NYT Article: What people will and won't say on LGBTQ+ Issues

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

But if you haven't even bothered to read the bill, aren't your conclusory assertions drawn totally upon other peoples opinions based on the type of media you listen to?  

What makes you think I haven’t read the bill? And I haven’t made conclusory assertions here. I’ve merely expressed an opinion. 

[BlueDreams]

17 hours ago, cinepro said:

You might find this blog post interesting...

Explaining the LGBT Explosion

 

Ehh…i have a fairly solid idea on why the bisexual part at least has drastically increased. He didn’t Note the big difference between men and women in ID’ing as bi. Women (so far…I think it’s also a little more socially acceptable for women to be bi than men) tend to have more sexual fluidity when it comes to arousal and more likely to have more variety in patterns of desire/attraction. The younger generations also increasingly want the exact label that describes them. There are sooooooo many terms to pin down your exact brand of sexual existence nowadays. And there’s a cultural shift in acknowledging even marginal experiences of sexual desire. Plus younger generations, where relationship history and maturity are limited, being bi may have more meaning than say a 50 year old who’s comfortable with their one partner of 20-30 years and doesn’t think much about the fact that they’ve found members of the same sex cute at times.  In short there has to be at least some sense of attraction or capacity to be attracted to the same sex for that to happen for the vast majority of people who ID as bi, particularly. 
what he definites as conformity or socialization, I would describe as a cultural shift.
In some ways I think that’s healthy. I had people who are older who fell into really unhealthy sexual patterns because of shame around their sexuality. They fell somewhere on a spectrum that leaned more gay, but had a capacity for opposite sex attraction to some degree and instead of acknowledging and incorporating both parts into who they are, one needed to be suppressed to maintain an appearance of straightness. This often doesn’t go well. This same thing is less a thing for those that comfortably acknowledge to some degree their attraction patterns. And by acknowledge, it could just be to their close loved ones and themselves and that’s enough for them. 

 

on the other, it sometimes feels to me like navel gazing and hyper individualistic. Instead of social values guiding your sexual expression, the individual is to follow their true sexual desires. Love is both naturalistic and a little fatalistic (finding the one, following love and desire, etc). Relationships are about compatibility and more consumerist (does this person match me and what I want v is this a person I can work with and love while working together to create family and goals). 
And of course there’s the concern of mislabeling concerns/experiences as something that it’s not exactly. I’m sure it happens with people who are LGB. i actually was listening to a podcast where a man thought he was gay…and then realized later he probably wasn’t. I don’t know how common that is, but either way the ramifications of it are likely minimal. At best you slowly realize you’re wrong and switch up how you relate or experience people. My concern with getting a trans ID wrong is that it can lead to irreversible change if hormones or surgery have already happened. And a trans narrative overlaps with several other experiences and problems that if a therapist isn’t astute in weeding out or really there at all, is more likely to fall into this mislabel long enough for cross sex hormones and/or surgery (the ones with long lasting if not permanent effects). It’s only the medical ramifications that really drive my concern for wanting to make sure people really are trans with persistent gender dysphoria and with a serious check on any confounding variables (trauma, dysfunctional/non-existent support systems, low sense of self-regard or healthy interests, signs of massive dysregulation would be my biggest yellow/red flags)  

 

with luv, 

BD 

Edited April 16, 2022 by BlueDreams

[T-Shirt]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Actions reveal how much people care. Women’s sports are underfunded... blah, blah, blah...

What does funding women's sports have to do with allowing biological men to compete in women's sports? 

Why have you completely changed the subject? Could it be that you can't defend your position on the real topic? At least give us a comeback with some famous Nehor insults and lame humor. 

[Kenngo1969]

On 4/15/2022 at 1:30 PM, SwedishLDS said:

... We are making the biggest social experiment in human history on our children and society based on little to no information and general feelings. Its irresponsible. ... [Bold in original.]

 

On 4/15/2022 at 1:36 PM, The Nehor said:

Reconstructive cosmetic surgery for burn victims is done because of the feelings of the person.

Complete non sequitur.  But then, you knew that already.   

[california boy]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What makes you think I haven’t read the bill? And I haven’t made conclusory assertions here. I’ve merely expressed an opinion. 

I don't know if you have or you haven't.  I am only pointing out that if you haven't then your opinion is only based on the media you listen to.

Edited April 16, 2022 by california boy

[The Nehor]

20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Your having read the bill doesn’t make your conclusory assertions any the more compelling. 

Knowledge of the subject is useless? Good to know. I won’t bother in the future.

The bill is bad because it will mean more drowned puppies! What kind of monster wants to drown puppies?

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

What does funding women's sports have to do with allowing biological men to compete in women's sports? 

