Simone Biles attacks Riley Gaines

I noticed that.

I am sure now that Simone was not held to the same standards.

It is tribalist and absolutist.

Yes. Hence the list of worthiness. I am sure those reading will be enlightened by what makes a woman worthy of having their voice valued or not.

A worthy woman seems to be:

one who chooses to take a large cut in earnings at the start of her career to cover the vital campaign to protect female sports categories.

will pay for all her accrued costs out of her own pocket unless she gets donations, and she cannot actively seek donations or provide any merchandise or content for those donations.

will take abuse and never discuss it publicly lest it might be seen as unkind to the abuser, or capitalising on unasked and unprovoked abuse from public figures, or just merely unkind, likely unwomanly.

will remain silent unless the media or campaign supporters who are perceived as having the exact credentials takes an interest in her campaign.

will always remember that she never gained Olympic medals and she was just a sore loser in 5th place.

will never mention any other issues that she is interested in.

Is on the speaker circuit and has her name with various agencies where she talks about … stuff not related to swimming.

will just absorb any abuse she receives and not respond publicly at all, not even mildly.

will never accept an interview on Fox to promote their campaign to as wide an audience as possible.

Yep.

It's particularly ridiculous because it is actually totally possible to say I think Riley is in the right on this one, shit AI aside, and in the wrong on whatever other points. I'm managing it perfectly well. Most people who've lost all their baby teeth are capable of comprehending that they will agree on some things and disagree on others with every other human being alive.

"she makes money off disagreements like this."

So, should no person then ever be paid for interviews and content as an activist for giving their opinion and rebutting accusations against them?

Do you really believe this? So, no public figure who makes money from their content should make money by commenting on an incident where they have had false accusations made about them and deliberately insulted?

So that includes any person or organisation who monetises their social media content, or who uses an incident to raise the profile of their campaign to receive funding.

Or is it just Riley who deserves to be denigrated this way?

I shall make sure I tell my left wing activist friend that they should stop their paid appearances on Fox because it is problematic and makes them worthy of being denigrated.

Interestingly, Riley hasn't posted anything on TwiX about Simonegate since 11th June. That's the day after Simone's apology, which came on Tuesday the 10th. Nothing about it on her Instagram either. I don't have TikTok or any of the other social media channels people in their 20s seem to go for, perhaps anyone who does could clarify?

Also @JessaWoo since apparently you think referring to something the day after it happened amounts to dragging it out, presumably you also agree Simone was dragging the matter out when she reposted her initial attack on Riley the day after?

It seems to me we've had a succession of posters on this long thread who will say they actually agree with Riley, but for whatever reason they really don't want to allow Riley to ever be in the right, so we get a lot of snark insinuating that she's a bad faith actor.

She's not the only woman who gets this treatment (KJK, who I admit is not everyone's cup of tea, gets it often, Rosie Duffield gets it sometimes)

It would be helpful to have a list of the women who we don't assume are bad faith actors. Or, alternatively, we could act like adults and ditch all this Regina George crap.

The thing is that @JessaWoo knows that Riley is absolutely right on this one.

But that doesn't fit the narrative, so she has to try and discredit her in any way possible.

A worthy woman seems to be:

one who chooses to take a large cut in earnings at the start of her career to cover the vital campaign to protect female sports categories.

will pay for all her accrued costs out of her own pocket unless she gets donations, and she cannot actively seek donations or provide any merchandise or content for those donations.

will take abuse and never discuss it publicly lest it might be seen as unkind to the abuser, or capitalising on unasked and unprovoked abuse from public figures, or just merely unkind, likely unwomanly.

will remain silent unless the media or campaign supporters who are perceived as having the exact credentials takes an interest in her campaign.

will always remember that she never gained Olympic medals and she was just a sore loser in 5th place.

will never mention any other issues that she is interested in.

Is on the speaker circuit and has her name with various agencies where she talks about … stuff not related to swimming.

will just absorb any abuse she receives and not respond publicly at all, not even mildly.

will never accept an interview on Fox to promote their campaign to as wide an audience as possible.

