That app doesn’t work as it needs some play API which I guess is not implemented in microG. I am guessing not all of them are passed though.

My FP3 on /e/OS (based on lineage) has native recording. The phone passes safetynet check, i believe due to microG. However, some apps consider the bootloader unlocked so YMMV.

Women fear for their safety around men in public, and rightfully so. Period. It’s so fucking bizarre that anyone would ever try to argue against this.

I am not. I am arguing against the fact that men don’t (need to) worry about their safety in public. It’s such a cartoonish way to think. You don’t worry, good for you!

The statistics you’re quoting (and likely making up, but I don’t care enough about this to look) aren’t really relevant, I’m talking about real women’s real life experience.

So one comment ago you were telling me to look at statistics, now it’s real life experience that matters.

BTW, just search and you will find data, for example https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/recorded-crime-victims/latest-release, https://www.statista.com/statistics/423245/us-violent-crime-victims-by-gender/ (which shows 2022 is essentially identical, but quite a gap in 2021), etc. Note that I am searching generic violent crimes. In terms of murders men are quite universally in higher number.

Again, talk to women. Or if you can’t do that, read what actual women have to say about this subject. Do you not value the opinions of women? Do you not believe them when they speak about their personal experiences?

This has nothing to do with my argument. I am not contesting women (need to) fear for their personal safety in public. If I were a woman there would be a host of additional things I would worry about. What I am contesting is the way you present this fact, as if the difference between men and women was a 0-100 difference, when it’s not.

I don’t really see the reason to make up bullshit exaggerations to drive a point that stands on its own without them. Women have to worry and do worry differently, both in terms of quality and quantity than men when they go in public. There are certain risks that in public are fairly irrelevant for men, which doesn’t mean “men have nothing to worry about”. There are also certain risks that are much smaller for women (e.g., getting into a fight in a bar because some dude’s ego was hurt and needs to assert being the alpha).

Why is it necessary for you to make a completely unrealistic assertion (which BTW disregards my opinion as man while talking about men, so “Do you not value the opinions of women? Do you not believe them when they speak about their personal experiences?” cit.) to support a very reasonable thesis? Do you think people can appreciate the safety issue for women only if they contrast it with a completely opposite (i.e., no issue at all) situation for what concerns men?

All the crimes I have mentioned are statistically way more likely than sexual assaults, a crime that notoriously happens mostly within one’s home. So what you just said seems to me completely in antithesis with the original message.

Also, I completely disagree with your assessment. I live in a perfectly safe city and country, but when I travel I sometimes also go in worse areas, and most importantly I don’t even know whether I am in a “bad neighborhood” or not, because I don’t know the place. Hence I worry for my personal safety, which is exactly what prompts for those basic measures that you listed (and more), such as not flashing wealth unnecessarily. You do this exactly because you are aware that man or not you can be victim of such crimes just as much. In fact, statistics show that men are more likely to be victims of violent crimes in general, so I am not really sure where your core thesis come from.

Also worrying is not being terrified, is understanding a risk exists and taking precautions. Either way, this idea that as a man you have nothing to worry about is completely idiotic.

Because robberies and mugging do not exist, because I should not worry about them or because they don’t happen to me as a man?

When men leave the house, the worst thing we walk around in fear of is ridicule and rejection.

Do you live in a cartoon? Seriously, this is complete nonsense. I worry about my personal safety very often, when an environment presents certain risks (e.g., getting robbed, mugged etc.). It’s true that I don’t generally fear to be sexually assaulted by a woman, but to say that men don’t (need to) worry about their personal safety is completely absurd.

Right, violence works usually works to eradicate ideas and standardize morality!

This is not even a slope, it is the application of the same principle applied by people who have different views and morality.

Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

Just a thought: what happens when that “we” is people who - say - think the courts and the police are not doing their job in sending home all “these illegal immigrants” or something like that?

And Musk, and the Hungarian boxer, and many more around the World. This has been a worldwide case, not just a private US shitshow.

I had to search, and I did find a few articles talking about a rumor.

I don’t think the two events are of same scope and magnitude. The Khelif’s case has been a worldwide media case, what I found for was very US-specific and limited to some niche deranged corner of the internet (https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/07/27/katie-ledecky-trans-rumors/ listed Facebook and Twitter posts from individuals and 2 articles).

Possibly I shouldn’t have used US athletes as example. Given how the topic is so controversial there, I am quite sure you can find a few idiots who would make this claim about any athlete.

