The Proclamation and Rugby: Developments in the Latter as a Reality Check on the Former

[smac97]

In this thread we've had an ongoing discussion about the merits of The Proclamation on the Family.  Hal Boyd recently wrote an editorial about this topic:

Quote

America Online was giving away free internet startup kits. Steve Young won the Super Bowl MVP. Republicans controlled both houses of the U.S. Congress for the first time since the 1950s, and Cal Ripken Jr. surpassed Lou Gehrig’s record for the most consecutive games played in Major League Baseball.

The year was 1995. The date was Sept. 23.

In Salt Lake City, the temperature outside was a comfortable 70 degrees. And inside the Salt Lake Tabernacle — the historic dome-shaped meetinghouse at the center of Temple Square — Gordon B. Hinckley, the new president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, had taken the rostrum to deliver an address during the church’s General Relief Society Meeting.

He had an announcement.

In a modest blue suit with a mauve-colored necktie, a man sustained by church members as God’s prophet unveiled “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

That was 25 years ago today.

The carefully written document outlining the church’s doctrines and principles on marriage and family life was the fifth such “proclamation” in the church’s history and carried the signatures of each member of the faith’s highest governing bodies.

From teachings on sexual relations (“powers of procreation are to be employed only between … [a] husband and wife”) to gender (“gender is an essential characteristic of individual … identity and purpose”), to parental responsibilities (“teach [children] to love and serve one another, obey the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens”), the proclamation brings within its four corners an unambiguous reaffirmation of the faith’s core tenets on family life and human personhood.

Boyd goes on to note that there did not seem to be much of a need in 1995 for to “warn and forewarn” about these things, but that the need has since become manifest.

How society approaches one of these topics, gender, has been interesting to watch over the years.  What was previously axiomatically true and obvious about it will now bring down upon you the wrath of the mob.  That is, that humans are sexually dimorphic, that there are actual and real differences between men and women, and so on.  To be sure, there are some points that merit nuance and particularized attention (and knowledge, and understanding, and patience, and compassion).  But in 2020 there is a surprisingly common notion that gender is something that is "assigned" or "chosen."  That a biological male can "transition" into and "become" female.

As I see it, a person cannot change their gender, any more than they can change their age (Stefoknee Wolscht), or their ancestry (Rachel Dolezal, Jessica Krug) or their species (Eva Tiamat Medusa).  To say this publicly is to risk being accused of "transphobia," which is a bit absurd since I neither hate nor fear people who struggle with gender dysphoria (a New York Times article, "How ‘-Phobic’ Became a Weapon in the Identity Wars," is worth reading on that point).  

I don't spend much time thinking about this topic, for a variety of reasons.  But a few days ago I came across an article that brought it to mind: Keeping Male Bodies Out of Women’s Rugby.  The article, written by Linda Blade ("ChPC, PhD Kinesiology, is a sport performance coach") traces what amounts to a five-year experiment by World Rugby, rugby’s worldwide governing body, in indulging fanciful notions about the malleability of gender.  The experiment has come at a great cost to women, since it changed the rules for women's rugby so that "males who wish to self-identify into women’s rugby could do so if they committed to reducing their testosterone levels to 10 nmol per liter or lower for at least 12 months."

The results were surprising only in that they were somehow not foreseeable by the folks who run World Rugby:

Quote

During this period {November 2015 until February 2020}, instances of biological males playing in the women’s game increased, and some participants began to express alarm. One rugby referee posted on the website Fair Play for Women, for instance, that “being forced to prioritize hurt feelings over broken bones exposes me to personal litigation from female players who have been harmed by players who are biologically male. This is driving female players and referees out of the game.”  Another wrote, “I volunteer my time to officiate matches because I love my sport. But I won’t continue much longer if I have stay quiet about the unfairness I see on the pitch or risk abuse by getting called transphobic if I turned a player away.” 

"Risk abuse by getting called transphobic."  How many other people in society have been silenced, or silenced themselves, based on that very reasonable concern?  (And "transphobia" is obviously not the only specious use of "-phobia" to shun and silence viewpoints.)

Quote

A chairperson of one UK rugby club expressed shock upon discovering that, as she reported, “If anyone suspects someone on the opposing team might have an advantage because they are transgender, ‘they must not ask.’ They must simply accept that all teams will be ‘complying with the rules.’”

Why would a "transgender" athlete in women's sports likely have "an advantage?"  Well, because of sexual dimorphism.  Males are physically larger, stronger, etc. than women.  Again, merely saying this runs the risk of being raked across the coals by bullies and agenda-driven zealots who can't abide anyone upending their preferred narrative.  Oh, well.

Quote

In some cases, female rugby players and their coaches would show up to matches to discover that there was a biologically male athlete playing on the opposing team. As one player put it, “I have to play or forfeit my place even when I know it's unsafe for me.”