Why have you completely changed the subject? Could it be that you can't defend your position on the real topic? At least give us a comeback with some famous Nehor insults and lame humor. 

I am showing that the outrage over the poor girls being forced to compete with transwomen is not the point. It is a mask. The reality is that people just want to exclude and marginalize transgender individuals. If there were really a deep concern for fair in women’s sports it would manifest in areas beyond this one niche issue.

Can you process that or do I need to use shorter words?

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am showing that the outrage over the poor girls being forced to compete with transwomen is not the point. It is a mask. The reality is that people just want to exclude and marginalize transgender individuals. If there were really a deep concern for fair in women’s sports it would manifest in areas beyond this one niche issue.

Why do you think we segregate people into different groups for sports based on their biological sex?  Do you support the continuation of this practice, or do you think people of all ages should compete together in one group, with no distinction made?

I support the segregation, because combining into one group effectively eliminates competitive sports for biological women. For example, in a recent college track finals, the top 23 male runners in the semi-finals for the 100m all ran faster than the women's collegiate record (except for poor Kasaun James from Florida State, but before that he had run faster than the women's record eight times). Even Venus and Serena Williams never estimated themselves to be better than the 200th best male player.

Edited April 17, 2022 by cinepro

[T-Shirt]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Can you process that or do I need to use shorter words?

Now that's the Response we all knew was coming. Well played!

[The Nehor]

30 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Now that's the Response we all knew was coming. Well played!

You insisted. I delivered. I serve the people.

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, cinepro said:

Why do you think we segregate people into different groups for sports based on their biological sex?  Do you support the continuation of this practice, or do you think people of all ages should compete together in one group, with no distinction made?

I support the segregation, because combining into one group effectively eliminates competitive sports for biological women. For example, in a recent college track finals, the top 23 male runners in the semi-finals for the 100m all ran faster than the women's collegiate record (except for poor Kasaun James from Florida State, but before that he had run faster than the women's record eight times). Even Venus and Serena Williams never estimated themselves to be better than the 200th best male player.

I think there is actually a good discussion to be had around that but since I think almost no one cares that deeply about it is really just a general transgender issue with this as a masquerade pasted on top to hide behind to avoid accusations of transphobia and to create a victim suffering due to transgender individuals. I am convinced there won’t be a resolution on this until the larger issue is resolved. No one is going to budge or offer real solutions until that point.

[Stormin' Mormon]

Believing that biology has an actual impact on the world is not transphobic. Neither is the belief that physical competitions should be between male bodies regardless of the gender of the individual driving that male body.

I believe that trans people should not be excluded from society or from sports. But I also believe that biology is still real and still matters. Trans women should get checked for testicular cancer. Trans men should get regular mammograms. And male bodies should compete in feats of strength, speed, and endurance with other male bodies.

There are nuanced positions on this issue. To paint everyone concerned about the integrity of women's sports as transphobic hypocrites is overly simplisitc.

[cinepro]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think there is actually a good discussion to be had around that but since I think almost no one cares that deeply about it is really just a general transgender issue with this as a masquerade pasted on top to hide behind to avoid accusations of transphobia and to create a victim suffering due to transgender individuals. I am convinced there won’t be a resolution on this until the larger issue is resolved. No one is going to budge or offer real solutions until that point.

I obviously disagree. One of the reasons I find the issue fascinating is because the issue of sex-segregated sports is where the rubber hits the road in the discussion over what, exactly, a "trans" person is, and where we have to stop pretending and actually address the issue.

Regardless of what people pretend, biological women are different from biological men in many ways that make them generally slower and weaker. It's obviously overlapping bell curves for each group, so there are many biological women who are faster and stronger than many biological men. But once you get to the right tail of those curves, there is no overlap. All the good intentions in the world won't change that (and our current level of medical expertise won't change that either.)

This is where the fantasy world of what we wish meets up with reality. It's courteous to pretend that we think a trans-woman is a "woman" in every sense of the word, but when it comes to physical speed and strength, that just isn't true. That is one way in which a trans-woman isn't the same as a biological woman. You can argue that in the majority of cases, the trans-woman is a marginal athlete so it doesn't tip the scales and so it doesn't matter, but eventually there will be more and more cases where it does matter.

 

[Calm]

Quote

This is where the fantasy world of what we wish meets up with reality. It's courteous to pretend that we think a trans-woman is a "woman" in every sense of the word, but when it comes to physical speed and strength, that just isn't true. 

 

I agree with Nehor to some extent that there appears to be a good deal of people who are only interested in women’s sports because of this issue, otherwise they wouldn’t be paying attention to any competitions or care who was winning and many have never contributed any funding to any women’s sport or attended a game or tournament…maybe not even ever watched the gymnastic section or women’s ice skating in the Olympics.  And they might not even care if schools are required to provide girls’ sports as well as boys’.

