For years we've heard wondrous tales from the APL (American political left) about the socialist paradise that exists in the Scandinavian countries. Usually this is is regards to some of their social "safety net" policies and the like.
Strangely enough, Sweden (and other Scandinavian countries) response to COVID didn't get the rapturous support from the APL as their social policies. Even though their COVID response seemed to work better than many countries.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2022/04/19/what-sweden-got-right-about-covid/
Well, now Sweden is going against the APL grain again apparently against "Science" in how they deal with "Trans" minor children.
https://personandidentity.com/sweden-changes-policy-saying-the-risks-of-hormones-and-surgery-outweigh-the-benefits/
Given the response of the APL to COVID, one could logically conclude that Swedish "scientists" are wrong and that they must be corrected. But, what if the Swede's are right about this too? What if the APL is ignoring scientific evidence in a headlong rush to "transition" as many minor children as possible?
I'll likely add to this over the coming days as I've seen a lot more information that indicates that "hormone therapy" and "delaying puberty" and the like are not the happy, benign, wonderful, "treatments" that the APL present them as.
"Trans acceptance would be in a way better place if they stopped pushing the kid stuff, Most reasonable people can support adults making choices about their own bodies. Only insane people think kids can consent to sterilization or removing body parts before they can drive a car."
Blair White (Trans Woman)
"Children CAN"T consent to anything, by definition. This is the elephant in the room with the "trans kids" and broader medical access discourse, the sickening "MAP" conversation, etc. People are debating when something that isn't legally or ethically possible can occur."
Will Reilly (we should listen to what black voices say)
One of the things that people extoll for "trans children" is that they delay puberty through drug/hormone injections. Yet, "Puberty is a period of rapid growth and sexual maturation. These changes begin sometime between age eight and fourteen. Girls begin puberty at around ten years of age and boys begin approximately two years later.". Why would anyone think that encouraging children to make life altering decisions about their "sexual identity" before they are "sexually mature", is a good idea? Doesn't it seem reasonable that one's views on one's sexuality might change and mature as one goes through puberty?
Adolescence is the period between the onset of puberty, and adulthood.
https://pdx.pressbooks.pub/humandevelopment/chapter/puberty-cognition/
https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Families/FFF-Guide/The-Teen-Brain-Behavior-Problem-Solving-and-Decision-Making-095.aspx
https://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/health/c/cognitive
https://kidshelpline.com.au/parents/issues/mood-swings-and-puberty
I could be wrong, but this looks like some experts who seem pretty agreed that puberty kicks off a major change in how children's thought processes and decision making abilities change between childhood and adulthood. It sure seems like encouraging children to make major, life (permanent body altering decisions) before they are cognitively equipped to do so, veers toward child abuse.
Instead of posting the multiple links, I'm linking to the whole post.
https://winteryknight.com/2022/04/26/will-the-harming-of-trans-children-cause-secular-leftists-to-reconsider-their-values/
Let's just ignore this.
https://www.genderdissent.com/post/transition-your-body-destroy-your-mind
"What a time to be alive when I , as a gay man, have to defend the rights of straight people who just want to send their kids to school without them being indoctrinated with radical TQUIA+ religious ideologies"
Storm Robinson
This can't be a good thing, can it? Are "trans" children adequately warned about these risks?
https://twitter.com/anoushtutoush/status/1517459738316918785
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24336244/
https://www.brighamandwomens.org/assets/BWH/patients-and-families/rehabilitation-services/pdfs/pelvic-floor-considerations-in-the-transgender-and-gender-noncomforming-patient.pdf?TRILIBIS_EMULATOR_UA=aqkljlpwmmkitx%2Caqkljlpwmmkitx
I mean "urinary incontinence", "rectal dysfunction", and " fecal incontinence" don't sound good at all.
https://transcare.ucsf.edu/guidelines/pain-transmen
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41419-020-2484-2
Is "skeletal muscle atrophy" a big deal?
https://www.google.com/search?q=amaze.org+videos+is+it+normal+to+watch+porn&client=firefox-b-1-e&ei=Wh1sYuuGFd-8ytMPquyFkA0&ved=0ahUKEwjrm4-X47n3AhVfnnIEHSp2AdIQ4dUDCA4&uact=5&oq=amaze.org+videos+is+it+normal+to+watch+porn&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAM6BwgAEEcQsAM6BggAEBYQHjoFCCEQoAE6BQghEKsCOggIIRAWEB0QHkoECEEYAEoECEYYAFCqCFijTGD7UGgBcAF4AIAB7QGIAaoZkgEGNC4yMS4ymAEAoAEByAEIwAEB&sclient=gws-wiz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9ZNINhdhN0
This doesn't seem quite normal.
https://hype.my/2022/268681/video-tiktok-user-identifies-as-fishgender-and-netizens-are-confused/
While this article seems to lean towards, surgical intervention for adolescents, it's pretty clear that there is much to little actual research, to dogmatically claim that early intervention is the best option.
This quote was one of the more troubling in the article. The fact that US therapists are basing heir advice based on "fear" of what advocates for a particular position will call them instead of what's best for their patients, seems like malpractice.
"Edwards-Leeper says in the U.S., therapists now fear that if they encourage young people to think more deeply about their gender, the therapists may be labeled transphobic."
https://undark.org/2022/04/06/the-evolution-of-pediatric-transgender-medicine/
This seems to raise questions about the benefits of "transitioning" pre puberty, and about informed consent.
"At a recent talk at Duke University on "Trans & Gender Diverse Policies, Care, Practices, & Wellbeing," surgeon and "trans affirming"
doctor Marci Bowers, who transitioned at the age of 38, admitted that
children who undergo transition before puberty will never have adult
sexual function or experience orgasm. An observation that I had," said Bowers, "every single child who was, or adolescent, who was truly blocked at Tanner stage 2," which is the beginning of physical development, when hormones begin their work of advancing a child to adulthood, "has never experienced orgasm. I mean, it's really about zero.
"And they don't really go on testosterone at around surgery or into adulthood. And so we don't know they're going to have this sensation, there's no question about that. But are they going to be able to really achieve sexual satisfaction? It's important in relationships, and I know that from my work with female genital mutilation survivors, that that the lack of being able to be intimate with a partner is very important. And so this is what really raised the red flag for me, is to say, look, we're gonna really, we need to have our eyes open about it."
Bowers, who had three children before undergoing gender transition in middle-age, said that this concern should change the "informed consent models" where children are told what they are giving up—sexual function, sexual pleasure, intimacy in relationships, having children—and then agree to it before they even have any idea what those things truly are.