I have four sons and two daugthers.  Three of my sons now tower over my wife and two daughters, and the fourth is on his way.  This is simple biological reality.  My sons are taller, weigh more, have more upper body strength, and so on.  They have more physical strength than my wife and daughters.  Again, merely stating this incontrovertible fact may get me in trouble.

Quote

Those who enjoyed the advantage of having a trans-identifying player on their team, on the other hand, were sometimes found to be lacking in sympathy. On one occasion, a team captain was quoted as saying that their male-bodied player had “folded an opponent like a deck chair.”

"Male-bodied player."  Blad, who is clearly opposed to males playing in female sports, nevertheless hedges her language here.

The article then takes a surprisingly optimistic turn:

Quote

With worries mounting about safety—especially concussions—and financial liability, World Rugby undertook a review of its transgender policy in February 2020. This might seem to be a common-sense step. Yet among global sports federations, it was actually seen as a ground-breaking moment. World Rugby turned out be the first sport to bring to the table experts on all sides of the eligibility issue, including sociologists, biologists, kinesiologists (my own specialty), and those with a background in human rights. The consultation is reported to have been respectful and thorough. All relevant opinions were heard.

"All relevant opinions were heard."  What a tremendous idea.  Pity that other areas of society cannot accommodate it, since shouting down and silencing viewpoints has become a standard go-to strategy for some.

Quote

The dominant view that emerged from this summit was that World Rugby would have to amend its policy. It was simply too risky to continue to allow male bodies into the women’s game. 

"Male bodies?"  I am curious why the author doesn't say "males."

Note that Blade doesn't say "It was simply too risky to continue to allow male bodies into the women's bodies games."  Such terminology would be weird, but at least symmetrical.  The players on the field are "women" and "male bodies?"  No.  The players on the field are women and men.  Females and males.  That's the problem that Blade is pointing out, but the current political climate apparently forces her to resort to weird terminology.

Quote

The decision-makers relied on data that had been published by the renowned Karolinska Institute (Sweden) in September 2019. Even after a full year of hormonal reduction in accordance with IOC guidelines, the researchers concluded, there was no appreciable loss of mass, muscle mass, or strength in transitioning males. In physical terms, it was just a man playing with women.

"It was just a man playing with women."  Well done!  Ditching the warped terminology that is being endlessly foisted on us is a big part of resolving the problems Blade is describing.  As Patrick Moynihan so aptly put it: "He who controls the dictionary controls the debate."  We need to stop allowing unreasonable zealots from controlling the dictionary.

Here's where Blade's article really shines:

Quote

World Rugby had to come to terms with reality: Irrespective of hormonal intervention, male athletes are, on average, 40 percent heavier, 15 percent faster, 30 percent more powerful, and 25–50 percent stronger than their female counterparts. And these differences pose obvious risks for female players in full-contact rugby. World Rugby’s new policy document has not yet been made public. But according to those who’ve seen it (and the various media leaks), the organization is proposing a comprehensive ban on biological men in the women’s sport—though these recommendations won’t become official policy until they are reviewed and voted upon by the World Rugby Council later this year.

I sure hope World Rugby chooses to adopt guidelines that return to reality, and turn away from the absurdities being pushed on society.  There will be, of course, some pushback:

Quote

Activist groups opposed to any reconsideration of the IOC’s rules, on the other hand, put out statements—many of them picked up by the press—with headlines suggesting that World Rugby was implementing a “ban” on trans athletes. In fact, no one would be “banned” under the proposal. Athletes would simply be required to compete with athletes of their own sex, as had been the case in rugby, and numerous other sports, until very recently.
...
What saddens me as a Canadian, someone who has long worked within the sports sector as both coach and provincial sport-association president, is the official response from Rugby Canada, which I had hoped would have endorsed the commitment made by World Rugby to “work with relevant groups to explore appropriate participation pathways for transgender athletes.” Placing male athletes in with female players for full-contact rugby isn’t the only option available for trans rugby players. There could very well be safer alternatives, if organizations such as Rugby Canada were interested in exploring them.

Instead, Rugby Canada used its voice to channel the opinions of one-note gender activists. Its official statement, released in early September, declared that the proposed new World Rugby rules “are not policy that can or will be adopted should they move forward.” Rugby participation in Canada, the organization said, would continue to be guided by the existing Trans Inclusion Policy, which states that players “should be able to participate as the gender with which they identify and not be subject to requirements for disclosure of personal information beyond those required of cisgender athletes. Nor should there be any requirement for hormonal therapy or surgery.” That’s right: The policy is pure, no-questions-asked self-identification. The only reference to safety in the entire document relates to the suggestion that someone might not feel “safe” if his “gender identity and gender expression” weren’t respected.

