abortion remains a criminal offense is Britain but okay dude. It's not like politics changes
and LOL at the "many conservatives you know" who fully support women's rights. More than a few conservative states/ leaders are trying to make travel to another state for an abortion illegal (seems pretty Handmaid's to me), restrict contraceptives, repeal divorce laws, not to mention overturning Roe. No worries, I guess because GD "knows" some fine people. and the old chestnut - don't if you make Christians mad by supporting trans people, that's your fault. Chef's kiss!
The transwoman who won a prize was awarded the prize in error and the results are being rectified.
And the rules allow transwomen to still compete in races they already entered prior to the ban.
It's not ideal, of course, but it does seem like those who campaigned to keep women's sport for women have got what they want but it's left a hole in their lives so they need to keep finding ways to drag it out.
The gender morons, like the one above, can't just admit their beliefs were wrong and immoral even after the world has rejected them, so they cope by trying to demonize those who oppose them. Pathetic.
Half wit.
My post wasn't complicated but you completely misunderstood it.
I was commenting on this particular story, which pertained to some very specific cases in the UK.
The ban in the UK is in place, but in some circumstances trans athletes are still entitled to compete (rightly or wrongly). Within the next couple of months they will no longer be entitled to compete in the women's category in the UK when the ban becomes fully effective.
I agree with the ban. Just the hysteria over this particular story is unnecessary.
The people who wanted the ban (me included) should be happy, but instead a lot keep looking for situations to be unhappy. My point is that they don't want to win, they always want to be campaigning and hard done by.
From "Eliminating forced, coercive and otherwise involuntary sterilization," a 2014 policy document issued by OHCHR, UN Women, UNAIDS, UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF and WHO:
I fully agree that "forced, coercive and otherwise involuntary sterilization" is evil. So the rest of your post in unnecessary.
My question is, what does that have to do with voluntary medical procedure that GOP lawmakers are trying to make illegal?
Do you believe in bodily autonomy? Do you think minors should be allowed to have abortion? With or without parental consent? After all, it is a "life altering decision" and she may regret later in her life. Should they be "protected" by the government from their own decisions and those of their parents?
Sterilization of trans-identified minors for reasons of "gender affirmation" is by definition involuntary and a human rights violation because these kids don't have brains that are developed enough to enable them to have capacity to consent.
Children who undergo sterilization as part of the standard so-called "gender affirming care" regimen - GnRHa drugs aka "puberty blockers" starting at Tanner Stage 2 when they are 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12, accompanied or soon followed by regular adiminstration of high-dose exogenous estrogen for males and testosterone for females - is inherently involuntary and coercive. Because kids of that age have no way of understanding the significance of their fertility and the rest of their sexual functioning - and the other aspects of good health and normal development - that they are giving up.
It's disingenuous to compare a girl getting an abortion with a child being chemically and surgically castrated. Terminating a pregancy returns a girl or woman to her previous state of health.
Undergoing abortion does not cause a girl to stop natural development, nor does it permanently close off a whole range of possibilities for her future. But the so-called "gender affirming medical care" that confused, unhappy, vulnerable kids of both sexes are being given in the USA does both those things.
Having an abortion simply prevents a girl from having a baby. It doesn't cause her to cease ovulating and menstruating, lose or greatly reduce her capacity for sexual pleasure including orgasm for the rest of her life, or make it impossible for her to have a baby in the future. The standard regimen of so-called "gender affirming care" for female children does.
Having an abortion doesn't cause a girl to develop diminished bone density, grow to stunted adult height, lose her ability to breastfeed, and have a greatly increased risk of CV disease, heart attack, stroke, kidney and pancreas problems, chronic pain, disability and diminshed life span. Subjecting a girl to "puberty blockers," high-dose exogenous Big Pharma testosterone and doube mastectomy at the customary ages for "gender affirming care" does.
your basic assertion is incorrect. Ragged specifically want to target a class of people to limit their competitive opportunities and therefore results..
My desire to allow underrepresented classes doesn't limit the opportunities of my class (straight white dude). Instead of 10 white dudes applying for a job having 10 white dudes plus women, blacks, LGBTQ+ etc. It can limit the results but I am not advocating limited results even if I am okay with them.
One could argue that my class has historically and continually, still has so many other advantages so even if some results are limited, they are still have plenty of opportunities in many areas. The same ABSOLUTELY cannot be said for trans people.
JFC, nuance is dead. People just want to see everything in black and white and play "gotcha"
I have a lot of problems with this.
Firstly, if Ragged is specifically targeting a group (MtF trans athletes) then it can just as easily be said that MtF trans athletes are also targeting a specific group (female athletes) and limiting their competitive opportunities and results.
Secondly, there is nowhere in the US where people aren't allowed to apply for jobs based on their identity. There's even rules mandating the interviewing of minority candidates (NFL's Rooney Rule). So that's pretty much the opposite.
Yes, straight white males have historically had an advantage. Is the path to rectifying that advantage leveling the playing field for all, or is it to give an advantage now to those who didn't have an advantage in the past? If so, how much of an advantage, and for how long? FWIW, you could argue that trans people, MtF especially, do enjoy a large advantage in the world of sports.
I'm not trying to play gotcha, I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in order to figure out the end goal. It sounds well and good to say we should help the underrepresented, but figuring out how to do that is the hard part. If you give one person an advantage you give another person a disadvantage. (read: if you allow trans women in sports you put biological women at a disadvantage).
The question is: Cis and trans women are both (by your definition) underrepresented groups. Which of those groups is more deserving of an advantage? There is no way to square this circle, trans women are at a disadvantage by having to compete against males, biological women are at a disadvantage by having to compete against trans women.
Sterilization of trans-identified minors for reasons of "gender affirmation" is by definition involuntary and a human rights violation because these kids don't have brains that are developed enough to enable them to have capacity to consent.
So whether a kid's brain is developed enough to have capacity to consent depends on the type of medical care? Someone's brain is developed enough to give consent to abortion, but not to puberty blockers?
What other medical procedures are included in the latter category?
It's not just "the right wing." In this forum alone several people claiming to be Democrats or Liberals have indicated that they agree with "the right wing" about this insanity. And that's a sentiment expressed quite abundantly elsewhere.
I'm unsure why you are so dismissive about the complaints. It is strange that when people with a mental disorder - a dysphoria - insist on being recognized for something which by nearly all familiar measures they are not, you express anger at the people not affirming these delusions.
Please educate yourself.
Gender incongruence has been moved out of the “Mental and behavioural disorders” chapter and into the new “Conditions related to sexual health” chapter. This reflects current knowledge that trans-related and gender diverse identities are not conditions of mental ill-health, and that classifying them as such can cause enormous stigma.
your basic assertion is incorrect. Ragged specifically want to target a class of people to limit their competitive opportunities and therefore results..
My desire to allow underrepresented classes doesn't limit the opportunities of my class (straight white dude). Instead of 10 white dudes applying for a job having 10 white dudes plus women, blacks, LGBTQ+ etc. It can limit the results but I am not advocating limited results even if I am okay with them.
One could argue that my class has historically and continually, still has so many other advantages so even if some results are limited, they are still have plenty of opportunities in many areas. The same ABSOLUTELY cannot be said for trans people.
JFC, nuance is dead. People just want to see everything in black and white and play "gotcha"
Huh?
It's true that males are underrepresented in the female category of sports, just as females are underrepresented in the male/open category of sports.
Similarly, full-grown adults in their 20s and 30s are underrepresented in Little League and MS and HS sports.
Yes, I think males across the board should be excluded from the female category of sport. But that's not because my aim is to unfairly "target a class of people to limit their competitive opportunities and therefore results" out of meanness and bigotry.
I want to exlcude male people from the female category of sport because that's the only way to insure fair competitive opportunities, safety and a chance of positive outcomes and winning results for female people.
Sterilization of trans-identified minors for reasons of "gender affirmation" is by definition involuntary and a human rights violation because these kids don't have brains that are developed enough to enable them to have capacity to consent.
So whether a kid's brain is developed enough to have capacity to consent depends on the type of medical care? Someone's brain is developed enough to give consent to abortion, but not to puberty blockers?
What other medical procedures are included in the latter category?
Yes. There's a vast body of legal and ethical discourse, court cases and judicial rulings about specifically the kinds of medical interventions to children can consent to, and parents or guardians can consent to on children's behalf, and how these vary depending on the nature and gravity of the medical problem being treated, and the age of the child.
A number of well-known documentaries, novels and dramas about these issues have been made over the years.
Given how gung-ho you are about subjecting vulnerable pre-adolescent children to radical medical interventions with irreversible, permanent effects that will limit their lives forever, even though there is no good evidence that these interventions will yield the results desired and promised in either the short or long term, I am shocked you're not already aware of this.
This post was edited 14 minutes after it was posted.
Transgender women still running and winning as females six months since ban Exclusive: Team featuring transwoman was awarded first place as rules face backlash and rivals fear death threats
I think you gotta go arrest her OP. Take matters into your own hands. This is definitely impacting your life in a big way. Once you make that citizen's arrest, you'll have no choice but to run for office on this alone. Who cares if you'll accept money only from corporate donors & won't do anything for working people -- you know that this is actually the most important issue facing Americans today.
And if caught, the parents or any coaches or officials who tried to get a boy in a girl's competition should be imprisoned preferably including hard labor
The transwoman who won a prize was awarded the prize in error and the results are being rectified.
And the rules allow transwomen to still compete in races they already entered prior to the ban.
It's not ideal, of course, but it does seem like those who campaigned to keep women's sport for women have got what they want but it's left a hole in their lives so they need to keep finding ways to drag it out.
So you mean when Muriel who used to be Murdo suddenly starts running 1.22 for a half at the age of 48, despite only 3 years of recorded running results, and winning all of the local races, its all fine if Muriel manages to keep quiet about it?
