Editor's note on 7/2/2024- This old thread is getting a lot of clicks as lots of people are googling Nikki Hiltz after NBC published an article "Transgender runner Nikki Hiltz is headed to the Paris Olympics" on her making the Olympic team. The article should have noted that Hiltz's is biological female and not on testosterone as World Athletics forbids that. Hiltz does not have an unfair advantage over the other competitors.
It's the second time you resort to labels to try and make sense of something you don't want to understand.
It is what it is.
I asked if you believe Nikki thinks she is dude some days and a queen others. This is what she has said.
This is a snippet of your lenghty response.
" Gender fluidity is something broadly recognized in the medical field. Much of what we think of as gender and sexual identity is shaped at different times during development by the timely exposure to different kinds of hormones. Hormones are something that can fluctuate daily. Sometimes these processes don't work as planned, with the developing fetus or child exposed to too many, or too little, or multiple hormones, creating non-binary conforming outcomes, both physically and psychologically. While it is usually binary, there are many kinds of exceptions that often occur.
With respect to mental health, the tendency for society and peers to dismiss it as delusion, or dishonest, or a mental illness, because they don't understand it, or are uncomfortable with it, or threatened by it, is itself a direct source of mental health problems for the binary gender exceptions. I think greater acceptance by society, rather than forcing conformity, is what Nikki Hiltz is trying to address."
If you look up her PBs and championship record there is nothing worth discussing. If a top athlete engages in activism, then it's different, but this is the only attention she can draw.
You wouldn't have thought that from the length of your previous answer. His question was legitimate: do you accept her view of herself that she wakes up as being male one day and female the next, depending on what she feels? If you accept that she does, is it a legitimate view or half-baked?
Of course anyone should have thought that judging from the content of my post -- which wasn't about me.
Was his question legitimate? I would disagree. Nikki talked about feelings. Who am I to judge these feelings? I am not in Nikki's skin nor brain. Neither is carmine9, nor are you.
So if "they" said "they" are also Napoleon, who are you to judge - right? Humbug.
I asked if you believe Nikki thinks she is dude some days and a queen others. This is what she has said.
This is a snippet of your lenghty response.
" Gender fluidity is something broadly recognized in the medical field. Much of what we think of as gender and sexual identity is shaped at different times during development by the timely exposure to different kinds of hormones. Hormones are something that can fluctuate daily. Sometimes these processes don't work as planned, with the developing fetus or child exposed to too many, or too little, or multiple hormones, creating non-binary conforming outcomes, both physically and psychologically. While it is usually binary, there are many kinds of exceptions that often occur.
With respect to mental health, the tendency for society and peers to dismiss it as delusion, or dishonest, or a mental illness, because they don't understand it, or are uncomfortable with it, or threatened by it, is itself a direct source of mental health problems for the binary gender exceptions. I think greater acceptance by society, rather than forcing conformity, is what Nikki Hiltz is trying to address."
You claim that answers the question?
That snippet came before you asked what I believe. I don't claim to have answered that question. On the contrary, I agreed I did not, despite an assurance that it was a legitimate question.
You asked if gender fluidity exists. My snippet answers that Gender fluidity is something experienced by enough of "them" that it merits professional attention in the medical field.
You asked if so, then isn't gender fluidity a "mental illness", and this snippet partly agrees, for a different reason, that the mismatch with the fluid gender feelings, and the binary gender expectations of society, is indeed a source of mental health problems.
You also asked about pronouns, and I agreed the use of the plural pronouns for singular persons is awkward and another source of confusion.
Of course anyone should have thought that judging from the content of my post -- which wasn't about me.
Was his question legitimate? I would disagree. Nikki talked about feelings. Who am I to judge these feelings? I am not in Nikki's skin nor brain. Neither is carmine9, nor are you.
So if "they" said "they" are also Napoleon, who are you to judge - right? Humbug.
I asked if you believe Nikki thinks she is dude some days and a queen others. This is what she has said.
This is a snippet of your lenghty response.
