No. I will also let prepuberty kids to play in whichever category they choose. And I don't care if a 10 yr old trans girl has advantage over her peers. Youth sports at that stage should be about learning skills and improving fitness rather than winning and losing. They can start worrying about winning and losing later on.
1) I don't agree with the fiction that there's such a thing as a '10 year old trans girl'. At that stage it's just a kid who may (or indeed may not) have gender dysphoria that- much more often than not- desists. Particularly when they are allowed to go through a normal puberty.
2) What you're creating is a system where boys can compete fairly throughout childhood and girls cannot. You might not care about who wins or loses in school sport, but I can guarantee you that the kids do. I've seen many well-meaning "this isn't a race" or "we're not counting scores for this game" kids sports interventions and guess what- the kids know exactly who has won. Winning at school/interschool competition is literally the most common experience in elite athletes' origin stories. Would today's great sporting women have persisted in sport if they kept losing to average males throughout their childhood? Utterly demoralising.
You also didn't answer the question- obviously pre-puberty kids aren't on puberty blockers or cross sex hormones. What about those who are at puberty age- are you only allowing those on cross sex hormones or blockers to compete in their chosen category like your previous post alluded to?
1) So you are another science denier. Your claim has been debunked repeatedly by empirical data. But you cling onto your religion.
2) Emphasizing the competition at an early age is not healthy in the long term development of athletes. Norway has a better idea.
3) After puberty, only trans female with sufficient medical intervention should be allowed to compete in female sports. This should be regulated by sports governing bodies, and not by Big Brother government. Trans activists should focus on making gender affirming care more available, instead of fighting the sports eligibility rule.
Get rid of categories. Women are done in the NCAA. Title IX is effectively gone. Crazy that the left was credited with the movement to help women and them credited with the movement to crush women.
So let's say we allow kids to compete in whichever boys/girls sport they choose, but don't allow adults. At what point do we draw the line and say: After this age you need to compete as your sex, not your chosen gender. No matter where you put that line it's going to be a flashpoint for controversy. Forcing a kid switch teams when they're 13-18 isn't going to go over well.
You have just made a perfect case against HR734 and all the other bills that 21 states have passed.
Anyone who is currently on the girls' team should not be forced to switch teams, right?
1) So you are another science denier. Your claim has been debunked repeatedly by empirical data. But you cling onto your religion.
What on earth are you talking about? I linked the empirical data that shows 88% of 'trans girls' grow out of it and desist by adulthood. Are you suggesting that the studies are all wrong and that they are all in fact 'trans'? Gender ideology is a religion in all but name, founded in anti-biology that suggests we all have a gendered 'soul' that lives independently from material reality. The only thing that has been 'debunked' in the last few days is the affirmative model for gender dysphoric youth, as more and more European countries are ditching it as empirically 'bad science'. Your beloved Norway looks to be the next country to end the affirmative model and not a moment too soon. But do keep drinking the kool-aid; I'm sure you won't be embarrassed in years to come by supporting a religion that sterilises, mutilates, and castrates kids before they can even comprehend what they're agreeing to.
No. I will also let prepuberty kids to play in whichever category they choose. And I don't care if a 10 yr old trans girl has advantage over her peers. Youth sports at that stage should be about learning skills and improving fitness rather than winning and losing. They can start worrying about winning and losing later on.
You don't have kids, do you? The physical difference between a 10 year old boy and 10 year old (generally) is staggering. Kids at that age aren't ignorant. They'll all know that something isn't right even without parents telling them. So, having a 10-year old trans girl running in the same races, playing in the same leagues, will discourage these kids you pretend to care about. Winning and losing shouldn't be the priority, but when there is no chance of winning because of what seems to be unfair, then exactly how to you get these kids to want to be better through improved skills and fitness? No matter how hard they practice, or train, they will never be as fast or as strong as that 10 year old trans girl.
And we haven't even talked about safety. In contact sports how can you justify having a trans girl match up with other girls of the same age group? The physical advantage is dangerous.
Sick of these types of issues being framed as an all or nothing. I am 100% for trans rights. They can be who they want. That's their business. But their rights cannot supersede the rights of everyone else.
USA Swimming boys record for 10 & under: 53,12, 58.62, 1:06.95, 58:36 (100 yd fr, ba, br, and fly)
USA Swimming girls records for 10 & under: 54.89, 57.96, 1:07.30, 59.67.
1.77, 1.34, 0.45, and 1.31 over 100 yd. Is this difference "staggering"?
Exactly; I think it needs to be a consistent sex-based division regardless of age.
Agreed. There was just a very interesting Science of Sport podcast about identifying young sporting talent. The takeaway is youth talent is obfuscated by who grows first, and talent selected at 10-12yo has ~25% chance of being selected at 18yo, marginally above the random selection rate. Basically at any age (lets say 13) some kids are functionally equivalent to an average 17yo, some more like a 10yo. To assess their future athletic ability at this point is far from ideal.
Allowing fun, non-competitve sports for young ages is actually shown to be more effective at generating adult talent than specialization and competition at an early age, thought to be from keeping more kids in sport for longer, until they all get past growth spurts. Important to know that the kids aren't dumb and still know who's winning, but without the quantification of wins/losses there is less impetus to stratify the teams to generate more wins. When kids are having fun in sport they are more likely to stay in sport.
You could probably argue this both ways, but allowing boys to compete in girls sports doesn't seem to be a net positive. The boy will have a rude awakening when forced to change to the boys team, and the girls will eventually be outmatched by the boy.
I'm in favor of the policy that gets the most kids involved in sport. Ostracizing half of the girls team to include 1 boy doesn't seems like a net loss for number of kids in sport.
You have just made a perfect case for mixed gender sports for prepuberty kids.
And if we want more kids involved in sports, we shouldn't ban anyone because of their gender identity.
1) So you are another science denier. Your claim has been debunked repeatedly by empirical data. But you cling onto your religion.
What on earth are you talking about? I linked the empirical data that shows 88% of 'trans girls' grow out of it and desist by adulthood. Are you suggesting that the studies are all wrong and that they are all in fact 'trans'? Gender ideology is a religion in all but name, founded in anti-biology that suggests we all have a gendered 'soul' that lives independently from material reality. The only thing that has been 'debunked' in the last few days is the affirmative model for gender dysphoric youth, as more and more European countries are ditching it as empirically 'bad science'. Your beloved Norway looks to be the next country to end the affirmative model and not a moment too soon. But do keep drinking the kool-aid; I'm sure you won't be embarrassed in years to come by supporting a religion that sterilises, mutilates, and castrates kids before they can even comprehend what they're agreeing to.
Background: Desistance is a concept that has been poorly defined in the literature, yet greatly impacts the arguments for and against providing gender-affirming care for transgender and gender expansive (TGE) youth. This lite...
What on earth are you talking about? I linked the empirical data that shows 88% of 'trans girls' grow out of it and desist by adulthood. Are you suggesting that the studies are all wrong and that they are all in fact 'trans'? Gender ideology is a religion in all but name, founded in anti-biology that suggests we all have a gendered 'soul' that lives independently from material reality. The only thing that has been 'debunked' in the last few days is the affirmative model for gender dysphoric youth, as more and more European countries are ditching it as empirically 'bad science'. Your beloved Norway looks to be the next country to end the affirmative model and not a moment too soon. But do keep drinking the kool-aid; I'm sure you won't be embarrassed in years to come by supporting a religion that sterilises, mutilates, and castrates kids before they can even comprehend what they're agreeing to.
That's your response?? That is genuinely hilarious. The very best retort you can come back with is essentially an opinion piece asking people to stop using the term 'desisters' written by this guy who defines himself as 'genderqueer/trans femme':
Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHa) are recommended as initial treatment for adolescents diagnosed with gender dysphoria, providing time to follow gender identity development and consider further treatment wishes...
These results suggest that retransitions are infrequent. More commonly, transgender youth who socially transitioned at early ages continued to identify that way. Nonetheless, understanding retransitions is crucial for clinici...
The number of people with gender identity issues seeking professional help increased dramatically in recent decades. The percentage of people who regretted gonadectomy remained small and did not show a tendency to increase. W...
The number of people with gender identity issues seeking professional help increased dramatically in recent decades. The percentage of people who regretted gonadectomy remained small and did not show a tendency to increase. W...
The number of people with gender identity issues seeking professional help increased dramatically in recent decades. The percentage of people who regretted gonadectomy remained small and did not show a tendency to increase. W...
Kelley Winters, Ph.D In followup to the excellent WPATH Standards of Care, Version 8, meeting at the USPATH conference in February, I would like to re-share my presentation from the 2…
RunRagged, it is so much fun to watch you running yourself ragged in circles since I have provided you with evidence in a peer-reviewed journal that hip bone geometry is impacted by transitioning in early puberty
You have said absolutely nothing to refute the findings in the article that clearly demonstrated that hip bone geometry is altered by transitioning in early puberty.
What's your actual point here? That one study finds a slight change in hip bone development after you pump non-consenting kids full of hormones? A study that warns its readers "results should be interpreted with caution" because "it was not possible to compare absolute values directly" because they used different bone scanning devices from the reference studies? How does any of this make it fair for biological males to compete with females? Are we going to transplant wombs into prepubescent children too to more 'closely resemble' (note they didn't use the word 'match') their chosen gender?
The point made by this study is blatantly obvious to anyone with a functioning brain. Hip bone geometry is not "slightly altered" as you claim, but matches the target reference dimensions of females. I didn't make any comments in any of my posts about whether or not early transition is morally good or bad, or even beneficial or not beneficial to the mental health of those who transition in early puberty. The fact that you describe early transition as "pumping non-consenting kids full of hormones" demonstrates you have an anti-trans agenda and will discount any evidence that goes against your pre-conceived notions.
Are you familiar with the term gish gallop? You're a master of it. I clicked on one link and it had sweet F.A to do with youth desistance so I'm not going to bother with the others in your most recent gish galloping attack. Enjoy your religion, bye!
Objective To examine associations between recalled access to gender-affirming hormones (GAH) during adolescence and mental health outcomes among transgender adults in the U.S. Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of the...
RunRagged, it is so much fun to watch you running yourself ragged in circles since I have provided you with evidence in a peer-reviewed journal that hip bone geometry is impacted by transitioning in early puberty
You have said absolutely nothing to refute the findings in the article that clearly demonstrated that hip bone geometry is altered by transitioning in early puberty. All you did was rant and rave about the fact that this article did not look at the entire human skeletal structure. I already posted an earlier response to you about this, but since you brought up Jazz Jennings again, I figured I would respond to this. Jazz Jennings is one of the only public figures that I know who transitioned early enough to avoid male puberty and instead took hormones and puberty blockers in order to get her hormone levels in the female range during puberty. It is obvious from looking at pictures of her that no one would ever have reason to assume she is trans. This is clearly not the case for many MTFs who transition later in life. Jazz Jennings also has two male siblings. While I do not have access to her medical records, nor have I measured her skeletal structure, there are in fact numerous photos of her with her male siblings
Notice how she is significantly shorter than both of her male siblings? In fact, I believe she is only 5'2. It is also clear (although again, I do not have actual measurements) that she has a female pelvic structure and q angle. Anyone familiar with these differences can visually see that she does not have male skeletal structure. Again, this is not definitive proof, but it is quite evident that her skeletal structure was in fact altered, and that she did not have the corresponding growth in height and strength that her male siblings had.
Jazz Jennings is one person, though. And one person from a family of males whose height is on the shortish side. If you look at photos of Jazz as a little kid, Jazz was always small - and before Jazz became a teen, Jazz was slight too.
(Despite that, Jazz says that when it came to sports growing up, "I was always the best player on every team" Jazz competed with and against. Because since the time Jazz was a little boy, Jazz's parents used lawsuits or threats of legal action to insure that Jazz always got to play on girls' sports teams.)
But back to height: As the JECM paper I just posted says, a study of 161 males other than Jazz Jennings who had the same hormone intereventions as Jazz did growing up found that they all ended up with the normal male-typical adult heights they probably would have reached if they had been allowed to develop naturally.
BTW, amongst male trans-identified public figures known to have "medically transitioned" as young as Jazz using the same regimen of drugs that Jazz was on, several individuals stand out as much taller than most women - and far, far taller than the average woman. Head and shoulders above.
For example, Jackie Green, the Brit whose story of "early medical transition" inspired the television series "Butterfly," appears to be at least 6' tall. Nikkie de Jager is 6'3, though to some people de Jager looks taller than that.
Just look at how much de Jager towers over Ellen Degeneres. Look at how much bigger de Jager is compared to Ellen in all aspects beyond height - such as the size of their heads - too. If the two of them got into a fistfight or wrestling match, who do you think would win?
