I want to be crystal clear. I think you’re both arguing in good faith and have no malicious intent.

LW: I think you’re having some cog dis and are flailing a bit because you don’t like the idea of a man beating up on a woman. Unfortunately, it follows that you don’t consider transgender women “real” women. Just think about that. It’s tricky and hard.

Humberto: I understand your desire to not give anyone ammunition that could further marginalize an at-risk group. I assert that pragmatism and half-measures further harm trans women.

There may be an argument that transgender women should not participate in cis women sports. I just haven’t heard it yet.

You understood my point on the other thread that Title IX gave girls and women opportunities that they would not have otherwise had. For instance, I would not have made the boy's track team at my school, but I was a top performer on the girl's side, a team that I founded along with my friends. This was the whole point of Title IX, to give girls and women opportunities to participate in sports and to compete fairly with their female peers.

Transgender women take opportunities away from (biologically) born-females. Lia Thomas took a spot on the team away from a born-woman.

My position now is that unless the hormone transition can be initiated just prior to puberty, I do not feel that transwomen belong on women's teams. IMO they should *continue* to compete with the boys and men. They can wear a female uniform, use the girl's/women's locker room, use their preferred pronouns, etc. But IMO they need to *continue* competing on the men's side due to prior body development under the influence of male hormones.

Initiating hormone treatment just prior to puberty would include those who were born sexually ambiguous, or hermaphrodite, and who were assigned/raised as females.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2024 06:05AM by summer.

No one has mentioned Mack Beggs or other trans male athletes, so again this is about the trans female "menace" and the age old question of who decides who or what "femininity" is.

As we've already seen, this can get very ugly very quickly.

Why are the Williams sisters the most drug tested female athletes in history? Think about that.

I've mentioned before how the bodies of children are so similar it's almost impossible to tell them apart after death and decomposition.

So, if a trans girl who got treatment at a young age and never went through male puberty wants to compete, where is the advantage?

Why are religious fundamentalists going to such great lengths to deny treatment to trans kids and forcing their families to flee the state or the country like Nazi Germany?

The records of male vs. female athletes are not equal. The boys and men as a group are stronger, faster, etc. In some cases they can compete together, i.e. mixed gender relay races, but IMO it's the exception and not the norm.

In terms of gender affirming care, I can see counseling. With medical interventions such as hormones or surgery, the issue of consent is a factor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuIkLNsRtas


The kids tell the parents.

"Consent" isn't the issue.

Consent is going to be an issue whenever a physician provides irreversible medical care to a minor patient. Historically we do not allow minors to consent because they lack maturity and judgment. It's possible that could change.

Then why do fundies want to *still* deny care to kids whose parents realized what was happening, allowed their children to transition early after advice from medical professionals and psychologists? Why deny medical treatment to these children?

Suppose you have a child with a cleft palate and you're told that, despite it being a treatable condition with corrective surgery, it's "god's will" for some "sin."

Consent isn't the issue, it's religious fundies who want to force their idea of existence onto reality.

It's also patriarchal religion that fears a future world in which the sexual provenance of women isn't a simple matter of visual inspection -- since women in their view are objects for possession or walking incubators on legs. OMG! Some of the girls on the covers of my lad's mags aren't "real!" Oh My! Horrors!



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2024 06:02PM by anybody.

There may be an argument that the church isn't true. I just haven’t heard it yet.

This whole issue is being used to stir up social tension and distract attention from other things which are being done.

> LW: I think you’re having some cog dis and are
> flailing a bit because you don’t like the idea
> of a man beating up on a woman. Unfortunately, it
> follows that you don’t consider transgender
> women “real” women. Just think about that.
> It’s tricky and hard.

If you were to go back and look at my comments in earlier threads and in fact the one from yesterday, you will see that I only brought up fighting in that thread. My focus over time has been other sports, including weightlifting, swimming, track and field, tennis, soccer, and others. As you know, I had to google trans-women in MMA because I did not have any sense of the situation beforehand. So no, I don't think I subconsciously view trans-women anything other than "real." .