Blade, though, is pushing back (and good for her) :

Quote

It seems to me that Rugby Canada can ill afford to posture against biological reality. It was only two years ago that a young man named Brodie McCarthy died as a result of a head injury suffered in a rugby tournament. Five years before that, it was a women’s team captain, Rowan Stringer, a 17-year-old from Ottawa, who died from a blow to the head during a game. In response, Ontario passed Rowan’s Law, requiring all youth sports, whether at the club or school level, to observe strict safety protocols pertaining to head injury and concussions. Canada’s federal government extended the movement nationally by developing its own public health advisory on the dangers of concussion. The advisory specifically identifies rugby as one of three especially dangerous sports: “Ice hockey, rugby and ringette are the sports with the highest proportion of brain injuries among children and youth 5–19 years of age, ranging from 27 percent to 44 percent of all injuries that happened while playing these sports.” Now imagine how much more dangerous it is for women who face men on the rugby pitch.

"Biological reality."  How surprisingly pleasant it is to see these words in print.

Blade concludes with some strong words:

Quote

This month, British trans activist groups have been scrambling to update their policies to accord with new British government rules that prohibit schools from using materials that encourage children to question whether they are in the “wrong body.” These groups are doing this because failing to do so will now have legal and financial implications. Gender clinics, moreover, are now starting to get sued for recklessly transitioning children on the basis of flimsy or non-existing health science. And rightly so: Those who put women, children, and other vulnerable populations at risk for ideological reasons must face the legal consequences. 

I am glad to see such things being spoken of.  Openly.  

The Proclamation has nothing to say about rugby.  It does, however, state that "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."  I think it's interesting to see how something like a debate about transgender athletes in Canadian rugby can help clarify a more fundamental truth about us and our experiences on this earth.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 29, 2020 by smac97

[Bernard Gui]

Back in the day I was watching a rugby match between BYU and UU. There was a small but scrappy BYU player from South Africa. He was tackled full on by a much larger UU Polynesian. He was laid out cold for several minutes, but then he jumped up and yelled, “What a hit!” and rejoined the game. 

Would the same rules apply to a female who wants to play on a male team? In American football, at least there’s the kicker positions that are not as physically demanding or dangerous. Not so in rugby.

 

[Bernard Gui]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Back in the day I was on the sidelines watching a rugby match between BYU and UU. There was a smaller but scrappy BYU player from South Africa. He was tackled full on right in front of me by a much larger UU Polynesian. The sound of the collision was astounding. He was laid out cold for several minutes, but then he jumped up and yelled, “What a hit!” and rejoined the game. 

Would the same rules apply to a female who wants to play on a male team? In American football, at least there’s the kicker positions that are not as physically demanding or dangerous. Not so in rugby.

 

 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Duncan]

we had a young woman serve here a few years ago, on her mission, she was on the rugby high school team that won the Alberta provincial girls rugby thing. To quote Sheldon Cooper on BBT, she was a "beefy gal" to put it mildly. I wouldn't mess with her, not for anything. its interesting that the POF says that gender is an essential characteristic, I think people that struggle with it say that yes, but they got the wrong gender. I can't imagine what that would be like or the thoughts involved. I don't know about other provinces but in Ontario you have to qualify to get the surgery done. It isn't cheap and IIRC Health Canada doesn't pay so maybe if your work has insurance otherwise you'd have to cough up the cash yourself. In our ward we had/have a trans person but they never had the surgery done for that reason, they called it "econo trans" but now they are a man and is engaged to a woman who has been married like 6 times, so I don't know and it isn't my life

https://www.ontario.ca/page/gender-confirming-surgery

There was a RS Pres. in the YSA ward some years ago, really smart girl, grew up in the Church. She came out as trans, no surgery though. I remember hearing about it and my Mom, who even knew this girl's  mother's since she was a teen, said, "oh I knew that, I taught her in primary, you could just tell she was different and hated being in her own skin" so, she wasn't surprised about her coming out as trans. 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Duncan

[MrShorty]

I don't think rugby is the only sport wrestling with this, though it looks like they have an interesting experience to bring to the table. I even recall reading something about a year ago about a trans-man getting a contract in the porn industry (I believe in the UK) who was fired when the producer(s) discovered that he did not have the same "parts" as other men on their payroll.

But I don't know that this proves anything prophetic about the Proclamation on the Family. Just because various competitive sports are having trouble figuring out how to provide safe and competitive leagues where trans-men and trans-women can participate and compete does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that everyone's biological sex at birth is certainly the same as their eternal gender.

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

But I don't know that this proves anything prophetic about the Proclamation on the Family.

I think it might.  What was predominantly uncontroversial and beyond dispute in 1995 is hugely controversial and heavily disputed in 2020.

Many of the points made in The Proclamation seemed, at the time, axiomatic.  And yet here were are, 25 years later, having big debates about them, with all sorts of real-world ramifications arising from them.  

Hindsight being 20/20, the Proclamation now seems prescient.  It anticipated and addressed fundamental issues about family, gender, etc. that would end up becoming much more prominent in the future.  Whether that amounts to the Brethren being "prophetic" is, in the end, a question of faith.

