First the workout: I STILL started too late; walk started at about 8 am and it was getting humid. I went with my West Peoria 5.15 mile course and I did take one brief stretch break (1:16 start to finish time; break was 90 second/s)
the discomfort was mild, but I was not in a mood to try to walk through it (while doing posture stuff).
Then resistance training (after a cool down break)
pull ups: 10 single pull ups, 10 single chins, 10 (a few toe touches), 5 pull ups, 5 chin ups, 5 pull ups, 5 chin ups, 2 penalty reps.
Then downstairs: Swiss bar: 10 x 134, then a drop set: 1 x 170, (ugly), 1 x 165 (very ugly), 1 x 160, 3 x 155, 3 x 150, 4 x 145, 5 x 139, 6 x 134
Shrugs: 3 sets of 10 with handles, 3 sets of curls (2 with dumbbells), high incline: 7 x 94, 7 x 99, 7 x 99
Oh well, there are no perfect workouts.
Last night, I watched this movie made by a conservative activist.
The movie takes about 95 minutes, and to be honest I almost gave up early.
The gist: Matt Walsh (the movie maker) appears to be trying to make the point: the word “woman” should stand for the adult human who produces (or can, in principle produce) eggs; that is sex is determined by the gametes.
And so, if someone says: “transwomen are women” they are being illogical since the ability to produce eggs cannot be changed, so they are not biological women. But if you don’t use “woman” with its biological meaning, then saying “X is a woman because they identify as a woman” is logical nonsense; it is the classical circular definition. Ok, if I wanted to, I could talk about how any logical system has to start with primitive terms; terms that cannot be defined (e. g. like “point” in geometry). But I won’t go there.
Then Walsh proceeds to interview different experts (or “experts”) and others and plays “gotcha” with most of them (save 3 friendly experts.
He isn’t stupid: he knows that society produces (evolves?) social roles for biological males and biological females (the professor he interviews seems to be trying to explain that) and a biological male can be suffering from gender dysphoria and will want to “identify as a woman” (fit into the roles normally filled by biological women) and there is a push to say “if you sincerely see yourself that way, you are a woman (in terms of role in society).
Walsh then visits a society that has not been touched by this sort of ideology in order to drive home that what we have is a recent sociological invention, if you will. Then he talks about two early researchers and presents unflattering personal aspects of them. (note: though he attacks their personal ethics, he doesn’t seem to attack the substance of their work). It is “horrible ideology comes from horrible human beings…which…is ..sort of “woke”…never mind that)
There are a couple of other factual issues: in one place, he shows transwomen athletes competing in women’s division (I think this is unfair) but then adds a photo of Caster Semenya who is intersex and NOT transgender.
And then, in an interview, the “furries” hoax is mentioned (though they don’t get to the literbox claim) and he quickly switches to an adult who has some rather eccentric views about…wolves.
The sad thing is that there IS room for a serious discussion about these topics: sports, age of consent for medical procedures, what can go wrong, etc. And, IMHO the best part was the interview with a very unfortunate transman who is suffering, possibly from the effects of transition surgery and hormone injections. That part was well worth watching.
But instead, the producer appears to want to make himself some sort of cultural warrior hero.