I have never supported male-identified-as-female participation in female sport where there is a clear biological advantage.
So presumably you do support males in female sport if there isn't a 'clear' biological advantage? Doesn't really square with your zero tolerance approach to doping.
Back to the main discussion, I’d like to point out how with this transgender athlete Seattle Academy was able to qualify for state. Without him, SA would’ve lost to King’s at districts.
it’s not just 1 girl losing a position. It’s at least 7 girls who lost an opportunity to a boy, and a system that celebrates THIS as progress.
But six girls at Seattle Academy got to compete in the state, which they otherwise would not have. So it's only a net loss of one girl. Seven lost the opportunity, but six gained it.
For the record, I do NOT think this as progress. One loss is still a loss.
My point about bringing up the history of gender ideology is that the original proponents of it also defended pedophilia and even placed kids in the care of sex offenders. (Look into Kentler or Money)
this is where the slippery slope is going. 10 years from now, you people will be arguing for pedophilia. Just like 10 years ago it was just two consenting adults. Look where we are now.
This is like saying that people who want to ban puberty blockers on minors also want to ban birth control pills.
So if we ban puberty blockers, will birth control pills also be banned in future?
How many people who are arguing against puberty blockers are actively campaigning for banning birth control pills? (This is an honest question, I would like to know.)
Vs.
The people who created the "new" definition of gender vs sex who are actively supporting pedophilia/"minor attracted people".
personally, I think they (birth control) should be banned, but that's a personal belief.
if I could up vote this and down vote this at the same time. I would. I support the love, I support people being themselves, but at the same time when it comes to running it's just.. a tough subject.
if I could up vote this and down vote this at the same time. I would. I support the love, I support people being themselves, but at the same time when it comes to running it's just.. a tough subject.
Does being oneself require horrific, disabling surgery, an onslaught of chemicals to suppress one's natural hormones, and an onslaught of cross-sex hormones? How does rolling with that express love? To me, it expresses apathy.
This is complete lunacy. I am fine with this guy calling himself a woman, HOWEVER you do not get to compete in sports as a woman...end of story.
Would you be fine with his calling himself George Washington (yes , THAT George Washington, the first US President)? How about if he insisted that he is four people and insisted on four ballots for the next election? How about if he insisted that he is a dog?
I understand where you’re coming from, and I think your stand is based on compassion. However philosophically it makes no sense to state that people can decide their own gender, in defiance of biology, and then tell them they cannot compete as their “chosen” gender. Either their “feelings” and “decision” about their gender is right, or it isn’t. To say it isn’t fair for a man to compete against women is truthful, but what we’re really saying is that biological sex matters, that you may claim to be a woman, but your claim is false where it really matters.
I disagree because in society there are many instances where a person's gender SHOULD NOT really matter (how one chooses to dress, for example, who cares?). Sports to me is a small section of the world in general and so I do think it is an exception to the rule for gender and should be protected for females.
We are not talking about cross dressing here. We’re talking about people who insist they truly are another sex, and insist on being treated as such. That’s why we have, and will continue to have, people demanding to compete against people of different sex.
This is complete lunacy. I am fine with this guy calling himself a woman, HOWEVER you do not get to compete in sports as a woman...end of story.
Would you be fine with his calling himself George Washington (yes , THAT George Washington, the first US President)? How about if he insisted that he is four people and insisted on four ballots for the next election? How about if he insisted that he is a dog?
You are one of those people who will claim you will die for freedom but you are a phony because you do not want freedom for others you find peculiar. If he calls himself/herself a woman you decide that is a freedom that cannot be granted. Hypocrite!
Well done you, it must have been really tricky googling 'desistence myth' into Google and pasting in a link to Huffington post (lol) and 'transask.ca' (double lol). Here's a hint: if someone has gender dysphoria and then desists, saying that they were 'never really trans' and therefore *never at risk* of being pushed down a route of medicalisation is pretty much the definition of junk science. Do better.
When people have nothing to say about the message, they attack the messenger. You have not identified what the "eleven studies" are, whether they include Zucker's flawed "study", what problem you have with Tannehill's review (other than calling it "junk science.")
So you don't like Huff post and transask.ca? Then how about Canadian Family Physician?
Many children in these desistance studies never asserted a transgender identity and thus would not have been expected to seek transition. The outdated tools from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 3rd edition, revised, and 4th edition used in these studies conflated gender identity and gender expression. This means that a small subset of children who asserted a non–birth-assigned gender identity (and thus might be termed transgender) were mixed in with a much larger superset of children (who might be termed gender non-conforming) who behaved in ways that resisted gender-stereotyped expectations, but who might have continued to identify with their birth-assigned gender.
Background: It has been widely suggested that over 80% of transgender children will come to identify as cisgender (i.e., desist) as they mature, with the assumption that for this 80%, the trans id...
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…
But six girls at Seattle Academy got to compete in the state, which they otherwise would not have. So it's only a net loss of one girl. Seven lost the opportunity, but six gained it.
For the record, I do NOT think this as progress. One loss is still a loss.
That's not how you add negatives.
7 deserving girls did not qualify for state (-7)
6 UNderserving girls qualified for state (-6)
This is a loss of 13.
Further examination of race results reveals both of us were wrong.
Four runners from King's qualified for the state meet individually, and three of the runners from Seattle Academy would have qualified as individuals if their team had not.
The three runners from King's who missed the state were 46th, 59th and 63rd respectively.
The three runners from Seattle Academy who made the state as a result of their team standings were 36th, 38th and 42nd respectively.
I don't know how runners at 46th, 59th and 63rd places are more "deserving" than runners at 36th, 38th and 42nd places. For having faster teammates?
The only the runner who was unfairly denied the opportunity to compete in the state meet was the 29th place finisher from Eastside Preparatory. She would have been the last individual qualifier. Others were just trying to piggyback on their teammates one way or another.
How many people who are arguing against puberty blockers are actively campaigning for banning birth control pills? (This is an honest question, I would like to know.)
195 of 203 Republicans in the House voted against the bill to protect the access to birth control pills. It has not reached the Senate because the Dems cannot convince ten Republican Senators to break the filibuster. That indicates 80-90% of Republican lawmakers are against birth control pills.
This is complete lunacy. I am fine with this guy calling himself a woman, HOWEVER you do not get to compete in sports as a woman...end of story.
Bingo~~~~~~~~~~~~
Be a shetland pony, identify as a frog, a wolf, whatever but when it comes to sports nobody gives a damn abour what you identify as this is a girls team and you aren't a guy so get lpst.
Why is is silliness being alllowed at all. it really does need to stop it's stupid and we all know it.
So presumably you do support males in female sport if there isn't a 'clear' biological advantage? Doesn't really square with your zero tolerance approach to doping.
It isn't doping - you cretin. Where men and women can compete on equal terms there is no issue. These would be competitions that don't call on strength, speed or stamina.
What will happen when young trans people come out and run times as fast as any olympic elite women can run? surely there will be an outcry if a 16 year old runs fast enough to win a womens olympic medal.it hasnt happened yet,but it could.
To be clear - I don't care what trans people do in their personal and professional lives. Anyone should be free to live as they choose if it doesn't harm anyone else. The only issue that concerns me is their participation in female sports where their male physiology gives them advantages cis women cannot have.
What will happen when young trans people come out and run times as fast as any olympic elite women can run? surely there will be an outcry if a 16 year old runs fast enough to win a womens olympic medal.it hasnt happened yet,but it could.
The door will be quickly shut down long before that happens. Lia Thomas was nowhere close to making the US team for the World Championships. That did not stop FINA from introducing the new policy.
One trans athlete winning a small 1A conference isn't a big issue outside of the conference (the trans athlete finished 18th in the state championships) and rightwing cultural warriors. Republican lawmakers may try to introduce a bill to the state legislature, but I don't think it will be a winning issue in a state like Washington. It's a problem better handled by the HS Athletic Association anyway.
I consider myself quite liberal on all fronts, but I have no idea how you justify allowing boys to compete on the girls team with no testosterone suppression.