But let’s not be disingenuous - there is an agenda here. This is now her day-to-day job - she makes money off disagreements like this. She didn’t start it, no, but she’ll make it last as long as she can.

So the accusation is that she doesn't really want to win this battle, she wants to drag it out for profit?

Do you extend this to everyone fighting the fight - Helen Joyce, Maya Forstater, Emma Hilton, Ross Tucker?

Or are you singling her out as being in particularly bad faith?

If so, I can't actually see why, unless there's some sort of assumption that being "right-wing" inherently means you must be doing things in bad faith? Because "right-wingers" don't really believe what they say they believe?

You seem very cross with Gaines about something, but I struggle to see what it is.

So what?

What is the point you are making that you believe supports your posts on this thread about Riley Gaines being in the wrong in any way in this incident with Simone Biles?

Because at this point, Riley would have to be the very definition of a stereotype of female nurturing and kindness to not be on the receiving end of your criticism. Do you exemplify the ideals that you are suggesting that Riley conforms to?

The person I know who sits on Fox News regularly is also an activist in their day job. So what? Should people not listen to them because of it?

And they are a left wing activist! Making an income off voicing their opinions. Imagine that.

"she makes money off disagreements like this."

Can you point to me one exemplary activist who doesn't receive benefit from being in a disagreement where they have been so clearly and wrongfully attacked?

Where they cannot use the opportunity to explain their own position to the benefit of their campaign?

Or is it that the benefit is money? So then, all activists should never make money to cover their costs and their time, is that your belief?

What would be a neutral venue?

And is there a limit to how many appearances she should do?

It’s clear that Riley Gaines is quite right-wing. Fox is not exactly a neutral channel, are they? They lean right-wing. They do have some left-wing commentators, but they are heavily outweighed by the right.

I have no issues with RG being on Fox, or anywhere. But let’s not be disingenuous - there is an agenda here. This is now her day-to-day job - she makes money off disagreements like this. She didn’t start it, no, but she’ll make it last as long as she can.

Eventually you do have to pick a side.

I've had trans people in my life who I liked a great deal, and I'd like society to be better at meeting their needs.

I think they're extremely poorly represented by transactivism, and ultimately there can be no compromise with transactivism, because transactivism is fucking insane.

And I'm sorry for the trans people who lose out because of the insanity of the people who claimed to represent them, but - for very understandable reasons - almost all of them chose to line up behind the insane activists. It was open to them to take the Hayton position of "these lunatics are undermining the social acceptance I relied on", but they didn't.

That's within the trans community. Would-be allies like Biles, or certain Labour MPs closer to home, who picked a side without really thinking about the issues, are getting a crash course in how they will get monstered for putting forward what they think is a pro-trans position that does not completely meet TRA demands.

You have to learn one way or another.

I guess it's a bit of shock for people to find that there isn't any middle ground here.

They need to pick a side.

Unfortunately the problematic side is also very aggressive and intimidating

Creating a huge dilemma for the people pleasers out there.

SionnachRuadh

You are quite right. It is all about removing that voice from public.

I think it is quite clear that Riley would be very happy to go on any new channel. She is quite adept now at handling interviews. And hostile situations.

A textbook example of someone who'd ignorantly presumed the pro trans position to be much more reasonable than it is. Whoever said upthread she's at the gender neutral toilet in my house stage of analysis was bang on.

Agree this is all the more stupid a move because Simone in no way had to do it. Nobody was calling for her to come out and take a position on males in sports. She had a lot more to lose than gain, particularly since she seems to have settled on a wibbly middle ground that's earned her accusations of transphobia for her trouble.

Worth saying, maybe, that of the cable news networks, Fox has a bigger audience than CNN and MSNBC put together. I assume Riley wants to reach as wide an audience as possible.

But I also assume that she wouldn't turn down an interview request from CNN or MSNBC. The question is whether they would invite her in the first place.

There's a nasty little thing the centre-left do of deplatforming you from everywhere they have influence, and then complaining if you use any alternative platform.

Thus all the "Angela appeared on Fox" or "Suzanne writes for the Telegraph now" stuff.

