Aginor posted:

Can I ask how many of you are trans or transitioning? Just so I can get a read of the room?

Aginor posted:

So Lia Thomas sits where here?

Aginor posted:

Respect to that.

I'm definitely not disputing people. However I dont think we can keep pointing the finger and demanding we should all be part of something. Nor should we be extreme and get pissed when we're not.

I'm a big lad. (not some neck beard weirdo but country strong) but I think we all have our place in life. And just by being unincluded from something for a wee bit doesnt mean you're not unicluded for ever. Lia Thomas is a strong women. But then we cant forget that a lot of women struggle with this dialogue.

PT6A posted:

If we're concerned about muscle density and skeletal changes and whatever else male puberty is accused of causing which allows trans women to perform better than cis women in certain disciplines, should there be tests of those specific genetic variations in cis women in order to maintain fairness? If a cis woman is too tall, or their feet are too big or their hands are too big, or whatever else, do we judge that they are physiologically "insufficiently feminine" to compete fairly against women?

If you start from the idea that trans women are women (which they are), then you accept their biology as one of many possible variations that occur in women, not an "unfair advantage." To judge that their specific biology is an anti-competitive problem, you must first start with the idea that trans women are not real or legitimate women, which is why this entire discussion ultimately boils down to transphobia.

Anticheese posted:

I'm trans and on estrogen. Anecdotes are not data, but my physical strength is totally hosed to the point that a bag containing two moderately large and one small laptops is maybe my carrying limit.

I also engage in a sport that's not reliant on muscle strength, but I don't have the time and resources to do it often. As a result I almost always place in the lower 10% of scores.

I also don't tell anyone there I'm trans because of the attitudes being put forward by some of the posters here. There's no way at all it could affect my performance, but it's a bloody scary experience trying to exist and participate in spaces that don't affirm you've got a right to exist and where many people express opinions that could very easily lead to all this.

Trans people are their gender. Nobody is going to make any changes to their presentation (even just how they outwardly identify) for sport. People who aren't trans and go on the wrong hormones experience the dysphoria that trans people feel - such as an HRT doctor who was microdosing estrogen for better skin and overshot the target once. And especially Alan Turing.

People in high level sports are, by definition, not representative of average people. And even professional athletes who transition don't go on to dominate their sports. Especially in combat sports, as has been pointed out. This is a complete non issue, and infinitely so when it's targeted at kids.

The only possible harm being done is in the minds of people who eat up this harmful narrative about trans people in sports. Whatever age you are, acceptance is a blessing that improves quality of life.

Gendered sports are also a gently caress on several levels if you want to compete as a non-binary person.

Trans people are their gender. Trans feminine people on HRT don't have an innate muscle advantage, and cis women can be tall too.

Trans people are people and we're loving tired of attacks on our personhood and right to live a normal life being normalised and advancing every day.

To all the posters in the thread who've been against trans inclusion in sports: continuing to support this stance won't make anyone happy. Not cis athletes or the lawmakers trying to pass these bills, or even anxious parents who watch too many scary news shows. Even if you "win", there will always be another issue, another part of us to hate (like how bathrooms were the hot topic before this. And excluding trans people from bathrooms excludes us from a lot of public life because everyone needs to pee!). This doesn't end even after trans people are legislated out of the right to exist as we choose to be.

Be a part of ending the cycle of hate. You don't have to choose love, but even simple indifference is a huge step up. Take a look at yourselves and ask if you gave the faintest gently caress about this "issue" before the media started up on this.

If you didn't care five years ago, maybe you can shrug now and let people play a sport that you'll never see, and which makes them happy.