21 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Just because various competitive sports are having trouble figuring out how to provide safe and competitive leagues where trans-men and trans-women can participate and compete does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that everyone's biological sex at birth is certainly the same as their eternal gender.

Yes, it does not "necessarily lead" to that conclusion.  

But having The Proclamation as a benchmark has, for me, helped clarify fundamental issues that are, in the end, left to each individual to address.

I have a lot of compassion and sympathy for people who have gender dysphoria.

Thanks

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

This may not be relevant, Smac97, and I'll delete it if so, but the current "trend" in psychology seems to be, "Alter the body [or allow the body to be altered] to preserve the psyche."  How far does that go?  If it makes gender reassignment surgery OK, what if, in my heart of hearts and head of heads, I "feel" and "think" that I'm the "One-Eyed, One-Horned, Flyin' Purple People Eater, Pigeon-Toed and Undergrowed"?  Would it be OK (or indicated) for me to have surgery to gouge out an eye, implant a horn, attach some wings, make me pigeon-toed, and somehow to lop a few inches off of my (already diminutive) height?  What if, after I undergo the procedure(s), I have "buyer's remorse"?  That's not unheard of, even for people who undergo so-called "gender reassignment surgery."

If my example sounds outlandish, consider the strange case of Dr. Chloe Jennings-White, whose so-called "Body Integrity Identity Disorder" tells her that one of her legs is not meant to be part of her body, and/or that its functioning the way most any other leg functions, somehow is, for her, abnormal.  She was "diagnosed" with the so-called "disorder" after a single three-hour telephone (!!!) consultation, and wishes, on the basis of that three-hour telephone consultation, to have surgery to disable the "offending" leg.  (BIID is not in the ICD, the current edition of the DSM, or anywhere else in mainstream medical literature, in case anyone's wondering.)

HuffPo isn't my go-to source for information, but, in this case, I have no reason to doubt its reporting.  I read first of Dr. Jennings-White's strange "disorder" in The Salt Lake Tribune (yeah, okay, I know, I know ) a few years ago: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/chloe-jennings-white_n_3625033

Edited September 29, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[bluebell]

I know that track and field is really struggling with this issue (bio males in girls sports) at the high school level in some areas.  Any place that tries to push back and keep it strictly based on biology is being bullied.  But I think this is a situation of people (good people, who are on a difficult road or love someone who is) refusing to accept certain realities that they need to accept--such as that biological males have an advantage over biological females.

[Rain]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

In this thread we've had an ongoing discussion about the merits of The Proclamation on the Family.  Hal Boyd recently wrote an editorial about this topic:

Boyd goes on to note that there did not seem to be much of a need in 1995 for to “warn and forewarn” about these things, but that the need has since become manifest.

How society approaches one of these topics, gender, has been interesting to watch over the years.  What was previously axiomatically true and obvious about it will now bring down upon you the wrath of the mob.  That is, that humans are sexually dimorphic, that there are actual and real differences between men and women, and so on.  To be sure, there are some points that merit nuance and particularized attention (and knowledge, and understanding, and patience, and compassion).  But in 2020 there is a surprisingly common notion that gender is something that is "assigned" or "chosen."  That a biological male can "transition" into and "become" female.

As I see it, a person cannot change their gender, any more than they can change their age (Stefoknee Wolscht), or their ancestry (Rachel Dolezal, Jessica Krug) or their species (Eva Tiamat Medusa).  To say this publicly is to risk being accused of "transphobia," which is a bit absurd since I neither hate nor fear people who struggle with gender dysphoria (a New York Times article, "How ‘-Phobic’ Became a Weapon in the Identity Wars," is worth reading on that point).  

I don't spend much time thinking about this topic, for a variety of reasons.  But a few days ago I came across an article that brought it to mind: Keeping Male Bodies Out of Women’s Rugby.  The article, written by Linda Blade ("ChPC, PhD Kinesiology, is a sport performance coach") traces what amounts to a five-year experiment by World Rugby, rugby’s worldwide governing body, in indulging fanciful notions about the malleability of gender.  The experiment has come at a great cost to women, since it changed the rules for women's rugby so that "males who wish to self-identify into women’s rugby could do so if they committed to reducing their testosterone levels to 10 nmol per liter or lower for at least 12 months."

The results were surprising only in that they were somehow not foreseeable by the folks who run World Rugby:

"Risk abuse by getting called transphobic."  How many other people in society have been silenced, or silenced themselves, based on that very reasonable concern?  (And "transphobia" is obviously not the only specious use of "-phobia" to shun and silence viewpoints.)

Why would a "transgender" athlete in women's sports likely have "an advantage?"  Well, because of sexual dimorphism.  Males are physically larger, stronger, etc. than women.  Again, merely saying this runs the risk of being raked across the coals by bullies and agenda-driven zealots who can't abide anyone upending their preferred narrative.  Oh, well.

