This video doesn't show what the ACLU thinks it does

[Trausti]

You said physical dominance started at 4 to 5 years of age. Your "measure" of physical dominance is grip strength of which there not much difference at age 6. Sorry, your claim is risible.

I wrote that it begins at four or five. I was off by a year. Sheesh.

You were off by more than a year or two. "Grip strength" - LOL

That’s a common measure. Sorry if science scares you.

 

[Jarhyn]

You said physical dominance started at 4 to 5 years of age. Your "measure" of physical dominance is grip strength of which there not much difference at age 6. Sorry, your claim is risible.

I wrote that it begins at four or five. I was off by a year. Sheesh.

You were off by more than a year or two. "Grip strength" - LOL

Besides, it doesnlt seem to be very well controlled. I can absolutely see raw grip strength at prepubescent ages being a function of behavioral activity rather than innate ability.

Simply put, more parents pressure their be-penis'd children to put on baseball gloves and swing bats or toss balls around and to pull weeds and carry shit in ways that penis-less children are rarely pressured or expected to do, even when they like doing those things.

 

[Emily Lake]

Prior to puberty, there's not a material difference between males and females. One puberty begins, however, the difference is significant.

As far as the idea that females being allowed to compete against other females with the same biological competencies and barriers is somehow an infringement on the right of males to compete against females... I don't really know what to say to that. Transgender children already have the right to compete against others of their same sex. What's being asked for is not equal rights, but special rights - the right to compete against people with a clear physical disadvantage, and to displace females in sports. What is the reason? It's not so that transgirls have a "fair shot" - they're biologically male and already have a fair shot against other males. They have an unfair shot against females. The overriding argument for why transgirls should be allowed to compete against females is to affirm their feelings, to make them feel good about themselves. The fact that this hurts the feelings of female athletes, the fact that this makes females feel displaced and bad... that's of no account.

The feelings of males are more important than the feelings of females. In many cases, the feelings of males are treated as more important than the rights, safety, and dignity of females.

The fact that you just had to call out "female" and "male" to make your argument indicates that you are absolutely being sexist and sex-essentialist.

That is an asinine comment. Sex actually fucking exists, Jarhyn. It is real, and it has real impacts on people. Talking about sex in a context where sex actually matters isn't "sexist", it's fucking logical and rational.

All you have to do to not get this sprayed at you with firehouse force every time you join one of these threads is "these laws need to be adjusted with an expectation that people who have not been exposed to testosterone should never be expected to compete against those who have, particularly those who have been recently exposed; it creates a barrier against those not affected by testosterone from competing or participating otherwise."

That right there is a reasonable position. It protects everyone without regard to sex, or gender, instead focusing ONLY and EXACTLY on the thing that creates contention (testosterone and it's effects in competitive sports).

Egads. Fine. Only children who have managed to convince their parents, their doctors, and all logical adults that they should be allowed to irreversibly alter their bodies, including permanent medicalization and surgery on perfectly functional bodies, in ways that are nearly guaranteed to make them sterile are allowed to compete against the opposite sex.

 

[Emily Lake]

Yes, but it's very minor. Prior to puberty, males and females can compete against each other with very little notable differences in performance. There are some differences in overall height and the size of hands and feet, but they really are negligible before puberty.

It may start before puberty.

Yes, but it is negligible. When compared to the differences during and after puberty, it isn't material. Prior to puberty, the differences are small enough to not confer a significant advantage in most cases.

The difference from puberty is so incredibly large that spending time discussing the difference prior to puberty is a distraction not really worth the effort.

 

[Emily Lake]

All you have to do to not get this sprayed at you with firehouse force every time you join one of these threads is "these laws need to be adjusted with an expectation that people who have not been exposed to testosterone should never be expected to compete against those who have, particularly those who have been recently exposed; it creates a barrier against those not affected by testosterone from competing or participating otherwise."

That right there is a reasonable position. It protects everyone without regard to sex, or gender, instead focusing ONLY and EXACTLY on the thing that creates contention (testosterone and it's effects in competitive sports).

Male fetuses are exposed to testosterone. It's what makes them male. So do we intervene at conception?

Funny, I thought it was their genetic makeup that makes them biologically male.

True. If you expose a female infant - the product of two X chromosomes - to testosterone in the womb, they may be masculinized to some degree, and can end up being intersex to a degree. But they are still biologically female.

 

[Trausti]

Funny, I thought it was their genetic makeup that makes them biologically male.

True. If you expose a female infant - the product of two X chromosomes - to testosterone in the womb, they may be masculinized to some degree, and can end up being intersex to a degree. But they are still biologically female.

Right. People with Down Syndrome have an extra chromosome. In some genetic disorders people are missing chromosomes. Are they not still human?

 

[Jarhyn]

That is an asinine comment. Sex actually fucking exists, Jarhyn. It is real, and it has real impacts on people. Talking about sex in a context where sex actually matters isn't "sexist", it's fucking logical and rational.

All you have to do to not get this sprayed at you with firehouse force every time you join one of these threads is "these laws need to be adjusted with an expectation that people who have not been exposed to testosterone should never be expected to compete against those who have, particularly those who have been recently exposed; it creates a barrier against those not affected by testosterone from competing or participating otherwise."