Koos Group posted:

mastershakeman posted:

We've effectively always had this with the judged women's sports like ice skating and gymnastics. Look at the Liukin vs Shawn Johnson rivalry, where the announcers and judges oohed and aahed over Liukin's "elegance". It's part of the whining about difficulty scores giving people like Biles too much of an edge because she's stronger and can do more spins
I don't know as much about ice skating but my understanding is the silver medalist Russian who threw a tantrum was largely correct about having the better performance and got judged against for not meeting the standards of feminine excellence with respect to unquantifiable dancing and grace and whatnot

PT6A posted:

I also really resent the implication that you must be trans to give a poo poo about the rights and fundamental human dignity of trans people.

Jaxyon posted:

Figure skating is a good discussion point.

Before gender separation, in 1902, a woman placed 2nd in the world championships. Immediately after, women were banned from competing and then a women-only category was introduced but not held for a few years after.

mastershakeman posted:

Probably for the same reason boys don't want to wrestle girls. Weight classes pretty much solve the issue of fairness, and there's some very talented female wrestlers. But its a terrible time for the boy going up against them - win, and you've merely 'beaten a girl', lose and hoo boy are you gonna hear it from your teammates. When I was in that sport in high school there was an excellent female wrestler in the county that absolutely everyone avoided until they had to face her at state meets.

Aginor posted:

She is built like a male swimmer.

quote:

She needs time to go through her transition and then once that's done she should be allowed to compete as much as she wants.

Jaxyon posted:

Aginor PM'd me within seconds of that post btw.

PT6A posted:

I think it's important to call that out for what it is, though: unabashed sexism. Like I said in an earlier post, I was born with a disability. Not enough of one that, as far as I know, I could compete in para events, but enough that I was always pretty solidly worse than most people at physical things including sports. Like, what, beating me would be more honorable than losing to a highly skilled, fit woman? In what world? It's just sexist bullshit.

Jaxyon posted:

She has spent the required amount of time already(1 year for the NCAA) of HRT/T-suppression. I posted the requirements in the 3rd post of this thread.

What longer does she need and what science do you have to base that on?

Just Chamber posted:

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trans-women-retain-athletic-edge-after-year-hormone-therapy-study-n1252764

Seems like 1 year might not be enough. Personally I think they should be allowed to compete but how long after transitioning and on HRT seems to be what needs to be established and it's drat hard to give a blanket answer because clearly it's also going to differ per sport. Sprinting vs long distance running for example. Say transgender women in power lifting retained even a 10% advantage over their cis competitors after being on HRT for just a year but that advantage was reduced to practically zero after two then it seems fair to have them have to wait the 2 years before being allowed to compete.

Jaxyon posted:

I've read this entire thread, and noticed a similar pattern to when I have this discussion on social media:

People make broad claims about the unfairness of transgender people, say their opinion is "science", and then refuse to back them up and declare that someone is ridiculous for even doubting them.

Then as they continue to participate in debate, yet refuse to back up anything, people who respond to them escalate their replies to continued unsupported transphobia.

Is that the kind of discussion pattern the moderation staff would like to foster on this subject?

The only data, links, resources and citations that have been posted in this thread have been on one side of the debate. Otherwise we have a rotating group of posters who kramer in, make some claims, and then bail when asked to provide data while the posters who are on version 3 or 4 of that same poster are getting increasingly upset at the lack of rigor.

Koos Group posted:

I would not like to foster that, which is why if someone refuses to provide evidence when challenged with counter-evidence, they'll be probed for bad faith. I've also thought about instituting a rule where controversial statements of fact need to be backed up in the same post in threads where it's called for, but that does preclude discussion that comes from refuting common unsupported statements. So there is some trade-off. The rule would also apply to everyone equally, of course.

RealityWarCriminal posted:

They pm'd me to say "women have wombs"

ram dass in hell posted:

That's cool! Thank you. What about poo poo like this:

Koos Group posted:

That user is being banned for that.