I have four sons and two daugthers.  Three of my sons now tower over my wife and two daughters, and the fourth is on his way.  This is simple biological reality.  My sons are taller, weigh more, have more upper body strength, and so on.  They have more physical strength than my wife and daughters.  Again, merely stating this incontrovertible fact may get me in trouble.

"Male-bodied player."  Blad, who is clearly opposed to males playing in female sports, nevertheless hedges her language here.

The article then takes a surprisingly optimistic turn:

"All relevant opinions were heard."  What a tremendous idea.  Pity that other areas of society cannot accommodate it, since shouting down and silencing viewpoints has become a standard go-to strategy for some.

"Male bodies?"  I am curious why the author doesn't say "males."

Note that Blade doesn't say "It was simply too risky to continue to allow male bodies into the women's bodies games."  Such terminology would be weird, but at least symmetrical.  The players on the field are "women" and "male bodies?"  No.  The players on the field are women and men.  Females and males.  That's the problem that Blade is pointing out, but the current political climate apparently forces her to resort to weird terminology.

"It was just a man playing with women."  Well done!  Ditching the warped terminology that is being endlessly foisted on us is a big part of resolving the problems Blade is describing.  As Patrick Moynihan so aptly put it: "He who controls the dictionary controls the debate."  We need to stop allowing unreasonable zealots from controlling the dictionary.

Here's where Blade's article really shines:

I sure hope World Rugby chooses to adopt guidelines that return to reality, and turn away from the absurdities being pushed on society.  There will be, of course, some pushback:

Blade, though, is pushing back (and good for her) :

"Biological reality."  How surprisingly pleasant it is to see these words in print.

Blade concludes with some strong words:

I am glad to see such things being spoken of.  Openly.  

The Proclamation has nothing to say about rugby.  It does, however, state that "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."  I think it's interesting to see how something like a debate about transgender athletes in Canadian rugby can help clarify a more fundamental truth about us and our experiences on this earth.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

One of the problems with connecting the proclamation with physical transgender/sex stuff is that gender is not the same thing as sex.  It is just interchanged so widely now many don't don't recognize there is a difference.  Juliann made me aware of this some time ago, but I should have known better since I took a class in college where I learned this 30 years ago.  Sex refers to if you are male or female.  Gender refers to the role you play which can change from culture to culture - who takes care of the kids, who wears pants, who eats first etc.

The proclamation talks about gender roles -  a mother nurtures the children.  A father provides for the family. The proclamation also says that gender is eternal - is it talking about gender or sex here? If gender just which culture is the one with roles that are eternal?

The rugby problems are really only a matter of the player's sex.  There would be no problem for the game if it were only a matter of who wears makeup, who takes the trash out etc.  

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Rain said:

One of the problems with connecting the proclamation with physical transgender/sex stuff is that gender is not the same thing as sex. 

With respect, I've never bought into this line of reasoning.  I think it is a rhetorical sleight-of-hand gimmick.  See, e.g., this article by Glenn Stanton, and these resources also.  And this article.

The distinction is a heavily politicized one.  In the main I do not accept it.

13 minutes ago, Rain said:

It is just interchanged so widely now many don't don't recognize there is a difference.  Juliann made me aware of this some time ago, but I should have known better since I took a class in college where I learned this 30 years ago.  Sex refers to if you are male or female.  Gender refers to the role you play which can change from culture to culture - who takes care of the kids, who wears pants, who eats first etc.

With respect, I disagree.  

13 minutes ago, Rain said:

The proclamation talks about gender roles -  a mother nurtures the children.  A father provides for the family. The proclamation also says that gender is eternal - is it talking about gender or sex here? If gender just which culture is the one with roles that are eternal?

I think the Proclamation doesn't buy into the sex/gender distinction.

13 minutes ago, Rain said:

The rugby problems are really only a matter of the player's sex. 

I agree (though only because I reject the sex/gender distinction you seem to rely on here).

Thanks,

-Smac

[alter idem]

When the Proclamation on the Family was presented way back in 1995, I don't think any people, in general, thought much of it.  Now, it is definitely considered a controversial document.  To me, it shows the real value of having a Prophet who leads our church.

[strappinglad]

We don't se a lot of females-who-identify-as males clammering to participate in all male sports except perhaps at very young ages. Why the one way street ?? 

Maybe in a dystopian future there will be an NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL with equal numbers of biological males and females to enforce equality. 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

With respect, I've never bought into this line of reasoning.  I think it is a rhetorical sleight-of-hand gimmick.  See, e.g., this article by Glenn Stanton,

This is an odd and overblown article.  It uses the arguments that we shouldn't differentiate gender by cultural role and sex by biology because "extremists" first used this and because scientists don't. If you are talking about science things in a science context this makes sense.  But people for hundreds of years have given science excuses for things that were really cultural roles. So with discovery that many of those differences are not a matter of science it makes sense that gender is more a matter of cultural role.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

and these resources also.  And this article.

The distinction is a heavily politicized one.  In the main I do not accept it.

