Ross Tucker has produced the tweet of the year. An epic TAKE DOWN of transactivists trying to gain access to women's sports.

kiltedrunner wrote:

translucent wrote:

You know, I realized reading this that "90% desist" is so obviously wrong that basic arithmetic can disprove it.

The problem with using 'basic arithmetic' and working backwards with two
different sets of data is you very soon start finding that 2+2=5. Which I'm
assuming isn't a problem for you, but for those of us who dwell in reality, it's
better not to rely on a half-baked calculation you pulled out of your
posterior. The initial data comes from the UK. Whilst actual numbers are hard
to come by as everyone with an interesting haircut calls themselves 'queer'
these days, the most reliable data suggests 96,000 actual 'trans' people. Out
of a pop of 68.88 million this means that approx 0.139% of the UK population is
trans. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that every single one of them was a gender dysphoric youth and known to medical services (to help you with your already flagging numbers). Convert the numbers over to % and you get a total of 800,064 ‘gender dysphoric’
youth or….1.1% of the UK population. So yes, you- somewhat remarkably- overestimated
the real figures by a factor of 10. I assume you’ll apologise profusely for misleading
everyone.

translucent wrote:

kiltedrunner wrote:

The problem with using 'basic arithmetic' and working backwards with two
different sets of data is you very soon start finding that 2+2=5. Which I'm
assuming isn't a problem for you, but for those of us who dwell in reality, it's
better not to rely on a half-baked calculation you pulled out of your
posterior. The initial data comes from the UK. Whilst actual numbers are hard
to come by as everyone with an interesting haircut calls themselves 'queer'
these days, the most reliable data suggests 96,000 actual 'trans' people. Out
of a pop of 68.88 million this means that approx 0.139% of the UK population is
trans. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that every single one of them was a gender dysphoric youth and known to medical services (to help you with your already flagging numbers). Convert the numbers over to % and you get a total of 800,064 ‘gender dysphoric’
youth or….1.1% of the UK population. So yes, you- somewhat remarkably- overestimated
the real figures by a factor of 10. I assume you’ll apologise profusely for misleading
everyone.

Are you going to link to your "most reliable data" or just assert a number you found somewhere? If you show your source and its methods, we can discuss whether the numbers I've cited might be an overestimate, or whether the numbers you've cited might be an underestimate.

Just for starters, your claimed numbers are for the whole population and mine are for young adults, so we're not comparing like-to-like. I intentionally picked young adults -- your claim is that 90% of trans children cease to identify as such before adulthood. The percentage of young adults identifying as trans today shows that an absurd percentage of the under-40 population would have had to identify as trans pre-puberty for this to be true.

Trans people, like gay and bisexual people, were far more suppressed in the past (despite lies that "no one cared until Drag Queen Story Hour"), and increased acceptance in society overall hasn't resulted in significantly increased identification as LGBT overall in older generations. I don't expect the story to be different for trans people. The Gallup survey I cited shows that between the 2012 and 2021 surveys, millennials (born 1981-96, so mostly already adults by 2012) have shown increasing self-identification as LGBT while older generations have not.

kiltedrunner wrote:

translucent wrote:

Just for starters, your claimed numbers are for the whole population and mine are for young adults, so we're not comparing like-to-like.

Christ almighty, if I limited it to only young adults (which I can't because the figures are population-wide) then that miniscule 0.139% becomes even smaller and I may as well start referring to them by name. Anyway, the study followed UK people during a time period when 'watchful waiting' was the primary tactic. Now- particularly in the USA- gender is affirmed regardless of any coexisting psychological issues or trauma and going by the evidence I've seen *if puberty blockers are administered*, it's pretty much a straight road to hormones and potential surgery. So the current numbers you stated are bound to be radically high because they come from a radically different culture. I see that as one of the biggest medical scandals of our time in which a generation of children and teenagers are effectively sterilised before they can meaningfully consent (much to the delight of their medical providers who've literally gained a customer for life), and you see it as a fantastic liberation for a marginalised community. I think only time will tell who turns out to be right.

kiltedrunner wrote:

translucent wrote:

Just for starters, your claimed numbers are for the whole population and mine are for young adults, so we're not comparing like-to-like.