That right there is a reasonable position. It protects everyone without regard to sex, or gender, instead focusing ONLY and EXACTLY on the thing that creates contention (testosterone and it's effects in competitive sports).

Egads. Fine. Only children who have managed to convince their parents, their doctors, and all logical adults that they should be allowed to irreversibly alter their bodies, including permanent medicalization and surgery on perfectly functional bodies, in ways that are nearly guaranteed to make them sterile are allowed to compete against the opposite sex.

I can't help but think that we have had this conversation before..

Sex DOES NOT exist in the way you think it does, and you keep inverting the situation, bringing essentialism back into it. At no point does your asinine insistence that "sex matters here" does that asinine insistence actually matter for shit.

Now, that last bit of your post, at least I have to give you credit for taking the mask off and saying your quiet part out loud.

There's a lot to unpack there, and pretty much all of it is horseshit.

First, people deserve a right to self determination. Do you think I should not be allowed to be GAY on account of the fact that it functionally renders me sterile? Are people not allowed to make decisions with their own bodies, now?

Blockers do not render people sterile.

"MeDiCaLiZATiOn..."

Such a scary way of saying "needing to take a regular medication like a vast majority of everyone already does.

"SuRgUrY On pErFeCtLy FunCtIoNAl BoDiEs"

Doesn't seem those bodies are "perfectly" functional according to the people they are functioning for... I mean if your body started growing benign lesions all over your face without making your body "less functional", you would still get them surgically removed I'm betting. Maybe this is because part of what constitutes "proper function" is "functioning to please the desires of the owner", and being fugly as sin does not serve that important function.

 

[Metaphor]

First, people deserve a right to self determination. Do you think I should not be allowed to be GAY on account of the fact that it functionally renders me sterile? Are people not allowed to make decisions with their own bodies, now?

You can be gay all the merry day, but I would not let a 9 year old boy have sex with men no matter how gay he was. I would not allow him to make that decision for his body and neither does the State allow him to make that decision. Because it's not something he can understand or consent to.

Blockers do not render people sterile.

They massively decrease bone-density though

Study: Puberty Blockers in Teens Causes ‘Massive Decrease in Bone Density’ | Principia Scientific Intl. (principia-scientific.com)

 

[Gun Nut]

Transgender exists only in the head; that someone might truly feels they are in the wrong body or prefer to dress as the opposite sex does not change the biological reality of the rest of the body.

What element of the human existence is not "only in the head"? Existence itself is an illusion we all individually create with the establishment of mind.

Physical competition is not done in the head. More to the point, whatever individually you have in your mind doesn't change the objective characteristics of your body. I mean, duh.

That is pretty key, right? The difference is between how one perceives themselves versus how others perceive them (with respect to "objective characteristics" - perhaps a whole other debate). And isn't that at the root of this? The dispute arises when those perceptions conflict greatly and confusion is created in both parties (self and other).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You were off by more than a year or two. "Grip strength" - LOL

Besides, it doesnlt seem to be very well controlled. I can absolutely see raw grip strength at prepubescent ages being a function of behavioral activity rather than innate ability.

Simply put, more parents pressure their be-penis'd children to put on baseball gloves and swing bats or toss balls around and to pull weeds and carry shit in ways that penis-less children are rarely pressured or expected to do, even when they like doing those things.

And even without parental pressure there is a pattern to what boys and girls choose to play with.

 

[Jarhyn]

You were off by more than a year or two. "Grip strength" - LOL

Besides, it doesnlt seem to be very well controlled. I can absolutely see raw grip strength at prepubescent ages being a function of behavioral activity rather than innate ability.

Simply put, more parents pressure their be-penis'd children to put on baseball gloves and swing bats or toss balls around and to pull weeds and carry shit in ways that penis-less children are rarely pressured or expected to do, even when they like doing those things.

And even without parental pressure there is a pattern to what boys and girls choose to play with.

Pretty much. Though I would caution any parent (or anyone, really) against jumping to conclusions on the basis of those patterns, or assuming those patterns will be expressed on the basis of previously or contemporarily expressed gender identity

 

[Ahab]

I have no idea the status of the father or his child. What I do know is that a video is incapable of providing a lens into their life at home.

Then why did the ACLU put it out there? Don't you think they wanted people to draw some conclusions regarding how the father treated his children?

Do you think it right to force a boy to play only with 'boy toys' and wear only 'boy clothes'? Why did he try and force gender stereotypes on his son? There is nothing wrong with boys wanting to do those things.

 

[Ahab]

Seems to me he is a terrible father. He is so attached to gender stereotypes that the only way he can accept his child's desires to play with girl toys or wear girl clothes is to pretend that his child is a girl.

All you got out of that was a kid wanting to play with girl toys and wear girl clothes? That's the central issue as you see it?

The central issue is the father forcing his son to accept gender stereotypes.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Seems to me he is a terrible father. He is so attached to gender stereotypes that the only way he can accept his child's desires to play with girl toys or wear girl clothes is to pretend that his child is a girl.

All you got out of that was a kid wanting to play with girl toys and wear girl clothes? That's the central issue as you see it?

The central issue is the father forcing his son to accept gender stereotypes.

No. No, that's something you throw on the video, not something it shows.
The kid is trying to figure out what she wants. Letting the kid explore, decide what her choice is, that's not forcing her into a stereotype.

 

[Ahab]

Wow. Either we didn't watch the same video or you need to get yourself right.

All he is doing is listening to his daughter about who his daughter is and actually accepting that. I doubt he was insisting that she be a girl. All I can say is that this situation, were I in it (a child picking up social roles that do not match my expectations or models for normal behavior), the first thing that I would do would be to ask what, exactly, are the child's goals for their behavior, whether they just like this, who they seek to peer-group with, how they wish to navigate puberty.

It seems like this father fought for a long time on figuring out that's what he needed to do, to release control and drop his expectations of who his daughter ought be.

Maybe, just maybe, it is his daughter who is so attached to gender stereotypes and the way she chooses to express herself is "as a girl" as is her right. It seems to me you have terrible views for being so attached to sexual developmental determinism that you would deny sexual developmental free will and pretend that a human being ought not get to decide that for themselves.

The young boy wanted to play with 'girl toys' and wear 'girl clothes'. Do you think it right that the father prevented this?

You appear to think that it is these gender stereotypes that make a boy a boy or a girl or girl.

 

[Ahab]

The central issue is the father forcing his son to accept gender stereotypes.

No. No, that's something you throw on the video, not something it shows.
The kid is trying to figure out what she wants. Letting the kid explore, decide what her choice is, that's not forcing her into a stereotype.

I'm going by what the father said: "For years I would not let my daughter wear girl clothes. I did not let her play with girl toys."

He can allow the child to do that now because he believes the male child is now a girl. Looks to me like a complete acceptance of gender stereotypes.

He should have given the young boy the freedom to do those things.

 

[Ahab]

Transgender exists only in the head; that someone might truly feels they are in the wrong body or prefer to dress as the opposite sex does not change the biological reality of the rest of the body.

What element of the human existence is not "only in the head"? Existence itself is an illusion we all individually create with the establishment of mind.

And "sex" only lives on the crotch.

No it doesn't. I could lose my penis and testicles due to disease or accident and I would still be a man.

 

[Keith&Co.]

He can allow the child to do that now because he believes the male child is now a girl.

Make up your mind. Does he believe she's a girl or is he pretending he's a girl?

And the girl is transgender. That's more than just cross dressing, playing with dolls. The father is trying to break from being influenced by stereotypes.

 

[Keith&Co.]

And "sex" only lives on the crotch.

No it doesn't. I could lose my penis and testicles due to disease or accident and I would still be a man.

Depends on whose definition....
What you're describing has been called an 'unmanning' sometimes.

 

[Emily Lake]

I can't help but think that we have had this conversation before..

Sex DOES NOT exist in the way you think it does, and you keep inverting the situation, bringing essentialism back into it. At no point does your asinine insistence that "sex matters here" does that asinine insistence actually matter for shit.

How do you believe that sex exists? Please feel free to flesh out your understanding to sex as it related to mammals, including humans. I am genuinely curious on this, since you have determined by fiat that sex doesn't work the way that I have stated.

First, people deserve a right to self determination. Do you think I should not be allowed to be GAY on account of the fact that it functionally renders me sterile? Are people not allowed to make decisions with their own bodies, now?

Um, adults are perfectly allowed to make decisions about their own bodies. Children not so much. There's a reason for that.

Blockers do not render people sterile.

While blockers don't generally create sterility, if used for an extended period of time beyond the natural triggering of puberty, they can in some cases do so. Cross sex hormones frequently cause sterility.

"MeDiCaLiZATiOn..."

Such a scary way of saying "needing to take a regular medication like a vast majority of everyone already does.

That's dumb. People take medication for actual problems that they have, for things that are wrong with them, that cause them harm or prevent them from functioning. I don't take anticonvulsants because I identify as epileptic! I take them so that I don't have seizures with the possible complication of severe fucking brain damage! People take medicine to treat a problem.

If an adult experiences dysphoria and wants to take cross-sex hormones, have at it. I don't care. Don't ask me to pay for it, but go ahead. But giving a CHILD blockers and cross sex hormones without having a considerable amount of therapy and evaluation beforehand is akin to providing a patient chemotherapy because they feel like they might have cancer... but without actually trying to determine whether they do have cancer in the first place.

"SuRgUrY On pErFeCtLy FunCtIoNAl BoDiEs"

Doesn't seem those bodies are "perfectly" functional according to the people they are functioning for... I mean if your body started growing benign lesions all over your face without making your body "less functional", you would still get them surgically removed I'm betting. Maybe this is because part of what constitutes "proper function" is "functioning to please the desires of the owner", and being fugly as sin does not serve that important function.

Wow. I don't even know how to address this.

How do you feel about people with body integrity disorder? They genuinely feel as if they shouldn't have legs, and they are genuinely distressed by having legs. Based on your approach here, is it a doctor's duty to chop their legs off? What are your views on anorexia and bulimia?