From "Eliminating forced, coercive and otherwise involuntary sterilization," a 2014 policy document issued by OHCHR, UN Women, UNAIDS, UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF and WHO:
I fully agree that "forced, coercive and otherwise involuntary sterilization" is evil. So the rest of your post in unnecessary.
My question is, what does that have to do with voluntary medical procedure that GOP lawmakers are trying to make illegal?
Do you believe in bodily autonomy? Do you think minors should be allowed to have abortion? With or without parental consent? After all, it is a "life altering decision" and she may regret later in her life. Should they be "protected" by the government from their own decisions and those of their parents?
What good is a government that fails to protect innocent human life from deliberate destruction? That should be the first duty of government.
Thomas Jefferson, though he often failed to abide by his own ideals, thought so: While president he wrote that "the care of human life & happiness, & not their destruction, is the first & only legitimate object of good government."
John Stuart Mill was a big influence on the Founding Fathers of the USA. He wrote: "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
France's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) stated: "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else."
Nobody has unlimited bodily autonomy. People ordinarily are prohibited from taking heroin, from taking cocaine, from driving down a quiet residential street at 120 mph, from punching another without agreement or intent to defend, etc. These acts are prohibited because they are dangerous to those who commit them and because they are dangerous to others.
The extent to which so-called "trans-treatment" harms others is debatable. Direct abortion clearly deliberately and fatally harms another human being, sometimes even torturously.
Yes. There's a vast body of legal and ethical discourse, court cases and judicial rulings about specifically the kinds of medical interventions to children can consent to, and parents or guardians can consent to on children's behalf, and how these vary depending on the nature and gravity of the medical problem being treated, and the age of the child.
A number of well-known documentaries, novels and dramas about these issues have been made over the years.
Given how gung-ho you are about subjecting vulnerable pre-adolescent children to radical medical interventions with irreversible, permanent effects that will limit their lives forever, even though there is no good evidence that these interventions will yield the results desired and promised in either the short or long term, I am shocked you're not already aware of this.
AMA, along with the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Urological Association, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the American College of Physicians, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, disputes your claim.
The American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates today passed the Endocrine Society’s resolution to protect access to evidence-based gender-affirming care for transgender and gender-diverse individuals.
The extent to which so-called "trans-treatment" harms others is debatable. Direct abortion clearly deliberately and fatally harms another human being, sometimes even torturously.
The extent? How does the gender affirming treatment harm anyone other than the person receiving the treatment?
The question is: Cis and trans women are both (by your definition) underrepresented groups. Which of those groups is more deserving of an advantage? There is no way to square this circle, trans women are at a disadvantage by having to compete against males, biological women are at a disadvantage by having to compete against trans women.
Oh yes, there certainly is and it has been articulated many times, but just needs some “mathematics” maturity to absorb.
The sizes of the groups don’t matter. There is no quantitative basis to argue that anything is unfair if the fraction of trans/DSD women winning medals is comparable (so not zero) to the fraction of cis women winning medals, especially when the fraction of trans women is so small to begin with. One could in principle make T levels or whatever other factors are pertinent stringent enough until that fairness goal is empirically met to within some reasonable tolerance.
What you and many folks around here seem to want— zero trans medals in women’s sport— is a notion of fairness that is binary and based entirely on ideology, not on any quantifiable argument.
I'm one of those liberal Democrats you deride. I agree with you that intolerance of ambiguity is a trait of conservatives. I am personally fine with ambiguity, including sexual and gender ambiguity, and I know that those are not the same thing. However, the sports world IS binary: male and female, divided by sex. Perhaps there should be additional categories, similar to how it is done in the paralympics. But as long as the there are 2 and only 2 distince categories M/F in sports, then I believe that trans people should compete in the category of their birth sex.
1. What is "birth sex"? How is it determined? Is it binary? Are Semenya, Mboma and Getachew are "natal females"? Should they be allowed to compete in the women's division?
2. Are you against the WA's new policy that allows some "natal males" to compete in the women's division? Is it too ambiguous for you?
1. As I stated before, I recognize that sexual ambiguity is a real thing, e.g. Semenya, Mboma and Getachew. Unlike 99% of humanity, they don't fit neatly into the sexual binary. However, for purposes of binary M/F athletics, I believe that people born with XY chromosomes, internal testes, or other hallmarks of typical male biology should compete in the men's division. Put another way, I believe that the women's category of athletics should be synonymous with XX chromosomes and "testosterone-deficient". Yes, I recognize that there are rare instances of chromosomal abnormalities that this might not address, but I believe that fairness to the 50% of humanity that is typically female, and does not enjoy the benefit of any aspects of typical male biology, outweighs the athletic ambitions of the rare chromosomal outliers. 2. I don't claim to know all the fine details of WA's policy. However, I think you are asking whether I support the idea of "natal males" competing if they lower their testosterone to typical female levels. I stated my preference above. However, I think it will achieve the same result. As a practical matter, letting people compete in the women's division with lowered testosterone will result in people in this position running too slowly to have a meaningful impact on women's results.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