My concern is identical with summers; in fact, I was the first person to bring up Title IX, and anybody had to ask me to clarify the relationship between that law and trans-women in sport. summer then independently raised Title IX. The point, though, is that concern for cis-women in sport, rather than disdain for anyone, was my focus from the beginning.

To be clear, my objection is that cis-women who spend years or decades in a sport should not lose the results of their effort to people who come to the sport with unfair advantages. And as your article indicates, there is solid scientific evidence that hormonal adjustment does not neutralize all of the physical advantages that one enjoys having lived through puberty as a biological male.

There is countervailing evidence, to be sure, but it is weak; and when pressed, advocates of that evidence tend to switch to the argument that the emphasis should not be on the science of the question but on inclusivity. ookami did that several times in his penultimate series of threads--raising scientific claims but then viciously attacking anyone who dared offer scientific objections--and in his OP today he likewise vacillated between the two positions.

The argument seems to be "we can point to a few scientific observations, and that's enough" to do what we prefer regardless of the impact on a class of people who were only given equal status in sports 50 years ago.


---------------
> There may be an argument that transgender women
> should not participate in cis women sports. I just
> haven’t heard it yet.

Or perhaps you, like ookami, have such strong reasons to prefer a certain result that you implicitly discount evidence that militates against that preference.

I’m not discounting evidence, and I didn’t read the other threads. Too messy. But I’ve been thinking more about the practice of excluding trans women from cis women sports teams.

And yes, my daughter is trans, but that doesn’t mean I’m immune to a strong argument for excluding trans women from sports.

Beth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I’m not discounting evidence, and I didn’t
> read the other threads. Too messy. But I’ve been
> thinking more about the practice of excluding
> trans women from cis women sports teams.
>
> And yes, my daughter is trans, but that doesn’t
> mean I’m immune to a strong argument for
> excluding trans women from sports.

But truth be told, you ARE discounting evidence, and you apparently ARE immune to a strong argument for excluding trans women from sports. You just can't see it. The argument is plain and obvious: Men and women are biologically different, which differences are obviously relevant to athletic performance. Transitioning from male to female, particularly after puberty does not necessarily, or even likely, neutralize such differences. It is as simple as that. It has nothing whatever to do with prejudice or hate. It is facts and logic.

“ Transitioning from male to female, particularly after puberty does not necessarily, or even likely, neutralize such differences.”

Source? Sources?

ETA: My understanding, which might not be complete, is that in order for someone (post pubescent) to experience the most effective biological effects of HRT that would bring hormones, bone density, etc. to similar levels, people need to be on it for not one but two years, consistently. Like monitored. Consistently. My source is the kid in the next room who is working right now, but I’ll ask her later. I m also really tired and have a headache. Apologies in advance for not being cogent.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2024 02:02PM by Beth.

What metric are we going to use to exclude trans people that does not prevent cis gender athletes from competing?

Suburban mostly white prep school girls basketball team plays urban mostly black team.

The prep school girls average 5'7", the urban girls team average over six feet tall. Some of the black girls have short natural hair.

Cries of "unnatural advantage" arise.

Remember when Joseph Goebbels said having black athletes at the 1936 Berlin Olympics was "unfair" since animals could run faster than humans?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2024 08:21AM by anybody.

Exactly.

And that poor girl who needs police protection because the school superintendent (IIRC) incorrectly said she was trans…what the heck!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2024 08:25AM by Beth.

I suppose we could start karyotyping people at birth. Hell, let’s karyotype everyone who wants to play sports or use a public restroom. Show me your papers!

Getting tested to enter Nazi America from "Man In The High Castle "

https://youtube.com/watch?v=mK4W8FWkQEo

Love that show! Book was meh IMO.

Beth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What metric are we going to use to exclude trans
> people that does not prevent cis gender athletes
> from competing?

The metric is chromosomal cisgender, period! That is the standard biological gender metric. If that is ambiguous in some cases, then other biological criteria might come into play to resolve the issue in difficult, but rare, cases. But the lack of a perfectly defined metric is not a blank check to either (1) deny a statistically dominant metric; or (2) pick and choose the metric that best suits your preferred stance.

