Trans Day of Visibility

[enoch]

Posthumanism is already here. Going to be a real trip. I am betting on viruses being the most successful at the immortality game.

@himster, intent is meaningless because it is impossible to know, the self is a mummery

[Himster]

If we just allowed for full and uncontrolled gene editing we wouldn't have this debate.

Women could match men in every way they wanted. Maybe even produce their own sperm just to kill that argument. Trans people could be who they wanted to be... literally, and those of us who want to live in space could replace our legs with an extra pair of arms.

You guys and your binary "you're wrong... no you're wrong" debates will have to find something else to argue about.

Yes, absolutely.

@himster, intent is meaningless because it is impossible to know, the self is a mummery

Intent is the bedrock of all ethics as the self is the bedrock of metaphysics and epistemology.
Even in a schema that doubts this a-priori, it is a pretence as doubting requires a self to enact it.

Besides, the self is required for any argument concerning trans issues. If trans folks don't have an immutable self at odds with exterior perceptions/projections, there would be no need to transition.
When it comes to the self being a self knowing thing: The truth is, all knowledge that you have is primarily knowledge of yourself. All the things you think you know about history, science, geology, etc. all that is, first and foremost: knowledge of your own perception. They aren't truths of the world, they are truths of you. All one can know is the self. The self is the only thing that can be demonstrated to exist, all else is flim flam.

[enoch]

and it is a mummery

[Knight of Heaven]

So you do agree that those people are born in a "wrong" body, and their true gender is different? Good, we are making progress here.

No, the idea that people are born in the wrong bodies, is not backed by any science whatsoever.

What is agreed is that there is people who feel that way at some point in their lives for whatever reason that is unclear actually. And that is called gender dysphoria. It is a feeling.

One of its known treatments, is an aesthetic transition to the opposite gender, in a way to alleviate the feeling of dysphoria. With mixed, and unclear results on the efficiency of that treatment to be honest.

I do not wish any ill will to people who feel gender dysphoria, on the contrary. The transition process shouldn't be above medical, scientific, and moral question just for the sake of ideological dogma, or activism.
And i do think the activism, and ideological dogmatists, allied to a sense of opportunist business in a new thriving industry, is taking over the narrative, and probably doing more harm then good if im honest.

Regarding women sports is obviously a concern, of fairness imo.

Even easier, completely eliminate sex based categories in sports.
"There's not a single thing a man can do that a woman can't do as well or better. Not a single thing."

hahahaha.

Part of me cant wait to see it, so i can witness a lot of this so called ideologues have their world notions and fantasies completely destroyed.

Women soccer world champions were trashed by 15 year old boys collegial team.

I know personally women and girls that train with boy soccer teams, in order to get better used to the physical and highest pace, so they can do better in their own games. It is no joke.

Serena Williams the number one woman completely trashed by the number 203 ranked man. Her sister as well.


And honestly a look at the Olympic world records is sufficient to understand the obvious biological difference. it is what it is. We are a species presenting sexual dimorphism, and that is not a social construct as much post modernists would like to spin it.

[antaeus]

No, the idea that people are born in the wrong bodies, is not backed by any science whatsoever.

What is agreed is that there is people who feel that way at some point in their lives for whatever reason that is unclear actually. And that is called gender dysphoria. It is a feeling.

One of its known treatments, is an aesthetic transition to the opposite gender, in a way to alleviate the feeling of dysphoria. With mixed, and unclear results on the efficiency of that treatment to be honest.

I do not wish any ill will to people who feel gender dysphoria, on the contrary. The transition process shouldn't be above medical, scientific, and moral question just for the sake of ideological dogma, or activism.
And i do think the activism, and ideological dogmatists, allied to a sense of opportunist business in a new thriving industry, is taking over the narrative, and probably doing more harm then good if im honest.

Regarding women sports is obviously a concern, of fairness imo.

What's interesting, is the number of loaded terms you use to justify a seemingly reasonable perspective. Those loaded terms betray your own biases. You should be able to explain your view without the virtue signal. It's not particularly scientific.

[athanaric]

What's interesting, is the number of loaded terms you use to justify a seemingly reasonable perspective. Those loaded terms betray your own biases. You should be able to explain your view without the virtue signal. It's not particularly scientific.

What's interesting is the amount of gaslighting in your side's arguments.

[antaeus]

What's interesting is the amount of gaslighting in your side's arguments.

What is this side you speak of?

[enoch]

What is this side you speak of?

One assumes he is referring to Decency.

[LWC]

Private matters should stay private. Otherwise, for public safety and bathroom access, etc, if there's a penis you are a biological male, if there's a vagina you are a biological female. If you think you are something else, go talk to your mother and see a shrink. It is a psychological issue, leave the rest of us and kids alone. Oh, and if you hate your penis so much that you lop it off, then you are a eunuch - a biological male without a family jewel and with hormone imbalance.

[Gromovnik]

And your claims are based on what exactly?

[antaeus]

Private matters should stay private. Otherwise, for public safety and bathroom access, etc, if there's a penis you are a biological male, if there's a vagina you are a biological female. If you think you are something else, go talk to your mother and see a shrink. It is a psychological issue, leave the rest of us and kids alone. Oh, and if you hate your penis so much that you lop it off, then you are a eunuch - a biological male without a family jewel and with hormone imbalance.

Ahhh the simpleton manifesto. Or a bald-face trolling post...

And for the 1.7% of births who are intersex - as in, can't be defined by the male/female binary using biological definitions (they're a bit of both, or neither, or chromosomally the opposite of their physical manifestation)

Do they just pee against a wall?