But I think there are a lot who are actively interested and more who at least are willing for their taxes and donations to go to funding opportunities for girls as well as boys in schools and colleges.

Otoh, cinepro has made a very solid point.  In many other areas allowing trans women to be fully included in female spaces can be justified by believing that it is cultural expectations that make the difference (for example, explaining why women might be automatically fearful if someone they perceived as male were to be in a shelter with them as opposed to a larger biological female and therefore education there is no rational reason to fear would be the solution rather than needing to exclude someone who they could tell was a trans woman).  However, when one can show concrete physical standards that are different from biological women that would allow nonbiological women to be superior in that measure (strength, speed) and this can’t be compensated with physical advantages that biological women in general have (flexibility, endurance, recovery time), these differences can’t be dismissed as culturally based and therefore the solution is education/exposure to increase familiarity and comfort levels.

 A standard recognition at least the most significant physical differences is the most likely solution to allow for a fair and safe competition.  Not sure how this could be done cheaply though.  Weight and height are only two of the differences, how do you easily and safely measure bone density and muscle mass? (Not sure frequent bone density tests would be wide as they are done with x-rays, aren’t they? But maybe they would only be needed rarely.) Would the usual substitution of lean mass for everyday at home calculations of muscle mass be close enough?  I am not educated in this area, so clueless as to what other factors, if any, might need to be used to provide fairness in competition as well as affecting safety.

This is not going to ensure equal attention between ‘weights’, but I am surprised to find the top money makers in boxing are not mostly heavyweights*, so maybe it could work in some fields, but something like track or swimming where there are speed records…would people be paying money to watch slower racers competing against each other? Weightlifting appears to be divided into classes like boxing.  Fame seems to be a better measure of success than money here and the famous seem to be like boxing, divided among the weights, at least for the Olympics.**

*https://moneyinc.com/20-richest-boxers-history/

**https://www.sportskeeda.com/weight-lifting/rio-2016-top-10-greatest-weightlifters-olympic-history

Edited April 17, 2022 by Calm

[Traela]

So, if the concern over trans women in women’s sports is simply transphobia, where is the outrage over trans men competing in men’s sports?  It’s practically non-existent. 
 

[smac97]

On 4/15/2022 at 7:03 PM, cinepro said:

You might find this blog post interesting...

Explaining the LGBT Explosion

And this one (from the NY Post) :

Trans doctor who helps teens transition says it’s now ‘gone too far’

Quote

A transgender psychologist who has helped hundreds of teens transition has warned that it has “gone too far” — and fears many are making life-changing decisions because it’s “trendy” and pushed on social media.

Erica Anderson, 71 — who is transgender herself — told the Los Angeles Times that she is horrified that even 13-year-old kids are now getting hormone treatment without even meeting with psychologists.

“I think it’s gone too far,” said Anderson, who until recently led the US professional society at the forefront of transgender care.

“For a while, we were all happy that society was becoming more accepting and more families than ever were embracing children that were gender variant.

“Now it’s got to the point where there are kids presenting at clinics whose parents say, ‘This just doesn’t make sense,‘” she said.

"Now it's got to the point..."

I wonder what that "point" was, and when we reached it.

Quote

Anderson is so concerned, in fact, she said she is considering ending her own pioneering work helping teens transition.

“I have these private thoughts: ‘This has gone too far. It’s going to get worse. I don’t want any part of it,’ ” she said.

"This has gone too far..."

I wonder where on this journey of transgenderism is "far enough."  There do not seem to be any sort of coherent philosophy, guidelines, limiting principles, etc.  I guess Dr. Anderson may think that a we-psychologists-should-be-the-gatekeepers approach is the way to go.  But if Dr. Anderson is correct, it sounds like the metrics being used are way too susceptible to social pressures and trends.  

Quote

“I worry that people will accuse me of setting the train in motion, as part of those who advocated the affirmative approach to gender in youth, even though that’s not a reasonable account of what happened.”

Um, what?  She didn't help "set{} the train in motion?"

Quote

She believes that the dramatic rise in teens seeking treatment is likely driven by peer pressure as much as wider acceptance of trans issues.

“A fair number of kids are getting into it because it’s trendy,” she previously told the Washington Post. “I think in our haste to be supportive, we’re missing that element.”

In her latest interview, she told the LA Times, “To flatly say there couldn’t be any social influence in formation of gender identity flies in the face of reality. Teenagers influence each other.”

That appears to have been exacerbated by the pandemic, with children becoming more isolated and also leaning more on networks on social media.

“What happens when the perfect storm — of social isolation, exponentially increased consumption of social media, the popularity of alternative identities — affects the actual development of individual kids?” Anderson asked the LA paper.

I think she is quite correct here.  She is saying the quiet part out loud.  We are not just "missing that element," we are deliberately ignoring and even paving over it.

Quote

“We’re sailing in uncharted seas,” she warned.

Yep.  

And it sounds like she had a had in steering the ship into those uncharted seas.

Quote

Anderson readily shared her birth name, Eric, and her story of how an endocrinologist refused to prescribe hormones and left her feeling deeply ashamed when she first sought them at age 45.

She finally got them at 58, and had genital surgery at 61, thrilled to finally “become a woman.”

But while thrilled that the world is now more accepting, she fears it has swung to an extreme, noting a 13-year-old patient whose pediatrician put him on testosterone, even though he had not met with a psychologist.

“Why is this kid on testosterone so precipitously?” Anderson asked.

I'm can't help but think that a 13-year-old patient put on testosterone after meeting with a psychologist is also "an extreme" and "precipitous."

Quote

Anderson, a member of the American Psychological Association committee that is writing guidelines for transgender health care, believes some children seek treatment in the hope that it helps with wider psychological problems, leaving them depressed when it doesn’t.

Doesn't this fall into the "Well, yeah" category?  Do you have to be a member of the APA committee on guidelines for transgender care to be aware of people (including many teens) having comorbid mental disorders?  It seems like even neophytes who have done nothing more than read a few articles on this subject become aware of the prevalence of these "wider psychological problems."

I would like to think that the APA and other professional organizations are cautious gatekeepers, working hard to differentiate not let teens with such comorbidities to pass "through the gate," as it were.  But I am concerned that social and political pressures have resulted in the gatekeeping function becoming lax, weak, and arbitrarily enforced.

Quote

She insisted that those allowing medical treatment for kids without rigorous psychological evaluation risk committing malpractice.

Hmm.  I wonder if organizations like WPATH are seen as capable of establishing a "standard of care" relative to adolescents, gender dysphoria, "gender-affirming healthcare," etc.  It appears that it is seen in this way ("Gender-affirming healthcare for trans youth is typically admin-istered pursuant to Standards of Care published by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH SOC), an international body of experts in transgender healthcare.").

Per this published WPATH "Standards of Care" manual (version 7, the current iteration), "As discussed in section IV and by Zucker and Lawrence (2009), formal epidemiologic studies on gender dysphoria – in children, adolescents, and adults – are lacking. Additional research is needed to refine estimates of its prevalence and persistence in different populations worldwide." 

Nevertheless, per the WPATH SOC:

Quote

The first step in gender-affirming treatment for trans youth is therapy and counseling. The WPATH SOC recommend that trans youth be diagnosed with gender dysphoria and referred by a gender therapist before they begin physical transition.  After the initial diagnosis, gender-affirming therapists help trans youth process their gender identities and cope with distress associated with dysphoria and coexisting sources of stress, and support them in taking future steps in physical and social transition.

Trans youth who are diagnosed with dysphoria sometimes begin hormone treatments, depending on their age and stage of physical development. Trans youth who have reached the early stages of puberty may be prescribed puberty blockers, which prevent the further progression of assigned-sex puberty and the development of associated secondary sex characteristics.

Halting puberty is typically done to give trans youth more time to process their identity and decide whether to pursue further steps in transition, and to prevent irreversible physical changes that conflict with their desired gender presentation and increase dysphoria.

Beginning at around age sixteen, trans youth can be prescribed hormone replacement therapy (HRT), which causes development of secondary sex characteristics associated with the trans youth’s identified gender.  For trans girls, HRT involves suppressing endogenous testosterone and taking estrogen, a regimen that typically causes breast growth, softer skin, and reduction in body hair, while for trans boys, it involves taking testosterone, which typically causes muscle growth, an increase in body and facial hair, and a deeper voice.  Some nonbinary youth also seek HRT, but there are currently no formal standards of care for nonbinary people and there is little research as to clinical outcomes outside the binary context.  The WPATH SOC and Endocrine Society typically require parental consent before doctors may prescribe HRT to minors.

Gender confirmation surgery (GCS), which involves changing a transgender person’s reproductive anatomy to the anatomy usually associated with their identified gender, is rarely performed for trans youth because the WPATH SOC require the patient to have attained the age of majority to be eligible for surgery.  Additionally, insurance coverage usually requires GCS patients to be eighteen or older.  However, GCS is not the only type of gender-affirming surgery. Transgender men may undergo surgery to remove breast tissue (“top surgery”), and the WPATH SOC allow this surgery to be performed on patients under eighteen on a case-by-case basis.

Puberty blockers administered during adolescence sure seems to be "extreme" and "precipitous."  

Also, I have a sincere question here: What is the qualitative difference between gender dysphoria and, say, species or age or race dysphoria?  It seems like if a biological human female can experience dysphoria as to her gender, why not her species?  Her age?  Her race?  Is the difference simply inclusion/exclusion relative to the DSM?

Consider this story:

Quote

In December, Hilaria Baldwin - the podcaster, and wife of actor Alec Baldwin - was widely ridiculed for seeming to fake being Spanish. Korean-American student Arden Yum says that, like Hilaria, ethnic minority children may also identify with a different culture. But there are crucial differences, she suggests.

There is a TV clip showing her struggling to remember the English word for cucumber, she has a Mediterranean accent, and calls her children "the Baldwinitos". Plus, her husband told talk show host David Letterman, "My wife is from Spain." So understandably, many believed Hilaria Baldwin was Spanish.

It turns out Hilaria (she pronounces her name "Ee-lah-ree-ah") was born Hillary Hayward-Thomas. She grew up and went to school in Massachusetts, and went to university in New York. Her parents liked to holiday in Spain though, and retired there when she was in her late 20s.

There was a moment in December when Hilaria became one of the main topics of conversation - and humour - on social media. Comedian Amy Schumer called the episode "insane and entertaining", adding, "You can't just pretend you're from Spain."

Actress Salma Hayek, who played Alec Baldwin's girlfriend on 30 Rock, was more sympathetic. "We all lie a little bit," she said this week on talk show host Andy Cohen's pop culture channel, Radio Andy. While Hayek is Mexican, her mother's ancestors were Spanish, she pointed out, adding that Hilaria was "smart to want to be Spanish - we're cool."

Defending herself on her Instagram page, Hilaria said: "We celebrate both cultures in our home. Alec and I are raising our children bilingual, just as I was raised. This is very important to me. I understand that my story is a little different, but it is mine, and I'm very proud of it."

She told the New York Times that identity was personal.

"Who is to say what you're allowed to absorb and not absorb growing up?" she said.

Hilaria Baldwin truly feels "Spanish," should she be treated as if she is Spanish?  If not, why not?

If Rachel Dolezal truly feels "African," should she be treated as if she is African?  What about Jessica Krug, Shaun King, Satchuel Cole, CV Vitolo-Haddad, etc.?

It is interesting that we cannot apparently even ask such questions.  See, e.g., here: Hypatia transracialism controversy and Once again: why is it okay to be transgender but not transracial?

The censorious and mobocratic tendencies that arise when these topics come under discussion are pretty unsettling.

Anyway, back to the NY Post article:

Quote

Those who are confused about their gender identity also need to wait until they are absolutely sure before acting, she said.

“I have a dictum: When in doubt, doubt,” she told the LA paper. “Questioning is a good thing. How are you going to find out if you are lockstep with whatever conclusion you come to first?”

Despite her pioneering work, Anderson finds herself at odds with a trend to make it easier for anyone to transition.

Dr. AJ Eckert, medical director of the Gender and Life-Affirming Medicine Program at the Anchor Health Initiative in Stamford, Conn., eschewed the need for therapy.

“Being trans or gender diverse is not a mental illness, and compulsory psychotherapy is not the standard of care in the gender-affirming medical model,” Eckert, who is nonbinary and uses they/them pronouns, told the paper.

“Forcing transgender and gender diverse youth through extensive assessments while their cis peers are affirmed in their identity without question conveys to [them] that they are not ‘normal,’” they said.

As for Anderson’s claim that kids are trans just because it’s “trendy,” Eckert asked, “Is it trendy to be one of the most marginalized and vulnerable groups?”

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 18, 2022 by smac97

[longview]

On 4/17/2022 at 10:54 AM, The Nehor said:

You insisted. I delivered. I serve the people.

Sadly you do not always serve the truth.

No driveby insults!

[CA Steve]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

I agree with Nehor to some extent that there appears to be a good deal of people who are only interested in women’s sports because of this issue, otherwise they wouldn’t be paying attention to any competitions or care who was winning and many have never contributed any funding to any women’s sport or attended a game or tournament…maybe not even ever watched the gymnastic section or women’s ice skating in the Olympics.  And they might not even care if schools are required to provide girls’ sports as well as boys’.

Does the fact they are only interested in women sports because of this issue have any bearing on the validity of their opinions on the issue?

Why?

I was not interested in the Ukraine until Russia invaded. Does that mean my opinion is invalid?

 

Seems like a Tu quoque response.

