remain unconvinced.
I suppose I can't say it's not the case, since it happens so infrequently, but let's just say I remain unconvinced.
November 5, 2025 at 10:12 PM
So one transparently manipulative endorsement is enough to invalidate a person's entire political affiliation?
I suppose I can't say it's not the case, since it happens so infrequently, but let's just say I remain unconvinced.
I suppose I can't say it's not the case, since it happens so infrequently, but let's just say I remain unconvinced.
Murkowski lost a primary and had to run as a write-in.
Since the Alaska GOP voters said no to her, she must not actually be a Repubican.
Since the Alaska GOP voters said no to her, she must not actually be a Repubican.
November 5, 2025 at 10:07 PM
Murkowski lost a primary and had to run as a write-in.
Since the Alaska GOP voters said no to her, she must not actually be a Repubican.
Since the Alaska GOP voters said no to her, she must not actually be a Repubican.
It's self-evident he was perceived as a Dem before losing the primary. You claim the Trump endorsement affected that post-primary. Do you have data on that?
Neither of us has the data yet, so by that logic your Trump point isn't any more valid.
Neither of us has the data yet, so by that logic your Trump point isn't any more valid.
November 5, 2025 at 10:06 PM
It's self-evident he was perceived as a Dem before losing the primary. You claim the Trump endorsement affected that post-primary. Do you have data on that?
Neither of us has the data yet, so by that logic your Trump point isn't any more valid.
Neither of us has the data yet, so by that logic your Trump point isn't any more valid.
So Murkowski isn't a Republican, then?
November 5, 2025 at 10:04 PM
So Murkowski isn't a Republican, then?
One year ago him winning as Mayor was "unrealistic".
I'll give you "unlikely", maybe even "highly unlikely", but I think it's, well, unrealistic to say "unrealistic".
I'll give you "unlikely", maybe even "highly unlikely", but I think it's, well, unrealistic to say "unrealistic".
November 5, 2025 at 9:45 PM
One year ago him winning as Mayor was "unrealistic".
I'll give you "unlikely", maybe even "highly unlikely", but I think it's, well, unrealistic to say "unrealistic".
I'll give you "unlikely", maybe even "highly unlikely", but I think it's, well, unrealistic to say "unrealistic".