Transgender runner wins regionals by over a minute

Don't think enough time has passed to get the true figures for the massive increase in patients yet. A wager. If, after the absolute tidal wave of hormonal and surgical intervention on our youth over the last few years doesn't see a statistically significant increase in detransition and regret then I will bow to your superior knowledge and foresight. Please bookmark this for 2028.

Oh wait, I've already won the bet. The latest meta-analysis on the topic from June 2023 shows detransition regret rate of up to 10% and discusses poor and short term follow up rates in regard to detransition, so it might even be higher. This is usually the point where you post an article called 'Detransition has actually never happened ever!' from 'Transgirlzrule. com!' as your equally valid scientific source.

link.springer.com

Transition Regret and Detransition: Meanings and Uncertainties - Archives of Sexual Behavior

Gender transition is undertaken to improve the well-being of people suffering from gender dysphoria. However, some have argued that the evidence supporting medical interventions for gender transition (e.g., hormonal therapies...

Link:link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s105...

Any time someone who has worked in trans health care decides to be a whistleblower, they ALWAYS note that there is an entire pipeline of referrals, to therapists, to gender-"affirming" care (hormones, surgery, etc.) They always talk about how patients will get referred to Therapist X, or Therapy Clinic Y, because they know those therapist(s) will just rubber-stamp the patients' feelings of "dysphoria" and get them pushed along to the next stop in the pipeline as quickly as possible. Just like how, when California had medical marijuana but not full legalization yet, everyone knew which doctors were willing to prescribe marijuana for literally whatever you said you were suffering from, people who profit from there being maximum numbers of trans patients (whether the profit financial or political) know which therapists will sign off on a patient's trans status without examination or inquiry. Look up any whistleblower's writing, they all say this same thing. Along with the totally inexplicable phenomenon where they see one trans kid from a school and then within a month they see ten more from the same school. It's all trendy BS and it's so obvious, but people have their reasons for shutting their eyes and pretending it's not (and then screaming that the people with their eyes open are the idiots, bigots, whatever).

There needs to be a blanket ban

Assume the person who got 8th in the girl’s race, who ran 22:12, was a trans boy and competed in the boy’s race. She would have placed 58th in the boy’s race, depriving the 58th runner of his spot and stealing points from all the runners behind her in the team score. Would people be as outraged about that? Didn’t the 58th through 103rd runners in the boy’s race “work hard all year”? Yet, people only seem to care when a trans girl displaces someone in the first spot, thereby betraying the illegitimacy of their concerns. It’s not at all about fairness. It’s about perceived entitlement. Cisgender people like to believe they’re superior and thus entitled to win, as if the trans girl who won the race didn’t also “work hard all year.”

Also, 19-something is objectively slow, regardless the course. Get a life.

I think you'll find the people who are serious about their opinion that trans athletes should compete in their birth category do not differentiate between a trans "girl" who wins and a trans "girl" who finishes 50th. We don't want them in the girls race either way. It gets more attention when a trans "girl" wins because, of course it does, but we oppose it even if they don't win.

But they DO win quite frequently, due to the biological advantages they have. Sure, high school XC always has big/slow people in it who just want to be part of a team, and maybe there's a big ol' trans "girl" ambling through his weekly 30:00 5Ks somewhere. It won't attract as much attention, naturally, but that runner is still in the wrong race if he's allowed to amble to a 30:00 time in the girls race. If your only real concern is biological unfairness, you might choose not to expend as much energy on the 30:00 trans "girl," but some of us think the issue goes deeper, so we think its equally BS no matter how fast or slow the trans "girl" runs.

You mischaracterized my comment. My hypo was of a trans boy who competes in the boys’ race and displaces the 58th through 103rd boy runners of their positions and team points. Explain the unfairness to me.

The parts I bolded are bald-faced lies.