Staluigi posted:

Previous page in the thread has like 6 total posts without probe avatars rn I love the wildness factor unironically

Anticheese posted:

Well, welcome, and here's to better contributors

LionArcher posted:

I do have a trans question in general. Not about the sports stuff. I do appreciate the fact that this thread clearly goes over this sports poo poo is bullshit, and I'll use it when dealing with the one friend who usually says "trans folks are fine, but what about those sports..." (Yes, this friend is cool minus listening to Joe Rogen and those kind of things).

My question is on age of transitioning. I'm hearing a lot of personal stories from parents where therapists schools take troubled kids right away and suggest they're trans. Again, there is a huge difference between a kid that at age two is very cleary trans (and I've met a few) who want surgery hormones before puberty. Totally cool with that. But I'm Leary of teens who suddenly in a group of five all decide they're trans at 14, didn't really exhibit signs of that before hand, and then demand surgery.

I know one family in particular where the kid at 14 came they were trans, and when the parents said they wanted the teen to wait till 18 because they both didn't want to/couldn't afford right then to pay for the surgery, and the teen acted like their parents were transphobic.
I'm not saying people shouldn't transition at a young age, but when it's starting to be suggested by outside influences versus from the child, I get leery.
"Puberty shouldn't be so hard, they just want to feel right in their body". I get those arguments, but I'm sorry, I hated my body when I was going through puberty too.

There's also an argument about consent here. Teens can't consent till they're adults but life altering surges yes? (I know, parents permission needed, but again, a lot of this feels trendy?) basically, all of this is me saying I"m wondering if there is a push to transition for some teens because it sets you apart, versus because they're actually trans, and if there's a way of balancing the surgery approach.


I bring this up because I saw a video by a woman who d-transitioned, and her experience of how much harassment she got for documenting it, and how she felt her transition was partly pushed on her in the first place.

Another video (a tick Tok) was by a native trans person talking about the need for it to be surgery is also a very western way of thinking of trans people, and isn't necessary always.

So basically, my question to this thread is this, is the rate of trans people always just been higher and now trans folks feel more comfortable coming out, or is there a certain level of societal acceptance/a trend that maybe pushes for surgeries. Again, I'm pro trans right. Everyone's valid, all that.

This thread has thrown out a lot of good stats, so help me here please. My bullshit detector has gone off here about the overall numbers/trend, because I've been around liberal/privileged folks a lot of my life and know how often they're loving terrible while pretending to be the good guys, and I've known a few parents that would 100% try to manipulate their kid into stating their trans if it helped give them 'clout'. They did not do this, (their kids are too old now) but there are those folks out there.

LionArcher posted:

I do have a trans question in general. Not about the sports stuff. I do appreciate the fact that this thread clearly goes over this poo poo is bullshit, and I'll use it when dealing with the one friend who usually says "trans stuff is fine, but what about those sports..." (Yes, this friend is cool minus listening to Joe Rogen and those kind of things).

My question is on age of transitioning. I'm hearing a lot of personal stories from parents where therapists schools take troubled kids right away and suggest they're trans. Again, there is a huge difference between a kid that at age two is very cleary trans (and I've met a few) who want surgery hormones before puberty. Totally cool with that. But I'm Leary of teens who suddenly in a group of five all decide they're trans at 14, didn't really exhibit signs of that before hand, and then demand surgery.

I know one family in particular where the kid at 14 came they were trans, and when the parents said they wanted the teen to wait till 18 because they both didn't want to/couldn't afford right then to pay for the surgery, and the teen acted like their parents were transphobic.
I'm not saying people shouldn't transition at a young age, but when it's starting to be suggested by outside influences versus from the child, I get leery.
"Puberty shouldn't be so hard, they just want to feel right in their body". I get those arguments, but I'm sorry, I hated my body when I was going through puberty too.

There's also an argument about consent here. Teens can't consent till they're adults but life altering surges yes? (I know, parents permission needed, but again, a lot of this feels trendy?) basically, all of this is me saying I"m wondering if there is a push to transition for some teens because it sets you apart, versus because they're actually trans, and if there's a way of balancing the surgery approach.


I bring this up because I saw a video by a woman who d-transitioned, and her experience of how much harassment she got for documenting it, and how she felt her transition was partly pushed on her in the first place.

Another video (a tick Tok) was by a native trans person talking about the need for it to be surgery is also a very western way of thinking of trans people, and isn't necessary always.

So basically, my question to this thread is this, is the rate of trans people always just been higher and now trans folks feel more comfortable coming out, or is there a certain level of societal acceptance/a trend that maybe pushes for surgeries. Again, I'm pro trans right. Everyone's valid, all that.

This thread has thrown out a lot of good stats, so help me here please. My bullshit detector has gone off here about the overall numbers/trend, because I've been around liberal/privileged folks a lot of my life and know how often they're loving terrible while pretending to be the good guys.

krooslove posted:

People don't just get together and decide! And its not some kind of group hysteria! You know who youre meant to be! Careful. Its not a choice!

PT6A posted:

From my understanding: it's essentially impossible to get gender-affirming surgery as a minor. It's simply not happening, no matter how much anyone involved says they desire it. Again, from my understanding, the current standard of care given to trans minors is, at most, puberty blockers, which are not permanent for obvious reasons, and are also used in treatment of precocious puberty in cis children.

I tend to agree that minors should not be making permanent, life-altering decisions, like those involved with gender-affirming surgery -- after all, even many adult trans people choose not to partake of those surgeries, because it's not like a fairy waves a magic wand and BAM you're the opposite gender now! And, as you say, the focus on what's going on in someone's bathing suit region isn't really the deciding factor of what makes someone trans or not. On the other hand, I think it's also impermissible to say that the best course of action is "no treatment" because puberty is, indeed, a very permanent change even if it's naturally-occurring.

Finally, as a cis person, I just find it really, really unlikely that any teenager is thinking "you know what? I'm sick of the dick, YEET!" on a whim. It doesn't make common sense that a person who is not questioning their gender in a very real and legitimate sense would suddenly "decide" that they're trans. If you are comfortable with your gender assigned at birth, the changes associated with puberty are largely positive -- just as they are for trans people who get the right hormones all of a sudden and poo poo finally feels right.

PT6A posted:

From my understanding: it's essentially impossible to get gender-affirming surgery as a minor. It's simply not happening, no matter how much anyone involved says they desire it. Again, from my understanding, the current standard of care given to trans minors is, at most, puberty blockers, which are not permanent for obvious reasons, and are also used in treatment of precocious puberty in cis children.

I tend to agree that minors should not be making permanent, life-altering decisions, like those involved with gender-affirming surgery -- after all, even many adult trans people choose not to partake of those surgeries, because it's not like a fairy waves a magic wand and BAM you're the opposite gender now! And, as you say, the focus on what's going on in someone's bathing suit region isn't really the deciding factor of what makes someone trans or not. On the other hand, I think it's also impermissible to say that the best course of action is "no treatment" because puberty is, indeed, a very permanent change even if it's naturally-occurring.

Finally, as a cis person, I just find it really, really unlikely that any teenager is thinking "you know what? I'm sick of the dick, YEET!" on a whim. It doesn't make common sense that a person who is not questioning their gender in a very real and legitimate sense would suddenly "decide" that they're trans. If you are comfortable with your gender assigned at birth, the changes associated with puberty are largely positive -- just as they are for trans people who get the right hormones all of a sudden and poo poo finally feels right.

LionArcher posted:

I do have a trans question in general. Not about the sports stuff. I do appreciate the fact that this thread clearly goes over this sports poo poo is bullshit, and I'll use it when dealing with the one friend who usually says "trans folks are fine, but what about those sports..." (Yes, this friend is cool minus listening to Joe Rogen and those kind of things).