"These are to be answered questions: So can we avoid puberty and get good adult results? And secondly, how do we? How do we assure someone that they're going to be able to be sexually responsive? Do we remove the blockers during the course of their adolescence? And let a little bit of puberty come back? Do we delay it a little bit? Maybe into tanners three or four? Maybe before they have their first orgasms? Maybe? Or? Or do we add testosterone later in their adolescence or early adulthood? Or at or around the time of surgery, enough not to cause a secondary sex characteristics they were trying to avoid, but maybe beneficial to enhance this ability. So these are these are questions that I of course, I'm very interested in," Bowers said."
https://thepostmillennial.com/gender-affirming-surgeon-admits-children-who-undergo-transition-before-puberty-never-attain-sexual-satisfaction
If a Dr tells a prepubescent child who's never had sex before, (and who is probably unaware of how important sex can be in a healthy adult relationship) that they may never be able to have satisfying sex, how can the child make an informed decision about what they're giving up?
45 comments:
Craig... "What if the APL is ignoring scientific evidence in a headlong rush to "transition" as many minor children as possible?"
What if conservatives eat children for breakfast every morning? What if Al Mohler molests donkeys?
There are all sorts of what ifs we can ask, but if they're based on nothing but empty, nonsensical and stupidly false suggestions/implications/claims, they don't mean a damned thing, right? Just gossip and rumor-mongering. Right?
I guess you're not making this as a claim (that the Left is in a "headlong rush to transition as many minor children as possible..."), are you? Because I suppose you can recognize and gladly acknowledge that is a stupidly false and even evil, diabolical claim for anyone to try to make, yes?
The question then is, why ask the question if the premise is a known stupidly false claim?
Or conversely, if you ARE making this claim, I suppose you will acknowledge that you can't support it with, you know, facts and stuff, because of course it's false?
Craig... "What if the APL is ignoring scientific evidence in a headlong rush to "transition" as many minor children as possible?"
Some facts that are self-evident:
1. No one on the Left is "rushing" to transition "as many minor children as possible." That's not happening in the real world. The evidence, like the evidence of murderous unicorns attacking people in all the major cities, is that there is NO evidence that it's happening.
1a. No one on the Left is doing this and even more so, "the Left," as a homogeneous group is doing it, because it isn't happening at the small scale so, obviously it can't be happening en masse.
2. No one can force a male boy or female girl to transition against their will. Any attempts would be ridiculous and impossible EVEN if it were a real thing which, again, it's not.
Is that what this is about, in part, for people like you? You think that by "normalizing" being gay or transgender, some people might do it for kicks? To get on the girls' teams so they can do better?
Fear and fear-mongering does terrible things to reason and morality.
"I guess you're not making this as a claim"
Then you are either wrong, stupid, obtuse, or ignorant.
1. That's quite a claim, I'm sure you'll be providing all sorts of facts to back it up soon.
2. Since I never suggested "force", I wonder why you'd ask a question based on a false premise?
No, No.
There are already girls being denied the fruits of their hard work in the realm of athletics, but let's ignore that reality.
Excellent job in ignoring the the actual points I made, and in dealing with the facts as presented in the links. I'm sure this kind of hard hitting, incise, Scientific, critique will cause the Swedes to rethink their policy.
Straw men abound. Although "Fear and fear mongering" are completely absent.
Your 10:31 comment makes no sense. Not sure what you were trying to communicate there, but nothing in it makes sense or is reality-driven.
Ah. I've made sense of one comment from you...
"2. Since I never suggested "force", I wonder why you'd ask a question based on a false premise?"
You're saying this in response to my comment...
"No one can force a male boy or female girl to transition against their will. "
In turn, my comment was referencing your claim contained within your question...
"What if the APL is ignoring scientific evidence in a headlong rush to "transition" as many minor children as possible?"
Your question is premised on the notion that liberal people are "rushing to "transition" as many minor children as possible..."
That isn't happening, in part, because the vast majority of children are not thinking they're transgender. Now if you modify that to say what if liberals are rushing to transition as many transgender children as possible, it still wouldn't be true, but it would least make more sense.
Craig...
"There are already girls being denied the fruits of their hard work in the realm of athletics..."
I have no idea what this means in the context of this conversation but I've been mean to touch on that point. Athletics are fine. Sports are, what they are I have no idea what this means in the context of this conversation but I've been mean to touch on that point. Athletics are fine. Sports are what they are and can even be beneficial. But gender is at the heart of who people are.
The point of sports, as Ted Lasso rightly notes, is to help people be better people. But In the end, sports are just games. Nothing more.
They can be beneficial, they can promote team building and other valuable traits, but they're just games.
I don't know that the data supports the notion that transgender women have any significant advantage when it comes to sports, but even if it did, those are just games. People really need to get over that angle.
If you're more concerned about losing to a transgender girl than welcoming a transgender girl to the sport, you've missed the point of sports.
In my opinion.
I guess it's not at all possible, despite a video I posted providing 1st person testimony, peer pressure and normalizing by adults...including LGBT activists in schools, governments, entertainment and others...has no influence whatsoever on impressionable kids on their journey from youth to adulthood. Right.
"There are all sorts of what ifs we can ask, but if they're based on nothing but empty, nonsensical and stupidly false suggestions/implications/claims, they don't mean a damned thing, right?"
Dan has the dishonest condescending audacity to say this after Craig provided TWO cases which provide the basis underlying his "what if?" question! But it was likely really rhetorical, anyway, given how routinely wrong the APL is on pretty much everything.
It's interesting to see that you've characterized your own words as not making "sense, or reality driven".
maybe having your own idiocy pointed out is what has discombobulated you. It's pretty simple, you made an assumption, you ran with your assumption, and your assumption and subsequent conclusions were stupidly wrong. Hope that clears things up.
"Your question is premised on the notion that liberal people are "rushing to "transition" as many minor children as possible..."
Which has noting to do with your bullshit use of the term "force".
"I have no idea what this means in the context of this conversation"
Strange, since you brought up the whole "sports" thing. What it means is that more and more girls and women are spending time, effort, and energy excelling at sports. Often the highest levels of success in HS sports lead to college opportunities. Unfortunately, these hard working girls/young women are being denied a fair opportunity to reap the rewards of their hard work. After years of touting Title 9 and building up girl's/women's sports, these hard working athletes are losing to males.
Tell the girls/young women who lose college scholarships because some dude knocks them off the podium at a State Championship meet that it's just a "game".
1. Ted Lasso is NOT a real person, and what he "says" is actually written by a team of writers and is intended to move the plot of the show forward.
2. How does denying a girl/young woman a fair competition after she's spent years working and sacrificing toward a goal a "better person"?
3. How, in general" does unfair competition make anyone a "better person"?
4. I love how you simply dismiss the hard work, energy, passion, time, and dedication that millions of young people worldwide invest in excelling athletically by belittling sports as just a "game".
