What a bunch of crap. Sex isn't "assigned" it just is - either male or female. There is no such thing as "cis" women, there are just women. Men masquerading as women in order to access female sports, locker rooms and restrooms are the only ones seeking privilege - at the expense of women.
This is much ado about nothing. First world problems here. Too much time on one’s hands? Navel gazing? This is getting absurd. Let everyone be who they are, and if a woman has to see a penis, she will survive. And if not, she wasn’t going to make it anyway.
This is simply a false statement as per WA’s eligibility documents that explicitly define “transgender female” athletes and allow athletes to pick their category based on either one of gender or sex.
Seb Coe has explicitly stated that the division is based on whether or not you have a Y chromosome. That's a sex-based division.
Those are not the current rules. Coe’s press statements don’t automatically become ratified as WA eligibility rules.
I am not trans you moron. I just know that you need to move on. Why are you wasting your life on your obsession with penises and locker rooms, with trans people etc. You are a control freak. Let them be.
If trans women are women then you don't need to add the modifier "trans" to women.
Obviously, even you don't believe this BS.
I agree with them, trans women are women. It is a qualifier in a discussion about a specific subject. No different than "blond women are women" or "black women are women".
In this case a faster woman (no qualifier needed) just ran faster.
I think you mean a faster "human". I know what you're trying to do but you simply can't switch from a male to a female or vice versa. Calling yourself a female, having some surgeries, and taking a bunch of pills/shots does not genetically make you a female. No matter how much you want to argue, it's just impossible and there are not more than two genders.
Also, saying biological males should not play female sports does not make you a transphobe.
What a bunch of crap. Sex isn't "assigned" it just is - either male or female. There is no such thing as "cis" women, there are just women. Men masquerading as women in order to access female sports, locker rooms and restrooms are the only ones seeking privilege - at the expense of women.
This is much ado about nothing. First world problems here. Too much time on one’s hands? Navel gazing? This is getting absurd. Let everyone be who they are, and if a woman has to see a penis, she will survive. And if not, she wasn’t going to make it anyway.
Yes, over thousands of years, humans have evolved seeing the opposite sex’s genitalia. Tolerance to stranger penis is built into human females. They don’t crumble into deflowered dust or anything like that that LR white knight posters might lead one to think.
Nope. Women deserve fair, safe sports and locker rooms and restrooms without men.
Women can have all that with penises too. Unless you deem a penis to be a threat? Penises don’t hurt people. Their owners might. Do we need to ban penises like guns?
Who else thinks this wildebeest has a shot at NFL greatness? https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-1/p160x160/27973074_1986864504676366_3025734913648568719_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=b540b00c838ae9e1...
The real problem here is morons who game the system to become national champions. This athlete was on the men's team and was middle of the pack. They changed identity and won a national championship. There's long been a class of runners that are men who are as fast as the fastest women. Some of them made a career out of being pacers in big road races. But to compete the next year? That's lame.
1. Sex is assigned at birth. Alicia Roth Weigel was assigned female at birth by a doctor who was fully aware that she had Y chromosome and testes. And this was after she was "preassigned" male when her mother's body was examined because of a traffic accident. Sexual assignment at birth is much simpler for privileged endosex people like myself.
No, you really have that wrong. And one of the reasons you have it wrong is that like many gung-ho believers in gender identity ideology who are always bringing up people with rare DSDs to use as weapons in your war against women's and girls' hard-won rights, you seem to know very little about pregnancy, childbirth, and the kinds of prenatal care, fetal testing, and newborn medical screening that have become commonplace - indeed standard - over the the past 35+ years. And by that I mean commonplace/standard in pregnancies and births across the board - not just in unusual situations where a pregnant woman like Alicia Roth Weigel's mother had amnio after being in a traffic accident and found out that her fetus had a rare DSD.
Specifically, you seem to know nothing at all about how the birth of a baby and a baby's legal sex get registered with government authorities in countries like the USA, and who is responsible for filling out, checking and signing the paperwork required to register a birth, apply for a birth certificate, and obtain other important documents like a US Social Security card.
Given that Alicia Roth Weigel was born in the USA in 1990 and had state-of the-art prenatal and neonatal care, the medical team involved would have involved not only medical doctors from multiple different specialties, but a genetic counselor well versed in DSDs too.
The medical team would have recorded the information about Alicia’s sex chromsomes, genetics, gonads, internal and external sex organs, hormones and DSD in the mother’s and newborn child’s medical files, as well as in the hospital records. The medical team would also have shared, explained and discussed this information in detail with Weigel’s mother - or, most likely, with the mother and father together.
The health care team would have given the mother/parents their advice about which sex marker to designate on the legal forms they’d be filling out establishing Alicia’s legal sex, and what the child’s “sex of rearing” should be too.
But Alicia’s parents would have been the ones who made the final call about what sex to declare on the birth registration and birth certificate application form. And the parents would have been the ones who decided how they would raise their child too.
Whilst the the details vary depending on the particular state or jurisdiction, in the USA and most of the rest of the world, the legal responsibility for filling out, checking and signing the paperwork to register a birth and obtain a birth certificate for a child rests with the mother, parents or legal guardian - not with a doctor or other HCP.
In most case, the person who fills out and signs the birth registration and birth certificate application form/s, and vouches for the accuracy of the information provided, is the mother.
Moreover, in the USA as in most of the world, it’s typically the mother who does the bulk of the hands-on work of raising children, including most of diapering, bathing, ass-wiping, toilet-training and teaching about “the birds and the bees” and “the facts of life.”
The upshot is that in the case of a child with a DSD born in the USA like Alicia Roth Weigel, decisions about the child’s sex on legal documents, "sex of rearing" and gender roles and expectations, are primarily left up to the mother and other close relatives who actually raise the child. The child’s sex is not “assigned” by a decree handed down from on high by an almighty medical doctor who examined the child, ran tests and provided advice during one or a couple of brief medical consults around the time the child was born.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
This is much ado about nothing. First world problems here. Too much time on one’s hands? Navel gazing? This is getting absurd. Let everyone be who they are, and if a woman has to see a penis, she will survive. And if not, she wasn’t going to make it anyway.
This is much ado about nothing. First world problems here. Too much time on one’s hands? Navel gazing? This is getting absurd. Let everyone be who they are, and if a man who thinks he’s a woman has to use the men’s locker room and compete in the men’s division in sport, he will survive. And if not, he wasn’t going to make anyway.
See how easy that is? See how impoverished is the basic approach to the issue that is no more than “just shut up, agree and don’t question it”?
I agree with what you've said in this post. Which is why I am totally mystified by your gung-ho advocacy of using Big Pharma drugs and surgeries to induce iatrogenic disorders of sex development in physically healthy children who started out life with nothing at all wrong with them.
The gender identity ideology and "child transition" industry you champion say that if little boys and girls who were born with perfectly healthy bodies happen to display personality traits, behaviors and preferences for toys, games, clothing, hairstyles and playmates that adults who are rigidly sexist believe are either "too feminine" or "too masculine" for their sex, then chances are that these kids were "born in the wrong body" and should be socially and medically "transitioned" ASAP so they can grow up to have an outward appearance that's more in line with the superficial and stereotypical standards associated with the opposite sex rather than their own sex.
You constantly express full-throated support in particular for turning perfectly healthy male children into lifelong medical patients who will suffer a host of totally avoidable health problems and social difficulties - including sterility, lack of libido, and inability ever to have an orgasm - by putting them on GnRHa drugs to stop their natural development when they are pre-teens, followed by massive amounts of cross-sex hormones and finally "bottom" and sometimes "top" surgeries, effectively turning these poor kids into modern-day equivalents of the castrati and court eunuchs of yore.
I don't get how can you admit on the one hand that starting in the mid-20th century, medical doctors ended up badly damaging the lives of many people with DSDs by subjecting them to unnecessary medical interventions meant to "correct" and "fix" them as children when was there was nothing at all wrong them that needed "fixing" in the first place - whilst on the other hand you insist that doctors today should have free rein to do the exact same sort of thing to children who don't have DSDs or other health problems in order to supposedly "fix" and "correct" their perfectly healthy bodies. All because a core tenet of the gender identity ideology you've fallen for hook, line and sinker is that little boys whom some adults regard as "too girly" to be real boys like Kim Petras, Jazz Jennings, Kai Shappley, Trinity Neal and Becky Pepper Jackson were born with bodies that are "wrong" for their personalities - and the only way to "fix" these boys' supposedly "wrong bodies" is to turn them into developmentally stunted, castrated males who might outwardly look enough like girls/women to "pass" when they grow up.
The obvious difference is that intersex people did not consent to those invasive medical interventions. They were not told what is done to their bodies, and why. Often times, their parents were not given the full information, either.
Some people with DSD choose to have hormone replacement therapy or surgery, for variety of reasons. And I fully support those decisions because it's their bodies. The exact same reason that I support gender affirming care. Their bodies belong to them, and not to the society in large. Just like the bodies of pregnant women and girls belong to them, and not to the society in large.
Unlike some other people, I don't believe I am somehow endowed with superior wisdom on what's best for other people's lives just because I am endosex or cisgender. I am a regular human being just like intersex and transgender people.
The flaw in your reasoning is that it ellides the developmental and cognitive differences between children and adults. In order for people to be able to give legal consent to medical interventions that will leave their previously healthy bodies with irreversible damange - and will turn them into lifelong medical patients who need to take Big Pharma drugs the rest of their lives - they need to be mature enough to grasp all the consequences and appreciate the implications.
In the USA, kids who've been designated "trans" by their parents and doctors are customarily started on GnRHa drugs as "puberty blockers" when they reach Tanner Stage 2 - which can be as young as 8 or 9 in girls and 10 or 11 in boys. Then the males are started on estrogen when they're 12. Jazz Jennings was started on "blockers" as soon as he turned 11, and on estrogen five months later.
Putting males on GnRHa drugs and cross-sex hormones at such young ages and keeping them on these drugs for couple of years inevitably renders them permanently sterile. It also means they'll never develop anything resembling a normal libido/sex drive, and they'll never ever be able to have an orgasm.
And the icing n the cake is that blockers + estrogen phase of "gender affirming care" means males won't be able to have another kind of "gender affirming care" down they line. Going on blockers at Tanner 2 means males will end up with such stunted genitals that when they reach adulthood they won't have enough penile and scrotal skin to get so-called "bottom surgery" using the methods that are the safest and have the most satifactory results.
How on earth do you figure it's possible for child to understand the implications of never being able to to have his own children when he grows up? How can a kid who's never had an orgasm - or even his first kiss - grasp the magnitude of what he's giving up?
In the USA, legions of of girls who've been designated "trans" have been given double mastectomies to remove their healthy breasts at age 14, 15 and 16. Some girls have had double mastectomies as young as 12 and 13. Do you really think they're mature enough to be capable of understanding all the implications?
This post was edited 9 minutes after it was posted.
Past puberty biological males have a physical advantage over biological females in competitive sports that require speed, strength, power, endurance, and size. This is reality. It's evolution. That's why the only controversy is when males compete against females not the other way around. Many transgender activists want inclusion to take precedence over fairness and integrity of competition. These two standards are mutually exclusive. So you have a choice. Choose fairness and integrity in women's competition and discriminate against a few eccentric biological males who say they are unconditionally female and disallow them from competing against biological females or discriminate against the 99 percent of biological females and prioritize inclusion so the biological male who identifies as female can compete against the biological female with all the advantages of male puberty.
She has a legitimate beef, but this happened six years ago and the NCAA did away with this policy, which is also not permitted by the IAAF, so it's an issue now only at the high school level.