" Gender fluidity is something broadly recognized in the medical field. Much of what we think of as gender and sexual identity is shaped at different times during development by the timely exposure to different kinds of hormones. Hormones are something that can fluctuate daily. Sometimes these processes don't work as planned, with the developing fetus or child exposed to too many, or too little, or multiple hormones, creating non-binary conforming outcomes, both physically and psychologically. While it is usually binary, there are many kinds of exceptions that often occur.
With respect to mental health, the tendency for society and peers to dismiss it as delusion, or dishonest, or a mental illness, because they don't understand it, or are uncomfortable with it, or threatened by it, is itself a direct source of mental health problems for the binary gender exceptions. I think greater acceptance by society, rather than forcing conformity, is what Nikki Hiltz is trying to address."
You claim that answers the question?
That snippet came before you asked what I believe. I don't claim to have answered that question. On the contrary, I agreed I did not, despite an assurance that it was a legitimate question.
You asked if gender fluidity exists. My snippet answers that Gender fluidity is something experienced by enough of "them" that it merits professional attention in the medical field.
You asked if so, then isn't gender fluidity a "mental illness", and this snippet partly agrees, for a different reason, that the mismatch with the fluid gender feelings, and the binary gender expectations of society, is indeed a source of mental health problems.
You also asked about pronouns, and I agreed the use of the plural pronouns for singular persons is awkward and another source of confusion.
But the fact is, what you said in that snippet is just a bunch of vague, unsubstantiated hooey.
When you claim that "Much of what we think of as gender and sexual identity is shaped at different times during development by the timely exposure to different kinds of hormones...with the developing fetus or child exposed to too many, or too little, or multiple hormones, creating non-binary conforming outcomes, both physically and psychologically" you are simply regurgitating theories that some people who believe in and are peddling gender identity ideology have proposed.
None of what you are presenting as well-established medical fact has never been proven to to be true.
The theories you are offering up as settled medical and scientific fact are just speculation. Speculation made up by people who I believe do not understand the basics of human fetal and child development in either a physical or psychological sense.
The people who have come up with the theories you set out as medial truth and scientific fact also seem utterly clueless about the complex, multifaceted processes through which human beings starting in infancy begin to develop a sense of self and over the course of childhood, adolescence and young adulthood acquire and assemble the set of myriad different thoughts and feelings about ourselves that comprise our self-concepts.
If what you were saying were true, then you would be able to share the names of the specific "different kinds of multiple hormones" you are speaking of which end up "creating non-binary conforming outcomes, both physically and psychologically." After all, humans have been found to make 50 different hormones so far. Which hormones exactly are you talking about here?
If what you were saying were true, you'd also be able to specify exactly when during fetal and childhood development this "timely exposure" to these specific hormones occurs, or is supposed to occur - and how "exposure to" "too many, or too little, or multiple hormones" at particular moments/phases of fetal and childhood development - and for how long in each instance - ends up "creating non-binary conforming outcomes."
If what you were saying were true, you'd also be able to tell us where exactly these hormones come from. Are they endogenous or exogenous?
If endogenous, meaning from fetuses' and children's own bodies, what organs or tissues do they come from? If the hormones are exogenous, meaning from an outside source, where did these hormone originate? How exactly did they get inside the bodies of fetuses in utero and children after birth?
If what you were saying were true, you'd be able to explain how the hormone receptors and metabolic processes that determine how male and female human beings (and other mammals) respond to hormones - both endogenous and exogenous - during fetal development and after birth work differently in persons of each of the two sexes with "non-binary conforming outcomes, both physically and psychologically" compared to people of both sexes who don't have those outcomes.
To clarify: I am not trying to discount or underplay the impact of hormones on humans. Clearly, the placental hormone human chorionic gonadotropin; pituitary hormones like luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone; the sex hormones progesterone, estrogen testosterone - and the many other hormones that humans make such as human growth hormone, insulin, thyroid hormones, leptin, melatonin, oxytocin, etc - all play major roles in human physical development, though in different ways and to different degrees - and in different ways and to different extents in each of the two sexes. Generally speaking, throughout our lives hormones, hormone fluctuations, hormone deficiencies, lack of certain hormones and problems in hormone metabolism and uptake affect myriad aspects of human health as well as in many aspects of psychology and behavior, such as mood, aggression, sex drive, appetite, sleep patterns, appetite, ability to bond with others, general feeling of wellbeing, etc.