5. I understand that you're not a sports person, but seriously judging millions of people who've used sports as a way to better themselves by trivializing sports as just a "game" is one of the more blatant displays of hubris I've seen from you.
6. Even if sports are just a "game", why shouldn't this trivial endeavor be based around competition that is as "fair" as possible?
"In my opinion."
I'm sorry you have such a stupid and ill informed opinion. No one is not "welcoming" a "trans woman" to "sports", they're merely suggesting that they not compete against people over whom they have an advantage.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/watch-transgender-rugby-player-slams-female-athletes-coach-says-three-injured
https://www.sportskeeda.com/mma/news-when-transgender-fighter-fallon-fox-broke-opponent-s-skull-mma-fight
It's just a "game", it's perfectly fine if a "trans woman" injures women.
1. Oh, I didn't realize that women never got hurt playing rugby until a trans-woman started playing. And now they are, but never before?
2. If it's true, what the Examiner is reporting, it sounds like that player should not be playing. If it's true.
2a. This is the problem with citing unreliable sources, one can never be sure that the story is factual and reality-based.
3. Regardless, a player - male, female, trans, cisgender - is actively deliberately harming people, that player should be banned/removed. It's not an argument against transgender women playing sports, reasonably speaking.
4. You almost certainly agree - we shouldn't ban all white male football players because one is part of the Klan, right? That would be a travesty of justice.
Craig...
"4. I love how you simply dismiss the hard work, energy, passion, time, and dedication that millions of young people worldwide invest in excelling athletically by belittling sports as just a "game"."
But, it literally IS/they literally ARE literally just a game. How is it dismissive or belittling to note that reality that sports are games, literally? Since when is noting reality "dismissive..."?
And I know Lasso is a fictional character. A story with a moral doesn't have to be factual for the moral to matter or be right. I mean, you don't reject the Truths in parables because they're fictional, do you?
And he makes a great point: The best purpose of sports games would be to help people be better people. If it causes you to hate, to dismiss, to cause harm other people, then I'd suggest it's time to re-evalute your commitment to your game.
Is hoping that sports games would help people be better people somehow dismissive, to you? Do you have any support for that?
Craig... "why shouldn't this trivial endeavor be based around competition that is as "fair" as possible?"
1. Who says it's not fair, first of all? Where is the data to support this claim. From what I've read, it may sometimes give a slight benefit, other times, not so much. It appears, from the data, to be not a big deal.
2. When playing basketball, the 7' player has an advantage, one can argue, over the 6' player. Should we require all players be the same size in the name of "fairness..."? When we're just talking about a game?
3. What does it look like to make all sports teams exactly the same with no advantages to make things "unfair?" How would one do that?
4. As someone who has sported over the years, I don't mind losing to a better player. I don't perceive it to be unfair. Why would I? It's just a game.
Craig... "It's interesting to see that you've characterized your own words as not making "sense, or reality driven""
It was not, of course, my words that were confusing. It was yours. I don't guess it matters to you that you're misrepresenting what I said?
Once again, the conversation:
Craig:
"What if the APL is ignoring scientific evidence in a headlong rush to "transition" as many minor children as possible?"
Dan:
"I guess you're not making this as a claim (that the Left is in a "headlong rush to transition as many minor children as possible..."), are you?"
Craig...
"Then you are either wrong, stupid, obtuse, or ignorant. "
I asked you a question, asking you to clarify if you were making the charge that the Left is in a "headlong rush to transition as many minor children as possible..." as a claim and you respond,
Then you are either wrong, stupid, obtuse or ignorant...
? How is that a rational response to MY QUESTION?
What about my QUESTION is wrong, stupid, obtuse or ignorant??
Good Lord, have mercy.
Craig...
" No one is not "welcoming" a "trans woman" to "sports", they're merely suggesting that they not compete against people over whom they have an advantage."
Saying, "YOU CAN'T PLAY ON OUR TEAM" is literally NOT welcoming transgender women to that team. See how words work?
Your statement has a claim within it: That transgender women have an advantage over cisgender women.
Do you have any data to support that?
Note: There hasn't been much research into the topic so you almost certainly don't have any authoritative data. You're making an assumption that is almost certainly not based on research. Am I right?
But here is some of the data on the topic:
https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-do-trans-athletes-have-an-advantage-in-elite-sport/a-58583988
Also, I know some 20-30 year old men who play tennis who are slight, not muscular and average tennis players. If they transitioned and played against one of the Williams sisters, would they have an "unfair advantage..."?
Why?
Craig... " I understand that you're not a sports person, but seriously judging millions of people who've used sports as a way to better themselves by trivializing sports as just a "game" is one of the more blatant displays of hubris I've seen from you."
If one is rude and unwelcoming of transgender women on their team (or LGBTQ folks in general), then one has not "bettered themselves" have they?
Why is it not dismissive of you and a blatant display of hubris to say to transgender women that they are not women and thus, shouldn't play on women's teams?
Where would you want a transgender woman to play football, for instance, if not on a woman's team? On a men's team? Isn't that presumptuous of you to make that decision for them? They aren't men. And that wouldn't be "fair" to force them to play against men when they're not men, would it?
Hmmm...
https://decider.com/2016/07/18/evangelista-santos-mma-skull-fracture/amp/
Oh, look. A man engaging in a sport where they hit each other brutally can also sustain a skull fracture, even when it's not against a transgender man.
Perhaps it's part of that sport, if you want to call it that... perhaps people shouldn't beat each other senseless for sport?
Some say they should have "a league of their own". I say they should go pound sand.
1st, there aren't enough pervs and disordered people to support a third league created for the benefit of the disordered and perverted.
2nd, no one is in any way obliged to support the establishment of and continued operation if such a league.
3rd, they MUST be barred from competing against members of the opposite sex, of which there are only two, each of which are fixed at birth.
Craig...
"I could be wrong, but this looks like some experts who seem pretty agreed that puberty kicks off a major change in how children's thought processes and decision making abilities change between childhood and adulthood. It sure seems like encouraging children to make major, life (permanent body altering decisions) before they are cognitively equipped to do so, veers toward child abuse. "
1. NO ONE IS ENCOURAGING children to make major life changes before they are equipped to do so.
Read that again and let it sink in. Consider the words and what they mean, individually and in context of the sentence:
NO ONE
IS ENCOURAGING children
to make major life changes
before they are equipped to do so.
NO ONE.
2. Trans advocates actually encourage trans youth/children to wait until after they're 18 to make any permanent decisions.
Again, read that again and understand the words.
