We have merged two threads on this topic into 1 and kept the title of the longer thread. The other thread was called, "Adeline Johnson, high school senior, misses state due to biological male taking the last spot in California."
What in God’s green earth does 2020 have to do with boys competing as girls against real girls in track races? I said nothing about democracy not working. Only about a tiny fraction of the population trying to turn their plight into some sort of social litmus test in which you either agree with them and turn off your brain to reality, or are derided as a transphobe or a bigot for having the gall to point out that what is terribly unfair is terribly unfair. The ad hominem attacks don’t change reality and it simply does not make you a morally superior person to champion feelings over fairness.
What in God’s green earth does 2020 have to do with boys competing as girls against real girls in track races? I said nothing about democracy not working. Only about a tiny fraction of the population trying to turn their plight into some sort of social litmus test in which you either agree with them and turn off your brain to reality, or are derided as a transphobe or a bigot for having the gall to point out that what is terribly unfair is terribly unfair. The ad hominem attacks don’t change reality and it simply does not make you a morally superior person to champion feelings over fairness.
Learn to understand the difference between a point and an example. If you are butt hurt at the mention of 2020, ignore that example. There are many many other examples of the point.
The point is in a functioning democracy, it is not possible for 0.2% of the population to control and instill fear in everyone else like you claimed. If you don’t get it, I can’t really care anymore.
Only about a tiny fraction of the population trying to turn their plight into some sort of social litmus test in which you either agree with them and turn off your brain to reality, or are derided as a transphobe or a bigot for having the gall to point out that what is terribly unfair is terribly unfair.
You make it sound like that’s easy to do. Why don’t you retaliate with the same strategy? Just start canceling everyone who makes transfriendly speech, easy peasy. Oh wait, you lack the education, power, wealth, oratory, or any other form of influence to win the sociocultural discourse.
These experiments on the bodies of children only started quite recently, so there simply hasn't been enough time to establish a full picture of all the consequences the patients will see throughout the rest of their lives.
But you could start by having a look at why the Swedish National Board of Health - and similar institutions in several other countries - have begun reversing their recommendations in this area.
So if you think 25 years ago is "quite recently", how long does it take for a medical procedure to be no longer experimental? Fifty years? One hundred years? Do you consider Lasik surgery experimental? How about kidney transplant?
Since the mid 1990s, puberty delaying medications have been prescribed to some adolescents (not prepubertal children) with severe and persistent gender dysphoria, in cases in which such distress was aggravated by pubertal development.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP), in 1998, recommended delaying puberty in young adolescents who experienced strong and persistent “cross-sex identification” and distress around the physical body that intensifies with the onset of puberty.
Huh? VoR said "these experiments on the bodies of children only started quite recently." In response, you posted a paper by two non-medical people affiliated with the Manchester (UK) School of Law referring to the fact that in starting in the mid-1990s, puberty-blocking medications were prescribed to a small number of adolescents with severe sex/gender distress in the Netherlands after they had started puberty of adolescence and experienced increased distress due to the physical changes they were going through.
The paper does not mention that one of the first group of adolescents in the Netherlands treated with the blockers was a young male who died a gruesome death at age 18 due to horrific but predictable complications from the genital surgery sold to the poor kid as an essential and "life saving" part of " gender-affirming care."
Moreover, the experimental practice that originated in the Netherlands in the mid-1990s is very different to the practice that has gradually become the custom in "pediatric gender medicine" in the USA and some other places more recently. The youth in the Netherlands all had extensive psychotherapy first and throughout the process, and they were carefully screened.
In the past 15 years or so, the custom in countries like the US has been to skip psychotherapy and careful screening of sex/gender-distress and confused kids altogether, instead "affirming" a child's opposite-sex gender identity and putting them on the path for medical interventions as early as possible. As a result, kids with sex/gender distress have been put on "puberty blockers" at younger and younger ages to prevent them from starting puberty of adolescence in the first place. Which means 8, 9 and 10 for girls, and 10 and 11 for boys.
Tellingly, the part of the paper you chose to quote left out the important parts that come next. The full passage is as follows:
The Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP), in 1998, recommended delaying puberty in young adolescents who experienced strong and persistent “cross-sex identification” and distress around the physical body that intensifies with the onset of puberty. The RCP added:
"In order for adolescents and those with parental responsibility to make properly informed decisions, it is recommended that they have experience of themselves in the post-pubertal state of their biological sex.
"Where, for clinical reasons, it is thought to be in the patient’s interest to intervene before this, this must be managed within a specialist service with paediatric endocrinological advice and more than one psychiatric opinion3. (Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1998)"
The practice described in the full passage is very different from the practice that has since become the norm - which is to put children with sex/gender distress on "puberty blockers" before adolescence begins and keep them on the blockers for years so that they never ever "have [any] experience of themselves in the post-pubertal state of their biological sex."
For male children, this means doctors and parents starting and keeping kids on "puberty blockers" starting so early that the medicated young males never get a taste of what it's like to have a normal adolescent male sex drive and all that it entails or used to entail. Such as lots fantasies and thoughts about sex; wet dreams; erections; full-fledged orgasms; a whole lot of masturbating; crushes; puppy love; and the various kinds of social and sexual exploration and experimentation with others that comes from going to dances and parties, and engaging in real-life flirting, dating and romancing face to face and in the flesh.
Norman Spack MD supposedly is the first US physician to put male children on "blockers" so early they experienced none of the normal sexual awakening and maturation that puberty is suppsed to bring. Spack started doing this in 2005-6.
This post was edited 9 minutes after it was posted.
to be honest i think you know that allowing trans women in sports is fundamentally unfair and your attempts at diverting the argument away from the basic doctrine of fairness are indicative of knowing that is an argument you cannot win
As in, the feelings of a handful of trans girls trump the level playing field for all other girls? One last question: at what level of competition do you think trans participation outside of their biological sex should be disallowed to protect the integrity of athletics?
The circular nature of your arguments such as “there is no science without numbers” and being unable to explain what would make something fair even within the parameters of science makes sense only to you
How is it that boys and men think that they should be allowed to compete against girls/women if girls and women want, and have fought for, the right to their own competitive playing field? The arrogance in taking the position that girls/women should just move over from within their own, legitimately earned playing fields because these boys/men want to take over is simply breath taking.
You have the terminology wrong. We are talking one class of women versus another. Fix that and then we can talk.
You are wrong.
The fact that someone claims to be a woman does not make them a woman. Nor does surgery. Nor do drugs.
When an adult human has XX chromosomes they are a woman, regardless of what they want to call themselves. When an adult human has XY chromosomes they are a man, regardless of what they want to call themselves.
Well, because they’re not girls. In what world does the feelings of one person trump the feelings of all other competitors and the fairness of the competition itself?
It’s bizarre that I, like many people, read this as unabashed transphobia, but others will nod in agreement, strokes their chins, and say, “ah, yes. Science and what what.”
If one person’s feelings can be summed up as: “I want to run a race.” And the other person’s are, “your gender identity is false.” I’m sorry, the person’s feelings who just wants to run a race trumps the hateful person.
As an analogy of this concept, Jesse Owens’s feelings trumped Hitler’s feelings in 1936.
What a load of nonsense.
A woman wanting the right to compete only against other women is not "hateful", regardless of how many times you repeat such nonsense.