 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Traela said:

So, if the concern over trans women in women’s sports is simply transphobia, where is the outrage over trans men competing in men’s sports?  It’s practically non-existent.

Because trans men aren't keeping anybody off the podium. And when it comes to competitive sport, winning and room at the top are ultimately what matter.

The whole purpose of having sex segregated athletics is to pit female bodies against other female bodies - otherwise it isn't really a fair competition. See, e.g., the results of the Women's 800 in Rio, where none of the athletes who medaled were biologically female. In other words, biological males completely swept the 800 meter race in the Olympics that year - in both the Men's and Women's competitions.

Read farther down in the referenced article as well. I found this particularly illuminating (note: emphasis in original):

Quote

To illustrate this point, Jeff Wald, Wickliffe Shreve, Richard Clark, and I developed the visual that appears below, taking three of our sport’s best-known female stars, all of whom are multiple Olympic and World Championship gold medalists who, because of their role-model status, continue to produce valuable goods for themselves and for the IAAF: Sanya Richards-Ross, Allyson Felix, and Christine Ohuruogu. We placed each of their individual lifetime bests in the 400 meters in the sea of male-bodied performances run just in the single year 2017. As expected, the figure shows that Richards-Ross, Felix, and Ohuruogu would lose to the very best senior men that year—Wayde van Niekerk, Fred Kerley, and Isaac Makwala—by a margin of about 12%. But it also shows that even at their absolute best, Richards-Ross, Felix, and Ohuruogu would go on to lose to literally thousands of other boys and men, including many whose times wouldn’t place them in the sport’s elite male echelons.

To be clear, our claim is not that an identity-based eligibility rule would introduce this enormous sea of boys and men into women’s competition. Rather, it’s that biologically male athletes—however they identify—don’t have to be elite to surpass even the very best biologically female athletes. And it doesn’t take a sea of them to obliterate the females’ competitive chances at every level of competition. If only a very small sub-set turn out to identify as women, we will be overwhelmed.

Edited April 18, 2022 by Amulek

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Does the fact they are only interested in women sports because of this issue have any bearing on the validity of their opinions on the issue?

It depends, imo, on how they express their criticism.  I think I have a greater problem if someone has been an advocate against supporting something in the past….like if a politician was suddenly gung ho about protecting Ukraine now where in the past they had voted against funding humanitarian support because “it’s not our problem”, I would see their reaction as more anti-Russia than pro-Ukraine…being anti-Russian expansion is not a bad thing in itself, but don’t try to present it as this noble love for Ukraine.  Be honest and present it as supporting Ukraine benefits their own position now.    Another example imo is those who go off on abortion as a crime against women and children who we need to protect because it benefits them politically or it gives them a rush to have a cause, but they try to prevent funding of measures that lower abortion numbers because they don’t want to pay higher taxes nor are they willing to donate to nongovernmental efforts in this area.

If someone approaches the sports controversy as if they are protectors of the sport but have had no previous interest, but present themselves as having the moral right to be indignant, angry, etc, I think that could be a problem.  If they are approaching it from a more rational basis, say similar to cinepro’s approach, perhaps not.  If one sees what they believe is an injustice, I don’t think it an issue to speak out even if it happens in an arena that is not typically where one ventures.  But one needs to present oneself as an observer rather than attempting to make it about oneself or upping the drama in other ways as I have seen happen on occasion.  And if someone has worked against supporting funding of girls’ sports (perhaps not specifically, but it has that impact) in schools because they don’t want taxes, but now are all “we need to protect the right of women and girls to have a safe sport of their own!”, I would see that as hypocritical.

Edited April 18, 2022 by Calm

[The Nehor]

On 4/17/2022 at 2:56 PM, cinepro said:

I obviously disagree. One of the reasons I find the issue fascinating is because the issue of sex-segregated sports is where the rubber hits the road in the discussion over what, exactly, a "trans" person is, and where we have to stop pretending and actually address the issue.

Regardless of what people pretend, biological women are different from biological men in many ways that make them generally slower and weaker. It's obviously overlapping bell curves for each group, so there are many biological women who are faster and stronger than many biological men. But once you get to the right tail of those curves, there is no overlap. All the good intentions in the world won't change that (and our current level of medical expertise won't change that either.)

This is where the fantasy world of what we wish meets up with reality. It's courteous to pretend that we think a trans-woman is a "woman" in every sense of the word, but when it comes to physical speed and strength, that just isn't true. That is one way in which a trans-woman isn't the same as a biological woman. You can argue that in the majority of cases, the trans-woman is a marginal athlete so it doesn't tip the scales and so it doesn't matter, but eventually there will be more and more cases where it does matter.

