This is like saying that "purple" is not a real color because it is mixture of blue and red.
Endosex supremacy in clear exhibit.
Except gametes aren't colours are they 🤦♂️. When you mash sperm and eggs together you don't get a new type of gamete, you get an embryo. Unless you've discovered a third gamete and can enlighten us all? A sperg? A spegg?
Noone is claiming that blue and red are binary singular colours so it's an asinine comparison. Anyone can insincerely compare a binary with a spectrum and claim it creates a paradox. Look, I can do it too: "You're saying a lightbulb can't be on and off at the same time?! What about two bulbs in one light fixture where one is off and one is on? That's like saying green isn't a real colour because it's a mixture of blue and yellow."
Boy, it sure is easy to argue from an intellectually dishonest place.
No one is saying gametes are not binary. They are binary, but sex is not.
When one bulb is on and the other bulb is off, you cannot say "all the bulbs are on" or "all the bulbs are off" as if those were the only possibilities.
This had me thinking. I am someone who believes that it is unfair for trans women to compete against cis women. I am also someone for whom this issue is not something that keeps me up at night.
I wouldn't drop out just because there are trans women racing. At the same time, because this is the Boston marathon, aren't trans women taking away spots from cis women?
If this were another marathon I wouldn't care in the slightest.
I feel bad for a random unknown participant getting lit up by the running community on social media. Whether it's JK Rowling or Nikki, I don't like it when people with platforms do this to others.
On the other hand you have to remember that 80% of people agree that trans women have an unfair advantage in sports to cis women. Maybe don't push the many liberal folk who agree by saying stupid things like "men in women's category"? They are trans women. We don't have to call them men to acknowledge the lack of fairness.
I think it's unfair for trans women to complete against cis women in high level competitive sports. If this post was about trans women in the elite field at Boston, maybe that would be more of an issue. But it really does not matter at all if there's a handful of trans women running out of the 30,000 people in the Boston marathon. It's a mass participation event where you're really competing against yourself. It doesn't matter if you get 5,137th or 5,138th overall.
Everything is a balance of inclusion vs fairness. Boston has generally landed on the side of inclusion, trying to get larger fields of women by having a proportionally easier qualifying time than for men. I guarantee far more people got into Boston via doping than from transitioning as trans women, let alone the flying downhill courses.
Trans women running Boston aren't trying to get an unfair advantage over anyone, they're just trying to do the hobby that all of us here do and enjoy, presenting themselves as who they feel they are.
I wonder how Nikki would feel if Hocker decided to let his hair down and race the women’s field.
You realize that according to current World Athletics rules, Hocker would never be eligible to compete in the women's category at the elite level because only MTFs who transitioned before the age of 12 would be eligible. Furthermore, even according to earlier regulations, he would still need to take testosterone suppressants and estrogen for 2 years before competing against women. I would imagine that in addition to the steep drop off in physical strength and endurance, the psychological impact of taking estrogen and growing breasts and hips would also be incredibly distressing to a man who is not trans.
Try running a story about this behavior in NYT, Washington Post, etc.
Here's how it works: people with factual stories that trouble current orthodoxy attempt to bring their stories to media considered mainstream and legitimate. They get turned down for bogus reasons. They finally decide to talk to more fringe media sources or conservative media sources. People accuse them of lying and lacking credibility.
Except gametes aren't colours are they 🤦♂️. When you mash sperm and eggs together you don't get a new type of gamete, you get an embryo. Unless you've discovered a third gamete and can enlighten us all? A sperg? A spegg?
Noone is claiming that blue and red are binary singular colours so it's an asinine comparison. Anyone can insincerely compare a binary with a spectrum and claim it creates a paradox. Look, I can do it too: "You're saying a lightbulb can't be on and off at the same time?! What about two bulbs in one light fixture where one is off and one is on? That's like saying green isn't a real colour because it's a mixture of blue and yellow."
Boy, it sure is easy to argue from an intellectually dishonest place.
No one is saying gametes are not binary. They are binary, but sex is not.
Biology, reality and even your beloved Wikipedia- by definition the most consensus-driven source on planet earth- disagree with you: "Sex is the biological trait that determines whether a sexually reproducing organism produces male or female gametes." So binary it hurts.
I wonder how Nikki would feel if Hocker decided to let his hair down and race the women’s field.
You realize that according to current World Athletics rules, Hocker would never be eligible to compete in the women's category at the elite level because only MTFs who transitioned before the age of 12 would be eligible. Furthermore, even according to earlier regulations, he would still need to take testosterone suppressants and estrogen for 2 years before competing against women. I would imagine that in addition to the steep drop off in physical strength and endurance, the psychological impact of taking estrogen and growing breasts and hips would also be incredibly distressing to a man who is not trans.
The part that I've bolded isn't true.
No IAAF/World Athletics' policy has ever stipulated that male athletes with a trans gender identity need to take estrogen to gain eligibility to compete in women's track & field. Much less that they need to take estrogen for 2 years.
