Fleur van Kleur

@NoContextDutch1 Homo's op Rottumerplaat, en Noorderhaaks?

@ditdatallesdus @peterkwint @HuubBellemakers Bij de heilige overtuiging in 1 gaat het al mis. Zijn er op dit moment linkse partijen waarin het mogelijk is kritiek te leveren op de Palestijnen? Op moslims? Op 'mensen van kleur'? Op het op een hoop gooien van LHBTQIA+?

@van_kleur @peterkwint @HuubBellemakers op zich kan ik me in 1 en 2 best wel vinden. en veel mensen met mij, maar het woke waar mensen op kotsen en wat tot een scheldwoord geworden is volgt de opvolgende tweets.

Welke oude PvdA mis je precies?

N.a.v. mijn wat-is-woke draadje: x.com/van_kleur/stat…

Moslims zijn geen gemarginaliseerde groep. Er zijn een miljoen moslims in Nederland, en bijna twee miljard in de wereld. Een deel daarvan is bereid hier geweld te gebruiken. Die bepalen in Nederland de randvoorwaarden voor hoe er over de Islam gesproken mag worden. Dat is macht.

Ervaren discriminatie is discriminatie.

@peterkwint @ditdatallesdus @HuubBellemakers Ik snak al heel lang naar een linkse partij die niet woke is. En met woke bedoel ik (en velen met mij) dit: x.com/van_kleur/stat…

@ditdatallesdus @HuubBellemakers Ik weet nooit zo goed wat dat woord betekent. Of tenminste. Iedereen bedoelt er wat anders mee.

I don't think Khelif can be classed as trans, because his claim has always been that he's biologically female, not that he 'identifies' as a woman. Imo, the only relevance of trans issues to Khelif's case is that the IOC fudged the sex testing requirements because they thought taking that would keep them safe from the ire of gender activists, and screw the consequences for female boxers. I've said this before: I have nothing but sympathy for anyone who sincerely believes they're one sex, because that's what they've been told all their life, and then finds out they're the other. That must be a truly shattering moment and I can see why said person would take refuge in denial. Some have argued 'but once puberty hit, how could he not know?' but I think that underestimates how much social conditioning and wishful thinking can blind a person to the truth. All of that said: I have no sympathy for the people surrounding a male boxer who keep pretending, to him and to others, that he's female after seeing the test results, nor for a fully-fledged adult man who's able to comprehend that he's male and has an insurmountable physical advantage when facing a female opponent. At that point, he and everyone else involved in promulgating the lie is knowingly risking the possibility that a female opponent will suffer brain damage or death, just so he can keep winning medals. That's an outrage that far surpasses any harm done to Khelif by taking a cheek swab and accepting facts. He's free to keep boxing, just in the proper sex category. All he loses is the opportunity to cheat.

@Gerhardhormann Wat doe je dan met jazzmetal?

Leuk verhaal over muziekliefhebbers met een fysieke collectie in het Volkskrant-magazine. Opvallend is dat deze verzamelaars alles alfabetisch sorteren, terwijl ik dat liever per genre doe. Dus geen jazz en metal door elkaar.

@FrisTuig @RobinLabrijn Hier hoort natuurlijk een stroopwafelwinkel.

@RobinLabrijn Fixed!

Vertrekt Peek & Cloppenburg na meer dan 140 jaar uit Amsterdam? De zaak op de Dam staat te huur: b-en-o.nl/aanbod/dam-20-…

@GalacticRemus Tsja, geen sokken aan.

Dit is wat er gebeurt wanneer je niet normaal doet.

@paulcliteur Mooi verhaal, maar wie gaat ervoor zorgen dat de visboer een goede advocaat krijgt?

De rechter hoeft maar 1 ding te doen: het dragen van een nikab niet te erkennen als uiting van een religieus geloof, maar als uiting van een politiek streven (dat van de moslimbroederschap namelijk). En klaar is Kees. Maar ja, ook rechters zijn tegenwoordig behoorlijk in verwarring tegenwoordig. Cliteur, Paul, “Is Humanism Too Optimistic? An Analysis of Religion as Religion”, in: Andrew Copson and A.C. Grayling, eds., The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Humanism, Wiley Blackwell, Chicester 2015, pp. 374-403: linkedin.com/posts/paul-cli…

Is die aankomende niqab-rechtszaak niet bij uitstek een zaak van *cultuurdefensie* @ALSpeyerbach ? Zouden we er met z'n allen niet voor moeten zorgen dat de visboer, die ongewild onderdeel is geworden van de cultuurstrijd, een ijzersterke verdediging krijgt?

