Christina Kahrl on KNBR
talking about the NL and AL west...
over 2 years ago
FPTV
82 comments
0 recs |
Comments
Great, we get to hear her gush in pretend saber knowledge about the A’s while trashing the Giants. Pass.
Juan Carlos Perez, please start hitting.
I don't know the delicate way to put this
She used to be a man, Chris Kahrl, but goes by Christina now.
Juan Carlos Perez, please start hitting.
It happens.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Feb 23, 2010 1:12 PM PST up reply actions
Spoken like a true experienced vet. A mouth’s a mouth, right?
Win the inning.
by Scooter Ellis on Feb 23, 2010 1:16 PM PST up reply actions
I just respect the decision is all. The LGBTQIQ community can be a pretty easy target for ridicule and is a pretty common source of discomfort, and it takes some real balls to identify yourself as a member of that group – particularly in the sports industry. I’m just not into acting befuddled about the whole thing. It happens. She’s just a person. Move along.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Feb 23, 2010 1:20 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Queer, Intersex, and Questioning, I believe. I think there’s actually one more letter in the FULL acronym, but this long version is fairly new and it’s hard to remember that many letters.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Feb 23, 2010 1:35 PM PST up reply actions
Oh, no, I think QIQ is the end of it. There’s a UCSD group called LGBTQIA, and that was confusing me.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Feb 23, 2010 1:36 PM PST up reply actions
After I commented the question, I realized I should have just used Google. Anyways, thanks for the answer esseffgeez and HTS.
Juan Carlos Perez, please start hitting.
Sometimes A is used for Asexual.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
"Out, out, Fred Lewis!" - JCTillam Gamerspeare
That’s right.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Feb 23, 2010 2:30 PM PST up reply actions
At least the Saber community and the LGBTQIQ... communities have one thing in common.
A fetish for unwieldy acronyms.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
She’s transgendered. Let’s not be assholes about it. Thanks.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
"Out, out, Fred Lewis!" - JCTillam Gamerspeare
Transgender
I’ve caught heat in the past for saying “transgendered.” They prefer transgender. An FYI, because I don’t want others to get bitched out either.
Supporting San Francisco Dugout since 2005 and Manny Burriss since 2006. Bringing you all your California League and New York-Penn League needs since 2009.
by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Feb 24, 2010 11:34 AM PST up reply actions
I never thought about that distinction, but it makes perfect sense.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Feb 24, 2010 11:43 AM PST up reply actions
I don’t understand that distinction.
Utter frustration and futility.
by Johnny Disaster on Feb 24, 2010 3:25 PM PST up reply actions
“Transgendered” implies that you’re not the same person you used to be. “Transgender” does not.
It’s basically the idea that if you are trandgendered, you have to have gone through a change. Like, for instance, if you were gayed.
Speaking physically, there are transgenders who have undergone a change. There are also those who have not, and simply identify as another sex without being able to, needing to, or wanting to alter their body.
It’s exclusionary. Saying “I’m [verb tense]” is significantly different from saying “I’m [noun]”
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Feb 24, 2010 4:15 PM PST up reply actions
And to elaborate, the idea of “having to have gone through a change” is even worse when you think of it in terms that aren’t purely physical.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Feb 24, 2010 4:16 PM PST up reply actions
Hey, this kind of crap is important. People underestimate the power of words, and the huge differences that slight variations in vocabulary make not only in an idealistic sense, but often also very, very literally in a legal sense.
Making these distinctions keeps real people from having to deal with more really complicated and painful shit than they’re already probably going through.
The first time I became aware of this, somebody told me not to hyphenate African American under any circumstances, even when demanded by a stylebook. Since then, I’ve taken the whole issue to great heart by seeing what unbelievable pain a single word – marriage – has caused millions and millions of people who are supposedly “protected” under the law by the vocabulary-based compromise of a “civil union.”
Well, fuck being sarcastic about semantics. This shit makes a difference in people’s lives.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Feb 24, 2010 4:28 PM PST up reply actions
I understand the power of words
But too much time spent studying postmodern theory has simply lead me not to care about semantic arguments (though I’m certainly good at making them when it serves my purpose). Word meanings (both “official” and particularly in common usage) are too mercurial for me to really care about such fine distinctions. As you say:
Making these distinctions keeps real people from having to deal with more really complicated and painful shit than they’re already probably going through.
Which also means that semantic arguments are usually just a way of deflecting and re-directing the conversation in ways that completely circumvent or only marginally address the underlying issues. Which I don’t have much patience for (unless, of course, it serves my own purposes).
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
well, I respect that philosophically, but I don’t side with it practically. The way the nation is right now, underpriveleged groups HAVE to fight for semantics because assholes won’t accept taking the fight to another stage.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Feb 24, 2010 5:57 PM PST up reply actions
Does this stuff actually help anybody though? Running through an endless hamster wheel of euphemism and terminology changes, I mean.
FU, FO
Does Chewbacca live on Endor?
That’s not a joke, being able to control, (re)define, and even confuse the debate is a pretty effective strategy. Particularly since this particular issue largely emotional, moral, and religious, so arguing with silly things like “facts”, “evidence” , or “reason” is going to be generally ineffective.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
Whatever the philosophical problems are with building towers of vocabulary, and I agree with Bhaakon that those problems do exist, it’sdefinitely worthwhile for the groups to do what they can to take control of a weapon that is being used against them.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Feb 24, 2010 9:05 PM PST up reply actions
Word games just don't have any value to me
The term African-American (yes, I hyphenated it on purpose and yes, I did it just to be a jerk) isn’t very useful to begin with. People like Livan Hernandez and Pablo Sandoval are lumped into this category. Sure, it’s true that at some point their ancestors had come from Africa, but then again we can all say that.
Why is the term African American better than the term black? Why is the term caucasian better than the term white?
Also, could you perhaps show me an example of the unbelievable pain that the word marriage has caused for millions and millions of people? I am honestly asking, not trying to be snarky.
The baseball Satanist
I actually don’t think that the term African American is better than the word black. It’s obviously more limiting and it actually carries more baggage. I just mentioned it because it’s a cogent example of the point.
Well, there are some pretty concrete examples of high-profile issues that happened very recently.
There’s the case of Shirley Tan, a mother of two, who faced deportation because her same-sex partner couldn’t legally sponsor her for citizenship.
http://www.sacbee.com/2009/04/03/1751706/same-sex-partners-mired-in-deportation.html
And that phenomenon isn’t even specific to the United States.
And that was just off the top of my head.
So you really think that the push for gay marriage is motivated by people who aren’t suffering? The marriage issue is just one area that hurts these communities, and using vocabulary to make distinctions that legally affect rights is a big deal.
The more I sit on the idea that semantics dodge the issues, the more I’m unsatisfied with the idea. Semantics might try your patience, and they can be ridiculous, but the fact is that language is meaning and making distinctions on the language level does create differences in meaning.
There is a very idealistic way of hoping that everybody will just kind of “get the gist” of the real issues, but that’s a pipe dream in my opinion. If you want to say anything meaningful, you’re going to have to play at semantics. That’s just kind of how language works, and by extension that is how thought and understanding work. If you can’t take control of the language that you use to understand an issue, then you don’t actually understand it. And whether it bores you or not, and whether you can see through too much of the bullshit cloud that can absolutely surround it or not, that is how meaning functions.
And I do think it’s important.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Feb 24, 2010 11:21 PM PST up reply actions
Speaking of semantics!
I made a sloppy connection with those links. They’re not the same issue, which I more than imply they are, but they are both relevant to the discussion at hand.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Feb 24, 2010 11:47 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, I think you’ve actually provided a couple of good examples of how terminology is trivial in comparison to legal rights and protections.
Also, I think you underestimate the degree to which these endless diktats about how things are and are not to be expressed annoy and alienate those who have no personal stake in the matter, and thus may undermine the quest for those legal rights & protections.
First, I agree that the terminology shouldn’t matter as the larger issues are concerned. But my whole point in this thread has been that it’s not the case in a practical sense. The issue itself is one of equality under the law. But the law itself is creating inequality by dictating the terms – pun intended there – of the inequality.
But I also think it’s not the people who have no personal stake in the matter who are creating the problems that these issues are being fought over. They may be annoyed, but they’re not alienating or segregating anyone.
It’s the people who care about this stuff pretty passionately – whichever side they are taking – who are either causing the problems or fighting for the solutions.
But maybe the problem here is that I’m trying too hard to speak to that middle group, that mass of people who have less of a stake in the issues, the group who just gets bothered by all the admittedly often overstuffed diktats (as you put it).
I don’t know that I have a whole lot more to say right now, anyway. So maybe that’s a good place for me to just bow out of this one.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Feb 25, 2010 8:36 AM PST up reply actions
You know, it's funny
I got into this discussion not because of transgendered/transgender (I actually see why somebody would prefer not to be called transgendered). I got into this discussion because of other issues.
Mostly it was the whole the word “marriage” as cause of pain issue and something that wasn’t mentioned: the coopting of terms by the pro-choice side of the debate (i.e. referring to pro-lifers as anti-choice). That last one annoys the heck out of me. That’s actually the main reason I got involved.
The baseball Satanist
Well, the marriage issue is as divisive as the abortion issue, and I’m sure you’re aware of my feelings about both of them. Regardless of those feelings, though, it was probably too much of a distraction from the point here for me to bring up (and even now, to continue to bring up) gay marriage in this context.
I try to be fair, but I can’t help going just a little bit nuts sometimes. As usual with this kind of discussion, the entire conversation was probably better served being held somewhere other than these boards.
Oh well. It wasn’t a hurtful debate, and this thread will be off the page in a matter of hours. I’m glad the thread at least had an amiable conclusion.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Feb 25, 2010 2:01 PM PST up reply actions
And let the irony not be lost that I meant to say “amicable”.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Feb 25, 2010 2:04 PM PST up reply actions
Yes, I know
And now I went and continued it down below. :p
It’s actually a pleasure participating in a discussion of this type with somebody who understands that two people can be equally intelligent, honest and compassionate but still come to opposite conclusions here.
The baseball Satanist
I’m sorry howie, but this issue has really become muddled at this point.
Let me just say that, as far as “marriage” and people being in pain, I was not questioning the pain part. I was questioning the part about the word “marriage” being the source of that pain; especially since you brought up civil unions.
The baseball Satanist
That part struck me as well, especially the obvious hyperbole regarding the “millions and millions” affected.
Well, please excuse any hyperbole. Though I’m really not sure it’s a stretch to say that millions of people are actively affected by modern human rights issues.
I don’t think it’s specific to marriage. I don’t think there is a single gay person who is fighting for marriage because it’s marriage. I don’t think there was a single black person during the civil rights movement who was fighting for desegregated bathrooms because not going to the bathroom with whites really hurt them.
The marriage issue is just one battlefield here. You don’t fight these wars for civil rights by sitting back and going, “can’t we all just be equal please?” You actually have to be active about the areas where inequality is making the most trouble. And marriage is the single most divisive issue today in the gay rights movement.
So yes, I do think that the issue of marriage brings millions of people pain today. No, I don’t think it’s because they believe marriage itself is the problem.
Anyway, perhaps the discussion is getting muddled.
I brought up marriage because it’s a vocabulary problem that is actively affecting the alternative sexualities. Which was the direct topic at hand. I wanted to bring up a high-profile example of a vocabulary issue being deeply important to the fundamental rights of a disadvantaged group in order to help illustrate why something as small as the difference between “trangendered” and “transgender” is actually important. I don’t think it’s a small matter that something as simple as vocabulary can so greatly affect people’s lives in these very active ways, and I don’t think it’s a small matter that people seem to quick to dismiss the notion when it’s so very present in our everyday lives in different contexts. I’m not really sure why that’s such a point of contention.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Feb 25, 2010 8:16 AM PST up reply actions
And I don’t mean to further muddle things here, but I want to try to explain why this conversation is bothering me so much.
This is a group of people who waste dozens of hours a month arguing about whether to call it a serial comma or an oxford comma. I mean, we don’t even always argue about how to use the damn thing. This is a group that had a 100+ comment thread because Grant was feeling a little bit squiffy about a dependent clause that he using in a school paper.
This is a group that takes very minor issues of vocabulary and syntax seriously.
Except, the conversation turns to the alternative sexualities, and suddenly nobody can be bothered.
That’s what bugs me. I find it very disheartening that we can spend hours talking about the difference between “then” and “than” but so few people can be troubled to actually spend any time on the difference between “transgender” and “transgendered”.
I just think that’s a little fucked up.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Feb 25, 2010 8:23 AM PST up reply actions
I can only speak for myself
I find issues of grammar a fun diversion. I would never, ever, ever seriously correct somebody’s grammar in an informal setting. I would most certainly correct somebody’s grammar in a way that pokes fun. I would most certainly participate in a grammar discussion because it is interesting.
Is that what you were going for with regards to transgendered/transgender? A fun diversion?
And, thinking upon it further, I actually feel that I am being completely consistent here. Whenever I teach my reading/writing classes I make it a point to know why language is doing what it is doing. I make it a point to know more than the rule, but the reasons and functions behind the rule. I strive for deeper understanding, whether with grammar or with what a group of people insists on calling themselves.
The baseball Satanist
I think it’s clear that I was not going for a fun diversion.
I make it a point to know more than the rule, but the reasons and functions behind the rule.
Yes. I’m examining the reasons and functions behind the distinction. They may be tedious. Often, they are certainly overblown. But it doesn’t make them insignificant.