The IAAF’s transgender inclusion policy that went into force in October 2019 said the only physical criteria that males with a trans gender identity had to meet in order to compete in women’s track & field was a serum testosterone level under 5 nmol/L for 12 months.
The tightened-up “Eligibility Regulations for Transgender Athletes” that WA adopted in March 2023, and which are still in place (albeit probably not for much longer), are solely based on the testosterone levels that male athletes with a trans gender identity have had since the start of adolescence and they continue to have now and in the future.
The 2023 policy says:
To be eligible to compete in the female classification at a World Rankings Competition and to have recognised any World Record performance in the female classification at a competition that is not a World Rankings Competition,
males with an opposite-sex gender identity
must provide a written and signed declaration, in a form satisfactory to the [World Athletics'] Medical Manager, that their gender identity is female.
And they also "must provide" records of regular blood tests and laboratory analysis “conducted by means of liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry” which show that
They not have experienced any part of male puberty [of adolescence] either beyond Tanner Stage 2 or after age 12 (whichever comes first)
And which further show that since then, they have continuously maintained a serum testosterone in their serum below 2.5 nmol/L
And
They are continuing to maintain the concentration of testosterone in their serum below 2.5 nmol/L at all times (i.e., whether they are in competition or out of competition) for so long as they wish to retain eligibility to compete in the female classification
But there's no stipulation in the WA rules that male athletes with a trans gender identity seeking to compete in women's events need to have taken estrogen in the past, or they need to take estrogen or any other exogenous hormones now and going forward.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
No one is saying gametes are not binary. They are binary, but sex is not.
Biology, reality and even your beloved Wikipedia- by definition the most consensus-driven source on planet earth- disagree with you: "Sex is the biological trait that determines whether a sexually reproducing organism produces male or female gametes." So binary it hurts.
"Neither" is also an option (and that's what many people get without any medical intervention). In many species, both.
But then it wouldn't matter to you and your kind if biotechnology did advance to the point of giving trans women the ability to produce eggs and trans men the ability to produce sperm, and non-binary people both just for funsies, as it has already given all of them the ability to modify their primary and secondary sex characteristics through hormone replacement therapy and various surgeries.
Anti-trans ideologues would have some other reason why trans people should be ostracized from society. The goal is dehumanization by any means available, and everything else is an excuse.
Biology, reality and even your beloved Wikipedia- by definition the most consensus-driven source on planet earth- disagree with you: "Sex is the biological trait that determines whether a sexually reproducing organism produces male or female gametes." So binary it hurts.
"Neither" is also an option (and that's what many people get without any medical intervention). In many species, both.
But then it wouldn't matter to you and your kind if biotechnology did advance to the point of giving trans women the ability to produce eggs and trans men the ability to produce sperm, and non-binary people both just for funsies, as it has already given all of them the ability to modify their primary and secondary sex characteristics through hormone replacement therapy and various surgeries.
Anti-trans ideologues would have some other reason why trans people should be ostracized from society. The goal is dehumanization by any means available, and everything else is an excuse.
Maybe the people who disagree with you oppose the trans religion. It's fascinating that you write "dehumanization by any means available" when, in fact, you are advocating for extreme technological interventions into the human body and arguing that people's very humanity depends on this. The belief that human bodies are deficient without re-engineering is profoundly anti-human.
PS: you're not "replacing" horomones if your're attempting to simulate the other sex with pharmaceuticals. So many Orwellian language games!
"Neither" is also an option (and that's what many people get without any medical intervention). In many species, both.
But then it wouldn't matter to you and your kind if biotechnology did advance to the point of giving trans women the ability to produce eggs and trans men the ability to produce sperm, and non-binary people both just for funsies, as it has already given all of them the ability to modify their primary and secondary sex characteristics through hormone replacement therapy and various surgeries.
Anti-trans ideologues would have some other reason why trans people should be ostracized from society. The goal is dehumanization by any means available, and everything else is an excuse.
Maybe the people who disagree with you oppose the trans religion. It's fascinating that you write "dehumanization by any means available" when, in fact, you are advocating for extreme technological interventions into the human body and arguing that people's very humanity depends on this. The belief that human bodies are deficient without re-engineering is profoundly anti-human.
PS: you're not "replacing" horomones if your're attempting to simulate the other sex with pharmaceuticals. So many Orwellian language games!
Did you help write that paper that came out of HHS today?
Maybe the people who disagree with you oppose the trans religion. It's fascinating that you write "dehumanization by any means available" when, in fact, you are advocating for extreme technological interventions into the human body and arguing that people's very humanity depends on this. The belief that human bodies are deficient without re-engineering is profoundly anti-human.
PS: you're not "replacing" horomones if your're attempting to simulate the other sex with pharmaceuticals. So many Orwellian language games!
Did you help write that paper that came out of HHS today?
Go away Nikki. You are so freakin annoying. Just because you want others to live in your delusional fantasy world doesn’t make them wrong. Trans women are failed male athletes. And no, I’m not transphobic. I don’t fear them. If they want to live that life that’s fine. Do not intrude on women’s sports though. And Nikki, you are not a they. That’s impossible. You are a young woman that is a lesbian. No big deal. Accept yourself just how you are and stop all of this bs.