I am just taking issue with the particular claim that "Much of what we think of as gender and sexual identity is shaped at different times during development by the timely exposure to different kinds of hormones...with the developing fetus or child exposed to too many, or too little, or multiple hormones, creating non-binary conforming outcomes, both physically and psychologically."
I would go so far as to say that the evidence so far shows this is not true.
Research on the self-perceptions and sexual orientation of women and girls in many different countries/cultures who had "hyperandrogegism" of endogenous origin during fetal development due to classic Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia has not borne out the hypothesis that such women are more likely than other women to grow up to adopt a non-binary, opposite-sex or gender fluid gender identity, or to be lesbian or bisexual than other women.
But the fact is, what you said in that snippet is just a bunch of vague, unsubstantiated hooey.
Maybe.
I don't present anything as well-established medical fact proven to be true, nor say it was just limited to hormones. Maybe it's not hormones either. Call my "fluctuating hormone leads to fluctuating outcomes" pure speculation. I don't mind. Maybe you are right.
I'm not sure why you should think I should have to first name 50 hormones and deliver a flawless model explaining every nuance and detail and timeline, in order to recognize that sexual attributes vary widely physically and psychologically. Are you going to hold yourself, or anyone else, to this artificial standard, when speculating a non-spectrum binary rigid dichotomy of preference and identity?
I do know that steroids can turn women into men, that androgen insensitivity syndrome turns men into women, and a shift in testosterone/estrogen balance, just to name two, makes men grow boobs.
Getting back to the snippet, the main points were 1) that gender fluidity is something broadly recognized (by PhDs) in the medical field, and 2) that pressure from society to conform to binary gender expectations causes mental health problems. These were my answers to two of the questions asked, presented as-is.
I saw nothing in your post refuting these answers.
Research on the self-perceptions and sexual orientation of women and girls in many different countries/cultures who had "hyperandrogegism" of endogenous origin during fetal development due to classic Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia has not borne out the hypothesis that such women are more likely than other women to grow up to adopt a non-binary, opposite-sex or gender fluid gender identity, or to be lesbian or bisexual than other women.
That word should be hyperandrogenism.
I just got a new MacBook and it came with the autocorrect switched on and I haven't figured out how to turn it off yet.
She got what she wanted--attention. Look, a lot of people with emotional or psychological issues exist in America. 1 in 5 people are on prescription meds and more could use them. With that, of course it yields mental illness which potentially leads into the transgenderism from the prerequisite cognitive distortions. The thing is, you risk cancelation if you speak the truth in America--thus we get the societal overcompensation and incumbent glorification of such things.
That snippet came before you asked what I believe. I don't claim to have answered that question. On the contrary, I agreed I did not, despite an assurance that it was a legitimate question.
You asked if gender fluidity exists. My snippet answers that Gender fluidity is something experienced by enough of "them" that it merits professional attention in the medical field.
You asked if so, then isn't gender fluidity a "mental illness", and this snippet partly agrees, for a different reason, that the mismatch with the fluid gender feelings, and the binary gender expectations of society, is indeed a source of mental health problems.
You also asked about pronouns, and I agreed the use of the plural pronouns for singular persons is awkward and another source of confusion.
But the fact is, what you said in that snippet is just a bunch of vague, unsubstantiated hooey.
When you claim that "Much of what we think of as gender and sexual identity is shaped at different times during development by the timely exposure to different kinds of hormones...with the developing fetus or child exposed to too many, or too little, or multiple hormones, creating non-binary conforming outcomes, both physically and psychologically" you are simply regurgitating theories that some people who believe in and are peddling gender identity ideology have proposed.
None of what you are presenting as well-established medical fact has never been proven to to be true.
The theories you are offering up as settled medical and scientific fact are just speculation. Speculation made up by people who I believe do not understand the basics of human fetal and child development in either a physical or psychological sense.
The people who have come up with the theories you set out as medial truth and scientific fact also seem utterly clueless about the complex, multifaceted processes through which human beings starting in infancy begin to develop a sense of self and over the course of childhood, adolescence and young adulthood acquire and assemble the set of myriad different thoughts and feelings about ourselves that comprise our self-concepts.
If what you were saying were true, then you would be able to share the names of the specific "different kinds of multiple hormones" you are speaking of which end up "creating non-binary conforming outcomes, both physically and psychologically." After all, humans have been found to make 50 different hormones so far. Which hormones exactly are you talking about here?
If what you were saying were true, you'd also be able to specify exactly when during fetal and childhood development this "timely exposure" to these specific hormones occurs, or is supposed to occur - and how "exposure to" "too many, or too little, or multiple hormones" at particular moments/phases of fetal and childhood development - and for how long in each instance - ends up "creating non-binary conforming outcomes."
If what you were saying were true, you'd also be able to tell us where exactly these hormones come from. Are they endogenous or exogenous?
If endogenous, meaning from fetuses' and children's own bodies, what organs or tissues do they come from? If the hormones are exogenous, meaning from an outside source, where did these hormone originate? How exactly did they get inside the bodies of fetuses in utero and children after birth?
If what you were saying were true, you'd be able to explain how the hormone receptors and metabolic processes that determine how male and female human beings (and other mammals) respond to hormones - both endogenous and exogenous - during fetal development and after birth work differently in persons of each of the two sexes with "non-binary conforming outcomes, both physically and psychologically" compared to people of both sexes who don't have those outcomes.
He is good at "vague, unsubstantiated hooey". We can see that on any thread that raises doping.
"i do know that steroids can turn women into men"(quote)
You don't know that. Steroids can produce masculine traits, such as greater muscles, but that isnt actually a sex change. It doesn't change their chromosomes, they still retain their female sexual and reproductive organs, they do not acquire male levels of hormones such as testosterone and do not acquire testes and a penis. "Looking" like a man and feeling "masculine" is not a sex change; it is not becoming a man. It is a masculinized woman.
I asked if you believe Nikki thinks she is dude some days and a queen others. This is what she has said.
This is a snippet of your lenghty response.
" Gender fluidity is something broadly recognized in the medical field. Much of what we think of as gender and sexual identity is shaped at different times during development by the timely exposure to different kinds of hormones. Hormones are something that can fluctuate daily. Sometimes these processes don't work as planned, with the developing fetus or child exposed to too many, or too little, or multiple hormones, creating non-binary conforming outcomes, both physically and psychologically. While it is usually binary, there are many kinds of exceptions that often occur.
With respect to mental health, the tendency for society and peers to dismiss it as delusion, or dishonest, or a mental illness, because they don't understand it, or are uncomfortable with it, or threatened by it, is itself a direct source of mental health problems for the binary gender exceptions. I think greater acceptance by society, rather than forcing conformity, is what Nikki Hiltz is trying to address."
You claim that answers the question?
That snippet came before you asked what I believe. I don't claim to have answered that question. On the contrary, I agreed I did not, despite an assurance that it was a legitimate question.
You asked if gender fluidity exists. My snippet answers that Gender fluidity is something experienced by enough of "them" that it merits professional attention in the medical field.
You asked if so, then isn't gender fluidity a "mental illness", and this snippet partly agrees, for a different reason, that the mismatch with the fluid gender feelings, and the binary gender expectations of society, is indeed a source of mental health problems.
You also asked about pronouns, and I agreed the use of the plural pronouns for singular persons is awkward and another source of confusion.
So you do think individuals can wake up being a dude one day and a queen the next?
"i do know that steroids can turn women into men"(quote)
You don't know that. Steroids can produce masculine traits, such as greater muscles, but that isnt actually a sex change. It doesn't change their chromosomes, they still retain their female sexual and reproductive organs, they do not acquire male levels of hormones such as testosterone and do not acquire testes and a penis. "Looking" like a man and feeling "masculine" is not a sex change; it is not becoming a man. It is a masculinized woman.
And yet Oral-Turinabol turned Heidi into Andreas:
"The young woman's physique changed drastically, as did her feelings. "I felt much more attracted to women and just felt like a man. But I knew I was not lesbian," Krieger told CNN."
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.