Re the first claim about brain differences: There's no reliable, sound, trustworthy body of scientific research which has "studied brain anatomy and function of" people who identify as trans that provides any solid persuaive evidence, much less a shred of proof, to back up the view that "we already know" all the people who identify trans today were born with, or have developed, brains that are anatomically and functionally different from "cis people."

In particular, no research whatsoever has been done on any of the many male people who were labeled trans as small children which shows they were "born in tbe wrong body" and thus have "girl brains." (BTW, no significant structural and functional differences have been found between the brains of newborn or young baby girls and boys.)

The only evidence for the claims about children being born with opposite-sex brains comes from propaganda put out to create the myth that all the male children in recent history designated "trans" as preschoolers then turned into public figures by their attention-seeking parents like poor Maddie were somehow born with "a girl brain."

These male children's supposed "girl brains" are cited to explain why they have such a strong liking for dresses, the color pink, hair bows, and clothing, fabrics and factory-made consumer products that are shiny, sparky, frilly, and toys and entertainment media that are cutesy, saccharine sweet and "girly." The notion that liking this sort of stuff is indicative of a "girl brain" is based on the most regressive sexist, shallow, insulting and stupid stereotypes about female human beings imaginable.

For example, the website of one of USA's most powerful and well-funded lobby groups promoting "child transgenderism," the Human Righs Campaign* says:

"From the time she was two years old, Jazz [Jennings] knew that she had a girl's brain in a boy's body. She loved pink and dressing up as a mermaid."

Here's young Jazz reciting for the camera the clearly-scripted, rehearsed line that since early childhood Jazz has been regurgitating on command for adult attention, applause, acclaim and "gender affirmation" like a trained seal performing a ball trick:

If it were really true that people who identify as trans, particularly the children, do have scientically-proven brain differences that can be seen on scans or found through some other kind of objective medical testing, then it would make sense for brain imaging and other medical testing to be done as part of the standard workup when they're taken to clinicians to be evaluated for a formal diagnosis of childhood-onset "gender dysphoria" (previously called "gender identity disorder").

So how do you explain the fact that no brain imaging nor any other kind of objective medical testing is done on any of these kids before the adults in their lives diagnose them with GD/GID, officially pronounce them "trans," and start "transitioning" them?

The sad truth is, no medical testing nor any broad, thorough psychological inquiries, investigations and evaluations are conducted when these kids are seen by the "gender specialists" who diagnose them as having "wrong brains" for their bodies. Most of these kids are diagnosed as having GD/GI and deemed to be trans after only one or a couple of sessions with a therapist.

Indeed, quite a few parents of so-called "trans kids" from Anglophone countries whose "childhood transtion" stories have gotten big play in the press say that the gender specialists they took their child to pronounced their little one "trans" within the first 15 minutes.

For example, in the press accounts about Trinity Neal of Delaware, USA, Trinity's mother DeShanna Neal said after she "located one of the few gender therapists in Delaware who would agree to evaluate a four-year-old," the therapist " immediately diagnosed" four-year old Trinity with "gender identity disorder" at the start of the first visit. During the second visit, the the gender therapist told Trinity's mom that if Trinity wasn't transitioned, the preschooler would commit suicide, asking the rhetorical question that "gender therapists" routinely put to worried parents in order to guilt-trip them into transitioning their children: "Do you want a happy little girl or a dead little boy?"

If it were really true that these kids were born with, or soon develop, marked brain differences that set them apart from the so-called "cis" population, then why aren't brain scans done on them to verify and document this remarkable fact about them at least when they reach the age when their clinicians and parents decide it's time to put them on "puberty blockers" and cross-sex hormones?

Wouldn't it make sense for the medical doctors who treat so-called trans kids to have these kids get an MRI brain scan - a procedure that takes 30 minutes to an hour - just to be absolutely certain that they've been properly diagnosed and really do have "trans brains" before subjecting them to medical interventions that have irreversible effects, many of them negative, that they'll have to cope with the rest of their lives?

I look forward to you filling us in on why scans of these kids showing that they really do have brains of the opposite sex are never done.