Christ almighty, if I limited it to only young adults (which I can't because the figures are population-wide) then that miniscule 0.139% becomes even smaller and I may as well start referring to them by name. Anyway, the study followed UK people during a time period when 'watchful waiting' was the primary tactic. Now- particularly in the USA- gender is affirmed regardless of any coexisting psychological issues or trauma and going by the evidence I've seen *if puberty blockers are administered*, it's pretty much a straight road to hormones and potential surgery. So the current numbers you stated are bound to be radically high because they come from a radically different culture. I see that as one of the biggest medical scandals of our time in which a generation of children and teenagers are effectively sterilised before they can meaningfully consent (much to the delight of their medical providers who've literally gained a customer for life), and you see it as a fantastic liberation for a marginalised community. I think only time will tell who turns out to be right.

transman39 wrote:

kiltedrunner wrote:

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.

RunRagged wrote:

transman39 wrote:

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.

Why do you need to slag off those who don't view that paper exactly as you do by impugning our intelligence and suggesting none of us has "a functioning brain"?

Why does kiterunner describing "early [medical] transition as 'pumping non-consenting kids full of hormones" cause you to believe she or he has "an anti-trans agenda"?

Since you've brought up Jazz Jennings as an exemplar of the supposed benefits of "early medical transition" in several posts, it seems pertinent to point out that Jazz's autobiography - published when Jazz was 15 - says Jazz was put on "puberty blockers" to halt natural development and sexual maturation when Jazz turned 11, and put on estrogen at age 11 and 5 months. (Jazz was apparently put on progesterone back then too, but that hormone was discontinued due to unwanted "side effects.")

Then when Jazz was 17, Jazz underwent painful experimental surgeries to remove his testicles and penis and stitch together the remaining skin with tissue taken from other parts of Jazz's body into what Jazz's two male surgeons thought in their eyes looked like a pretty good artificial approximation of female genitalia.

The same things done to Jazz were done to Jackie Green, whose attention-seeking mum Susie Green pulled out all the stops to make sure the interventions Jackie was subjected to effect his "early medical transition" as a kid got plenty of media coverage and public attention. Only Jackie had his genital surgery done even earlier than Jazz because Jackie's mum took him to Thailand when Jackie was 15 so that Jackie's penis and testicles could be removed on Jackie's 16th birthday.

(In the professional trans-activist positions Jackie's mum has held - CEO of Mermaids, the UK children's charity that promotes medical transition of kids and campaigns against LGB people being allowed to politically organize for their own interests and socialize without the T; a big cheese in WPATH; and honcho at Gender GP, a telemed service founded and run by a disgraced, criminally-convicted UK GP which prescribes "blockers" and cross-sex hormones to kids over the internet - Susie Green has built a career and gained international prominence out of seeing to it that other people's children will undergo the same fate as her child Jackie.)

In the US, the protocol that leading clinicians in "pediatric gender medicine" have promoted in published literature and talks about their NIH-funded work with children calls for putting kids with gender distress and confusion on both "puberty blockers" and cross-sex hormones as young as 8.

How on earth is this not "pumping non-consenting kids full of hormones" like kiterunner said?

How can kids of 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 possibly give consent to taking drugs that will leave them sterile, developmentally stunted, unable have normal sexual feelings and function, and incapable of experiencing orgasm, ever - when children of those ages do not have the cognitive capacity and maturity to begin to grasp what these kinds of consequences will mean for them longterm?

Why do you accuse those who express concern, alarm and horror about what is being to done to confused children nowadays and for the past 20+ years by parents and practioners in the new field of "pediatric gender medicine" of having "an anti-trans agenda"?

FYI, lots of trans-identified adults who believe medical transition has benefitted them and some others personally nevertheless are against the transitioning of children and minor-age teens. In particular, many female people who take testosterone and have had their breasts and other body parts removed because they "identify as" trans men - like Buck Angel, Aaron Terrell, Mars Fernandez, Aaron Kimberley, Marcus Dib, Joey Maiza - have publicly come out very strongly against medical transition of minors - and some are against social transition of minors too. (Most of these persons and many other females who "identify as" trans are against trans-identified males, even young ones, in female sports as well.) Do you think they all have an "an anti-trans agenda" too?

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

Let it Rupp wrote:

Young people are known for having unstable identities and having a need to belong to a group - it's a critical aspect that characterizes adolescence. I'm sure there are a certain number of people with true, neurobiologically-based gender dysphoria, but I'm certain that the evidence will reveal at some point that a large contingent of the queer/non-binary/trans-identifying kids of today's younger generations are actually just socially alienated kids with undiagnosed mental illness who are self-diagnosing themselves as trans, trying to belong to a group and/or form a stable identity (as kids are known to do). I don't think it would be wise to be giving these kids hormone treatments and paying pharmaceutical companies huge swaths of cash to surgically alter their bodies.

Between 2017 and 2021, over 80% of minors who were diagnosed as having gender dysphoria did NOT received any puberty blocker or cross hormone. And this does not even include the kids who were turned away because they were assessed as not having gender dysphoria.

Link:www.reuters.com/investigates/special-r...

transman39 wrote:

RunRagged wrote:

Why do you need to slag off those who don't view that paper exactly as you do by impugning our intelligence and suggesting none of us has "a functioning brain"?

Why does kiterunner describing "early [medical] transition as 'pumping non-consenting kids full of hormones" cause you to believe she or he has "an anti-trans agenda"?

Since you've brought up Jazz Jennings as an exemplar of the supposed benefits of "early medical transition" in several posts, it seems pertinent to point out that Jazz's autobiography - published when Jazz was 15 - says Jazz was put on "puberty blockers" to halt natural development and sexual maturation when Jazz turned 11, and put on estrogen at age 11 and 5 months. (Jazz was apparently put on progesterone back then too, but that hormone was discontinued due to unwanted "side effects.")

Then when Jazz was 17, Jazz underwent painful experimental surgeries to remove his testicles and penis and stitch together the remaining skin with tissue taken from other parts of Jazz's body into what Jazz's two male surgeons thought in their eyes looked like a pretty good artificial approximation of female genitalia.

The same things done to Jazz were done to Jackie Green, whose attention-seeking mum Susie Green pulled out all the stops to make sure the interventions Jackie was subjected to effect his "early medical transition" as a kid got plenty of media coverage and public attention. Only Jackie had his genital surgery done even earlier than Jazz because Jackie's mum took him to Thailand when Jackie was 15 so that Jackie's penis and testicles could be removed on Jackie's 16th birthday.

(In the professional trans-activist positions Jackie's mum has held - CEO of Mermaids, the UK children's charity that promotes medical transition of kids and campaigns against LGB people being allowed to politically organize for their own interests and socialize without the T; a big cheese in WPATH; and honcho at Gender GP, a telemed service founded and run by a disgraced, criminally-convicted UK GP which prescribes "blockers" and cross-sex hormones to kids over the internet - Susie Green has built a career and gained international prominence out of seeing to it that other people's children will undergo the same fate as her child Jackie.)

In the US, the protocol that leading clinicians in "pediatric gender medicine" have promoted in published literature and talks about their NIH-funded work with children calls for putting kids with gender distress and confusion on both "puberty blockers" and cross-sex hormones as young as 8.

How on earth is this not "pumping non-consenting kids full of hormones" like kiterunner said?

How can kids of 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 possibly give consent to taking drugs that will leave them sterile, developmentally stunted, unable have normal sexual feelings and function, and incapable of experiencing orgasm, ever - when children of those ages do not have the cognitive capacity and maturity to begin to grasp what these kinds of consequences will mean for them longterm?

Why do you accuse those who express concern, alarm and horror about what is being to done to confused children nowadays and for the past 20+ years by parents and practioners in the new field of "pediatric gender medicine" of having "an anti-trans agenda"?

FYI, lots of trans-identified adults who believe medical transition has benefitted them and some others personally nevertheless are against the transitioning of children and minor-age teens. In particular, many female people who take testosterone and have had their breasts and other body parts removed because they "identify as" trans men - like Buck Angel, Aaron Terrell, Mars Fernandez, Aaron Kimberley, Marcus Dib, Joey Maiza - have publicly come out very strongly against medical transition of minors - and some are against social transition of minors too. (Most of these persons and many other females who "identify as" trans are against trans-identified males, even young ones, in female sports as well.) Do you think they all have an "an anti-trans agenda" too?

Kiltedrunner asked me what my point was in sharing a peer-reviewed article that demonstrated that hip bone geometry of early MTF transitoners matched the reference data for females. Do I honestly need to explain why sharing this article is relevant to a message board discussion about the inclusion of transwomen in women sports? And I will stand by my comment that one must either be severely lacking in logically thinking abilities, or be so consumed with hatred towards trans people, to be incapable of comprehending why this article would be relevant to this specific discussion.

RunRagged wrote:

transman39 wrote:

Kiltedrunner asked me what my point was in sharing a peer-reviewed article that demonstrated that hip bone geometry of early MTF transitoners matched the reference data for females. Do I honestly need to explain why sharing this article is relevant to a message board discussion about the inclusion of transwomen in women sports? And I will stand by my comment that one must either be severely lacking in logically thinking abilities, or be so consumed with hatred towards trans people, to be incapable of comprehending why this article would be relevant to this specific discussion.

Huh? No one said the paper you cited has no relevance to the discussion on this thread. I and another poster said we don't read this paper exactly as you do, and we don't think it has as much relevance to the issue of males in female sports as you do.

I personally said that the paper isn't about what you think and claim it's about. You say it's about "hip bone geometry" - which is an understandable misapprehension, because that's what the title says and the authors also say that in a couple of places in the text.

But a reading of the text body word by word makes it clear that the paper is actually about the dimensions of the outer layer and a core component of the upper femur, aka the thigh bone.

This is backed up by a look at the bone scan image provided in Figure 1, which shows the particular bone the paper focuses on and the three locations on it where the dimensions of the outer layer and inner core were either measured or estimated. The photogaph shows beyond doubt a picture of a human upper femur!

Moreover, I and I believe at least one poster said that you are misrepresenting what that paper found. You say this paper demonstrates beyond question that "the hip bone geometry of early MTF transitioners matched the reference data for females." But my recollection is that the paper actually uses more couched terms - "resembles" and are "in the direction of" - rather than "matched."

The graphs and tables show that most of the measurements for the "medically transitioned" persons fell in between the reference ranges for the two sexes, rather than the two aspects of all the femurs of hormonally-altered males being direct matches for female femurs in those two respects.

Finally, I and some other posters don't think the findings about upper femurs reported in this paper are as far-reaching in consequence as you regard them.

To you, what this one paper found regarding two aspects of the upper femur might seem like incontrovertible proof that males subjected to enough Big Pharma hormone products early enough in life should be competing in girls' and women's sports. Because in your view, "one can surmise" and "it's logical to conclude" from this paper - and from photos of Jazz Jennings from years ago - that chemically-castrated males whose upper femurs and outward appearance have been altered to some extent by taking "puberty blockers" and oodles of factory-made estrogen since they were pre-teens must magically have become internally identical to females in all the ways that have a bearing on sports perfomance.

No one has an issue with you believing this. I and some other people just happen to be unnconvinced that this one paper you rather hilariously put so much stock in constitutes sufficient reason to deprive the female half of the population of fairness and safety in sports by opening up girls' and women's sports to hormonally altered males who since early childhood have been brainwashed into believing, or allowed to believe, that each one of them was "born with a girl brain in a boy body" the way Jazz Jennings and Jackie Green have been told and they've been parroting since they were tykes.

As to your doubling down on your previous charges accusing those who disagree with you about this paper of imbecility, irrationality, illogic, hatred and malevolence, once again: why?

Please explain what makes you so sure that anyone who disagrees with your beliefs about the findings and relevance of this paper "must either be severely lacking in logically [sic] thinking abilities or be so consumed with hatred towards trans people, to be incapable of comprehending"?