Ever heard of legion from marvel comics he is a "them"
"Neither" is also an option (and that's what many people get without any medical intervention). In many species, both.
Actually laughing out loud as you use the words 'neither' and 'both' to disprove the sex binary. Two words that categorically refer to the presence of two and only two subjects. At least say 'none' and 'all' if you're going to say the options aren't binary 😂
I think it's unfair for trans women to complete against cis women in high level competitive sports. If this post was about trans women in the elite field at Boston, maybe that would be more of an issue. But it really does not matter at all if there's a handful of trans women running out of the 30,000 people in the Boston marathon. It's a mass participation event where you're really competing against yourself. It doesn't matter if you get 5,137th or 5,138th overall.
Everything is a balance of inclusion vs fairness. Boston has generally landed on the side of inclusion, trying to get larger fields of women by having a proportionally easier qualifying time than for men. I guarantee far more people got into Boston via doping than from transitioning as trans women, let alone the flying downhill courses.
Trans women running Boston aren't trying to get an unfair advantage over anyone, they're just trying to do the hobby that all of us here do and enjoy, presenting themselves as who they feel they are.
I mean, that's a nice thought, but tell that to the women who did not make it in to the Boston marathon, while those transwomen got a place. That's not fair. Many people consider "getting into" the Boston Marathon a lifetime achievement. Why do the feelings of the transwomen matter more than the feelings of disappointed women who didn't make it in because of them?
Well, fortunately for me, I don't have to rely on Washington Post to evaluate the quality of research. That's yet another example of flawed logic--appeal to authority, just as dismissing NY Post is attacking the source rather than the veracity of the claims made. Either the study design, data analysis techniques, and results interpretation are rigorous and appropriate or they're not.
In addition to the very poor quality of evidence on puberty blockers and youth gender transition (noted by Cass in the report), the notion that we ought to give puberty blockers for gender distress is flawed from the get-go, and we don't need a study to prove it. It involves taking a child with a healthy and functioning endocrine system, prescribing an endocrine disruptor, and not knowing the longterm consequences. If the child proceeds to cross-sex hormones, they will have never undergone puberty. Again, nobody has any idea what the consequences of it are. Unfortunately, ideological blindness makes people blind to the fact that they are carrying out a dangerous experiment on vulnerable people who have not yet reached the developmental stage necessary to make this decision.
"Neither" is also an option (and that's what many people get without any medical intervention). In many species, both.
But then it wouldn't matter to you and your kind if biotechnology did advance to the point of giving trans women the ability to produce eggs and trans men the ability to produce sperm, and non-binary people both just for funsies, as it has already given all of them the ability to modify their primary and secondary sex characteristics through hormone replacement therapy and various surgeries.
Anti-trans ideologues would have some other reason why trans people should be ostracized from society. The goal is dehumanization by any means available, and everything else is an excuse.
Maybe the people who disagree with you oppose the trans religion. It's fascinating that you write "dehumanization by any means available" when, in fact, you are advocating for extreme technological interventions into the human body and arguing that people's very humanity depends on this. The belief that human bodies are deficient without re-engineering is profoundly anti-human.
PS: you're not "replacing" horomones if your're attempting to simulate the other sex with pharmaceuticals. So many Orwellian language games!
We live in a world of synthetic insulin replacement, heart bypasses, and a lot of other technological interventions to make people's lives better, and which are also significantly newer than trans people medically transitioning in a modern sense, which goes back to before the Nazis burned the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft's library in an iconic book-burning photo that you and your kind wish you could recreate.
"Science is a religion that I just don't have enough faith to believe in" is very popular among creationists and other religious fundamentalists. They're reliable enemies of freedom, knowledge, and human progress. That's the company you keep.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
Reason provided:
typo
We live in a world of synthetic insulin replacement, heart bypasses, and a lot of other technological interventions to make people's lives better,
As evidence you've used physical disorders; the treatment for which is aimed at healing the physical ailment and improving the individual's health. A heart bypass for someone with heart disease ought to improve their health and life expectancy. However, all of the available evidence suggests that dosing up on cross-sex hormones, surgical castrations/mastectomies and grafting arm flesh on to crotches results in lower life expectancies, increased disease risk, near universal incontinence, and- crucially- no evidence for improved long term mental health either. You'd have been better off using lobotomies as your example.
We live in a world of synthetic insulin replacement, heart bypasses, and a lot of other technological interventions to make people's lives better,
As evidence you've used physical disorders; the treatment for which is aimed at healing the physical ailment and improving the individual's health. A heart bypass for someone with heart disease ought to improve their health and life expectancy. However, all of the available evidence suggests that dosing up on cross-sex hormones, surgical castrations/mastectomies and grafting arm flesh on to crotches results in lower life expectancies, increased disease risk, near universal incontinence, and- crucially- no evidence for improved long term mental health either. You'd have been better off using lobotomies as your example.
I don't have anything to add from my past refutation of this vicious and false comparison to lobotomies. It was nonsense then and it's nonsense now.