I understand that I came on very strong in this thread, and I also understand that it’s a pattern of mine to vastly overstate my points simply for the sake of making them. So I know that occasionally here I’ve sounded like a raving, politically correct maniac.
But it really is important to understand why people want to draw lines in the verbal sand. Language is meaning, and the more specifically you can control that meaning, the more power you can take control of in other areas of the fight. The law makes distinctions against underprivileged groups with language. That’s the whole issue of the marriage debate. Do you think that if they called gay marriage “faggiage” and ensured all of the same legal and even religious rights to that qualification that anybody would care? I doubt it. But one day some idiotic or hateful politician will say, “you know what? marriage and faggiage AREN’T the same… so why should we treat them that way?” and the whole thing would start again.
It’s important to be specific. Understanding the actual problems is far more important. I have never disagreed with that. I simply reject the idea that understanding the actual problems makes it excusable to be inexact with the tools that can help establish understanding in others.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Feb 25, 2010 1:45 PM PST up reply actions
I think it’s clear that I was not going for a fun diversion.
Yeah, that was my point.
I would actually say that words are thoughts/ideas. Yes, that doesn’t mean I’m saying you are wrong when you say that words are meaning.
For anti-muddling sake, I will examine “marriage” briefly. The word “marriage” represents a thought or an idea, namely the union between two people. The problem is is that throughout all of time marriage has been between a man and a woman.
Yes, there have been times when marriage was between two people who had never met before, and between a 12 year old and a much older man, and between two or more women and a man, and between two or more men and a woman, etc. But always between a man and a woman.
Gender has always been a distinction. Are we to change that? Is it discrimination to have men’s and women’s bathrooms? Separate but equal, as it were.
Shouldn’t there be a distinction between a union of two opposite sex people and a union of two same sex people, just as we have a distinction between mens and womens bathrooms, boy scouts and girl scouts, mens and womens sporting events? They are different, aren’t they? I think that they should include the same rights, privileges and responsibilities. But they are most certainly different.
It’s important to be specific.
But aren’t you being less specific if you refer to all unions, same-sex or otherwise, as “marriage”?
The baseball Satanist
I’ve never understood the idea that “marriage is between a man and a woman” means that “marriage is not between a man and a man / woman and a woman.” It’s a definition by way of phantom negation that I’ve never been comfortable with.
It really is a much larger debate, and I won’t burden this thread with more of my rantings. I understand your point. And in one sense, yes, it is being less specific. in purely legal terms, though, if you want to be specific that there can be no divide in rights between the two, then you have to be specific that there is also no divide in the terms being used. So, specifically, legal equality in this case does dictate a homovocabulary.
That last word was just for fun. I’m trying not to be such a drag.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Feb 25, 2010 2:15 PM PST up reply actions
Wow. I can really see where Lars is coming from with the “TWSS PC edicts”, and I can’t say I disagree with his sentiment.
The Kids: Lewis, Posey, Sandoval, Bowker, Schierholtz, Frandsen, Ishikawa, Amezaga
Current Team: Rowand, Sanchez, DeRosa, Sandoval, Huff, Molina, Renteria, Schierholtz
The Kids' CHONE WAR projection= 12.7
Current Team's CHONE WAR projection= 12.6
Nah
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
"Out, out, Fred Lewis!" - JCTillam Gamerspeare
Well, if I didn’t make it clear, you don’t have to reciprocate my opinions; I don’t expect that of anybody.
The Kids: Lewis, Posey, Sandoval, Bowker, Schierholtz, Frandsen, Ishikawa, Amezaga
Current Team: Rowand, Sanchez, DeRosa, Sandoval, Huff, Molina, Renteria, Schierholtz
The Kids' CHONE WAR projection= 12.7
Current Team's CHONE WAR projection= 12.6
Well, if I didn’t make it clear, you don’t have to reciprocate my opinions; I don’t expect that of anybody.
The Kids: Lewis, Posey, Sandoval, Bowker, Schierholtz, Frandsen, Ishikawa, Amezaga
Current Team: Rowand, Sanchez, DeRosa, Sandoval, Huff, Molina, Renteria, Schierholtz
The Kids' CHONE WAR projection= 12.7
Current Team's CHONE WAR projection= 12.6
And I do realize that you’re simply being the voice of levity here. I just think this stuff is important. It gets me going.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Feb 24, 2010 4:34 PM PST up reply actions
Except it’s a meaningless distinction – for instance my being left-handed in no way implies I was ever right handed.
Utter frustration and futility.
by Johnny Disaster on Feb 24, 2010 5:01 PM PST up reply actions
That’s not really an honest comparison, though. Transgendered can be read as a transitive verb. Left handed can’t. I didn’t say that it necessarily implies it, but the implicatio is clearly there.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Feb 24, 2010 5:55 PM PST up reply actions
well hello italics.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Feb 24, 2010 5:58 PM PST up reply actions
No, you’re right, my mistake.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
"Out, out, Fred Lewis!" - JCTillam Gamerspeare
I am honestly asking
I have tried to understand the whole transgender thing. I can’t do it. It baffles me. I don’t see any reason to be hostile or even weirded out by it, but I can not understand it.
Gender is a physical thing. You are born one way or the other (except in rare circumstances). The whole idea that someone is born the “wrong” gender does not make sense. This is true when considering that the side of the political spectrum that embraces transgender lifestyles fights for the idea that gender doesn’t really mean anything.
If it’s physical attraction, most gay people don’t change genders. If it’s personality traits that are traditionally associated with the other gender, who cares?
I honestly want to know. I just don’t get it.
The baseball Satanist
Self identification is a very powerful thing, and it pulls from a very large pool. I mean, you identify yourself, and I’m speaking to you specifically, in a lot of ways that are rigid. By sexuality, you identify as straight. In a way that I’m only assuming has that same rigidity in your life, you identify religiously as Mormon. Similarly, you identify – maybe topically – as Jamison. Since you had a child, you’ve identified as dad.
Identity can be fluid and it can be rigid. Parenthood is a great example here. You didn’t always identify as a father. So it’s fluid that way. But you’ll never again identify yourself otherwise. So it’s rigid.
Sexuality can also be fluid or rigid. We all know about people who struggle with sexual identity during adolescence. So there can be room for movement there. We also know people who have never identified in any way other than gay or straight or bisexual, and that’s not going to change.
Gender identification can be more difficult to sympathize with because it’s less universal. I mean, you’ve never identified as anything other than a male, and identifying as a male is perfectly natural to your mind because physically there is nothing to contradict the idea. Not surprisingly, I identify the same way.
But to create a common ground that – even if you don’t “get it” you can stand on to at least have perspective on it – think of this: Haven’t you ever looked in the mirror and felt that the person you saw there had absolutely nothing to do with the person you thought you were? However fleeting that experience was, however impermanent, just imagine it magnified. Imagine it affecting you on an even more fundamental level. Imagine that instead of this happening for a few months when you were 15, you had this experience every single time you ever looked at yourself.
Just imagine that. You know what it’s like to not feel like yourself. You know what it’s like to identify yourself in a hundred, in a thousand different ways. Conceptually, the prospect of identifying personally in a way that contradicts the way you exist physically isn’t foreign to you. It can’t be. In the concrete terms of the transgender experience, it can definitely be hard – even impossible – to understand the specific conflict.
But you’ve had identity conflicts that work in similar ways. We all have. Sometimes just connecting with that empathy can help take one step toward a more specific understanding.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Feb 24, 2010 11:41 PM PST up reply actions
I kind of feel bad now
You spent all of that time writing that reply up and I spent all of five seconds on mine.
But I don’t have much more to say, actually…
Every time I try to come up with an analogy, I realize it would be insulting (i.e. I can’t fathom how someone can beat his wife). Obviously analogies like that aren’t useful. So…yeah.
The baseball Satanist
That’s fine. Not being able to understand something isn’t the problem. Not trying to understand is the problem. And you’re not doing that. You’re clearly making the effort, and I have complete and total respect for that.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Feb 25, 2010 8:19 AM PST up reply actions
Brian Murphy, in all seriousness, characterized sabermetrics yesterday as “good defense and lots of steals.”
I really don’t mind listening to that morning show, but sometimes I wish those guys wouldn’t bother trying to talk about sports.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Feb 23, 2010 12:55 PM PST up reply actions
Who?
Bochy: What’s this fancy stat here?
IT Guy: That’s how often they get on base. I do not know why you keep asking me, I am here to fix your server.
#2 in Fanshots
I wasn’t criticizing you, and it’s likely better than the majority of beat writers, I just have issues with Kahrl’s baseball analysis.
Juan Carlos Perez, please start hitting.
Because she sucks?
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
McFAQ for all you newcomers out there.
Never could keep Beav in line.
I know you nerds know NOTHING about the real game of baseball, or any other athletic endeavor requiring teamwork under physical stress.
Mr. F! | comics | art | New Nattowear | Unofficial McImage Directory






















