129
submitted 2 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

The world’s top chess federation has ruled that transgender women cannot compete in its official events for females until an assessment of gender change is made by its officials.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] skymtf@pricefield.org 6 points 2 years ago

I'm just saying if your compromise involves throwing a minority under the bus, your just a speedbump on the road to fascism.

[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Eh. Just because some compromise is bad does not mean all compromises are bad. Every situation is unique, and it's not like compromise is murder or something.

Democracy outranks human rights. The human rights were put there in the first place by the democracy, and can be amended by it as well. It completely outranks them, unless you believe they are "god-given" or something.

This is why compromise within your own political system, in certain cases, retains value. If your faction is not strong enough, as trans folks in international chess probably aren't, then it's a tacit acknowledgement of your right to exist.

Assuming the previous position was an outright ban, anyway. I don't actually know if it was or not.

[-] livus@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Democracy outranks human rights. The human rights were put there in the first place by the democracy, and can be amended by it as well. It completely outranks them, unless you believe they are “god-given” or something.

Just have to chime in here.

Human rights are fundamental and intrinsic. They can't be "outranked."

Legislating for them and enforcing them is due to institutions such as governments (and in an international context the ICC if, say, the government has become genocidal).

[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Right. Which is why they're doing the uyghurs so much good right now. Those intrinsic rights sure are protecting them.

Point being, they're only intrinsic because we say so.

[-] livus@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I think I see what's going wrong in this conversation.

By definition, "rights" can be legal, social, or ethical.

To you, they are only a legal thing and if they don't exist in law or custom, then to you they don't exist.

But to me, (and others here) they also have an ethical dimension and exist as an ethical value independent of the legal or social useage.

Saying ethics depend on laws and customs would be moral relativism (which is a tricky thing to hold for most people, because of the implications around stuff like child rape and murder being ok if everyone was doing it).

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Those Uyghurs had and have rights whether the Chinese government knows it or not. Bad things happening doesn't make those things suddenly not-bad.

Point being, they're only intrinsic because we say so.

The sky is only blue because we decided on the word "blue" for that frequency of light, and there's plenty of other things that are the way they are just because we say so.

And if this isn't just a "I just don't think 'rights' are the correct word" semantic argument for you here, please refer back to the first two sentences.

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Democracy outranks human rights.

I don't recall any part of the bill of rights saying "this doesn't apply in cases where it's unpopular"

[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

The whole thing was put there via voting. It's the first ten amendments to the constitution.

It's the law of the land. Democracy does not mean you can ignore laws you disagree with.

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

The whole thing was put there via voting

I mean, a) no, a whole ass war's worth of violence was a necessary element, b) we don't let a simple majority vote change those fundamental human rights, we make amending our constitution very difficult and put important stuff in there that probably shouldn't be changed for a reason

[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Well, yea, the war put the voting system in place. After some initial hiccups getting started, the bill of rights was one of the first things voted on.

Just because the amendment process is difficult does not make it undemocratic. Note, I'm trying to be objective here, not say that one is more valuable or important than another. Simply that one is functionally more powerful.

this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
129 points (100.0% liked)

News

37764 readers
2269 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS