Life In 19x19

hanspi wrote:It seems that the sex (female) vs gender (woman) debate rages in all sports. Here's a good article about this:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10 ... ccess=true

We are aware that some of the recommended revisions may sound strange in contemporary English (and other languages), but this is a matter of habit.[...]

This I think is true. You can have the habit to be very precises or accurate about the meaning of certain words and not others. It could be perceived as pedantic if the more precise terminology is too different from common usage. On the other hand if this more precise terminology isn't distinct enough from regular usage, then this becomes a futile exercise. I don't really buy into the papers argument that recommendations that sound strange and may seem banal are as useful as the paper argues, but that is about scope, if you were already looking for recommendations about how to be more precises then that is different. Also, the paper points out that the recommendations don't work at all for languages other than English, this makes the recommendations somewhat redundant.

What the paper is talking about is precise usage of language but the paper ignores that it isn't arguments about accurate expressions or what serves the common good that is important when sports organizations communicate. Take the example of what the IOC calls "gender verification" which really should be called "female sex verification", like the paper mentions, but this is not what the IOC wants to communicate. With the rather disturbing history of adjudicating female athletes' sex with naked parades, medical examinations, chromosome tests (which I read were unreliable to the level of being pseudo-science) and hormone level tests, it is understandable that a euphemism was needed. Gender verification is a good euphemism, it sounds like it could be as simple as checking someone's passport, when it of course isn't that. Gender verification also implies, literally, that the gender is checked, not at all that there may be a medical test procedure that some women athletes can not reasonably pass. The IOC and the federations that have gender verification (I believe most, by far, don't) just don't wish to be more precises and that is why they use a phrase that neither evokes a description of the actual process nor that women athletes' can fail the verification without being involved in foul play. This is just one example of why it may not always be useful for everyone to use more accurate expressions or even to avoid misunderstandings; one may though find this use of a euphemism objectionable. Therefore, I find the argument unconvincing in the paper, it fails to consider that the sports movement and its organizations may have goals and motives that are their own and can't simply be subsumed by generic arguments about the common good and that clarity in communications would always be desired, it ignores that more accurate or appropriate communication may not be desired if it is not what the communicator wishes to communicate.

Anyway, interesting paper to share.

==edited noticed some missing words

Now I'm wondering if a transgender or intersex go player has already participated in a women's/female go competition, and what is the attitude of go federations in that case.

jlt wrote:Now I'm wondering if a transgender or intersex go player has already participated in a women's/female go competition, and what is the attitude of go federations in that case.

I don't know if it is always the case but the women's side tournament at EGC has sometimes been open to anyone that presents themselves as a woman.

Now I'm wondering if a transgender or intersex go player has already participated in a women's/female go competition, and what is the attitude of go federations in that case.

There was a strong player in the Hoensha (I'll leave her name out of it to avoid misuse) who left few game records to posterity yet many tales are told about her. The way these stories are framed all suggest she was different in some way. It's rather like the old euphemism used in obituaries: "he never married."

For example, we are told she was the daughter of a samurai and, reflecting that, she was strict and dauntless, could split coals for her bath with her bare hands, was skilled in karate, kendo, tea ceremony, calligraphy, judo and the lute, and was Japan's leading female exponent of the halberd. She remained a spinster and always lived alone.

You can draw your own conclusions, but I'd like to add that she was also very popular as a teacher and had many distinguished pupils.

I guess the gender and trans-gender topic must be discussed for different sports independently. Why do we have different championships for men and women? In boxing it is very clear, genetically, men will totally dominate.

But in Go? Here I think we have a SOCIAL reason for having far fewer women.

So in summary, the proper way would probably be to call boxers "female heavyweight champion" but Go players "Women's Kisei", to not allow trans-women to box in the female heavyweight championship, but allow trans-women to play in women's Go tournaments.

I know such discussions very well from another corner, decades ago I was in a paralympics team (cross-country skiing), and I later followed it closely when handicapped sprinter Oscar Pistorius wanted to participate in the 2008 olympics but could not because his prosthethics gave him an unfair advantage. Essentially the whole thing seems to boil down to: as long as you do sports for fun, it is easy to find solutions, but as soon as money is involved, everything becomes very regulated, and far less human.

Bonobos are superior to homosapiens in every way possible that matters

homosapiens are a failed species and an embarrasment

If the page is read by David Attenborough then it should stay as it.
If not, it is a fairly obvious error, perhaps worse than calling prizes prices...

Elom0 wrote:Bonobos are superior to homosapiens in every way possible that matters

I disagree, of course. Bonobos don't play Go.

hanspi wrote:

Elom0 wrote:Bonobos are superior to homosapiens in every way possible that matters

I disagree, of course. Bonobos don't play Go.

bci@bonobo.org info@lolayabonobo.org

Bobobos 바둑 ability

Dear protectors and preservers of the world's superior species,

The population of homosapien claims to value intelligence, but in actuality only value the ability to it to dominate others; when we remove the variable of the incentive of material reward through use of intelligence as applied inn fields considered work, physical sports are still far greater in popularity of viewership than mindsports, which shows that homosapiens are still a primarily physical based species and not an intellect based species. That being said, it would still raise the estimation of the cognitively simplistic homosapien race's opinion of Bonobos if it were possible to demonstrate bonobos ability to grasp the basic concepts of the most complex traditional board game in the world, a demonstration of which can be found here on a greatly simplified version www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMUhUrNTK1Y

Yours sincerely, 

Elom Hycy agotokpeKushiator mumayazWillson 

jlt wrote:

Capture d'écran 2024-03-09 175934.png

hanspi wrote:

Elom0 wrote:Bonobos are superior to homosapiens in every way possible that matters

I disagree, of course. Bonobos don't play Go.

How can you tell? Perhaps they hide their skills because they're so much better than humans and don't want to demonstrate that to show off?