Er zijn ook islamitische schriftgeleerden die het dragen van een boerka of niqab beschouwen als een vorm van ketterij. …rlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A…

Als dit uiteindelijk leidt tot een veroordeling, dan is dat niet op basis van geloof, maar op basis van een specifieke, zeer strikte interpretatie van een geloof. Vrijwel geen enkele moslimvrouw in Nederland draagt een niqab. Dus hoever kun je dan gaan als gelovige?

De overwegingen bij het boerkaverbod: "Op sommige locaties is het voor de sociale veiligheid en dienstverlening belangrijk dat mensen elkaar kunnen aankijken en herkennen." Waarom zouden die overwegingen niet van toepassing zijn bij de visboer? rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/ge…

Slavery began in large form soon after humans first began to settle into collective organized groups large enough to be called what we could call towns (this refers to the number of people involved not the sophistication of the buildings). However scholars state that slaves probably existed in small numbers even before this. This occured absolutely everywhere on earth, later vast numbers were taken by Arabs, where extremely large numbers died as many of them were required for Hareems (Islamic designated areas for Women only) where the males had to be eunuchs so they did not interfere with the Arab women. The Arab slave traders cut off the genitals with knives and the ones still alive once they`d walked over the desert to the ships were taken away. The huge attrition rate was irrelevant as the price paid for Eunuchs was enough to offset those who bled to death in the sand for whom very little had been paid. So they simply took far more than were needed, knowing that the final price was worth it, and was far less effort than looking after those medically who had been mutilated. Some alternatively had their genitals cut off in designated rooms at the ports, and were simply thrown overboard when they died. When Europeans arrived, they didnt even have to travel inland or "take" slaves, as they simply contacted the african warlords who were already selling slaves from local rival tribes, the Europeans were merely the latest buyers to arrive. It is estimated that about 90% of all slaves Europeans removed from Africa, were simply purchased upon arrival there. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_i… The first nations to decide that this was no longer tenable were Iceland and Norway, however these were internal policies with no external effects, more serious measures were taken by Haiti and Denmark, who actually included abolition of the transatlantic trade. Britain began stopping the trade with the The Slave Trade Act of 1807. Later the British Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 represented the FIRST legislative act in the world, which not only began the process of banning the internal use of slaves, AND the trade, but also included active external use of military force to STOP the practise elsewhere. The British expended significant military effort stopping the trade, and then eventually bought the freedom of the slaves in our lands, at immense cost in 1833, the loan was only paid off in 2015. The British nation at the time spent the about 2% GDP for a considerable time on stopping slavery. About three thousand Royal Navy personell were involved in this interdiction effort. It is difficult to make exact figures, but the largest slave users in known history since reasonable records began was the Roman Empire, with about 10 to 15 million slaves at the peak of the empire in captivity, which were mostly white European in origin with countless nationalties, including Britons, Germans, Greeks and Spaniards, some africans were also used. unrv.com/slavery.php The second most prolific users of slaves were Arab/Islamic nations, with about 11 > 18 million slaves in use, spanning well over a thousand years of exploitation. These were taken from Africa, India and Europe, and included many white europeans. soamibooks.com/post/the-islam… The third was the Portuguese Empire, which is estimated to have taken about 6 million slaves from Africa specifically. statista.com/statistics/115… The forth was the British empire which took about 3 million slaves, mostly from Africa over about 170 years. slaveryandremembrance.org/articles/artic… The fifth was the French empire, which took about a million slaves, mostly from Africa. encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/transa… Unlike the Arabian and Islamic nations who used slaves for well over a thousand years, Britain in just 170 years went from using slavery, to banning and then bring the first to militarily enforce this ban internationally. We do not know exactly how many black Africans over time were enslaved by other black Africans for use internally within Africa, but we know it was utterly endemic to the societies there, and was was vast in scope. Estimates range from 25% to 75% of Africans in different parts of Africa for a large period in history existed on some level essentially as slaves to other Africans, although some had better life conditions than others and in some regions could expect after a long period of service to possibly be released. ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/… I hope this leaves you marginally better informed about this terrible period in human history, which, is still very much ongoing in many parts of the world today.