With respect, I disagree.  

I think the Proclamation doesn't buy into the sex/gender distinction.

I think there is no "buying in".  It's just a matter of are we talking about real biological things here or cultural and/or spiritual things?  Since gender has been used to define cultural roles (and biological) for over 40 years (no matter how you personally feel about the reasons) then it would make sense to show exactly what is meant in the proclamation. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I agree (though only because I reject the sex/gender distinction you seem to rely on here).

Thanks,

-Smac

I in no way "rely" on it.  There is enough use in both instances that it makes the proclamation unclear. 

[Rain]

55 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

We don't se a lot of females-who-identify-as males clammering to participate in all male sports except perhaps at very young ages. Why the one way street ?? 

Maybe in a dystopian future there will be an NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL with equal numbers of biological males and females to enforce equality. 

I'm not sure if we have more men in female sports or not.  They are certainly in the news.  I know in the past females were trying to get in male sports more until rules came about that schools etc should give funding and support to females as well.  If you have a female in a man's sport who isn't doing well will it be in the news much? It would be interesting to see the numbers.

 

[The Nehor]

Once we start transferring our consciousness into artificial cyborg bodies for sports, difficult manual labor, and anything dangerous the sports problem will solve itself.

Dismissing the gender/biological sex divide as something new or just a weird new affectation is just wrong. I have not done a ton of research on it but the distinction has been around since at least the 50s. That being said I think the writers of the proclamation were using gender to encompass both terms.

I suspect that shifts in gender roles will lead to a decrease in transsexual procedures in the coming decades. I also think in the next several decades the current controversy will be something that virtually everyone now agrees on. I have a guess as to what it is but I hope I am wrong. If I am right I hope the Second Coming hits first even if it does burn me up as it happens.

[Rain]

27 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Once we start transferring our consciousness into artificial cyborg bodies for sports, difficult manual labor, and anything dangerous the sports problem will solve itself.

Dismissing the gender/biological sex divide as something new or just a weird new affectation is just wrong. I have not done a ton of research on it but the distinction has been around since at least the 50s. That being said I think the writers of the proclamation were using gender to encompass both terms.

I suspect that shifts in gender roles will lead to a decrease in transsexual procedures in the coming decades.

I hope so.  The sooner the better.  I have a close family member who considers self as trans and I worry about the consequences of that on spouse, the rest of the family as well as self.

27 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I also think in the next several decades the current controversy will be something that virtually everyone now agrees on. I have a guess as to what it is but I hope I am wrong. If I am right I hope the Second Coming hits first even if it does burn me up as it happens.

 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

I know that track and field is really struggling with this issue (bio males in girls sports) at the high school level in some areas.  Any place that tries to push back and keep it strictly based on biology is being bullied.  But I think this is a situation of people (good people, who are on a difficult road or love someone who is) refusing to accept certain realities that they need to accept--such as that biological males have an advantage over biological females.

My daughter’s solution is to stop having male/female sports and instead have divisions based on ability and weight.  Since they can now test muscle mass easily, that could be another. 

Edited September 30, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I suspect that shifts in gender roles will lead to a decrease in transsexual procedures in the coming decades.

There has apparently been a surge in young women electing to have trans surgery. Posting for info on stats, not interested in debating the speculation as to why, but if speculation is correct, shifts in roles and views of those roles as well as views of psychosocial development would like reduce procedures. 

Quote

As Dr Lisa Littman has observed with rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD), which Shrier discusses, we have seen, as it seems, “a spike in transgender identification among adolescent girls.” “Like other social contagions, such as cutting and bulimia, ROGD overwhelmingly afflicts girls,” Shrier writes, in her initial exploration. “But unlike other conditions, this one – though not necessarily its sufferers – gets full support from the medical community.” Expanding on that earlier 2019 essay, “When Your Daughter Defies Biology,” she writes Irreversible Damage both compassionately and critically about contemporary female psychosocial development. Girls growing into their teens now seem plagued by the peculiar medical treatment of both female puberty and female gender-nonconformity as if, in essence, pathological. A clear passage from Shrier’s book, as is exemplary of her prose, captures precisely what, at present, we can ignore only at our peril: “In America and across the Western world, adolescents were reporting a sudden spike in gender dysphoria – the medical condition associated with the social designation ‘transgender.’ Between 2016 and 2017 the number of gender surgeries for natal females in the US quadrupled, with biological women suddenly accounting for – as we have seen – 70 percent of all gender surgeries. In 2018, the UK reported a 4,400 percent rise over the previous decade in teenage girls seeking gender treatments. In Canada, Sweden, Finland, and the UK, clinicians and gender therapists began reporting a sudden and dramatic shift in the demographics of those presenting with gender dysphoria – from predominately preschool-aged boys to predominately adolescent girls.” 