In science and biology, perfect metrics are impossible. We do the best we can to make distinctions that are statistically relevant to social policy. Moreover, if cisgender is not established by an agreed upon metric, then no trans issue comes into play. As such, all issues of trans gender assume a cis chromosomal metric.

So, we have to karyotype *everyone*, then. Lots of folks are going to be in for a surprise, especially people who mistakenly think they are cis but their chromosomes say otherwise.

Sounds like a bad deal for cis women.

I have an easy solution to this. Stop making gender based sports; and, group individuals by skill level. World's top athletes in one division, second tier in the next, and so on. That way it's based on skill and ability and nothing else. Also, as one's skills improve one can move up or down a league as needed.

For example... Can you run 100 meters in under 10 seconds. Then you are in the primary league regardless of gender. I would fall somewhere in the 10th league of the seniors division. Because AGE does matter.


HH =)

<3

The top tiers would be dominated by men, with hardly a woman in sight.

Maybe you're ok with burying the best women in fourth tier obscurity, but I think little girls need heroes too.

My thoughts on this post:
-First and foremost, don't we have enough problems in our public school systems without one more issue?
-With that said, yes, this an issue. How serious? I'm not sure.
-I see two groups fanning the anti-trans debate, the religious fanatics that don't believe trans-gender is real and the ones who feel trans athletes shouldn't participate in woman sports.
-IMO, this will not be solved in the short term even if there is legislation. And yes, I'm sure this will become a national debate during the presidential election.

Does the value of a person outweigh the value of sport?

Whichever is of lower value is probably what should be adapted.

The fundamental premise of competitive sport is inequality. X is better than Y.

A lot of sports seems like mimicry of war to me (stupid humans fighting for resources). Sports that are about personal accomplishment might be something different. Maybe for some it is about team work or entertainment. What do we want the purpose of sports to be? There is not going to be agreement.

I don't have any idea how to make this topic fair for everyone. All I know is that certain forces know it is a great way to divide people.

There's an aphorism:

Porn is to sex as sports is to war.

Which doesn't make it either true or false, but i find it thought provoking.

No one is denying anyone the ability to participate in sport. But if you developed your body under the influence of male hormones, you should not be competing as a woman. Two years of hormone therapy might correct hormone levels, but it's not going to entirely undo the body growth and development that occurred beforehand. Simple solution: Continue to compete on the men's side.

I don't disagree. But this would seem to indicate that sport should be adapted in some ways. But also how we portray sport and react to it culturally.

And yes, as Humberto pointed out, the "top tiers" will be cismale dominated. This also seems to be a reason to further adapt sport as economics to drive interest in self betterment, personal attainment rather than just the beat down by an arbitrary metric. Sell a better sports story.

“ Two years of hormone therapy might correct hormone levels…”

Not just hormone levels but muscle mass and bone density as well. It’s so complicated but not something that can’t be figured out eventually.

with me on a contentious topic. I’m not going to hate you or whatever. I hate being anonned when people are telling me something they think I don’t want to hear.

I miss the “pick a nick and stick” days.

Amen. In my view, if people don't use a consistent screen name (which is still anonymous!), they have little credibility. It's lazy and shows cowardice IMO.

I realize there are situations when someone has something personal they don't want associated with their screen names, but that should not be routine.

It's hard to interact when people are changing who they are all the time.

Yeah. Slings and arrows.

If so, would you mind looking for these studies at some point?

https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/hecox-v-little-safer-declaration

Page 20 sorry for the wonky formatting


Bermon S, Garnier P-Y. Serum androgen levels and their relation to performance in track and field: mass-spectrometry results from 2127 observations in male and female elite athlete. Br J Sports Med 2017; 51:1309-1314.

Bhasin S, et al. Testosterone dose-response relationships in health young men. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 2001; 281:E1172-E1181.

Hagmar M, et al. Hyperandrogenism may explain reproductive dysfunction in
Olympic athletes. Med Sci Sports Exercise 2009; 41:1241-1248.

Handelsman DJ, et al. Circulating testosterone as the hormonal basis of sex
differences in athletic performance. Endocrine Reviews 2018; 39:803-829.

Harper J. Race times for transgender athletes. Journal of Sporting Cultures and
Identities 2015; 6:1-9.

Hembree WC, et al. Endocrine treatment of gender-dysphoria/gender incongruent
persons: An Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab
2017; 102: 3869–3903.

Liang JJ, et al. Testosterone levels achieved by medically treated transgender
women in a United States endocrinology clinic cohort. Endocrine Practice 2018;
24:135-142.

Ostrander EA, et al. Genetics of athletic performance. Annu Rev Genomics Hum
Genet 2009; 10:407-429.

Rogol AD, Pieper LP. The interconnected histories of endocrinology and eligibility
in women’s sports. Horm Res Paediatr 2018; 90:213–220.

Safer JD, Tangpricha V. Care of the transgender patient. Ann Intern Med 2019;
171:ITC1-ITC16.

Safer JD, Tangpricha V. Care of transgender persons. N Engl J Med 2019;
381:2451-2460.

Wiik A, et al. Muscle strength, size and composition following 12 months of gender-
affirming treatment in transgender individuals. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2020;
105:1-9.

Beth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> LW: I think you’re having some cog dis and are
> flailing a bit because you don’t like the idea
> of a man beating up on a woman. Unfortunately, it
> follows that you don’t consider transgender
> women “real” women. Just think about that.
> It’s tricky and hard.

Thanks for describing cissexism better than I did, Beth. I'm not as optimistic about the arguing in good faith part. The reason I didn't want Lot's posting on the thread I started is because I knew she would throw a tantrum, also why I didn't bother replying to her and summer.

No matter how many articles, studies, and firsthand accounts people post, they just keep repeating the same talking points louder, not caring how much harm they cause as long as it's not them. And they think *I'm* the one who wants a certain result?

I honestly don't see arguments like that coming from anything but malice. The main reason I'm not posting as much anymore is because of their behavior. It's not concern for women's sports, it's just an excuse to be cruel.

ETA: I have nothing to say to those two, hence why I said "don't bother posting" on the other thread. I'm not going to reply to them, just report them to admin when they go too far.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2024 10:38PM by ookami.

> Thanks for describing cissexism better than I did,
> Beth. I'm not as optimistic about the arguing in
> good faith part. The reason I didn't want Lot's
> posting on the thread I started is because I knew
> she would throw a tantrum, also why I didn't
> bother replying to her and summer.

Get down off the cross, ookami. You know full well it belongs to Susan.


--------------
> No matter how many articles, studies, and
> firsthand accounts people post, they just keep
> repeating the same talking points louder, not
> caring how much harm they cause as long as it's
> not them. And they think *I'm* the one who wants a
> certain result?

"Talking points?" I read your sources yesterday and two of them were explicit talking points with instructions about how to couch them.

For you to turn around now and accuse others of doing what you do is projection of the most pathetic sort. Recall also that when we first discussed this, you offered a couple of scientific articles and I critiqued them. Your response was then to say that this isn't about science but about inclusion. There's no reasonable response to someone whose reaction to facts is emotion.


------------------
> I honestly don't see arguments like that coming
> from anything but malice.

And that is a profound character flaw.


---------------
> I's not concern for women's sports,
> it's just an excuse to be cruel.

There you go again. If you define other people's motives, you and the rest of the Catechism Crowd can go on your merry way secure in the knowledge that you are right.

IIRC in the past you have termed sports participation, "silly." You appear to equate it to a social club even at the highest levels. You personally never benefitted from Title IX as far as I know. You may not care about sports or women's ability to participate fairly in sports, but there are plenty of people who do.

What exactly is the problem with a trans-woman *continuing* to participate in men's sports? No one is asking her to do something she hasn't done before.

And as for tantrum throwing, the same could be said of you. I was thinking today that the Pre-K students at my school could give you lessons in tantrum throwing.

My girlfriend says she statistically won't live past her mid-40's. Quotes the average lifespan like it's normal and I hate that she says it so casual. I want her to live a long and happy life. And from what I can tell, the average lifespan of trans folks could go up if people would just stop being horrible to them.

But no, instead it's screaming in favor of a ban, ignoring evidence that the panic over "biological advantages" is overblown, harass people who call them out over bad arguments, and bomb threats to kids just for being accused of being trans. And all the while, they complain about how "opportunities for cis women" are disappearing while passing laws that deny rights to anyone not-cis.

Will it get through people's heads that if you need to exclude someone for "fairness," then the fairness is a lie. Or is the elitism and gatekeeping the point of sports?

Banning and excluding trans folks isn't defending anything, it's actively making life worse because it leads to laws like we're seeing in Utah and Oklahoma. People die and suffer because of them and the self-appointed "champions of women's sports" respond with "I don't care."

I do care. I just put trans, nonbinary, and two-spirit lives over cis comfort and ignorance.

Thank you Beth, anybody, dogbloggernli, dagny, and moehoward.

As for "biological reality," here's one: human are bags of meat that resemble pattern-bald primates. Said meatbags will build-up, injure, use, and lose said meat over time. The meatbags also cause harm to eachother based on beliefs that different meat configurations or casings are better, despite it being all meat underneath. Get over yourselves.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2024 06:36PM by ookami.

I asked this question upstream, but why not have transgender women *continue* to compete as men? It's not like it would be new to them. And it would be fairer to the biological women who did not benefit from years of physical development fueled by male hormones.

I'll quote Wiki regarding swimmer Lia Thomas:

"Thomas lost muscle mass and strength through testosterone suppression and hormone replacement therapy. Her time for the 500 freestyle is over 15 seconds slower than her personal bests before medically transitioning. Thomas's event progression peaked in 2019 for distance swimming, with a drop in times during the 2021–22 season. Her event progression for sprint swimming reflected a dip at the start of 2021–22 season before returning to near-lifetime bests in the 100 free and a lifetime personal best in the 50 free in 2021

In the 2018–2019 season she was, when competing in the men's team, ranked 554th in the 200 freestyle, 65th in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd in the 1650 freestyle. In the 2021–2022 season, those ranks are now, when competing in the women's team, fifth in the 200 freestyle, first in the 500 freestyle, and eighth in the 1650 freestyle."

So in Lia's case, testosterone suppression and hormone replacement therapy slowed her down, but still made her a far superior swimmer (competing as a woman,) to when she competed as a man. In my opinion, out of fairness, she should have continued to compete as a man.

But I know that you, Ookami, have expressed nothing but disrespect for the struggle that biological women have experienced in obtaining equal participation in sport. To you, sports are "silly" (that's a word that I specifically remember you using.)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2024 06:47PM by summer.

I've thought about this a lot.

First of all, there's a deafening silence about trans male athletes and trans men in particular. Why? Because they aren't regarded as a serious "threat" to male sexuality.


You would think that with all the fear, the fundies and haters would welcome treatment for trans kids so, using their terms, wouldn't look like "freaks" when they grew up. Why not?

Because, if they couldn't "tell," then they are a threat. What if the hot girl you like is one of "them?" How would you know? How could you tell? This reminds me of beauty pageants back in the 20s and 30s when they would try and "guess" if any of the contestants were partially black or Nazis measuring people's noses and skulls to make sure they weren't Jewish. There's a famous scene in the 50's version of "Imitation Of Life" were the secretly mixed race "you can't tell" girl is savagely beaten up by her boyfriend after finding out her mother is black.


Remember that Lia Thomas is very tall. Are you going to ban *all* tall women? Who decides who is and who is not "feminine" enough to compete? Notice I said *feminine*, because that's what the real issue is here. Being desirable, acceptable, and pleasing to *men* so they aren't perceived as threats. Take modeling for example. A lot of girls with AIS have tall, slim figures and many have become actresses or models, and until recently this was kept quiet. Why? So What? What difference would it make? It's the same thing. Desirable in the minds of men or the perception thereof.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2024 07:08PM by anybody.

Spot on, anybody. It was never about sports, it was always about identifying "others."

And the gatekeepers don't care about how much harm that will cause just like they won't care about the Dorothy Hunts* they're organizing doing damage to cis girls.

*Back in the 1970's and 80's, the Naval Investigative Services (the predecessor to the NCIS) opened an investigation into a secret network of homosexuals in the Navy run by Dorothy. They spent years searching for Dorothy to give them the names of all the "friends" of Dorothy. There was just one problem: said network didn't exist. "Friend of Dorothy" was an old slang term for a gay man, courtesy of Judy Garland's support for gay men in her life. So, the entire search was a waste of time based on homophobia and ignorance, and I'm getting sick of people thinking "it'll work this time, though!"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friend_of_Dorothy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2024 07:27PM by ookami.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've thought about this a lot.

Apparently not well.


-------------
> First of all, there's a deafening silence about
> trans male athletes and trans men in particular.
> Why? Because they aren't regarded as a serious
> "threat" to male sexuality.

That's just lazy. The proposition you should address is whether trans-women are or are not a threat to men in sport. If not, then there's no reason to fear them and society's lack of interest in the question is reasonable.

But you don't like that answer, so you refuse to recognize the question.


---------------
> You would think that with all the fear, the
> fundies and haters would welcome treatment for
> trans kids so, using their terms, wouldn't look
> like "freaks" when they grew up. Why not?

That has nothing to do with summer and me.


--------------
> Because, if they couldn't "tell," then they are a
> threat. What if the hot girl you like is one of
> "them?" How would you know? How could you tell?
> This reminds me of beauty pageants back in the 20s
> and 30s when they would try and "guess" if any of
> the contestants were partially black or Nazis
> measuring people's noses and skulls to make sure
> they weren't Jewish. There's a famous scene in
> the 50's version of "Imitation Of Life" were the
> secretly mixed race "you can't tell" girl is
> savagely beaten up by her boyfriend after finding
> out her mother is black.

Yeah, that's just like summer and me.


------------
> Remember that Lia Thomas is very tall. Are you
> going to ban *all* tall women? Who decides who is
> and who is not "feminine" enough to compete?
> Notice I said *feminine*, because that's what the
> real issue is here. Being desirable, acceptable,
> and pleasing to *men* so they aren't perceived as
> threats. Take modeling for example. A lot of
> girls with AIS have tall, slim figures and many
> have become actresses or models, and until
> recently this was kept quiet. Why? So What?
> What difference would it make? It's the same
> thing. Desirable in the minds of men or the
> perception thereof.

I know you'd like us to play target for you, but those have never been my views and I feel no need to defend them.

I apologize for any inconvenience that may cause.

I think you have pointed out an important element of this whole issue, anybody. Most will not talk about the male threat part out loud.

I know women who naturally are highly muscled and strong as heck. I know men who are scrawny and not very strong. This happens naturally a whole lot more than someone who looks female who ~may~ have had testosterone in younger years. There is probably about as much diversity between males (or females) as there is between genders.

Why aren't we trying to make exceptions for men who are not as muscled as other men? It's apparently fair for a scrawny dweeb to compete against the Rock and Arnold types because they all have male plumbing. I keep thinking there must be a better way to deal with this than gender history.

Simon Biles and Diana Taurasi have somehow prevented my daughter from winning in gymnastics and basketball. Why should they take advantage because of their height?

I know there are examples of women like Lia who might take advantage of this issue. Maybe there are enough people like her out there who would have advantages. I think there are a lot of other biological attributes that create advantages too.

I have zero solutions to offer. I still think weight and muscle mass can be classified over gender for many sports.

I do think anybody hit on part of the outrage: threatened male sexuality.

I also think it is unfortunate this one tiny thing has become such a point of contention. I think it is part of a bigger agenda to attack a weak minority group and keep everyone divided and mad at them.

ookami Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My girlfriend says she statistically won't live
> past her mid-40's. Quotes the average lifespan
> like it's normal and I hate that she says it so
> casual. I want her to live a long and happy life.
> And from what I can tell, the average lifespan of
> trans folks could go up if people would just stop
> being horrible to them.

Are you saying that not being allowed to compete as women in what you call a "silly" hobby is killing your girlfriend? Or is it summer and I who are harming her?

Or are you just blaming us for what she and I would agree are profoundly dangerous and unfair trends in broader society?


-----------------
> But no, instead it's screaming in favor of a ban,
> ignoring evidence that the panic over "biological
> advantages" is overblown,

That sounds pretty funny coming from a poster who accuses other of posting "talking points" while posting material that is EXPLICITLY LABELED talking points; who claims to have science in his favor but, when confronted with his own article contradicting what he says, insists that this issue is "not about science."

My heavens, you cited the ACLU as a source on sports physiology! The ACLU is a great organization and I support it financially, but it is NOT a scientific organization. Moreover I doubt you ever cared about it one way or another until now.


-------------
> . . . harass people who call
> them out over bad arguments. . .

Irony.


-------------
> . . . and bomb threats to
> kids just for being accused of being trans.

Has summer done that? Have I? Or are you scapegoating us for the actions of others?


---------------
> And
> all the while, they complain about how
> "opportunities for cis women" are disappearing
> while passing laws that deny rights to anyone
> not-cis.

Where did summer or I suggest that these matters should be decided legislatively? You can't?

I'm confident you won't let that stand in your way.


--------------
> Will it get through people's heads that if you
> need to exclude someone for "fairness," then the
> fairness is a lie.

Really? You're the arbiter of "fairness?"


---------------
> Or is the elitism and
> gatekeeping the point of sports?

That would be the "sports is silly argument" again. What is it about you that makes you think that you get to redefine the purposes of sports? How is it that you uniquely understand what is right, what is science, what is fair?


-------------
> Banning and excluding trans folks isn't defending
> anything, it's actively making life worse because
> it leads to laws like we're seeing in Utah and
> Oklahoma. People die and suffer because of them
> and the self-appointed "champions of women's
> sports" respond with "I don't care."

Has summer said she doesn't care? Have I? Why don't you provide links to where we have said that. Is it because you know you can't?



-----------
> I do care. I just put trans, nonbinary, and
> two-spirit lives over cis comfort and ignorance.

We know you don't care. You are so egocentric that you think anyone who disagrees with you is motivated by bad faith; you rage like the deprived infant you almost certainly once were.


------------
> Thank you Beth, anybody, dogbloggernli, dagny, and
> moehoward.

Beth has likewise posted articles that she hasn't bothered to read and has asserted that one trans-woman athlete competing in a single local MMA event over the course of nine years means that trans-women have "always" been part of the sport.

And anybody thinks that if there is some trans-boy who is a prominent athlete in some obscure midwestern high school, his presence invalidates the experiences and science behind national- and world-level athletes, then goes on to say that anyone who has not heard of that boy is motivated by anti-trans-women fear and malice.

Sure, that's logic.


--------------
> As for "biological reality," here's one: human are
> bags of meat that resemble pattern-bald primates.
> Said meatbags will build-up, injure, use, and lose
> said meat over time. The meatbags also cause harm
> to eachother based on beliefs that different meat
> configurations or casings are better, despite it
> being all meat underneath.

That applies to you and the people you love, too.


----------------
> Get over yourselves.

I'd suggest the same to you, but that's not going to happen. People like you are incapable of empathizing with those who aren't just like you.


-----------------
The Catachism Crowd saddens me. The inability to recognize that people who agree with you on 95% of what you say as allies is unfortunate and it doesn't help you.

The truth is that none of you three have any understanding of, or interest in understanding, sports physiology. So there's no point in trying to argue with you.

xxx



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2024 08:39PM by Maude.