Ik moet meteen weer denken aan mijn oom Frans: x.com/van_kleur/stat…

Dat gezeur over niqabvrouwen die "in hun vrijheid worden beperkt". De niqab is het politieke uniform van het Saoedische wahhabisme en het dragen ervan mag net zo goed worden ingeperkt als het dragen van witte gewaden met masker en puntmuts.

@Denkjewel Maar is nudisme een levensovertuiging? Levensovertuiging en godsdienst zijn voor de Grondwet namelijk gelijkwaardig.

Nee die worden door dezelfde reli's die zelf altijd 100% hun zin willen hebben aangegeven bij de politie.

The IOC just announced their policy on DSD and trans athletes in the female category. Let's skip the outrage and go with the scientific facts: The modern debate started almost 20 years ago with the rise of DSD athletes who were winning world/Olympics (See: Semenya and others). It came to a head when DSD athletes swept the podium. The had the single biggest performance boost we can get, androgenization. Something that none of their competitors could ever have. So debates commenced... It's important to put in context how big a boost males get from simply being males. It's a larger boost in performance than if you were Lance Armstrong or Barry Bonds and hopped up on all the performance enhancing drugs known to man. That's how large it is. It's why from 100 meters to races hundreds of miles long, the performance differential is generally 10-15%. Even larger in some strength events. Every male gets this boost. It doesn't men all men beat all women, of course. There's significant overlap in performance. My wife is going to better than 99% of men in distance running. But...that boost gives each male a 10+% jump in performance that no female ever gets. We can see it in the athletic data and the progressions of men and women at puberty. So...governing bodies and experts debated what to do about it. Women were losing millions of dollars in total to folks who had a male androgenization advantage. We went from doing nothing, not much of a real policy to eventually instituting testosterone rules. THe thinking was, testosterone can be a surrogate marker. It also gave DSD athletes a venue to still compete in the male category. They could lower their T to typical female levels, and still race. There were a few problems with this. First, it obviously only took into account CURRENT T levels. A large part of the boost comes from androgens through a lifetime. Second, this was challenged in court by DSD athletes. It was a long process that led to some strange policies along the way (for instance, rules only applied to certain event groups). It was tricky to regulate and be fair, and telling someone they had to have a medical intervention to compete came with ethical issues. So that was eventually scrapped. I'm simplifying and summarizing years long backs and forth, obviously. Track and field moved to the policy the IOC just adopted a year ago. Using the SRY test as a screener. Why? It was simpler, straightforward and applied to all females, so their wasn't a separate DSD and trans policy. It also put the dividing line for segregating sports by sex instead of a surrogate marker. It's a one time screener, and then with specific follow up if potential DSD. There's an exception for CAIS athletes because androgenization has little to no effect on them. So they do not have an advantage. So what? I've seen this policy framed as immoral, fascist, and even nazism...which is crazy... But the point is...it's a result of 20 years of debate, research, and trying to figure out a solution to a tricky problem. There's a lot of people who don't know or are ignorant to the decades this has been going on. Why is it important to separate sports based on sex? Because it's the biggest performance boost we could get. If we didn't, there would be zero professional women athletes in an open category. That's how big the gap is. And I for one value and think women deserve the spotlight to compete and show off their hard work and talent. I've spent my life coaching women at the elite level to do so. You might here people say it's a ban. It's not. Every athlete still has a place to compete. You can do so in the category that matches your biology, in open events, or recreational events that this does not apply to. A rough analogy: Longevity guru Bryan Johnson can't compete in the under 18 category no matter what age score his crazy metrics say he is. We have categories and classification to ensure everyone has a chance to compete. Yes, we pick what categories are important. But it's hard to argue that sex isn't a very important one. So there you have it. It's been 20 years in the making. It started with DSD athletes with an androgen advantage winning championships and has evolved from there. It's not perfect. Nothing is. We've debated, shifted policies, etc. But lots of smart folks and researchers have been trying to figure out a just and fair solution for a long time.