My question is on age of transitioning. I'm hearing a lot of personal stories from parents where therapists schools take troubled kids right away and suggest they're trans. Again, there is a huge difference between a kid that at age two is very cleary trans (and I've met a few) who want surgery hormones before puberty. Totally cool with that. But I'm Leary of teens who suddenly in a group of five all decide they're trans at 14, didn't really exhibit signs of that before hand, and then demand surgery.

I know one family in particular where the kid at 14 came they were trans, and when the parents said they wanted the teen to wait till 18 because they both didn't want to/couldn't afford right then to pay for the surgery, and the teen acted like their parents were transphobic.
I'm not saying people shouldn't transition at a young age, but when it's starting to be suggested by outside influences versus from the child, I get leery.
"Puberty shouldn't be so hard, they just want to feel right in their body". I get those arguments, but I'm sorry, I hated my body when I was going through puberty too.

There's also an argument about consent here. Teens can't consent till they're adults but life altering surges yes? (I know, parents permission needed, but again, a lot of this feels trendy?) basically, all of this is me saying I"m wondering if there is a push to transition for some teens because it sets you apart, versus because they're actually trans, and if there's a way of balancing the surgery approach.


I bring this up because I saw a video by a woman who d-transitioned, and her experience of how much harassment she got for documenting it, and how she felt her transition was partly pushed on her in the first place.

Another video (a tick Tok) was by a native trans person talking about the need for it to be surgery is also a very western way of thinking of trans people, and isn't necessary always.

So basically, my question to this thread is this, is the rate of trans people always just been higher and now trans folks feel more comfortable coming out, or is there a certain level of societal acceptance/a trend that maybe pushes for surgeries. Again, I'm pro trans right. Everyone's valid, all that.

This thread has thrown out a lot of good stats, so help me here please. My bullshit detector has gone off here about the overall numbers/trend, because I've been around liberal/privileged folks a lot of my life and know how often they're loving terrible while pretending to be the good guys, and I've known a few parents that would 100% try to manipulate their kid into stating their trans if it helped give them 'clout'. They did not do this, (their kids are too old now) but there are those folks out there.

quote:

Of 56 peer-reviewed studies, 52 (93 percent) found that gender transition improves the overall well-being of transgender people. The other 7 percent reported mixed or null findings. None of the reviewed studies showed that gender transition harms well-being.
The positive outcomes of gender transition and related medical treatments include improved quality of life, greater relationship satisfaction, higher self-esteem and confidence, and reductions in anxiety, depression, suicidal tendencies and substance use.
The positive impact of gender transition has grown considerably in recent years, as surgical techniques and social support have improved.
Regrets following gender transition are extremely rare and have become increasingly rarer.

quote:

The information that does exist appears to corroborate Asquith’s claim. In a 2015 survey of nearly 28,000 people conducted by the U.S.-based National Center for Transgender Equality, only 8 percent of respondents reported detransitioning, and 62 percent of those people said they only detransitioned temporarily. The most common reason for detransitioning, according to the survey, was pressure from a parent, while only 0.4 percent of respondents said they detransitioned after realizing transitioning wasn’t right for them.

quote:

The results of a 50-year survey published in 2010 of a cohort of 767 transgender people in Sweden found that about 2 percent of participants expressed regret after undergoing gender-affirming surgery.

The numbers are even lower for nonsurgical transition methods, like taking puberty blockers. According to a 2018 study of a cohort of transgender young adults at the largest gender-identity clinic in the Netherlands, 1.9 percent of adolescents who started puberty suppressants did not go on to pursue hormone therapy, typically the next step in the transition process.

Lance of Llanwyln posted:

The only care typically given to minors without rigorous assessment are puberty blockers, which, IIRC, are used for other things as well and are quite safe and it's not difficult to reverse. Once they are a bit older, they can begin HRT, which is vastly more effective when you're A) a teenager and B) you haven't already gone through the wrong puberty. It is exceedingly rare for any surgical interventions to occur before 18. The only exception I can think of is Kim Petras: she required a special dispensation from the German government to get bottom surgery at 16.