3. Nonetheless, in some cases, the individual, the parents and/or the individual's expert advisors may say that in some cases, it may make sense in that particular case to proceed with hormone treatments because there are risks involved in NOT doing so. And the point would be that, while it's encouraged to wait, the individual choice should be left to the individual and their supporters.
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2022/01/mental-health-hormone-treatment-transgender-people.html
Because we don't want YOU or Jimmy Swaggart or Al Mohler or a fundamentalist muslim to make decisions for them. Get you and your religious doctrines OUT of people's personal decisions.
Can you agree that such decisions should be left to the family and the individual, along with their experts?
YOU and people like you stepping in to make decisions for other people IS child abuse. Keep your religious sicknesses away from other people's decisions. These sorts of attitudes and actions ACTUALLY cause harm, death, depression, anxiety.
Stop it. Just stop it.
Craig...
"Adolescence is the period between the onset of puberty, and adulthood. "
Thank you Dr Science.
What's next? You want to tell us that "Teeth are what humans use to chew their food to aid in digestion..."?
Craig... "Why would anyone think that encouraging children to make life altering decisions about their "sexual identity" before they are "sexually mature", is a good idea?"
Think it through a second:
A. If transgender people are right about their own reality, there were NO DECISIONS to be made. They WERE/ARE transgender. That is their reality.
They didn't decide (either at eight or at 18) that they "wanted to be" transgender. They WERE transgender. They were a girl/woman who was born with a penis. They were a boy/man who was born with a vagina.
Just that much: Does that much make sense to you? Do you understand that there was no decision about IF they should "become" transgender. They were who they were? They are who they are?
B. Now, add to that, the reality is in our world (although it's getting better) transgender kids and adults are regularly abused, demonized, treated poorly, rejected, mocked, and otherwise oppressed. Sometimes by their own loved ones and families. Do you recognize that is the reality that transgender people regularly deal with?
C. Now, add to that, given the reality that being transgender is a tiny minority of the population and, especially in previous years, finding yourself confused (ie, gender dysphoria) to be assigned male at birth but not feeling like you're a male... knowing that you're not a male, even, not knowing any one else who had this dysphoria around you or in any arena that you see... Do you see how the outward oppression and inward confusion can be a harsh, even deadly cocktail?
D. Now, add to that, those cases where the parents are religious and/or just very bigoted about "girly boys" or others who don't fit the norm... and your preachers and Sunday School teachers assure you the Bible condemns any thought of being transgender (even though it doesn't... literally no where) and God may even be sending you to an eternity of torture if you're a girlish man or mannish girl...
Do you see how ALL of that can be deadly, toxic, dangerous especially to children?
I'm not asking if you agree... just asking if you can understand how harsh and death-dealing that would be for a young transgender boy or girl or teen?
You're being told you literally don't fit in anywhere, you're a freak, a sinner and probably bound for an eternity of torture if you don't change (which you know you can't, any more than I could decide I WANT to be a woman... it's not who we are.
So, returning to your question:
"Why would anyone think that encouraging children to make life altering decisions about their "sexual identity"?
Because the risk of doing nothing or worse, forcing (trying to force) transgender children to be something they're not has deadly repercussions to their psyche and because we're concerned about these children.
Again, the best advice from those in the transgender community (or so I read) is to not make any surgical decisions until you're an adult, but certainly, for the sake of the child, allow them to explore their gender comfort zone. If they were assigned male at birth but want to wear a dress or be identified using she/her pronouns, do it?
Why would anyone not make that very slight and loving concession to these young people who are often suffering in an oppressive world? Why not make the world just a little kinder and more supportive for them?
1. Interesting take.
2. Ahhhhhhhhhhhh, the "if it's true" canard. Maybe that person should be playing on a men's team where they belong.
2a. The "because Dan considers this source unreliable, the story must be false" canard.
(I'll note that the claim is being made the the Examiner is "unreliable" with no proof of this claim being provided.
3. It's an argument that men are bigger and stronger than women, therefore they shouldn't play sports together.
4. This is too idiotic to comment further on.
Because success at these "games" is literally a path to higher education, and future employment. Especially at high levels.
"I mean, you don't reject the Truths in parables because they're fictional, do you?"
I mean Ted Lasso isn't Jesus. But I love how you elevate the scripted words of an actor to a level equivalent to the parables of Jesus. Claiming the scriptwriter's words as "True", seems a stretch.
"And he makes a great point: The best purpose of sports games would be to help people be better people."
Really, pray tell, where this foundational Truth about the one singular "purpose" of "sports games" is graven in stone? Who gets to decide the "best" purpose of "sport games"? I'd argue that the health benefits could reasonably be considered the "best". In any case, it's simply an opinion. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.
"If it causes you to hate, to dismiss, to cause harm other people, then I'd suggest it's time to re-evalute your commitment to your game."
How does advocating for fairness and a level playing field for women athletes get twisted into "hate", dismissivness, or "harm"? If someone wins a sporting event because of an unfair advantage, that would seem to harm the loser who played fair, wouldn't it?
"Is hoping that sports games would help people be better people somehow dismissive, to you? Do you have any support for that?"
No, it's just a diversion from the women who've been harmed by men competing against them. It's an unsuported, off topic, straw man to cover the fact that you have no problem with women being unfairly beaten at sports and injured by men.
1. Biology. Men have skeletal and muscular traits that give them an inherent advantage over women is athletic events. Men have cardiovascular advantages over women in athletic events? Unfortunately, your ignorance doesn't answer the question.
2. The problem is that in basketball, the rules and roles of the players account for the normal differences between men who play the game. In basketball, height is not the only factor in success. White men can't jump, should they be banned from basketball? Height isn't always an advantage, basketball also rewards speed, quickness, hand-eye coordination, vision, and other factors. It's why you see teams "go small" as a way to neutralize the advantage of a 7 foot tall opponent.
3. Who said that it was about making every team "the same"? The great thing about team sports is that they are accommodating to multiple types of people, and each "advantage" also has a "disadvantage".
4. See #1. By your "logic", there's no reason for me to try out for a u12 baseball team and just be "better" than everyone else.
"It was not, of course, my words that were confusing. It was yours. I don't guess it matters to you that you're misrepresenting what I said?"
I quoted your words, in the comment. You claimed that the entire comment was problematic.
"I guess you're not making this as a claim"
when you make guesses about things, and uses those guesses as a premise for anything, you end up wrong and foolish.
"What about my QUESTION is wrong, stupid, obtuse or ignorant??"
The fact that you based it on a false premise, based on your "guess".
"Saying, "YOU CAN'T PLAY ON OUR TEAM" is literally NOT welcoming transgender women to that team. See how words work?"
1. One specific "team" is not the same as the entirety of "sports". All sports are organized in categories designed to minimize advantages that accrue naturally to people who are different ages (how is letting a 30 year old compete against 70 year olds appropriate?), different biologically, and the like. If Tiger Woods (in his current condition) played on the LPGA tour, he'd win frequently. Magic Johnson would dominate the WNBA despite his age and health situation. What's hilarious about your entire line of discussion is how in harms biological women, and you're either ignorant about that, or don't care. This isn't men making rules, this is women saying that they've fought long and hard for "equality" in sports, and now a bunch of dudes are taking that away from them.
2. I know how "words work" especially when you use them to set up straw men.
3. No one would object if a third category was added to sports. Simply have Men's, Women's, and Open. Problem solved.
"Do you have any data to support that?"
What an idiotic question. Men's physiology gives them advantages in strength, and endurance. It's about bones, muscles, and the cardiovascular system. It's why the vast majority of women can't meet the physical requirements for the military, firefighting, or the like.
"Also, I know some 20-30 year old men who play tennis who are slight, not muscular and average tennis players. If they transitioned and played against one of the Williams sisters, would they have an "unfair advantage..."?"
Ahhhhhhhh the absurd comparison canard. Pick some random guy that nobody knows, and hypothetically match them against the very best in the world.
FYI, the #203 ranked men's player beat Serena at her peak, handily.
"At the height of the Williams boom in 1998, an unofficial game took place in Australia after Serena and Venus claimed that no male player outside the top 200 could beat them.
Up stepped a German known as Karsten Braasch who was ranked 203rd in the world and after first beating Serena 6-1, he then disposed of Venus 6-2.
"I didn't know it would be that difficult. I played shots that would have been winners on the women's circuit and he got to them very easily," said Serena.
"They wouldn't have had a chance against anyone inside the top 500 because today I played like someone ranked 600th to keep it fun," was Braasch's assessment."
"Why?"
Because it's an absurd comparison, and it's already happened.
"If one is rude and unwelcoming of transgender women on their team (or LGBTQ folks in general), then one has not "bettered themselves" have they?"
If one restricts oneself to Dan's limits and definitions, sure. You haven't proven the underlying claim, however. How is beating someone over whom you have a significant advantage "bettering" onself?
"Why is it not dismissive of you and a blatant display of hubris to say to transgender women that they are not women and thus, shouldn't play on women's teams?"
Because men's physiology gives them an advantage over women. FYI, I'm simply supporting the women who want to succeed on a level playing field and not share locker rooms with men. Are you saying that those women are wrong? That their goals, hard work, comfort, and futures should be sacrificed to your agenda?
"Where would you want a transgender woman to play football, for instance, if not on a woman's team? On a men's team?"
On a team for trans women. On a team in a league that was open to both men and women.
"Isn't that presumptuous of you to make that decision for them?"
No. Isn't it presumptuous of you to ignore the voices of women who simply want to compete on a level playing field?
"They aren't men. And that wouldn't be "fair" to force them to play against men when they're not men, would it?"
They're "women" with all of the physiological characteristic of a man. But if your solution to providing "fairness" to men is to be unfair to women, just say so. Just tell all of the women who've lost opportunities because of men competing, that they should just suck it up and not complain.
EVEN IF it were factual (which you have not supported), HOW is it "unfair" to compete against a woman who is taller or stronger than you?
If it's "unfair" and stronger women should not be allowed to play against weaker women, does that mean a trans man who might be weaker competing against other men in football... should the stronger men be banned?
"NO ONE"
Really, not one single person has or is encouraging children to transition before puberty? Why would anyone take "puberty blockers" if they weren't trying to transition before they were through puberty?
"Again, read that again and understand the words."
I have. The fact that you make an unsupported, blanket, overly broad claim without actual proof, doesn't make your claim True.
3. You INSIST that "NO ONE" is doing something, then tell us that people are actually doing what you said "NO ONE" was doing.
"Can you agree that such decisions should be left to the family and the individual, along with their experts?"
What decision? The decision to transition before the child has gone through puberty and is therefore developmentally and legally unable to make a fully informed decision about irreversible, life altering changes? That decision?
In general, if bad decisions are going to be made for children, then it should be the parents making those bad decisions, not agents of the state.
"YOU and people like you stepping in to make decisions for other people IS child abuse."
When have I ever said that I want to make decisions for other people?
"Keep your religious sicknesses away from other people's decisions."
Where have I ever used "religious" reasons for any arguments on these sorts of topics?
If you can't answer those two questions specifically, with quotes and links, then you're just content to hide behind lies and bullshit.
"These sorts of attitudes and actions ACTUALLY cause harm, death, depression, anxiety."
What? Advocating that we follow the experts in waiting until post puberty before making irreversible decisions about altering one's body? By acknowledging that there are laws about age of consent for good reasons?
"Stop it. Just stop it."
Stop what? Asking questions? Providing experts that disagree with you? Advocating for children to be post puberty before making irreversible, life and body altering decisions?
"Adolescence is the period between the onset of puberty, and adulthood. "
It's called defining your terms, you should try it sometime.
"Think it through a second:"
I already did, and that's why I asked the question.
"Do you see how ALL of that can be deadly, toxic, dangerous especially to children?"
Sure, lot's of things that culture and society tell us are good can be "deadly, toxic, and dangerous". But none of that actually answers the question.
Strangely enough, you're spending a lot of time advocating for something (encouraging children to "transition" pre puberty), that you claim "NO ONE" is doing. How strange.
"'m not asking if you agree... just asking if you can understand how harsh and death-dealing that would be for a young transgender boy or girl or teen?"
Yes, waiting until maturity to make difficult, permanent, decisions about irreversibly altering one's body can seem "harsh". My kids complained frequently about having to delay gratification and how "harsh" it was. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to come down on the side that favors waiting until children are more mature and developed before making irreversible decisions.
According to the APL, 18 year olds aren't capable of making an informed decision about taking out student loans, but 12 year olds are capable of deciding to cut off body parts, and irreversibly change their bodies.
"Why would anyone not make that very slight and loving concession to these young people who are often suffering in an oppressive world? Why not make the world just a little kinder and more supportive for them?"
Talk about goal post moving.
"So, returning to your question:"
Actually you're "returning" to a fragment of my question. You've chosen to eliminate the entirety of the question so as to allow yourself to answer a "question" I never actually asked. One more for the double standard.
Craig... "waiting until maturity to make difficult, permanent, decisions about irreversibly altering one's body can seem "harsh". My kids complained frequently about having to delay gratification and how "harsh" it was."
It sounds like you're comparing relatively inconsequential requests from your kids (I want to start driving when I'm 15... I want to go to Disneyland for my birthday when I'm 16) where they're sad they didn't get their wish in inconsequential matters with the quite different matter of recognizing their gender and/or orientation.
A few questions:
Do you realize that those are not the same thing?
If you had a young loved one who told you they were transgender or gay or lesbian, would you try to talk them out of "making any decisions" about such personal matters until they're 18? 21? Would you encourage them to "transition" to NOT being gay or to being their assigned gender at birth?
Would you comfort them and tell them the pastor was wrong if they were upset because a pastor told them that "practicing" LGBTQ people couldn't be Christian and will go to hell to be tortured for an eternity for being who/what they were born as?
You see, once you start assuming that what "seems" to you is correct, and you respond based on "seems", you almost always go wrong. Maybe there's a lesson.
My point is that minor children may view all sorts of things as "harsh". At least part of that is that pre pubescent children haven't fully developed their ability to think rationally and make long terms decisions. The simple fact is that many things seem "harsh" to children, while the vast majority of those things are not "harsh" and are actually in the child's best interest. My own lived experience is that minor children regularly overreact based on their feelings and their lack of maturity. As we/they grow older these over reactions get fewer, because that's part of what happens through puberty. I'm sure you can understand why the non physical parts of puberty are crucial to a child's decision making and that intentionally delaying that process will affect their ability to make decisions. Further, since one's body doesn't mature physically or sexually until puberty, how can a pre pubescent child make informed decisions about their body and sexuality before those things are fully formed? Surely we shouldn't encourage pre pubescent children to make irreversible decisions based on what their body might mature into, should we?
If I had a child who believed they were transgender, I would lovingly and supportively explore all of the options, and encourage them not to make irreversible decisions before they were equipped to make them. I'd likely have treated it in a similar fashion to all of the other major decisions my kids made.
As to the rest of your bullshit hypotheticals. I'm see no value in allowing you to continue these sorts of diversions. The fact that you've decided that your assumptions are objectively True, renders much of this conversation pointless.
https://www.carmenliulingerie.co.uk/products/kids-cotton-brief-pack-of-3
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10746809/Transgender-designer-accused-child-abuse-selling-pants-flatten-genitals-boys.html
https://www.formen.health/blog/reasons-men-avoid-tight-underwear/
Does a 4 (or an 8 year old) year old have the mental capacity to understand and make decisions about their sexuality?
Is a 4 (or an 8 year old) year old qualified to weigh the risks v. rewards of wearing underwear designed to "flatten" his genitals?
Can a 4 (or an 8 year old) year old afford expensive fancy underwear on their own?
If there is a reasonable chance of tight underwear harming a child, is it appropriate for parents to encourage the wearing of the potentially harmful underwear?
If "NO ONE" is encouraging pre pubescent children to "transition" why would someone be making expensive, fancy, underwear to help the process along?
Ultimately, this conversation comes down to two thing. Age of consent. (age of maturity, legal age, what have you) It's all about whether of not a prepubescent child has the cognitive, rational, legal ability to consent to irreversible procedures. Does the state or agents of the state have the ability to hide pertinent information from a child's parents (especially in the absence of a specific, direct, credible threat of immediate harm to the child). That's it. All the rest is bullshit.
If an 18 or 21 year old wants to lop off perfectly functioning body parts on their own dime, let them mutilate themselves. I see very little functional difference between any of the different types of fashionable mutilation we see today. If they're adults and can accept the consequences, then hack away. That's where we differ
"Does a 4 (or an 8 year old) year old have the mental capacity to understand and make decisions about their sexuality?"
Depends on the decision. To have intercourse? No. To recognize if they might like boys or girls? Sure... although that's on the youngish age to be thinking about such things.
"Is a 4 (or an 8 year old) year old qualified to weigh the risks v. rewards of wearing underwear designed to "flatten" his genitals?"
I'm not aware that this is a thing in 4 to 8 year olds. I can't imagine that most of them are thinking about it at this age.
"Can a 4 (or an 8 year old) year old afford expensive fancy underwear on their own?"
As you know, 4 to 8 year olds can afford to buy anything. It's the duty of the parents to provide them with what they need.
"To recognize if they might like boys or girls?"
Really, you think that a 4 (or 8) year old is really capable of making a decision to be sexually attracted to boys, that will remain constant throughout life? Considering that most 4 (or 8) year olds don't even know how sex works, that's quite a claim.
Then why is there a lingerie company making underwear specifically to flatten the genitals of pre pubescent boys? Sized for children as young as 4.
Are you then suggesting that 4 (0r 8) tear olds need expensive, fancy underwear designed to compress their genitals, and that their parents are obligated to buy it for them?
"EVEN IF it were factual (which you have not supported),"
1. I have pointed out the physical differences in the musculoskeletal system and cardiovascular systems that give men strength and stamina advantages. This is self evident and so well attested that it's absurd to pretend that it's not a thing. For example, are you aware that the arrangement of the hips and pelvis in women, makes their running stride less efficient than an man's.
"HOW is it "unfair" to compete against a woman who is taller or stronger than you?"
Because natural variation within any given population is simply how we were created. However, in many sports these differences are mitigated by breaking people down by age, or weight. You might also have notices that many people who compete at the highest levels in certain sports mostly share certain body traits. For example, you rarely see tall gymnasts, or short volleyball players. Most athletes, who desire to compete at the highest levels of sport, are unlikely to invest the time and energy into a sport that doesn't fit their body type.
"If it's "unfair" and stronger women should not be allowed to play against weaker women, does that mean a trans man who might be weaker competing against other men in football... should the stronger men be banned?"
Football is a game that requires a certain minimal level of size, strength, speed, an stamina. If someone doesn't meet enough of those benchmarks to compete, they don't compete. The problem is that in virtually all circumstances that the male physiology is capable of greater strength, speed, endurance, and the like than a woman of the same size.
What's incredibly stupid about this is that if your stand Usain Bolt and Allison Felix next to each other in their track uniforms (at the peak of their respective performance) it's self-evident which of the two is likely to be stronger and faster.
Let's look at some hard data. I mean really hard, objective data. I'll focus on swimming in the US, since that's where the biggest controversy is.
Lets pick a few events and compare US fastest men's times with women's times.
Men women
50 Free 20.91 23.97
100 Free 46.81 52.04
400 Free 2:42.78 3:56.46
200 IM 1:54.00 2:06.15
400 IM 4:03.84 4:29.12
As we can see, in every event shown, and in every other event not shown, the US record men's time is significantly, objectively faster than the women's time. If the possibility of physical differences in musculoskeletal and cardiovascular systems are excluded from comparison (as would be the case if men and women were identical), what could possibly explain these differences? How is it that literally the fastest women swimmers in the country can't swim as fast as the men?
What's more, t least 19 Men swam faster than the fastest women. What could possibly explain this phenomenon? When measuring apples/apples (except for gender) men consistently outperform women at the highest levels. What could be causing this? sexism? Misogyny? Slavery? Oppression?
Does anyone really think that if you took the fastest girl swimmer in the US at age 10, and transitioned her into a boy and gave her the very best available training until peak performance was reached, that her times would be on par with the men st the same level?
Steven Crowder used to have a producer named Jared "Not Gay Jared" Monroe, who was a wisp of a dude, around 120 lbs at most. Steve was ranting about female characters in movies kicking ass as a pleasing to watch, but absolutely unrealistic fantasy. He used Atomic Blonde as his example. One of the scenes in question showed the female lead pinning a guy to a wall by elevating her high-heeled foot to press against the bad guy's throat. Steven had Jared don a pair of heels and pin Steven by the throat in the same way. Steven easily leaned forward, effectively pushing Jared away with his throat.
Now, with that in mind...a bigger Steven easily defeating a diminutive Jared...we turn to contributor Courtney Kirchoff. Courtney is a weight lifter. It's her thing. Following a bit of pushback by Courtney over the female ass kicking thing, it was decided Not Gay Jared would arm wrestle weight lifter Courtney. Jared was especially concerned he would lose. Most everyone felt Courtney would win. To everyone's surprise...including Jared...Jared beat Courtney rather handily.
The US Women's Soccer Team...the one with the pink haired, America-hating lesbian...lost horribly to a high school boy's team. That would be professional women lost to amateur boys.
Dan's entire response is dependent upon numerous lies, distortions and fantasy. There are no "transgendered" people. Period. As we've seen in recent discussions, Dan has been woefully unable to produce any scientific basis for insisting there exists actual women trapped in male bodies. Not one single shred of scientific proof, yet he lies in saying Bruce Jenner is a woman. Indeed, he lies intentionally once again.
Dan lies in perpetuating the lie which claims telling the truth causes harm to kids who "come out" as something they're aren't nor are unable to overcome.
Dan lies in pretending the harm inflicted upon a woman in any contact sport is no more seriously dangerous or potentially life-threatening than the degree of harm inflicted by another woman. A Greg Maddox fastball topped out around 86 MPH. You might find a chick able to throw a baseball that hard, but I doubt it. I certainly doubt it wouldn't at best be quite rare. But you'll never find a babe bringing the heat at 100 MPH.
There is absolutely no justification for mixing the sexes in sports. None. It's not a matter of not being welcomed. That's a typical Dan-ish bullshit argument, just as if small boys aren't "welcomed" in competition against fully grown men.
There's equally no justification for creating a league to accommodate these grossly disordered (or lying) people. No one would watch such a league except for laughs. And mockery is an appropriate response for those who mock biology and reason to appeae their disordered impulses and then demand the rest of us enable their blatant lie.
Craig... "Let's look at some hard data. I mean really hard, objective data"
Indeed. Let's look at hard data.
How many transgender people are there in the US, as a percentage? .6%? .9%? Let's round it up to 1 entire percent and be generous.
How many of those are in high school?
How many of THOSE are transgender women?
How many of THOSE are interested in playing sports?
And how many of THOSE are any good at their given sport?
Give me a some specific, accurate numbers so we can have an idea how very "dangerous" and widespread this "problem" is.
Are we talking about one transgender woman athlete in a given county in a given year? Out of dozens (hundreds?) of women athletes in that county?
Also, how many of those transgender women athletes were in peak male muscular fitness prior to transitioning? The point being, if it were an overweight (or of a very slight build), out of shape transgender woman who took to some sporting event, what advantage did their being born with a penis give them in their particular sport?
The point being that there are wide range of factors as to whether or not someone has an advantage due to being born with a penis, right?
Also, how concerned were you about women's sports and fairness before someone told you this was a "problem..."? Have you attended many women's sports games?
This is not a problem in the real world.
And here is some data about the advantages (such as they are) that SOME (but not all) transgender women may have and about the miniscule numbers we're talking about...
"Transgender females compete in very few events across high school, collegiate and Olympic competitions. Because of that - studies about any potential competitive advantage transgender women may have over cisgender women are limited, making it difficult to draw conclusions without more research...
So we can Verify, the claim that transgender women have a competitive advantage over cisgender women in sports is inconclusive due to a lack of scientific data at this time. But medical experts do know that participating in sports has many positive benefits and they fear banning transgender children from youth sports will have a negative impact.
“Sports have all kinds of benefits for mental health and physical health,” said Dr. Turban. “And that's being taken away from transgender kids.”
https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/verify/verify-do-transgender-athletes-have-an-advantage-over-cisgender-athlete/509-74cdd673-df9c-4cb0-b899-3a08f1cd16b5
https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-do-trans-athletes-have-an-advantage-in-elite-sport/a-58583988
https://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/news/20210715/do-trans-women-athletes-have-advantages
And finally, I still maintain that reasonably and morally speaking, we're talking about games vs real life. If you're causing harm to transgender people to allegedly make cisgender women athletes feel better about their games (not that all women athletes would WANT you to intervene in their business or cause harm to transgender women), you're placing more value on the game than on human lives and justice and that, to me, seems just wrong. Obviously so.
Craig... "Really, you think that a 4 (or 8) year old is really capable of making a decision to be sexually attracted to boys, that will remain constant throughout life?"
Yup, that is exactly what I said, isn't it?
Oh, wait though... that WASN'T what I said. Imagine that. You read words and understood them to mean something I didn't actually say or mean. Weird. Well, at least it was a one time mistake and not something that happens all the time with you.
Oh, wait though.. that DOES happen all the time.
Weird.
For what it's worth, what I said - "To recognize if they might like boys or girls? Sure... although that's on the youngish age to be thinking about such things." and THAT is what I meant. I didn't say anything about making a lifetime commitment to an orientation or a life partner or anything... just that humans start recognizing their orientation as children. I certainly did. I had crushes on girls as young as in kindergarten and was longing or my first kiss when I was in elementary school.
And once again: It was NOT NOT NOT NOT (understand the point?) NOT "making a decision to be attracted to girls." It was RECOGNIZING my natural, God-given orientation, innate to who I was/am. There was not a "decision" to be made when it came to orientation for me, nor is that the case for most of humanity as far as any data that I have seen. Not even in the case of bisexual folk who didn't "decide" to be attracted to both men and women... they just were/are.
Do you recognize that reality? Do you have any data to suggest that some people are just randomly "deciding," ... "You know what? I have always been attracted only to women. But today, I'm going to decide to be attracted to men..."?
I'm sure there are outlier cases where it's happened, but by and large, by ALL data and evidence I have seen, it's just an innate reality, not a decision.
I don't think that there is any question that some percentage of children and young adults who "transition" are harmed by the process to some degree or another. There are too many people who've told their stories to doubt it.
The claim is that failing to help children and young adults "transition" will potentially cause some percentage of them "harm".
The questions seem to be around what the percentages are. We know that the number of women killed, mutilated, or otherwise harmed by abortions is a closely held secret because it's likely higher than the abortion industry wants to admit. As we've seen imposing any regulations on the abortion industry brings out all kinds of crap, and I doubt mandates for accurate reporting will be welcomed.
So, what does this mean for the "trans"? Clearly without having an accurate picture of the actual risk of "harm" on either side, it's impossible to accurately asses the risk of "transitioning". Why would anyone undergo this sort of thing without understanding the risk/reward calculus of their choice? What sort of adult would encourage a child to make this sort of decision without knowing the risks?
It seems like it would be really helpful to quantify the risks on both sides and present those risk as accurately and dispassionately as possible.
"How many transgender people are there in the US, as a percentage? .6%? .9%? Let's round it up to 1 entire percent and be generous." Don't know, don't care.
"How many of those are in high school?" Don't know, don't care.
"How many of THOSE are transgender women?" DKDC
"How many of THOSE are interested in playing sports?" DKDC
"And how many of THOSE are any good at their given sport?" DKDC
I'll point out the obvious, that those aren't answers, they're questions. I'll further point out the obvious that the line of thinking behind those questions could be summarized as; "Who cares if a few girls get screwed out of the rewards of years and years of hard work? Those few girls that get screwed out of scholarships, Olympic opportunities, professional opportunities, or sponsorship opportunities, are just a sacrifice we're willing to make on the alter of "trans rights". Sorry girls, you're just screwed.".
"Are we talking about one transgender woman athlete in a given county in a given year? Out of dozens (hundreds?) of women athletes in that county?" DNDK How many girls getting screwed out of the results of their years of hard work is too many for you?
"Also, how many of those transgender women athletes were in peak male muscular fitness prior to transitioning?"
Given the data, most don't need to be at the "peak of muscular fitness" to dominate women. Of course, random out of shape guys aren't likely to compete in anything at a high level, are they?
"The point being, if it were an overweight (or of a very slight build), out of shape transgender woman who took to some sporting event, what advantage did their being born with a penis give them in their particular sport?"
What a stupid "point". I suspect by "point" you meant diversion. Of course, your obsession with the "penis" to the exclusion of all of the other physical advantages men have over women seems to indicate your inability to deal with reality anyway.
"The point being that there are wide range of factors as to whether or not someone has an advantage due to being born with a penis, right?"
Good lord, the "penis" obsession continues. Where have I ever argued that a "penis" gives a man an advantage? When I said "musculus-skeletal and cardiovascular systems" did you really think I meant "penis"? Speaking of "penis" I guess the girls who aren't comfortable in a locker room with penis wielding "trans" people, should just shut up and deal with their discomfort, right?
"Also, how concerned were you about women's sports and fairness before someone told you this was a "problem..."?"
I've been involved as a parent and coach in youth sports for years. I've always been concerned about "fairness" in competition regardless of whether it was boys/men or girls/women. When coaches manipulate the rules to gain a competitive advantage it's bad for everyone.
"Have you attended many women's sports games?""
What a stupid question, but yes.
A shitload of absurd questions, not one answer.
"Yup, that is exactly what I said, isn't it?"
When your statements are unclear, vague, or evasive, I (as I did here) ask questions to try to gain clarity. When you choose to respond with additional vagueness, lack or clarity, and evasion, it kind of makes me wonder why you won't just answer the question, instead of going on the offensive and misrepresenting my question as something else.
Hence my confusion. You just said that you were "recognizing your God given orientation". If your "orientation" was "God given", then wouldn't it logically follow that it is an orientation that is "given" for life? If so, then wouldn't it logically follow that ones "God given" "sexual orientation" would involve actual sex at some point? Therefore wouldn't it follow that if a 4 year old was "RECOGNIZING" their "God given, natural, orientation", that they are "RECOGNIZING" that that "God given, natural, orientation" (if it's same sex) will lead to a lifetime of having sex with people of the same sex. Or a lifetime of celibacy. Your lack of evidence that 4 year olds can "RECOGNIZE" and comprehend the entirety of a lifelong orientation is stunning. The reality is that most prepubescent children have absolutely no concept of the full expression of a "sexual orientation". The question then becomes, if a 4 year old who announces that he "likes" (whatever that means to a 4 year old) Billy, is told the he's just "RECOGNIZED" his "God given, natural, orientation" by every adult he knows wouldn't he be influenced by what he was told? What if "liked" just meant that Billy had cool toys, or good snacks, not that Billy was the object of sexual desires?
All of this (especially your lack of answers) seem to reinforce my thought that we should follow the experts who tell us that children don't fully reach or understand their "sexual orientation" until after puberty, and they it's maybe wise to wait until children are better equipped to make these decisions. And yes, deciding to undergo elective, invasive, dangerous, irreversible, medical procedures is most definitely a decision. One's orientation might be debatable, but one's actions are the result of decisions. Unless you're arguing that humans lack agency and responsibility for their actions.
Interestingly enough, most boys my age were raised to believe that picking on those who were "weaker" was wrong. We were told that we shouldn't hit girls. (even when girls used their knowledge that they were safe from retaliation against boys) We didn't pick on the small, skinny kid or those younger than us (obviously this is a generalization) Now the message is; "Boys if you're a slightly above average athlete who wants to win, then go "beat up" girls."
Many people talk about Jesus teaching about "the least of these", so it's strange when I hear professed christians applauding boys/men when they "triumph" over others with physical disadvantages.
Art,
The "problem" is that there are a small minority of women who (through training, and technique) are able to physically best most untrained or lesser trained men in a fight. Likewise, there might be a small number of women athletes who could compete at a high level with men in certain sports. Unfortunately, we're seeing people who are trying to use the exceptions to prove some sort of larger rule. What this does is tell the vast majority of women, "Too bad, if a dude wants to compete in your sport you're just SOL. All your hard work, sacrifice, and training are for nothing because of some dude who wants to "beat up" on girls."
The whole notion of sport is predicated on equalizing competitive advantage to the natural variation in humans of the same biological make up, and the same age. Some children are "big for their age" early. This gives them an advantage when they're young. Yet often the rest of their cohort catches up to them in size. But those who get "big" later have had to rely on skill and practice to compete, instead of simply physical size. We see this regularly when kids who've dominated in HS don't dominate in college because they didn't have to work as hard and don't bring that work ethic to the next level.
You'll note that when confronted with actual hard performance data, Dan decided that going on the offensive with a bunch of ridiculous questions was the better choice than explaining the data.
Post a Comment