I'll be honest, I feel like even arguing with people over heights, weights, hip width, shoulder ratios, whatever else, is just playing their game. The transwomen-in-women's-sports brigade is being given too much in the way of concessions by even arguing small details like that with them, because it makes it seem like if they could just find enough examples of little transwomen, they could win the debate. We should just say, "sports are separated by sex, period, end of story, thanks for playing."
Get rid of categories. Women are done in the NCAA. Title IX is effectively gone. Crazy that the left was credited with the movement to help women and them credited with the movement to crush women.
The left fought for the rights of women at one point, now they can't even define what a woman is.
But the larger point is that there is nobody alive who can tell me what is a fair or unfair advantage. Some have tried in this thread and they are embarrassing themselves.
Truth. Notions of fairness are highly individual, and it’s funny to see people taking other people’s perceived logic to their supposed logical strawman extremes simply for the sake of ridiculing them instead of taking the time to understand the other person’s prioritized set of principles, how their opinions on the topic derive from those principles, and identify points of disagreement therein (but that approach of civil discourse would be a much shorter and less funny interaction than this free-for-all cesspool).
But the larger point is that there is nobody alive who can tell me what is a fair or unfair advantage. Some have tried in this thread and they are embarrassing themselves.
Truth. Notions of fairness are highly individual, and it’s funny to see people taking other people’s perceived logic to their supposed logical strawman extremes simply for the sake of ridiculing them instead of taking the time to understand the other person’s prioritized set of principles, how their opinions on the topic derive from those principles, and identify points of disagreement therein (but that approach of civil discourse would be a much shorter and less funny interaction than this free-for-all cesspool).
These details are not relevant. Men should not compete in women's sports. Those are the rules. That's why we call them women's sports. Transwomen are men who identify as women.
These details are not relevant. Men should not compete in women's sports. Those are the rules. That's why we call them women's sports. Transwomen are men who identify as women.
Was it okay for this person to compete in women's sports?
1) So you are another science denier. Your claim has been debunked repeatedly by empirical data. But you cling onto your religion.
What on earth are you talking about? I linked the empirical data that shows 88% of 'trans girls' grow out of it and desist by adulthood. Are you suggesting that the studies are all wrong and that they are all in fact 'trans'? Gender ideology is a religion in all but name, founded in anti-biology that suggests we all have a gendered 'soul' that lives independently from material reality. The only thing that has been 'debunked' in the last few days is the affirmative model for gender dysphoric youth, as more and more European countries are ditching it as empirically 'bad science'. Your beloved Norway looks to be the next country to end the affirmative model and not a moment too soon. But do keep drinking the kool-aid; I'm sure you won't be embarrassed in years to come by supporting a religion that sterilises, mutilates, and castrates kids before they can even comprehend what they're agreeing to.
You know, I realized reading this that "90% desist" is so obviously wrong that basic arithmetic can disprove it. (OK, you need a bit of data too.)
At least 1% of young adults (Millennials and 18+ Gen Z) identify as transgender. This is pretty well-known, but here's one source: (1% for Millennials, who were all at least 25 at the time of this survey; higher for Gen Z).
The percentage of U.S. adults who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender has increased to 7.1%. This is driven by high LGBT self-identification, particularly as bisexual, among Generation Z adults.
You're telling me this is *after* 90% desistance? That 10% of Millennials and older Gen Z thought they were transgender pre-puberty, say 10-15 years ago? No chance. (Even if half of trans adults only realized it during/after puberty, 5% thinking they were trans pre-puberty sounds far too high.) Besides, in all the anti-trans discourse that is everywhere online these days, you don't see numbers of people matching that saying "I thought I was trans, felt very wrong about being male/female and everything, but that went away after puberty." You don't see much of that at all (not zero, but not much).
What you do see is a lot of women saying "I was such a tomboy back then" (fewer men say this the other way around, since being into "girl things" as a boy is and has been less accepted than being into "boy things" as a girl). That, as it happens, is consistent with what I've seen a lot of people say about that 90% figure (haven't read the study and have other things to do now): that you can only get there by counting every instance of a "gender-non-conforming cis child who never actually expressed dysphoria...and grew up to be a cis adult" as a "trans child who desisted."