Https://www.womenarehuman.com/fleeing-from-femaleness-a-review-of-irreversible-damage/

[california boy]

9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

This may not be relevant, Smac97, and I'll delete it if so, but the current "trend" in psychology seems to be, "Alter the body [or allow the body to be altered] to preserve the psyche."  How far does that go?  If it makes gender reassignment surgery OK, what if, in my heart of hearts and head of heads, I "feel" and "think" that I'm the "One-Eyed, One-Horned, Flyin' Purple People Eater, Pigeon-Toed and Undergrowed"?  Would it be OK (or indicated) for me to have surgery to gouge out an eye, implant a horn, attach some wings, make me pigeon-toed, and somehow to lop a few inches off of my (already diminutive) height?  What if, after I undergo the procedure(s), I have "buyer's remorse"?  That's not unheard of, even for people who undergo so-called "gender reassignment surgery."

If my example sounds outlandish, consider the strange case of Dr. Chloe Jennings-White, whose so-called "Body Integrity Identity Disorder" tells her that one of her legs is not meant to be part of her body, and/or that its functioning the way most any other leg functions, somehow is, for her, abnormal.  She was "diagnosed" with the so-called "disorder" after a single three-hour telephone (!!!) consultation, and wishes, on the basis of that three-hour telephone consultation, to have surgery to disable the "offending" leg.  (BIID is not in the ICD, the current edition of the DSM, or anywhere else in mainstream medical literature, in case anyone's wondering.)

HuffPo isn't my go-to source for information, but, in this case, I have no reason to doubt its reporting.  I read first of Dr. Jennings-White's strange "disorder" in The Salt Lake Tribune (yeah, okay, I know, I know ) a few years ago: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/chloe-jennings-white_n_3625033

Ok with who? Are you really going to turn your body over to other people to make your decisions on your health?

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

My daughter’s solution is to stop having male/female sports and instead have divisions based on ability and weight.  Since they can now test muscle mass easily, that could be another. 

Interesting idea.  There doesn't seem to be any problem with a 300 lb Tongan male playing against a 120 lb male.  How is that fair?  

Just because you are born male does not mean you have the body that towers over your father and have huge upper body strength. 

 

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

This may not be relevant, Smac97, and I'll delete it if so, but the current "trend" in psychology seems to be, "Alter the body [or allow the body to be altered] to preserve the psyche."  How far does that go?  If it makes gender reassignment surgery OK, what if, in my heart of hearts and head of heads, I "feel" and "think" that I'm the "One-Eyed, One-Horned, Flyin' Purple People Eater, Pigeon-Toed and Undergrowed"?  Would it be OK (or indicated) for me to have surgery to gouge out an eye, implant a horn, attach some wings, make me pigeon-toed, and somehow to lop a few inches off of my (already diminutive) height?  What if, after I undergo the procedure(s), I have "buyer's remorse"?  That's not unheard of, even for people who undergo so-called "gender reassignment surgery."

If my example sounds outlandish, consider the strange case of Dr. Chloe Jennings-White, whose so-called "Body Integrity Identity Disorder" tells her that one of her legs is not meant to be part of her body, and/or that its functioning the way most any other leg functions, somehow is, for her, abnormal.  She was "diagnosed" with the so-called "disorder" after a single three-hour telephone (!!!) consultation, and wishes, on the basis of that three-hour telephone consultation, to have surgery to disable the "offending" leg.  (BIID is not in the ICD, the current edition of the DSM, or anywhere else in mainstream medical literature, in case anyone's wondering.)

HuffPo isn't my go-to source for information, but, in this case, I have no reason to doubt its reporting.  I read first of Dr. Jennings-White's strange "disorder" in The Salt Lake Tribune (yeah, okay, I know, I know ) a few years ago: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/chloe-jennings-white_n_3625033

When there are doctors literally selling opiate prescriptions it seems obvious that some medical "experts" are incompetent idiots or actively malicious.

Fortunately it is unlikely there are many surgeons who hate their medical license enough to actually do the procedure. In the article she says she would have to go overseas to find someone willing to do it. I am not even sure the doctor that diagnosed her is wrong. It is a psychological disorder and there are several people who have it. It is not specifically spelled out in the DSM but there is a push to have it recognized. I doubt the person who said she "has it" was encouraging her to start lopping off limbs.

If I were to classify it I think it should be a variation of Munchausen syndrome.

[Kenngo1969]

46 minutes ago, california boy said:

Ok with who? Are you really going to turn your body over to other people to make your decisions on your health?

With all due respect, that doesn't answer my question. 

[Calm]

17 hours ago, california boy said:

Ok with who? Are you really going to turn your body over to other people to make your decisions on your health?

Generally speaking, I think there should be a two party decision making, with both sides seriously considering the information of the other, each having the right to say 'no' after careful consideration of the other's POV.  Unless there is a question of mental competence, I don't think either should have the right to insist the other be part of a treatment they believe is harmful to the individual. (I am talking about doctors making these decisions in partnership with patients, not politicians or insurance agencies deciding on 'best medical practice', though welcomed to be part of the public conversation just like everyone else).

