So you just make sweeping nonsense statements, maybe.

In women’s sport, I just don’t think it’s fair to women to compete against trans-women* who are stronger than them. I only beleive that out of fairness, but I think people have every right to do what they want with their bodies and be accepted for who they are.

Where another person’s rights begin, another’s ends type of thing.

** EDIT: Clarifycation of ‘trans-women’ at the astrick, was just ‘women’ before

Or some people just have nuanced opinions and see that topics can be multiple shades of grey instead of either white or black.

Dead wrong, I’ve always voted left. And yes, I do consider myself a centrist, that’s exactly why I commented because I think the ‘you’re either with us or against us’ mentality is doing more damage than it helps.

I’m only against trans-women competing against women because they would have a competitive advantage. I’m even for athletes using hormones, stereroids and drugs in sport (in seperate divisions perhaps) and then the rules on who is in who’s class can really be thought out properly, but currently most trans-women have a clear advantage based on current sport (and biological) evidence. I don’t think it’s fair competition is all. I know some pretty cool trans people and one of them even admits to similar feelings of it being unfair.

I’m pro social policies because I think everyone deserves a roof over their head, food, water and basic amenities. But I’m also pro merit purely to reward people to achieve more and be better. Some people will never be as capable as others are but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have a basic living standard. Something like UBI would be a perfect solution to my understanding. I’m not American but when Bernie Sanders was a candidate I was rooting for him.

Pro climate because we need to fix it and fast, we do way to much damage to the environment. Against outright bans on fossil fuels because we simply are not there yet. My country is unfortunately nowhere near renewable and our outback has hardly any electricity, we need fuels to do anything out there. Trucks, trains and ships sometimes can’t work without it. Not to mention that lithium although amazing is causing more greenhouse gases mining and refining it than what electric cars are offsetting. Electric cars literally aren’t doing anything because the batteries die before they make up for their production. Carbon batteries are coming but mass production is difficult to scale. Cargo ships emit around a quater of all green house gasses and I personally think thats where we could really cut down on it by either fitting cargo ships with nuclear reactors which some military vessels have or just reducing consumerism. Currently most CO2 emissions is from electricity of which in most countries (such as mine) residential makes up only about 10%. The onous is not so much on the individual person but on companies and business, we need more incentives/punishments for corporations to be more considerate.

Almost no issue is black or white. I do have defined political beliefs, I think most people oversimplify or don’t research topics before forming an opinion. And there there are people like the one I originally commented to who have turned politics and world issues into binary division, where instead of educating they attack and insult.

What is emotionally driven here?

And what do I have little understanding of?

but you will not find 5% of people in america that oppose the military as a concept.

Thats just your speculation. And do you mean people oppose the US having any military at all? 90% of the countries have a standing army, and the ones that dont are mostly small island countries.

Why is that the line you draw?

And yet the comments and downvotes shows how contentious it is which I knew it would be when I wrote it.

I know the trans-women in sport issue is almost non-existent but it’s probably the biggest talking point in the comments it seems.

Personally I agree with you. I always vote left and am more of a “we’re in in together” mindset.

Either way, thank you for you insight!

Those are some great linked videos.

I agree with a lot of points in the video on trans-athletes. I wonder if the meta-study that I’ve been refering to was one of the studies mentioned, and there certainly needs to be more research into the topic to settle the matter for good. I think social and low stake competition should most certainly be non restricted especially for kids, the fact they are restricted in some places is obscene. But I’m still on the fence with professional and Olympic level sports. The part that currently holds me back from changing stance, is how many Olympic sports have either banned or heavily restricted participation. Perhaps they are in the wrong themselves but I suspect they are being cautious until more studies have confirmed one way or the other. Overall, I certainly don’t hold my view in high regard and I’m just waiting for more evidence, but like I said, anything other than professional or Olympic shouldn’t be restricted at all, any strength difference there is negligible.

With the guns part I agree with everything mentioned. I don’t think a free gun ownership system like what America has, is a smart idea. My country is very restrictive which is why I dislike the idea of completely banning them. Where I am, even the plastic toy guns were made illegal. Only if you live on a farm and need to protect livestock or produce, then you’re allowed to own some. Good thing is, no mass shootings here and only some gun crime. It would be nice if tough but fair licensing was more-so available, but nothing like America.

I’ll try substantiating the last paragraph without it getting too long. Fossil fuel bans are just not possible at the moment and even when it is, there will likely be some things we will never replace, even backup generators when black outs happen for hospitals. Making it really expensive and hard to acquire should be all that’s needed. Military for defence because I don’t think the world will be truely at peace for a while longer. Free-speech so ideas don’t go suppressed, but that doesn’t mean people have to respect that free-speech. Strict immigration to bring in valuable skills not just people (pronounced problem where I am). ‘PC’ culture ties into free speech but also reducing diversity hires (not requiring names and personal information in hiring to make such decisions truely unbias would be a better solution). Keeping some merit success with a socialist system to reward people to achieve more.

https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/Beyond-the-Games/Human-Rights/IOC-Framework-Fairness-Inclusion-Non-discrimination-2021.pdf

Sports decide themselves, of which world rowing and boxing have blanket bans. Athletics, cycling, swimming, rugby and cricket are bans if the transition was after puberty. Triathlon, tennis and archery requires testosterone testing. And all other sporting bodies are on a case by case basis.

That’s why we don’t see them because the Olympics themselves have said:

high-level organised sporting competitions - relies on a level playing field, where no athlete has an unfair and disproportionate advantage over the rest.

I’m tired of replying to everyone, please put more effort into your argument

Not very helpful, why is that?

Huh!? This isn’t a troll, I’m an example of a centrist. The term ‘centrist’ exists for a reason, and plenty of people such as myself think this way although I will admit, I have met very few unfortunately.

What makes me seem like a liar?

Laws are written to be manipulated, that’s why European culture uses laws and words as weapons, for European culture loves words to be twisted. This is why the “truth” always changes in the European mind, look no further than their use of “treaties” or “truces” or their fad-politics. Whether it’s far-right capitalism or left-wing socialism, I fail to see the difference when they both rely on “production at all costs” at the expense of our natural world and turning our habitable environments into gravel pits and uranium mines all in the name of “productivity.” The global south, or “third world”, and natural peoples will all be capitalist workerbees or socialist proletarian under the European death-cult of “productivity” as they call it; I call it a culture of suicide with a medieval religious devotion to their faith except now it’s shifted to science, technology, and money - just another example of how the truth always changes. They’re incapable of any real thought, incapable of simply appreciating the magic of nature to admire a lake or mountain or people in being, and most of all they cannot listen unless the world around them is despiritualized into mechanical models and dead symbols written on dead leaves.

To me I don’t see the shift towards left-wing, even the death of capitalism, to be revolutionary. It may be yet another revolution for the European mind, but to the rest of the world it’s merely a continuation. In order for humanity to live in harmony with nature, European culture must die.

I would argue the trap is in the other way. Your reply reminds me a lot of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6vjaimSK4E . You may think you know how good the average american has it but you may not understand stand the unique challenges of various americans in many different situations. Wealth disparity is the trap and the only way toward freedom is a society were it is not so extreme.