Good for her. I'm supportive of trans people and feel they should live their lives as their gender identity without interference.

I completely agree with you here. I am a girl, who was born as a girl, and I compete in Track in Field at my school (Which is in California by the way because apparently so many people on this thread seem to think that's important). I fully support trans rights, I think they have every right to exist and that they can live their lives doing whatever makes them happy. I could care less about what gender or sex you are/used to be. But it is very hard to reconcile that belief when there are unavoidable advantages given to people born as a male in running.It simply isn't fair to have a person with those advantages competing in women's sports when those advantages contribute significantly to their athletic excellence.

I'm not entirely sure what the solution is, because I think forcing trans athletes to run as their assigned birth sex is definitely not the solution. It is very difficult to enforce, and could potentially out trans kids to peers which may not be what the want. And I have no clue how it would be enforced without being excessively creepy towards kids (like do you enforce a check of their genitals?). I think there is a solution out there, I just don't know exactly what it is yet. The best idea I've come up with is instead of separating sports by gender, separating them by athletic ability, like having multiple categories determined by a recorded PR or something, but that also has significant flaws, and I don't think that's the answer either.

I have full confidence we'll eventually figure it out though.

Your daughter is also slow as molasses, quit your whining.

The answer is obvious. You’re born with a penis, you run in the men’s race. Also, no one is under any delusions about trans people, it would not take this policy to “out” them. If a person with a penis is in the women’s locker room, they will already be “outed” you can trust me on that.

The best solution is the one already in front of you. Biological sex. One idea is having a female category and an Open category where trans can compete, so the female category is protected.

Studies show that differences in athletic ability appear between boys and girls before kindergarten age. Its a statistical fact.

Having sex based protections also affords you, as a young woman, many of the rights you have today, that you may or may not take for granted.

ok here's the solution: if a trans kid can pass the eye test let them run

eye test meaning: nobody can tell they are actually a boy when seeing them walk, run or speak

For a variety reasons a lack of single sex sports, facilities, privacy and safety for biological girls further perpetuates inequality for women.

For example when girls are participating in co-ed sports, they have more negative outcomes than single sex activities.

kidsnews.com.au

Girls more active in PE without boys

Susie O’Brien

READING LEVEL: ORANGE

Link:www.kidsnews.com.au/sport/sporting-cha...

Yes, it’s a struggle to know what to do. I happen to know if a young trans girl running right now in xc in California too. She’s pretty good, but not great. She places highly in league meets. She transitioned long ago, so nobody knows except her family and maybe a very close friend or two. I doubt her coaches even know. Is this fair or not? If it’s not fair how would it be stopped? You’d have to start doing very invasive things to enforce a rule banning her. People pick on the trans kids they know about, but there are many trans people of the community and nobody knows.

It's not fair, and enforcement is currently difficult in such an instance. It's also unfair that a minor was subject to extreme, irreversible body modifications before they were old enough to truly understand the ramifications.

So you want to segregate trans athletes?

Can you guys share some sources showing why you think the WADA testosterone limit for women is set at the two different levels you say?

Normal T range for adult females is 0.2-1.68 nmol/L. If you add in those with PCOS and who are pregnant, the top end of the range is higher.

Still, World Athletics says nearly all females have a T level under 2.44 nmol/L. WA usually cites 1.68 nmol/L as the top end of the normal range for elite female track & field athletes. WA's rule that athletes have to have T under 2.5 nmol/L is specifically for XY DSD athletes with testes competing in the women's category.

But the limits that WADA/USADA use to flag female athletes for further investigation are another matter. From the Shelby Houlishan case, I got the impression that female athletes tested by USADA are flagged for further investigation if they're found to have T levels at or above 1.7 nmol/L.

But I haven't been able to find the actual limit that anti-doping officials at WADA or USADA regard as the top end of normal for female athletes spelled out in print in any WADA or USADA documents/regulations. If either of you can point me to where that info is, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks.