news World Athletics bans transwomen from competing in sports entirely

[Communion]

1 hour ago, Brando said:

without trying to think about things they are advocating for for like 2 seconds. 

Why did Lia Thomas' race times collapse and fall perfectly in line with average female race times after just one year on HRT? And how does such evidence of the physical impact of HRT not then make general blanket bans indefensible?

 

As someone who is claiming to have nuanced, deeply-researched views that go beyond "the 2 seconds" you claim others have spent thinking on the subject, I am curious to know your thoughts you must have had when coming upon these easily found findings when looking into the topic of HRT's impact on physiology.

[Headlock]

1 hour ago, Brando said:

Because no matter what I say you will still call me a bigot or a transphobe because my views don't align with yours. You literally already did so without me saying anything, which literally proves my point. So if I'm gonna get called names anyways, why should I waste my breath trying to prove something to you

 

Also, not you continuously bringing up a PM as if trying to "expose" me for something or as if I did something illegal by sending you one. The amount of self-righteousness from you and the rest of "the gang" is beyond laughable. 

“You called me a bigot without me saying anything!!”

Also you:

”Not everything has to be inclusive!”

 

 

This is pathetic at this point. You won’t explain your SUPER REASONABLE POINTS, but also object to be called a transphobe and bigot due to upholding beliefs and actions that align with those titles. My bringing up your PMs is further evidence of your complete lack of backbone and inability to explain yourself EVEN IN PRIVATE. Again I will reiterate: what is your goal here? You claim you long for debate, but offer NOTHING. You can only cry wolf for so long before people realize there’s nothing there.

[Brando]

16 minutes ago, Communion said:

Why did Lia Thomas' race times collapse and fall perfectly in line with average female race times after just one year on HRT? And how does such evidence of the physical impact of HRT not then make general blanket bans indefensible?

 

As someone who is claiming to have nuanced, deeply-researched views that go beyond "the 2 seconds" you claim others have spent thinking on the subject, I am curious to know your thoughts you must have had when coming upon these easily found findings when looking into the topic of HRT's impact on physiology.

Quote

people in this thread are lying when they claim that evidence is conclusive and that it's a closed book issue. More research needs to be done, and clearer guidelines need to emerge.

.

 

-

 

The issue isn't just with trans athletes. There are other people who fall through the feathers of any of these biological markers. 

 

 

It's not just testosterone. It's already hard enough to keep the sports fair by defining the criteria within cis women athletes, and sadly there are negative consequences for people like Caster Semenya^ for falling out of those criteria. Adding trans women into the mix further complicates the issue and is almost universally viewed as unfair. Upholding a ban until there could be a scientifically irrefutable way of making the sports more inclusive is fair. Allowing anyone to compete just for the sake of inclusivity would do more harm than good to trans rights and would continue turning the public against the cause. Winning the war by making the society more accepting of trans rights is more important to me than winning certain battles for the sake of inclusivity but angering everyone in the process. 

[PoisonPill]

1 hour ago, Brando said:

Because no matter what I say you will still call me a bigot or a transphobe because my views don't align with yours. You literally already did so without me saying anything, which literally proves my point. So if I'm gonna get called names anyways, why should I waste my breath trying to prove something to you

 

Also, not you continuously bringing up a PM as if trying to "expose" me for something or as if I did something illegal by sending you one. The amount of self-righteousness from you and the rest of "the gang" is beyond laughable. 

Girl, you need to put that user on ignore. It's always the same histrionics, strawmans and sarcastic rants in every thread. At least communion seems actually intelligent/informed despite the way he chooses to communicate.

[Brando]

2 minutes ago, Headlock said:

”Not everything has to be inclusive!”

And I stand by that. When gay marriage became legal that was a landmark win for gay rights. Then some people started taking it further by forcing Christian churches to conduct and recognise those weddings or face legal action. That in my opinion is an unnecessary inclusivity. If Christian churches don't want me to be part of their organisations, why force myself in there just because I feel the need to be on par with everything straight couples can do. I can live without that. 

 

But for people like you it's 100% inclusivity in everything or death. Which is toxic as ****. 

[nathanspears]

I have two questions:

 

1) Where do trans women compete then?

 

2) What do trans men do?

[Communion]

31 minutes ago, Brando said:

.people in this thread are lying when they claim that evidence is conclusive and that it's a closed book issue. More research needs to be done, and clearer guidelines need to emerge.

So now that you've quoted them, @Harrier should have to speak up and defend themselves with actual statistics and citations to show evidence defending:

• not only the claim that statistics are inconclusive beyond just 'not enough time' (users defending trans bans have only been able to cite studies that show even just 6 months-1 year on HRT brought AMAB athletes down to the comparative female testosterone levels and corresponding strength);
• the suggestion that, when HRT does show the ability to to reduce strength to comparative levels, the correct answer is not to continue the status quo of hormone-level requirements but a blanket ban entirely 

Quote

Allowing anyone to compete just for the sake of inclusivity

How is letting trans women with comparative levels of testosterone and strength to your average cis woman competitor compete akin to "allowing anyone to compete"?

 

And not to be pointed, or to call @Harrier out directly, but they have previously said they are "skeptical" of HRT and gender-affirming care for anyone under the age of 18 because they believe "big pharma" has motive to profit here. How can then people support requiring trans athletes to undergo such gender-affirming care before puberty in order to compete, while then at the same time holding the view that such care is actually bad for trans youth and personally believes such should be done as minimally as possible or even outright banned? Is that not just a blanket ban on trans people - flat out? 

 

And this isn't a "call-out". I'm asking for an explanation on what appears to be a giant lapse in the logic put forward to defend the notion of banning trans women from competitive sport.

 

"Only trans people who medically transition pre-puberty can complete" + "No one should be allowed to medically transition before the age of 18" = "No trans people should compete ever at all."

Edited March 26, 2023 by Communion

[bleuwaffle]

[FreeXone]

As a trans women I agree with this. Now leave us the hell alone and keep us out your politics. 

[FreeXone]

25 minutes ago, nathanspears said:

I have two questions:

 

1) Where do trans women compete then?

 

2) What do trans men do?

We need our own categories. Like the special Olympics. 
 

Outside of sports I could care less but sports is where biology matters. 

[Nano]

2 hours ago, Phantom said:

I would like to shoutout @Communion , @Headlock, and @Miss Show Business for doing a great job combatting the blatant bigotry in this thread. Seriously, much appreciated

 

I used to get in the weeds like this a while back (especially sometime in the Covid threads and about other transphobic takes) but I have simply exhausted the mental energy, patience, and time due to personal circumstances to even be ABLE to deal with the incoherence of cis men apparently, in full sincerity, asking "well, why should everything be inclusive?" () on an LGBTQ+ friendly forum. Now I just pick and choose engagements to laugh at the dumb takes and move on, and ever since people ran in here on the very first page to jubilate I just nope'd out.

 

So once again, much appreciated!

 

The blatant circlejerking.

 

[Harrier]

1 hour ago, Communion said:

So now that you've quoted them, @Harrier should have to speak up and defend themselves with actual statistics and citations to show evidence defending:

• not only the claim that statistics are inconclusive beyond just 'not enough time' (users defending trans bans have only been able to cite studies that show even just 6 months-1 year on HRT brought AMAB athletes down to the comparative female testosterone levels and corresponding strength);
• the suggestion that, when HRT does show the ability to to reduce strength to comparative levels, the correct answer is not to continue the status quo of hormone-level requirements but a blanket ban entirely 

How is letting trans women with comparative levels of testosterone and strength to your average cis woman competitor compete akin to "allowing anyone to compete"?

 

And not to be pointed, or to call @Harrier out directly, but they have previously said they are "skeptical" of HRT and gender-affirming care for anyone under the age of 18 because they believe "big pharma" has motive to profit here. How can then people support requiring trans athletes to undergo such gender-affirming care before puberty in order to compete, while then at the same time holding the view that such care is actually bad for trans youth and personally believes such should be done as minimally as possible or even outright banned? Is that not just a blanket ban on trans people - flat out? 

 

And this isn't a "call-out". I'm asking for an explanation on what appears to be a giant lapse in the logic put forward to defend the notion of banning trans women from competitive sport.

 

"Only trans people who medically transition pre-puberty can complete" + "No one should be allowed to medically transition before the age of 18" = "No trans people should compete ever at all."

I never said no one should transition medically transition before the age of 18. Only that I was concerned about lifelong medicalization and that I wanted there to be enough measures in place to make sure (as much as possible) that only young people for whom this is the right choice were undergoing permanent, life altering medications. I think that it's actually fairly reasonable, and the good news is those measures are in place pretty much across the board. I was moved by stories of teenage detransitioners and not dealing with the facts.

For the point about studies, I'll point to you the following study which is what I was referring to implicitly in my post. It found that 2 years of HRT reduced trans women's performance, but not down to the levels of cis women. They still retained around a 10% competitive advantage, which is well and truly enough to be a concern at the top level. It also found trans men reached equivalent levels of performance to cis men after only 1 year of gender affirming hormones - also making it clear that forcing them to participate in women's sport would be a potential disaster.

 

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577.full?ijkey=yjlCzZVZFRDZzHz&keytype=ref

 

I'll throw in this systemic review of 4 studies, which found that trans women retain advantages after 36 months particularly in the area of strength.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8311086/

 

There are also sports in which height is a massive advantage. HRT cannot do anything about height. I'm 6'5 and I'd remain 6'5 if I transitioned. Almost no biologically typical females are my height. 

As I said, there isn't enough to be completely conclusive. There are also studies that show a bigger reduction in competitive advantage. Thus my argument: let's err on the side of caution, and temporarily ban trans women and intersex people from the top levels to make sure that we are doing the right thing by biologically typical cis women. I understand that idea and that language might make trans allies and trans people instinctively uncomfortable. But I hope you can see it's not coming from a place of bigotry or hatred - it's just making sure things are fair for cis women.

 

On you last point, I do, for the record, foresee no problem with trans women who haven't gone through male puberty participating. Though again there needs to be research there affirming that suspicion.

 

I dont think there is any logical inconsistency here. I love trans people and I want them to feel comfortable and accepted. I love gender nonconformity and think the world is in need of more of it. But I also want us to remain living in biological realities: acknowledge that yes, trans women retain some aspects of male physiology. They don't become 'typically female' regardless of surgery or hormones. That doesn't mean they're not women, it doesn't undermine their validity in my eyes because I am not an ******* conservative.

 

I get the defensiveness because our trans brothers and sisters are under attack. But if we can find a way to have these conversations in a way that affirms trans people while also not allowing all science & common sense to get swept under the rug in favor of 'validation', that would help us to not give ammunition to genocidal reactionaries.

[Bey Admired]

Thank God for common sense is all I’m going to say on this matter. 

[Harrier]

1 hour ago, Brando said:

Winning the war by making the society more accepting of trans rights is more important to me than winning certain battles for the sake of inclusivity but angering everyone in the process. 

I think this is an important point so I'd like to highlight it. I genuinely believe that over-stridency is a problem that is creating anger and backlash. I truly understand the defensiveness & the instinct to want to steamroll all concerns because this world is ******* terrible to trans people and conservatives are not engaging in this conversation in good faith, at all.

 

But our focus needs to be on making trans people safe and comfortable. Mindlessly doubling down in areas where there is room for nuance only helps the other side. Most people, including most LGBT people, have an instinctive sense that trans women competing with cis women might be unfair. Even many trans people feel this as we have seen in the thread. Let's just be careful about this one.

[Attitude]

16 minutes ago, Harrier said:

I think this is an important point so I'd like to highlight it. I genuinely believe that over-stridency is a problem that is creating anger and backlash. I truly understand the defensiveness & the instinct to want to steamroll all concerns because this world is ******* terrible to trans people and conservatives are not engaging in this conversation in good faith, at all.

 

But our focus needs to be on making trans people safe and comfortable. Mindlessly doubling down in areas where there is room for nuance only helps the other side. Most people, including most LGBT people, have an instinctive sense that trans women competing with cis women might be unfair. Even many trans people feel this as we have seen in the thread. Let's just be careful about this one.

Agreed.

[Communion]

44 minutes ago, Harrier said:

I never said no one should transition medically transition before the age of 18. Only that I was concerned about lifelong medicalization and that I wanted there to be enough measures in place to make sure (as much as possible) that only young people for whom this is the right choice were undergoing permanent, life altering medication

Again, this is my issue - your dishonesty. Your views are not compatible with each other. No matter how you try to perform double-speak and argue that your views are as well-intended as you believe.

 

You cannot hold that most minors are harmed by medically transitioning before the age of 18, and thus such is unethical to allow, but then frame regulations on competitive sports as ethical despite such essentially forcing anyone wanting to compete to do what you have explicitly said is unethical in the past.

 

Either you support broadened access for people to medically transition before puberty starts as they desire (to thus make the regulation you're supporting possible) to not make this a de-facto ban;

*or*

You continue support tightening access to gender-affirming care to minors, which means you support a de-facto total ban (many people begin puberty before the age of 10; if you have warned 16-year-olds were not ready to transition, how can you now say expecting a 9-year-old to do such is reasonable and not a total ban?)

 

Is the sleight of hand that your scenario ends with pre-puberty medical transition not being "the right choice" for anyone?

 

This is why it is a lapse in logic. The material impact of what you claim you support vs what is the result are not adding up. Your views result materially in a de-facto ban of all trans people, permanently. 

 

This is why your refusal to follow the science that supports the status quo of testing athletes on the basis of hormone levels is very questionable.

 

You say things like this:

57 minutes ago, Harrier said:

They still retained around a 10% competitive advantage,

Yet the studies you show found that strength difference in doing a round of sit-up's and push-up's essentially vanished between trans women and cis women, and that the advantage you speak of, came in run time. A remaining 9% average advantage would be something to speak about, if such also wasn't then documented as dropping from a 35% average advantage pre-hormone replacement therapy. 2 years of HRT did such.

 

You unknowingly grasp why a blanket ban on trans women is nonsensical when saying the below:

1 hour ago, Harrier said:

There are also sports in which height is a massive advantage. HRT cannot do anything about height.

Tall people run faster than short people! That is part of the physiology of being tall! For tall women too!

This is a NON-sex-based difference inherent to the unfairness of competition! So even the study you linked shows that HRT does indeed collapse any advantage that height may give a tall AMAB athlete *on average*.

 

Meaning there are countless people in the study who had results under the average and fully comparative to cis women. So your declaration that there's no evidence to continue the status quo of case-by-case analysis for each individual athlete makes no sense.  You're admitting that there are indeed countless trans women athletes who would be completely equal in strength to cis women, but that ALL trans women (and even some cis women) should be banned if even just *one* trans women retains an advantage.

 

If the only thing you can weaponize against trans women is something *AS INDIVIDUALIZED AS HEIGHT*, then you admit there is no rationale to *a blanket ban against all trans women across all competitive sports*.

 

"I know 6.5 ft. cis men so 5.5 ft trans women should be banned from competing with cis women"... huh? 

[Harrier]

7 minutes ago, Communion said:

Again, this is my issue - your dishonesty. Your views are not compatible with each other. No matter how you try to perform double-speak and argue that your views are as well-intended as you believe.

 

You cannot hold that most minors are harmed by medically transitioning before the age of 18, and thus such is unethical to allow, but then frame regulations on competitive sports as ethical despite such essentially forcing anyone wanting to compete to do what you have explicitly said is unethical in the past.

 

Either you support broadened access for people to medically transition before puberty starts as they desire (to thus make the regulation you're supporting possible) to not make this a de-facto ban;

*or*

You continue support tightening access to gender-affirming care to minors, which means you support a de-facto total ban (many people begin puberty before the age of 10; if you have warned 16-year-olds were not ready to transition, how can you now say expecting a 9-year-old to do such is reasonable and not a total ban?)

 

Is the sleight of hand that your scenario ends with pre-puberty medical transition not being "the right choice" for anyone?

 

This is why it is a lapse in logic. The material impact of what you claim you support vs what is the result are not adding up. Your views result materially in a de-facto ban of all trans people, permanently. 

 

This is why your refusal to follow the science that supports the status quo of testing athletes on the basis of hormone levels is very questionable.

 

You say things like this:

Yet the studies you show found that strength difference in doing a round of sit-up's and push-up's essentially vanished between trans women and cis women, and that the advantage you speak of, came in run time. A remaining 9% average advantage would be something to speak about, if such also wasn't then documented as dropping from a 35% average advantage pre-hormone replacement therapy. 2 years of HRT did such.

 

You unknowingly grasp why a blanket ban on trans women is nonsensical when saying the below:

Tall people run faster than short people! That is part of the physiology of being tall! For tall women too!

This is a NON-sex-based difference inherent to the unfairness of competition! So even the study you linked shows that HRT does indeed collapse any advantage that height may give a tall AMAB athlete *on average*.

 

Meaning there are countless people in the study who had results under the average and fully comparative to cis women. So your declaration that there's no evidence to continue the status quo of case-by-case analysis for each individual athlete makes no sense.  You're admitting that there are indeed countless trans women athletes who would be completely equal in strength to cis women, but that ALL trans women (and even some cis women) should be banned if even just *one* trans women retains an advantage.

 

If the only thing you can weaponize against trans women is something *AS INDIVIDUALIZED AS HEIGHT*, then you admit there is no rationale to *a blanket ban against all trans women across all competitive sports*.

 

"I know 6.5 ft. cis men so 5.5 ft trans women should be banned from competing with cis women"... huh? 

This is an entirely dishonest response to my post that incorrectly frames my argument, attempts to put words into my mouth, wilfully misinterprets the studies I posted and overall shows a a willingness to completely lie and mischaracterise the arguments of others in order to make a point. I will not be bothering to waste my time on writing a response. I have curriculum to write today  

[Communion]

2 hours ago, Brando said:

Winning the war by making the society more accepting of trans rights is more important to me than winning certain battles for the sake of inclusivity but angering everyone in the process. 

 

1 hour ago, Harrier said:

But our focus needs to be on making trans people safe and comfortable. Mindlessly doubling down in areas where there is room for nuance only helps the other side.

People are not "trying to protect trans rights" and "making trans people safe and comfortable" while working to both create barriers for trans people to medically transition and have legal protections:

 

On 1/28/2023 at 7:55 PM, Harrier said:

If the system was working properly you wouldn't have all these detransitioners coming out, or lots of people saying they didn't know transition would sterilise them. I don't have cases to pull out off the top of my head because this is just an ATRL thread but you're denying the reality we can all see if you think it's going perfectly.

 

For me, it's part of a wider problem in America (and elsewhere) of overmedicalisation. Too many people are on prescriptions.

On 4/28/2022 at 4:19 PM, Brando said:

never called her "they". never will. i'm glad i won't need to avoid pronouns when talking about her anymore 

On 7/17/2022 at 1:15 PM, Brando said:

U ok? Welcome to the society babe. You can live in your own online bubble if you want and use any pronouns that anyone comes up with. The rest of us live in the real world where this stuff just doesn't work. 

On 6/12/2022 at 9:43 AM, Brando said:

[in response to "when did the t-slur become offensive?"]

At the same time that the rainbow flag became not inclusive enough

"Let cishet people have sports so we can focus on more important fights!"

But also...

• Let them have their way and restrict the ability to medically transition
• Let them have their way and call you pronouns that aren't accurate
• Let them have their way and call you slurs that aren't theirs to say

?

 

I wouldn't normally quote two users and make them accountable for one another's nonsense, but so often this kind of alliance forms in real life between the "I just have some concerns.." liberal and the "You asking for basic respect in public spaces made me change my entire politics" reactionary  so often. 

Edited March 27, 2023 by Communion

[hallucinate]

well then they should just give trans women their own category tbh.

it’s also not fair for them to compete against men

Edited March 27, 2023 by hallucinate

[Fuecoco]

18 minutes ago, Communion said:

 

People are not "trying to protect trans rights" and "making trans people safe and comfortable" while working to both create barriers for trans people to medically transition and have legal protections:

 

"Let cishet people have sports so we can focus on more important fights!"

But also...

• Let them have their way and restrict the ability to medically transition
• Let them have their way and call you pronouns that aren't accurate
• Let them have their way and call you slurs that aren't theirs to say

?

 

I wouldn't normally quote two users and make them accountable for one another's nonsense, but so often this kind of alliance forms in real life between the "I just have some concerns.." liberal and the "You asking for basic respect in public spaces made me change my entire politics" reactionary  so often. 

Just scrolling through comments and seeing yours all the time in multiple threads (and not actually reading them) makes me realize there’s something truly wrong with you. You clearly need a hobby, immediately… Lol

 

OT: trans peeps just need their own categories. Problem solved.

Edited March 27, 2023 by Fuecoco

[Cyanide]

1 hour ago, Harrier said:

I never said no one should transition medically transition before the age of 18. Only that I was concerned about lifelong medicalization and that I wanted there to be enough measures in place to make sure (as much as possible) that only young people for whom this is the right choice were undergoing permanent, life altering medications. I think that it's actually fairly reasonable, and the good news is those measures are in place pretty much across the board. I was moved by stories of teenage detransitioners and not dealing with the facts.

For the point about studies, I'll point to you the following study which is what I was referring to implicitly in my post. It found that 2 years of HRT reduced trans women's performance, but not down to the levels of cis women. They still retained around a 10% competitive advantage, which is well and truly enough to be a concern at the top level. It also found trans men reached equivalent levels of performance to cis men after only 1 year of gender affirming hormones - also making it clear that forcing them to participate in women's sport would be a potential disaster.

 

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577.full?ijkey=yjlCzZVZFRDZzHz&keytype=ref

 

I'll throw in this systemic review of 4 studies, which found that trans women retain advantages after 36 months particularly in the area of strength.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8311086/

 

There are also sports in which height is a massive advantage. HRT cannot do anything about height. I'm 6'5 and I'd remain 6'5 if I transitioned. Almost no biologically typical females are my height. 

As I said, there isn't enough to be completely conclusive. There are also studies that show a bigger reduction in competitive advantage. Thus my argument: let's err on the side of caution, and temporarily ban trans women and intersex people from the top levels to make sure that we are doing the right thing by biologically typical cis women. I understand that idea and that language might make trans allies and trans people instinctively uncomfortable. But I hope you can see it's not coming from a place of bigotry or hatred - it's just making sure things are fair for cis women.

 

On you last point, I do, for the record, foresee no problem with trans women who haven't gone through male puberty participating. Though again there needs to be research there affirming that suspicion.

 

I dont think there is any logical inconsistency here. I love trans people and I want them to feel comfortable and accepted. I love gender nonconformity and think the world is in need of more of it. But I also want us to remain living in biological realities: acknowledge that yes, trans women retain some aspects of male physiology. They don't become 'typically female' regardless of surgery or hormones. That doesn't mean they're not women, it doesn't undermine their validity in my eyes because I am not an ******* conservative.

 

I get the defensiveness because our trans brothers and sisters are under attack. But if we can find a way to have these conversations in a way that affirms trans people while also not allowing all science & common sense to get swept under the rug in favor of 'validation', that would help us to not give ammunition to genocidal reactionaries.

 

16 minutes ago, Harrier said:

This is an entirely dishonest response to my post that incorrectly frames my argument, attempts to put words into my mouth, wilfully misinterprets the studies I posted and overall shows a a willingness to completely lie and mischaracterise the arguments of others in order to make a point. I will not be bothering to waste my time on writing a response. I have curriculum to write today  

[Communion]

35 minutes ago, Harrier said:

This is an entirely dishonest response to my post that incorrectly frames my argument, attempts to put words into my mouth, wilfully misinterprets the studies I posted and overall shows a a willingness to completely lie and mischaracterise the arguments of others in order to make a point. I will not be bothering to waste my time on writing a response. I have curriculum to write today  

Sis, you are literally the person who was faced with conclusive studies that showed regret rates of medical transition were as low as 3% for trans people (and that the vast majority of trans people who did detransition go on to later *re-transition* later on in life), and the responded with this:

On 1/28/2023 at 9:11 PM, Harrier said:

@Communion While I see your point, I think 3% is a significant enough number to warrant consideration. 

And only when multiple people besides myself corrected you on the objective facts that you were ignoring, did you acknowledge that you were in the wrong and, as I quote, "duped" by anti-trans propaganda:

On 2/12/2023 at 11:31 PM, Harrier said:

Reflecting on the exchanges in this thread from @Eternium tagging me and having done more reading, I can see where I went wrong here. Rather idly speculating, I should have taken the time to better understand regret rates when it comes to trans surgeries and gender affirming care. While we shouldn't dismiss detrasnsitioners entirely, it's very important to keep in mind that they do represent a small minority, and protecting trans people from the blatant attacks from the right is the most important thing right now. I apologize for being duped somewhat by some of the fear mongering around gender affirming care, and for contributing to a narrative that's building to make trans healthcare illegal entirely. I allowed it to play into my other views about the overmedicalization of children in terms of drugs prescribed for mental health & neurodivergence, and I was ignorant.

Maybe instead of having a bee in your bonnet where you view yourself as an inherently logical liberal and frame myself and one or two others as eXtrEMisTs, who thus can NEVER be acting from the most logical and responsible position, maybe take a second to reflect on how you find yourself repeatedly duped by and tricked into supporting right-wing movements and narratives that seek to harm trans people.

 

In this thread alone, your refusal to engage with why a "blanket ban" is the *extremist* route and why the science supports the continued status quo has you locked arm-in-arm with users who *checks note* call non-binary people mentally ill or who have lauded trans people as "ruining the LGB movement as a whole".

 

The irony being, somehow, American liberals have been the main hardliners for pro-trans equality compared to their British and Australian peers overtaken by different waves of TERF rhetoric, and thus, trans support remains the highest out of the 3 in - again, somehow - America. 

Maybe protecting trans people also requires rejecting and not being duped by right-wing narratives.

Edited March 27, 2023 by Communion

[Lara Croft]

2 hours ago, FreeXone said:

As a trans women I agree with this. Now leave us the hell alone and keep us out your politics. 

Period. 
 

10 pages of essays and dissertations from GAYS on here. Just be quiet and listen to what actual trans women have to say + keep it moving, stay out of trans ppl business! 

[Fuecoco]

3 hours ago, FreeXone said:

As a trans women I agree with this. Now leave us the hell alone and keep us out your politics. 

 

2 hours ago, FreeXone said:

We need our own categories. Like the special Olympics. 
 

Outside of sports I could care less but sports is where biology matters. 

 

The common sense here speaks for itself. 

[Fuecoco]

2 hours ago, Nano said:

The blatant circlejerking.

 

Yup yup.