 

It is a fascinating question in that respect but since I consider almost everyone weighing in on it to be acting in bad faith I find that the fascinating question is turned into a tedious and boring grind where most everyone has made up their minds and is just playing out their role. To be clear I am not restricting this bad faith characterization to those opposed to transgender athletes.

I just haven’t heard anything at all innovative or convincing. Everyone just says we should do X because it is the right thing to do because it “makes things fair”/“gives individuals the right to choose to belong to a group”

Where are the people demanding all sports be co-ed or calling for the abolition of professional sports or calling for extensive genetic testing based on markers for ability in the chosen sport and dividing everyone into ten different tiers based on genetic advantage?

Edited April 18, 2022 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, longview said:

Sadly you do not always serve the truth.

To butcher Indiana Jones: I was talking about facts. If you want truth look for a thread with a lot of mfb posting.

[Analytics]

On 4/17/2022 at 2:56 PM, cinepro said:

I obviously disagree. One of the reasons I find the issue fascinating is because the issue of sex-segregated sports is where the rubber hits the road in the discussion over what, exactly, a "trans" person is, and where we have to stop pretending and actually address the issue.

Regardless of what people pretend, biological women are different from biological men in many ways that make them generally slower and weaker. It's obviously overlapping bell curves for each group, so there are many biological women who are faster and stronger than many biological men. But once you get to the right tail of those curves, there is no overlap. All the good intentions in the world won't change that (and our current level of medical expertise won't change that either.)

This is where the fantasy world of what we wish meets up with reality. It's courteous to pretend that we think a trans-woman is a "woman" in every sense of the word, but when it comes to physical speed and strength, that just isn't true. That is one way in which a trans-woman isn't the same as a biological woman. You can argue that in the majority of cases, the trans-woman is a marginal athlete so it doesn't tip the scales and so it doesn't matter, but eventually there will be more and more cases where it does matter.

Your point about overlapping bell curves reminds me of a pretty good friend I've known since I was a CTR. As a point of comparison, while I enjoy excellent health, I'm well within the bottom quarter of the bell curve in terms of athleticism--despite working out with a trainer three times a week, I don't have anything close to athletic speed, strength, coordination, reflexes, balance, or endurance. In contrast, my friend was endowed with an amazing cardiovascular system--he had to have been in the top one-tenth of one percentile. Of the 300 boys in our high school graduating class, he made the varsity cross country team as a freshman--nobody else came close. He was sure he'd be the star of the team as a senior.

But his dreams were crushed. When he was a junior, a freshman showed up out of nowhere who was a bona fide Olympic hopeful and immediately started to dominate the field, pushing my friend into a distant second place. One day my friend was talking about how unfair it was for him to have to compete with this kid. He pointed out that the other kid didn't even seem to be trying that much--he was just a naturally faster runner. We pointed out that that is how he made the rest of us feel.

That other kid did go to Olympic trials, but was then dominated by others who were even more freakish outliers.

My point is that for 99.9999% of athletes, the experience ends by going as far as you can, but then being dominated by others who were endowed with more athleticism. That's true regardless of whether or not there is a trans-woman in the field. 

I highlighted your last sentence because I have a hard time imagining that there will "eventually be more and more cases" so that things get to the point where "biological women" are pushed out of women sports. 

In Utah, there is precisely one transgender female K-12 athlete. Just one. There was a story about her today in the Salt Lake Tribune. It turns out she has known she was a girl since she was two, and has been on swim teams since she was four. She's now 13 and is pretty good--she has placed as high as second place in state in one stroke, and third place in another. But she hasn't broken any state records. And if you look at her physiology, she was the smallest girl on the team. Quoting from the article:

Quote

The 13-year-old swimmer, feeling certain at a young age that she was born into the wrong body, has a tiny blocker inserted into her arm. It has stopped the flow of testosterone and, by proxy, her growth. She got it a year ago and is basically still in the body of a 12-year-old.

She’s 13, transgender and stopped swimming because of Utah’s law against athletes like her (sltrib.com)

She's a competitive swimmer, but not dominate, and never will be.

This is the one person in Utah affected by this law. The only one. A sample size of one isn't big enough to extrapolate to your dystopian fear of legions of elite male athletes deciding to become transgender in order to dominate in women sports.

[filovirus]

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Your point about overlapping bell curves reminds me of a pretty good friend I've known since I was a CTR. As a point of comparison, while I enjoy excellent health, I'm well within the bottom quarter of the bell curve in terms of athleticism--despite working out with a trainer three times a week, I don't have anything close to athletic speed, strength, coordination, reflexes, balance, or endurance. In contrast, my friend was endowed with an amazing cardiovascular system--he had to have been in the top one-tenth of one percentile. Of the 300 boys in our high school graduating class, he made the varsity cross country team as a freshman--nobody else came close. He was sure he'd be the star of the team as a senior.

But his dreams were crushed. When he was a junior, a freshman showed up out of nowhere who was a bona fide Olympic hopeful and immediately started to dominate the field, pushing my friend into a distant second place. One day my friend was talking about how unfair it was for him to have to compete with this kid. He pointed out that the other kid didn't even seem to be trying that much--he was just a naturally faster runner. We pointed out that that is how he made the rest of us feel.

That other kid did go to Olympic trials, but was then dominated by others who were even more freakish outliers.

My point is that for 99.9999% of athletes, the experience ends by going as far as you can, but then being dominated by others who were endowed with more athleticism. That's true regardless of whether or not there is a trans-woman in the field. 

I highlighted your last sentence because I have a hard time imagining that there will "eventually be more and more cases" so that things get to the point where "biological women" are pushed out of women sports. 

In Utah, there is precisely one transgender female K-12 athlete. Just one. There was a story about her today in the Salt Lake Tribune. It turns out she has known she was a girl since she was two, and has been on swim teams since she was four. She's now 13 and is pretty good--she has placed as high as second place in state in one stroke, and third place in another. But she hasn't broken any state records. And if you look at her physiology, she was the smallest girl on the team. Quoting from the article:

She’s 13, transgender and stopped swimming because of Utah’s law against athletes like her (sltrib.com)

She's a competitive swimmer, but not dominate, and never will be.

This is the one person in Utah affected by this law. The only one. A sample size of one isn't big enough to extrapolate to your dystopian fear of legions of elite male athletes deciding to become transgender in order to dominate in women sports.

There is more than just taking first place. A swim meet aggregates the scores depending on finishing places. She could be the deciding person on if a swim team either wins or loses the meet. Did she take the place of a biological female who now doesn't qualify for that swim team. What about scholarships? Colleges give out hundreds of scholarships. A person doesn't need to be taking first place at every meet to gain a scholarship. Is it fair to take one away from a biological female? 

My son is a very good soccer player. He has played with and been on teams with females for much of his growing up years. Currently he is on one of the best teams in the state of Oregon. At the level he is currently playing, there are no longer any females. How people can't see a difference in physical ability between men and women is beyond me. If he decided he was transgender, I would caution him against joining a women's soccer team. He is just that much better than them at this moment. And this is high school sports. The best women's soccer team in the world lost to a under 15 year old boys soccer team in Texas not that long ago.

I'm just saying there is a lot more to think about than just being the most dominant.

[longview]

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is a fascinating question in that respect . . .

@cinepro provided a scientific illustration that clearly shows the overwhelming physical capabilities of biological males in outperforming biological females.  The female bell curve is to the left of the male bell curve in terms of athletic capabilities and occupations requiring brute force.  There is some overlap of the right tail of the female curve with the left tail of the male curve due to the obvious fact that some unhealthy men are unable to keep up with the top tier of biological females.  It looks to me that 85% of the males outperform 90% of the females.

Why would you say it is a fascinating question?  What it is - is an important observation to keep in mind.  At least 95% of the population know this to be true.  It is only extreme radical social engineers that would try to deny the obvious.

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

but since I consider almost everyone weighing in on it to be acting in bad faith I find that the fascinating question is turned into a tedious and boring grind where most everyone has made up their minds and is just playing out their role.

It is stunning that you would condemn those people that will NOT shy away from defending the obvious.  For you to say they are acting in bad faith places you in the position of opposing the truth.

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

To be clear I am not restricting this bad faith characterization to those opposed to transgender athletes.

Yes.  There are many issues that involve a great deal of subversion that traditional and conservative people find objectionable.

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I just haven’t heard anything at all innovative are convincing. Everyone just says we should do X because it is the right thing to do because it “makes things fair”/“gives individuals the right to choose to belong to a group”

What do you mean?  Sounds disjointed.

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Where are the people demanding all sports be co-ed or calling for the abolition of professional sports or calling for extensive genetic testing based on markers for ability in the chosen sport and dividing everyone into ten different tiers based on genetic advantage?

Who wants that?  Only extremists.

A couple years ago I saw kick boxing match between a female and a trans.  It was horrible.  It was off the chart murderous.

There are good reasons for weight classifications in boxing.  A featherweight should not be pitted against a heavyweight.  No amount of hormonal treatments for the trans is going to make it fair for biological females.  It is NOT an issue for trans-male to compete against biological males except maybe the institution could be made liable for harm done to the trans in the male arena.  Maybe classifications could be set up where trans-men compete against each other and trans-women have their venue?