Transgender - Part 2

[Gethelred]

Please be aware that the tolerance of anti-trans language on BF is at an all-time low. Jokes and insults that are trans-related, as well as anti-trans and bigoted rhetoric will be met with infractions, threadbans etc as required. It's a sensitive (and important) topic, so behave like well-mannered adults when discussing it, PARTICULARLY when disagreeing. This equally applies across the whole site.

 

[kirsti]

jk rowling is one bottle of gin away from saying that only white people can be women


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[kirsti]

Who would have thought it would take a woman punching another woman to get so many men suddenly interested in reducing violence against women.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[ShanDog]

A good read on where your beliefs actually come from:

What is essentialism? And how does it shape attitudes to transgender people and sexual diversity?

Essentialism seeks certainty in a fluid world, but it is an inherently conservative philosophy that ought to be expunged from contemporary ethical and political debates.

theconversation.com

So you are diagnosing the internal machinations of someone you don't know from afar based on extremely limited observation and your own biases? Well, isn't that a wonderful piece of irony?

In my experience, people who bust out the essentialism accusation are usually the "Well akshually," crowd who only just learned what essentialism is themselves.

 

[Chief]

So you are diagnosing the internal machinations of someone you don't know from afar based on extremely limited observation and your own biases? Well, isn't that a wonderful piece of irony?

In my experience, people who bust out the essentialism accusation are usually the "Well akshually," crowd who only just learned what essentialism is themselves.

It's where it all comes from.

Denying it because it doesn't feel right doesn't make it wrong.

 

[ShanDog]

It's where it all comes from.

Denying it because it doesn't feel right doesn't make it wrong.

Didn't think you'd buy into singular cause fallacies and other similar rubbish.

 

[ShanDog]

Research into trans medicine has been manipulated

Court documents offer a window into how this happens

www.economist.com

Huh.

I was told that an organisation like WPATH is the most trustworthy entity if you want a review of evidence done, because they are the experts and trans healthcare professionals! They wouldn't have a conflict of interest regarding the findings at all, I was told. That's why it's ridiculous that an external agency would conduct any form of review on medical issues and the Cass review must therefore be illegitimate, right?

But as it turns out, WPATH also thought it was standard operating procedure to have an appropriate third party conduct reviews, which is why they contracted Johns Hopkins University to conduct systematic reviews on the effectiveness of hormones as treatment for trans adults. But, it turns out, they wouldn't allow the reviews to be done unless they could vet the results and interfered in the process the whole way to ensure they got results they liked.

Except they didn't even manage that - the reviews came back with some very poor results (from WPATH's perspective) because, as the Cass Review pointed out, the evidence is shit, and Johns Hopkins found the same thing.

So not only did WPATH then reject five of the six reviews (would love to see how poor they came back), they made the authors lie on the one that they did publish to say that WPATH had nothing to do with the studies.

And to add to all this, other reporting also says the president of WPATH sent out emails to the organisation explicitly stating they needed to block any negative results, and the removal of age limits for medical treatment in their own standards of care was done at the behest of one influential trans public figure, rather than any actual study or evidence.

This is the sort of expertise I have as told we should be listening to and trusting.

Hah.

 

[kirsti]

A unique pseudo-eligibility analysis of longitudinal laboratory performance data from a trans female competitive cyclist.

Blair R. Hamilton, Ke Hu , Fergus Guppy, Yannis Pitsiladis, (2024)

limited evidence, suggests the trans athlete could compete equitably in elite cycling events within the F category after 1yr of GAHT.

A unique pseudo-eligibility analysis of longitudinal laboratory performance data from a transgender female competitive cyclist

Background and Aims The Union Cycliste Internationale has deemed transgender female athlete’s ineligible for the female category due to concerns about performance advantages. We conducted a follow-up analysis on laboratory-based performance indicators of sports performance using data from a...

www.degruyter.com

Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Chief]

Didn't think you'd buy into singular cause fallacies and other similar r

"She doesn't look enough like a woman... "

It's olden days woo.

 

[ShanDog]

"She doesn't look enough like a woman... "

It's olden days woo.

Simple answers to complex issues are for children.

 

[Chief]

Simple answers to complex issues are for children.

Why over-intellectualise bigotry?

"She doesn't look like the proper idea of a woman!"

You've argued for this type of thing in relation to Peterson's work.

Now it's too simplistic and childish?

 

[ShanDog]

Why over-intellectualise bigotry?

"She doesn't look like the proper idea of a woman!"

You've argued for this type of thing in relation to Peterson's work.

Now it's too simplistic and childish?

Aren't you the one over-intellectualising by trying to cram a diagnosis of essentialism onto everyone who is transphobic or ignorant alike?

I don't know what you mean about Peterson. He argued the same thing but worded it as taking a low-resolution view of an issue and trying to solve things without looking at the detail - I.e. coming up with a panacea such as saying everyone who you deem is transphobic or ignorant is actually an essentialist. And it just so happens to have the bonus factor of inherently criticising religion too. I get that, but it's the sort of attention to detail that is worth noting...

 

[Gethelred]

Fair bit of "Look over there!" in the posting today...

 

[Chief]

Aren't you the one over-intellectualising by trying to cram a diagnosis of essentialism onto everyone who is transphobic or ignorant alike?

No, I'm simplifying it. Apparently? You've changed your assessment in the space of one post it looks like?

Where would ANY of the arguments about a woman not looking "womanly" enough to be considered a woman be without this old magical thinking?

I take your point about some other arguments being a little further from this, but if you chase these "what is a woman" arguments back through the thinking of the person making them, that's where you almost always end up: One unchanging idea of what a woman is. Unwillingness to accept that it might not match the image of the Virgin Mary holding baby Jesus*, or whatever magic picture they might have in their head.


(Peterson's current waffle being that any change in this will lead to the downfall of "the West". Literally.)

 

[ShanDog]

No, I'm simplifying it. Apparently? You've changed your assessment in the space of one post it looks like?

A complex answer is multifaceted on almost all circumstances. Just because your panacea is couched in academic language, it doesn't mean it's complicated. So you're managing to simultaneously find a simple answer to a complex problem by over-intellectualising. It's very impressive

Where would ANY of the arguments about a woman not looking "womanly" enough to be considered a woman be without this old magical thinking?

I find this a really strange argument. We know that men and women look different for biological reasons that are true for 99.9% of people, hence the evolutionary ability to tell the difference between a man and a woman almost perfectly. How is this magical thinking? Or are you talking about women not being womanly enough for societal standards of beauty? Because while that might be true and worth talking about, it's not really the point here when talking about sport.

I take your point about some other arguments being a little further from this, but if you chase these "what is a woman" arguments back through the thinking of the person making them, that's where you almost always end up: One unchanging idea of what a woman is. Unwillingness to accept that it might not match the image of the Virgin Mary holding baby Jesus*, or whatever magic picture they might have in their head.

Sure, and while I largely agree, I think that if we are going to get anywhere with this, it's worth trying to understand why people feel that way instead of just blasting them as shit humans. I mean, it's made everything worse so far, so why keep going?

 

[ShanDog]

Fair bit of "Look over there!" in the posting today...

I wouldn't be so harsh on Kirsty.

 

[Chief]

So you're managing to simultaneously find a simple answer to a complex problem by over-intellectualising. It's very impressive

None of this is happening.

 

[BlueE]

So you are medically diagnosing this Algerian boxer based off Russian misinformation and using a BBC documentary on the Dominican Republic?

That's some interesting scientific methodology you got there BlueE.

No.

Don't you get tired of posting unfunny and not very smart personal attacks on me based on being the on call troll?

World renowned research I studied over 30 years ago in a post grad course, on female gender assignment at birth and subsequent upbringing as a female until puberty for normal XY chromosome males, was originally to Shandog for discussion of seminal published scientific research that fit the known facts.

 

[ShanDog]

None of this is happening.

Right, you're just providing a catch-all answer using one simple trick that big transphobia doesn't want you to know about!

 

[Chief]

I find this a really strange argument. We know that men and women look different for biological reasons that are true for 99.9% of people, hence the evolutionary ability to tell the difference between a man and a woman almost perfectly. How is this magical thinking?

I have an evolutionary ability to spot cringe pop-sci evolutionary biology arguments almost perfectly. The paradox could be almost as damaging to the fabric of space time as a female boxer getting a hard bop on the nose.

Or are you talking about women not being womanly enough for societal standards of beauty? Because while that might be true and worth talking about, it's not really the point here when talking about sport.

It is LITERALLY about this post:

They were born with an XY chromosome, which is the male chromosome, but they were born with female bodies, they have the physical attributes of a female,” she said.

Seriously?

View attachment 2067143

You know that this is a "she doesn't look girly enough for the science to be correct" argument, aka essentialist, aka old-timey magical woo, aka religious/conservative twaddle. Might as well add that it's an argument from incredulity while we're here, I suppose.

Same thing happened with Lia Thompson (sp?). Get a photo at the right angle to gee up the crowd with a comparison of traditional masculine/feminine physical traits. As if this disproves all of the science on the subject.

 

[ShanDog]

You know that this is a "she doesn't look girly enough for the science to be correct" argument, aka essentialist, aka old-timey magical woo, aka religious/conservative twaddle. Might as well add that it's an argument from incredulity while we're here, I suppose.

Same thing happened with Lia Thompson (sp?). Get a photo at the right angle to gee up the crowd with a comparison of traditional masculine/feminine physical traits. As if this disproves all of the science on the subject.

Right, so to you, the philosophical theory off essentialism is far more credulous than the idea that our species can almost always tell the sexes apart after millions of years of evolution?

So evolution over religion, until ironically, the evolution idea doesn't fit with your dogma.

 

[BlueE]

You know that this is a "she doesn't look girly enough for the science to be correct" argument, aka essentialist, aka old-timey magical woo, aka religious/conservative twaddle. Might as well add that it's an argument from incredulity while we're here, I suppose.

Same thing happened with Lia Thompson (sp?). Get a photo at the right angle to gee up the crowd with a comparison of traditional masculine/feminine physical traits. As if this disproves all of the science on the subject.

Khelif's looks exactly match the science and accepted facts, including what Khelif's father is saying about female gender assessment at birth.

Edit: So does Lia Thomas.

You're making arguments which shandog has fully addressed and dismantled.

 

[RCAB]

So nobody actually watched the boxing match, their just in the discussion for their own agenda?

 

[Chief]

Khelif's looks exactly match the science and accepted facts, including what Khelif's father is saying about female gender assessment at birth.

It could be entirely possible that you meant to say "Seriously?" in a way that meant you agreed with the sentence that preceded it, instead of how I saw it in that you were indicating you are incredulous about the preceding sentence:

They were born with an XY chromosome, which is the male chromosome, but they were born with female bodies, they have the physical attributes of a female,” she said.

Seriously?

View attachment 2067143

Do I have it right or wrong?

It could be entirely possible that you presented this as something other than agreement with the obvious fact that cis males should not be boxing against women:

From another Aussie, Tina Rahimi who competes in the same division as Lin but lost to Poland’s Julia Szeremeta on Friday,


“Going into a major event like this, I think it’s really unnecessary unless there are proper facts to prove that is the case.”

Asked about athletes with male XY chromosomes competing in women’s events, Rahimi said: “I don’t know where the evidence is for that. Obviously, men should be participating in men’s sport, and women should be participating in women’s sport.

So, if I have it wrong, let me know.

 

[Chief]

Independent statements and gender testing results all disclose having XY chromosomes and failing biochemical tests for testosterone levels.

Cool, I am sure you have those test results at hand, validated by someone other than Umar Kremlev, whose unhinged bigotry was posted by Ghost Patrol earlier?

 

[Chief]

Right, so to you, the philosophical theory off essentialism is far more credulous than the idea that our species can almost always tell the sexes apart after millions of years of evolution?

Ask any number of dudes on holiday in some Pacific countries.

So evolution over religion, until ironically, the evolution idea doesn't fit with your dogma.

"Transdar" is what you're going on?