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."
If only there were experienced professionals whose opinions could be consulted about the best course of treatment.
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.
trans people deserve the rights and dignity afforded to everyone in society. they should have their gender affirmed, have their pronouns respected, and be respected as people in general. what tends to be lost in this conversation is that the people these boards so furiously speak down on are real people - real minors, going through the hardest periods of their lives.
please remember that.
but, the girls who lost a state qualifying spot to a woman who has a undeniable biological advantage over her competitors are also real people, with real feelings. there needs to be a larger conversation about this at higher levels in CIF. this is a complicated issue, with no easy way out, but much of the conversation i see her are either people who simply refuse to see facts or straight-up transphobes.
these aren’t single cases of women with these types of advantages either. in a CIF section that shall go unnamed, a trans girl won 4 events at her league finals, before scratching at her section trials, i assume due to pushback from a wide variety of places. i have very little doubt that she would have made states, had she continued to compete.
I agree with this point of view, but when it comes to trans participation in sports, we have just got to put our foot down. It's blatantly unfair. The trans girls who are participating are minors, and I understand that but they are also choosing to do something that is deeply unfair to everyone around them. We are allowed to talk about that.
Counter-arguments here strike me as mental gymnastics, namely, the trick of calling boys girls and vice versa and then claiming that all of society should be bound by someone's decision to misname people as something that they are not. Granting respect and equal employment is one thing, and a no brainer, but granting access to opposite sex bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports is another thing. Biological differences make male-female competition unfair from teen years on. Those biological differences are so numerous and go so far beyond any current testosterone levels that there is just no level playing field when you do that. As for "gender-affirming care," that is one of the more Orwellian expressions that I have seen. Call the treatments what they are. Hormonal blockers, hormones, castration, etc. I am in no way in favor of permitting such treatment for minors whose whims and perceptions are changeable from moment to moment. DeSatan is banning any research on the effects of such treatments, which I think is an enormous mistake because you have to let science show what the effects are, and they might be, and I am sure they will be (because hormones have such far reaching effects on us), very negative in the long-term for developing boys and girls. It was clear to me that the third place finisher in that linked race was sand-bagging after effortlessly moving from last to first like Kiprop, and then letting a couple of the best girls in the nation go ahead on the last lap.
Here is the organization behind the movement against gender affirming care.
Is depression a credible problem? How is it diagnosed? What about ADHD, anxiety, PTSD, bipolar, dementia etc? Do you just look at their “physical health” and dismiss their “self-reported mental state”?
The mind is a physiological entity. Doctors don’t have any trouble believing that religion (including Scientology) brings peace of mind to many many people, but sometimes medication is the only solution to the problem.
This strawmanning is tiresome. Self-reported mental state at three dates during 12 months is not nothing, but it's quite far down the list in terms of importance when considering an intervention which renders the patient infertile with a complete loss of sexual function, in need of life-long medication and subject to a number of nasty side-effects.
There are almost no situations where I'd consider the patients self-reported state of mind after 12 months to - on its own - be sufficient to evaluate any treatment. Let alone ones which inevitably lead to permanent loss of function.
You're the one promoting it as all we need to establish that we have to sterilize children. Think about what it is you're promoting for a second.
I’m first for choice for the child self-reportedly under distress and its parents and their freedom to consult doctors for their non-binding expert opinions on treatment options.
You didn’t think surveys were a legitimate form of medical evaluation and I corrected you, that’s all. If you are just quibbling about the extent of evaluation conducted in specific cases, first acquire a license to practice medicine, then you can happily administer your opinions to your patients.
This strawmanning is tiresome. Self-reported mental state at three dates during 12 months is not nothing, but it's quite far down the list in terms of importance when considering an intervention which renders the patient infertile with a complete loss of sexual function, in need of life-long medication and subject to a number of nasty side-effects.
There are almost no situations where I'd consider the patients self-reported state of mind after 12 months to - on its own - be sufficient to evaluate any treatment. Let alone ones which inevitably lead to permanent loss of function.
You're the one promoting it as all we need to establish that we have to sterilize children. Think about what it is you're promoting for a second.
I’m first for choice for the child self-reportedly under distress and its parents and their freedom to consult doctors for their non-binding expert opinions on treatment options.
You didn’t think surveys were a legitimate form of medical evaluation and I corrected you, that’s all. If you are just quibbling about the extent of evaluation conducted in specific cases, first acquire a license to practice medicine, then you can happily administer your opinions to your patients.
No one needs a medical license to determine whether or not it makes sense to chop fully functional, vital organs from a child's body. A child is simply not capable of making that decision or understanding what might change for them in the future. Not to mention, the current state of "treatment" is nothing short of barbaric. Have you seen images of surgeons' pathetic attempts to replicate male/female genitalia? It's disgusting. The child would be left with a non-functional monstrosity and a life-long dependence on pharmaceuticals. I might be more open to it if modern medicine were actually capable of transforming a female to a male or vice versa. It's not even close, and probably never will be.
I spoke with my child's endocrinologist, who happens to be fully licensed and well-versed on this topic. She stated, quite frankly, that when a person comes to her with these types of issues, she refers them to the psychiatrists. The reason she gave is that there is nothing wrong with their bodies, which are functioning normally, and, therefore, there is nothing for her to treat. She also instructs them that there is a hospital up the road that would be glad to butcher their kid.
It's fair to say that there is considerable disagreement and more reasonable to question the wisdom of these procedures in the absence of long-term evidence.
In a Swedish systematic review published in Acta Paediatrica, researchers from Karolinska Institutet, University of Gothenburg, Umeå University, and the Swedish agency for health technology assessment and assessment of social...
🏃2nd trans-identifying male, Lorelei Barrett is headed to the @CIFState CA track championships next weekend. Along with male Athena Ryan, he’s also qualified in the “Girls 1600m” race.
Barrett had qualified for the girls state cross country championships last fall…… pic.twitter.com/VzK9SkfDRh
It was clear to me that the third place finisher in that linked race was sand-bagging after effortlessly moving from last to first like Kiprop, and then letting a couple of the best girls in the nation go ahead on the last lap.
Allowing males to compete against females is like doping
I’m first for choice for the child self-reportedly under distress and its parents and their freedom to consult doctors for their non-binding expert opinions on treatment options.
You didn’t think surveys were a legitimate form of medical evaluation and I corrected you, that’s all. If you are just quibbling about the extent of evaluation conducted in specific cases, first acquire a license to practice medicine, then you can happily administer your opinions to your patients.
No one needs a medical license to determine whether or not it makes sense to chop fully functional, vital organs from a child's body. A child is simply not capable of making that decision or understanding what might change for them in the future. Not to mention,
Your first sentence is plain wrong, and I stopped reading at the second because it seems like your confusion therein is easy to resolve: it’s not just the child making the decision all by itself, rather the parents provide legal consent and doctors sign off on the recommendation; HTH.
This is really messed up! Those girls should not have shown up to the race. Until women take a real stand they will continue to get beaten by this sub par biological male athletes.