In the past, women were often treated by doctors as physically less serious and mentally more unstable, using drugs to address mood cycles as if the mood cycles were a mental disorder rather teaching coping skills, nutrition, etc. while physical ills would be treated as more 'all in the head' (a prime example of this is 35 years ago my husband and I going to the same doctor for same injury and pretty much same pain level from the way he described his and the way he moved where he was given pain meds and physical therapy...because a man doesn't complain unless it really hurts and I was told to go home and exercise, with no instruction on how to do that even).  Studies show that minorities are often treated this way currently.  And this type of attitude leads to long term health issues (I was misdiagnosed for years with depression and drugs were constantly pushed on me rather than treatment for the actual sleep disorder, the frequent injuries just by simple movement was a sign on low quality sleep...one of many signs ignored by doctors) with minorities carrying a higher proportion of chronic health issues in the States (I recognize that genetics might play a part, could be compared to cultures where these minorities are a larger part of the higher income classes).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3794652/#sec1title

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6576751/

So doctors do need to do a better job at consistently taking seriously all individuals' complaints and requests for health (and we should be doing a better job at identifying what "normal health" actually is for various groups and not just rely on averages).

In contrast though, a lot of people are not educated in what medical science can do for one or even more important should do for one and they often don't take advantage of a wide range of available supports, such as nutritional education, physical therapy, cognitive therapy, and instead expect the doctor to solve their issues with a pill or other dramatic quick solution.  They don't want to invest the effort and resources needed for health, at least in the simple ways (liposuction as opposed to exercise and nutritional weight loss guidance, for example).  Many also don't have access to even the simple forms of treatment though, so a better job needs to be done with that.

Anyway, all that to say getting best medical treatment means not only being very proactive on one's own part, but listening to reasonable and thorough medical advice and not dismissing it based on emotional or extreme reasoning ( antivaxxers in many cases).

Edited September 30, 2020 by Calm

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Generally speaking, I think there should be a two party decision making, with both sides seriously considering the information of the other, each having the right to say 'no' after careful consideration of the other's POV.  Unless there is a question of mental competence, I don't think either should have the right to insist the other be part of a treatment they believe is harmful to the individual. (I am talking about doctors making these decisions in partnership with patients, not politicians or insurance agencies deciding on 'best medical practice', though welcomed to be part of the public conversation just like everyone else).

In the past, women were often treated by doctors as physically less serious and mentally more unstable, using drugs to address mood cycles as if the mood cycles were a mental disorder rather teaching coping skills, nutrition, etc. while physical ills would be treated as more 'all in the head' (a prime example of this is 35 years ago my husband and I going to the same doctor for same injury and pretty much same pain level from the way he described his and the way he moved where he was given pain meds and physical therapy...because a man doesn't complain unless it really hurts and I was told to go home and exercise, with no instruction on how to do that even).  Studies show that minorities are often treated this way currently.  And this type of attitude leads to long term health issues (I was misdiagnosed for years with depression and drugs were constantly pushed on me rather than treatment for the actual sleep disorder, the frequent injuries just by simple movement was a sign on low quality sleep...one of many signs ignored by doctors) with minorities carrying a higher proportion of chronic health issues in the States (I recognize that genetics might play a part, could be compared to cultures where these minorities are part of the higher income classes).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3794652/#sec1title

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6576751/

So doctors do need to do a better job at consistently taking seriously all individuals' complaints and requests for health (and we should be doing a better job at identifying what "normal health" actually is for various groups and not just rely on averages).

In contrast though, a lot of people are not educated in what medical science can do for one or even more important should do for one and they often don't take advantage of a wide range of available supports, such as nutritional education, physical therapy, cognitive therapy, and instead expect the doctor to solve their issues with a pill or other dramatic quick solution.  They don't want to invest the effort and resources needed for health, at least in the simple ways (liposuction as opposed to exercise and nutritional weight loss guidance, for example).  Many also don't have access to even the simple forms of treatment though, so a better job needs to be done with that.

Anyway, all that to say getting best medical treatment means not only being very proactive on one's own part, but listening to reasonable and thorough medical advice and not dismissing it based on emotional or extreme reasoning ( antivaxxers in many cases).

Excellent post.  I think that answers  Ken's question.

[Kenngo1969]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

Excellent post.  I think that answers  Ken's question.

I agree with Cal's post.  I think it's excellent, and that's why I repped it.  However, my question isn't really about who gets to decide.  I agree with you that it's medical professionals' job to provide patients with alternatives and with as much information about the benefits, drawbacks, risks, likelihood of success, and so on of each alternative, while, ultimately, the task of opting for any particular course of treatment rests with consumers.  Rather, my question, again, is: Regardless of how the decision is made, how far does the alter-the-body-to-protect-the-psyche-position go?

 

Edited September 30, 2020 by Kenngo1969