These kinds of simpleton answers really do lead to pain.

[Cope]

Ahhh the simpleton manifesto. Or a bald-face trolling post...

And for the 1.7% of births who are intersex - as in, can't be defined by the male/female binary using biological definitions (they're a bit of both, or neither, or chromosomally the opposite of their physical manifestation)

Do they just pee against a wall?

These kinds of simpleton answers really do lead to pain.

Somehow I doubt that 1.7% of children are born intersex.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Somehow I doubt that 1.7% of children are born intersex.

It’s actually 0.1%, and that’s according to a newer study whose estimate is much higher than previous.

Meanwhile, 0.6% of US adults identify as transgender, because again, this is about some people’s feelings, which the other 99.4% of people must cater to, not necessarily about biology.

In conclusion, DSD frequency in this study was 1.3 in 1000 births, which was higher than previous studies. We found that mean birth weight SDS was lower and SGA ratio higher in babies with 46,XY DSD. Preeclampsia was a common concomitant condition in those pregnancies. These findings support the hypothesis that early placental dysfunction and androgen deficiency might be important in the etiology of male genital anomalies.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6532673/

We find that 0.6% of U.S. adults identify as transgender. This figure is double the estimate that utilized data from roughly a decade ago and implies that an estimated 1.4 million adults in the U.S. identify as transgender

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.e...united-states/

[antaeus]

It’s actually 0.1%, and that’s according to a newer study whose estimate is much higher than previous.

Meanwhile, 0.6% of US adults identify as transgender, because again, this is about some people’s feelings, which the other 99.4% of people must cater to, not necessarily about biology.

Actually, there is debate about which conditions and variations should be included, and estimates vary from as low as 0.01% of people, to 1.7% depending on which definition criteria is used.

I used the higher estimate, because it accounts for the widest array of ambiguous anatomical gender variations that challenge LWC's attempt at a simpleton answer. I wasn't referring to transgender, as that wasn't the hole in the logic of LWC's assertion.

Meanwhile, 0.6% of US adults identify as transgender, because again, this is about some people’s feelings, which the other 99.4% of people must cater to, not necessarily about biology.

I'm curious. What are you being forced to cater to? Can you elaborate on this?

[Lord Thesaurian]

The study I cited estimates the number of children born with DSD, the more precise medical term for words like intersex. Fausto-Sterling’s estimate was originally theorized a long time ago at this point, and achieves such a high number by including a very broad range of conditions. The medical consensus is 1 in 1500-2000 births, which is why the figure I cited is noted as exceptionally high.

[antaeus]

The study I cited estimates the number of children born with DSD, the more precise medical term for words like intersex. Fausto-Sterling’s estimate was originally theorized a long time ago at this point, and achieves such a high number by including a very broad range of conditions. The medical consensus is 1 in 1500-2000 births, which is why the figure I cited is noted as exceptionally high.

Aside from the fact that your statement is overly absolute in it's phrasing, you're not actually disagreeing with the scope of my statement, but rather agreeing with where I drew one of my limits. Either way, this is besides the point, which is that LWC was overly simplistic in their reasoning.

How about my second thing I asked?

[Lord Thesaurian]

Aside from the fact that your statement is overly absolute in it's phrasing, you're not actually disagreeing with the scope of my statement, but rather agreeing with where I drew one of my limits. Either way, this is besides the point, which is that LWC was overly simplistic in their reasoning.

I am disagreeing with the scope of your statement. The context of the 1.7% figure was to reinforce the idea that these hypothetical intersex people would have no restroom if transgender people were forced to use the restroom that corresponds to their birth sex. Not only is the figure vastly higher than the medical consensus, it equates the minority of transgenders who actually have DSD with those who self identify as some other gender based on how they feel about themselves.

How about my second thing I asked?

Perhaps you’re not aware trans rights groups have long fought to eliminate the common requirement for a trans person to be medically diagnosed before receiving “gender affirming” treatment or being legally acknowledged as the gender/sex of their choice? It’s the only scenario in which your question is genuine. For example, the controversy over women’s sports.

The 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. This study suggests that more than 12 months of testos- terone suppression may be needed to ensure that transgender women do not have an unfair competitive advantage when participating in elite level athletic competition.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577

Suffice to say, people with ambiguous genitalia aren’t the primary issue.

[antaeus]

Perhaps you’re not aware trans rights groups have long fought to eliminate the common requirement for a trans person to be medically diagnosed before receiving “gender affirming” treatment or being legally acknowledged as the gender/sex of their choice? It’s the only scenario in which your question is genuine. For example, the controversy over women’s sports.

Suffice to say, people with ambiguous genitalia aren’t the primary issue.

Perhaps you missed the direct nature of my question. I asked what are you being forced to cater to?

[sumskilz]

It’s actually 0.1%, and that’s according to a newer study whose estimate is much higher than previous.

Which is concerning considering the increase is likely due to endocrine disrupters in the food supply and environment. I've had the (maybe not so paranoid) concern that segments of the population will be unbothered by the problem if it happens to support their ideological biases about sex/gender. It's a problem that is certainly getting worse.

The 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577

I think that pre-feminising therapy figure is an underestimate depending on what is being measured, which would likely translate to the post-feminising therapy figure.

Here is why I say that:



For those that aren't used to reading this type of graph, 50% of the distribution is within the box. Left to right: average men, average women, elite female athletes. The distributions are bell curves, so the those tail ends are quite thin.

From the same study: "90% of females produced less force than 95% of males"

[Gromovnik]

Let us all honour the sacrifice of those brave souls who were the victims of trans agenda being pushed upon them. F