So the only legitimate way to make your opinion known is on an approved platform of the BBC/Guardian/NPR type, but they'll blacklist you for deviating from the party line.

How exactly is one supposed to make a point that deviates from the party line?

(I can get a bit testy about this because I've experienced it on the micro level - being subjected to Scientology style shunning by left wingers who subsequently complained loudly about me being friendly with right wingers.)

So, once again: we move the goalposts so that Riley Gaines can't win.

But if Simone Biles is actually on the same side as Riley Gaines, why was she attacking her?

I actually think it is really unfortunate that Riley Gaines is a prominent Trump supporter, because it makes it far too easy to dismiss everything she says as bigotry.

Simone clearly doesn't believe that trans women should compete in women's sports. She tweeted as much in 2017, and even now she is talking about separate categories for trans people (and getting a lot of flack from trans activists). So when you come down to it, her position is basically the same as Riley's.

The difference is that she isn't brave enough to say so. She's the sporting equivalent of Margaret Atwood rather than JK Rowling.

I don't actually blame her for not wanting to tweet, "trans women should not compete in women's sporting categories" in the current political climate. Everyone with even a passing acquaintance with trans rights activists understands that saying things like that, when you are a well known public figure, and even when the majority of ordinary people agree with you, opens you up to a torrent of abuse from insane activists who will not let up until you have been comprehensively cancelled and your reputation is trashed. The situation is perhaps particularly delicate for retired athletes, who rely on their reputation and public image (and very little else) to continue to earn an income through sponsorship and media appearances. JK Rowling can continue to write novels which people will continue to buy. (And even if she never sold another book, she doesn't need to worry about money anyway.) Even Margaret Atwood doesn't need to "work" anymore because she's in her 80s. Simone Biles is 28 years old and her reputation is all she has. If she gets cancelled by trans activists and brands no longer want to be associated with her, she has nothing.

If Simone Biles had said nothing at all, I wouldn't blame her in the slightest.

But she chose to publicly call out Riley Gaines, implying (but not actually saying) that she supports the inclusion of trans women in women's sports. It was completely uncalled for virtue signalling, and it is the very epitome of punching down, both on a less successful athlete and on girls and women with sporting dreams everywhere.

I would like to know this too, because the next entry on the worthy women list will either be:

will never accept an interview on a mainstream news channel to promote their campaign to as wide an audience as possible.

or

will never accept an interview on Fox to promote their campaign to as wide an audience as possible.

I think this is so illustrative of how people misunderstand what taking a moral/principled position involves.

Everything nowadays is about the 'feeling'. So it feels good to support the so called 'underdog' of gender confused boys. And it feels even better to present oneself as the good guy, in opposition to a bad guy. Which is exactly how Simone tried to frame all this.

But what she is now finding out is that taking this position creates genuine victims. The girls who will be sidelined because society indulges these boys. Simone was once one of these girls. She didn't get sidelined thankfully. But it hurts to watch her seemingly not understand this - or show awareness of how she could use her position to champion these girls.

Taking a truly moral / principled position has always been about taking a step back. Looking logically at the facts. Not uncritically giving way to our initial emotions, or performing for social media back claps.

It has been illuminating to see this play out for Simone in real time. I hope she (and others) learn from it.

It's an incredibly apt image, albeit poorly executed by the AI, of a woman who's excelled in a sport where she doesn't have to compete with males and wants to pull the ladder up behind her.

The best criticism of it, if one is looking for something, is that Simone had never actually said she was in favour of males in women's sports. So it may not apply, since it's possible Simone holds the same view as Riley on that point. But that was a bit less obvious at the time when Riley tweeted it (post attack, pre apology) than it is now, and it's also a risk Simone took when she went in all guns blazing with a completely incoherent argument.

And if one wants to be critical of Riley for making assumptions that Simone was on team cocks in women's sports, that criticism needs to also be extended to all the TRAs who thought the same.

I suspect I am going to have to tell my friend who is pretty senior in his left wing political party that he is not worthy of being listened to because it is Fox that he is on.

I think he will laugh at that.

I am surprised that it had to be explained though.