Sure! FYI, simplelogin can create aliases with prefix! I usually get service-{random 5 chars}@simplelogin.com, so you can still sort by folder using prefixes.

That seems both unlikely and - to be honest - completely exaggerated and useless.

None of those, really. Just that downplaying successful women doesn’t happen as much in sport, and when it does it’s not by stating they are men.

If %10 of successful women have ever been downplayed because of their gender (due to unconscious biases for example) vs %1 of successful men, then this is still a handful of examples which nevertheless points to a significant bias.

1. Ok, but where is the data?
2. Sure, it point to the fact that women’s success are downplayed. Not that when women are successful they are called men.

when a man breaks a record he is a super human, when a woman breaks a record she is a man.

How did I miss the point? To me it seems clear that what you were saying that women can’t be successful, if they are, they are considered men (because men have success).

I am not fixating on the example, sorry, it’s the whole thesis you condensed into this sentence that I am fixated on. Women’s success can be downplayed in many ways. Either way, in sports in 2024 I don’t think this is as much of a problem as it is - say - in business. Most importantly, I think this case had not much to do with downplaying Imane’s success (the whole case started waaaay earlier she won the medal), but simply with other factors.

You can take any other boxer, I specifically chose black and “masculine” athletes as examples to show that even race/body type alone was not the determining factor. In these Olympic games you have just Imane’s example: how can you call this a trend or make general statements with one case (not even the Taiwanese boxer got attention)?

What do you mean? Comparing the rate at which women are subject to such effects vs men is a worse statistic than saying “but many successful women are not subject to such effects”? If there is a systematic bias towards women’s success being downplayed, you cannot call this an isolated incident of stereotypical bias.

Men don’t have a category to which they are wrongfully assigned when they win sports. This is also because men are the higher category in most sports (i.e., higher performers), so it is a parallel that simply doesn’t make sense. So yes. It is a worse statistics because men who are victim of gender stereotypes are generally not the ones who excel at sports (men who are called women in general break the masculine stereotype of the muscular and competitive guy - and these unsurprisingly are not characteristics common in elite athletes).

If there is a systematic bias towards women’s success being downplayed

But this was not your claim either. Your claim is that downplaying is done by specifically saying those women are men. The whole point here is on the cause, not the existence of the phenomenon in general.

To be honest I don’t consider something being Russian as automatically 100% false. This case from the IBA seems likely made up, or at least it is until they provide further proof, which they didn’t so far.

That said, this is irrelevant in this particular conversation. Real or not, that precedent is in my opinion partly responsible for why people decided to attack this particular athletes. I agree with you on the next country also playing a role.

Basically my whole argument is that there are multiple factors that made this a case. The fact that she “broke records” or “had success” is generally very low in the list, imho.

but there are other very successful women who have not been treated that way

What I am actually saying is that the vast majority of successful women athletes didn’t suffer from this at this time at all. If this argument works only for Imane Khelif (not even the Taiwanese boxer, who has been mostly ignored), out of the hundreds of women who just won medals, maybe it is not an argument that can be generalized to “women of success”, and other causes have to be searched.

This to me is basic common sense: if a thesis works only on a handful of examples and there are hundreds of counter examples, maybe the thesis is wrong. A tendency would require also more examples.

Those look nothing like “tools” to me.

I will make it simpler: In this very thread a person talked about “high testosterone”. Why they didn’t say the same about the 99% of the women who won competitions? Probably because of a combination of factors:

• The masculine aspect of this particular boxer, that doesn’t fit the image that many people have of women
• The media reporting the immediately pushed to a polarization of opinions -> you had to take a side
• The previous IBA debacle that planted the seed of the doubt

To me the combination of the above is a much better explanation of the causes for which people attacked this particular boxer, and not the many other women of success, including black and including masculine (e.g., Simone Biles, or Grace Bullen).

historically of women whose success has been deliberately downplayed because she does not fit the stereotypical women in their head vs men who suffered from the same

I really don’t see how this measurement can lead to any conclusion. How can you not measure the amount of women who don’t fit the stereotypical woman aspect and yet whose success has not been downplayed due to their aspect (i.e., people called them men)?

I doubt that fight can be counted as “exceptionally good performance”, but anyway why the same didn’t happen for those that both performed exceptionally well and actually set records?

There are so many examples of that not happening that makes me seriously doubt it identifies the right cause(s).