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

[Trausti]

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.

 

[laughing dog]

This father is talking about a young child. At that age, biological girls tend to physically mature faster than biological boys. Without knowing the specifics about his child, it is problematic to claim his child will somehow have a biological advantage over others.

As to the infringement of rights of the other children argument, it works in both directions. The champions of the biological girls' rights have no problem infringing on the rights of the transgender children. Any outcome between competing interests in the law has to infringe on the perceived rights of someone.

 

[Trausti]

This father is talking about a young child. At that age, biological girls tend to physically mature faster than biological boys. Without knowing the specifics about his child, it is problematic to claim his child will somehow have a biological advantage over others.

But it's not. Newborns are the same, sure. Think around four or five boys' physical dominance begins.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Yeah... I think we can dispense with the postmodern solipsism and stick with the fact that objective reality exists regardless of whether we are personally observing it or not.

I'm pretty sure that my uterine fibroid is not "only in my head".

 

[Emily Lake]

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. When what is "in the head" determines my experiences, who I am, how I understand the world, and pretty much every other aspect of my goals and desires and self, that seems so much more important to me than some part of me I could literally chop off and be the rest of it without much social difference for the rest of my life.

The 'biological reality of the rest of the body' does not change the 'biological realities that exist in the brain'.

And let's be clear, 'the rest of the body' in this discussion comprises a bit of flesh about the size of an apple that does no thinking, and has no heirarchical control over the rest of it.

Okay, let's take just a moment here and think about this. For you - who are male - your sex doesn't have a lot of impact on your life. Or at least, not an impact that you find important or impactful. For females, however, that's not the case. It is not our gender identity, it's not our mode of dress or our affectations that lead to our disadvantages, to the abuse and oppression that females face throughout the world and throughout history. It is our actual, real, biological sex. It is the fact - FACT - that we have uteruses, we have vaginas. The rapes and sexual assaults that we endure are not because of our makeup, they are because of our sex. Females are treated differently, treated as second-class in many cases, denied the right to drive or own property or talk to men who are unrelated to them in many parts of the world... because of our SEX.

This is the very epitome of privilege. There is an element of your existence that has never been a barrier to you, and has no big impact on your life. And because it's not important to YOU, you feel entitled to declare that it is not important to anyone... and in doing so you ignore the voices of half the human population to whom it is important and impactful.

 

[Jarhyn]

This father is talking about a young child. At that age, biological girls tend to physically mature faster than biological boys. Without knowing the specifics about his child, it is problematic to claim his child will somehow have a biological advantage over others.

As to the infringement of rights of the other children argument, it works in both directions. The champions of the biological girls' rights have no problem infringing on the rights of the transgender children. Any outcome between competing interests in the law has to infringe on the perceived rights of someone.

When there is no such thing as "biological girls' rights". There are just human rights. The extent of those rights with respect to genitals is a right to privacy. They are commonly called "private parts" or "privates". This implies that there are no publicly acknowledged rights associated merely with having some thing in your pants, as because this information is private there is no way of validating nor expecting others to know that you have said rights.

Any scenario you name, wherein a real right exists, that right can be posed in such a way as to not call out specific genitals, but rather the relevant situation directly (be it regarding chemical hormonal exposure, as is the issue with sports, or with pregnancy and the rights pertaining thereto on the basis of being the carrier of the parasite rather than their genitals specifically).

Any outcome, to me, must observe which "rights" create the greatest freedom and leverage within the population to seek personal goals. It is trivial to me that "personal goals" which unilaterally and arbitrarily limit the freedom of others do not count as acceptable goals, since they are clearly and unnecessarily reducing the freedom otherwise available.

 

[Emily Lake]

This father is talking about a young child. At that age, biological girls tend to physically mature faster than biological boys. Without knowing the specifics about his child, it is problematic to claim his child will somehow have a biological advantage over others.

As to the infringement of rights of the other children argument, it works in both directions. The champions of the biological girls' rights have no problem infringing on the rights of the transgender children. Any outcome between competing interests in the law has to infringe on the perceived rights of someone.

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.

 

[Emily Lake]

This father is talking about a young child. At that age, biological girls tend to physically mature faster than biological boys. Without knowing the specifics about his child, it is problematic to claim his child will somehow have a biological advantage over others.

But it's not. Newborns are the same, sure. Think around four or five boys' physical dominance begins.

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.

 

[Jarhyn]

This father is talking about a young child. At that age, biological girls tend to physically mature faster than biological boys. Without knowing the specifics about his child, it is problematic to claim his child will somehow have a biological advantage over others.

As to the infringement of rights of the other children argument, it works in both directions. The champions of the biological girls' rights have no problem infringing on the rights of the transgender children. Any outcome between competing interests in the law has to infringe on the perceived rights of someone.

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.

There is so much question begged in your post it's not even just trivial to address. There's a Gordian Knot of fucked in there. So I'm just going to cut it with the sword:

You have proposed in this an implication that people have some special right to compete not in the pure basis of these differing "biological competencies" (hormone exposures), but rather on the basis of pure sex.

This law does not block sports programs from separating people on the basis of "biological competencies". It blocks sports programs from separating people on the basis of sex or gender.

The overriding argument to allow trans girls to compete with normal girls is because the trans-girls the overriding argument is being directed at are explicitly the ones who haven't had to be forced into unwanted testosterone exposure.

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).

 

[Trausti]

This father is talking about a young child. At that age, biological girls tend to physically mature faster than biological boys. Without knowing the specifics about his child, it is problematic to claim his child will somehow have a biological advantage over others.

But it's not. Newborns are the same, sure. Think around four or five boys' physical dominance begins.

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.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Mean-grip-strength-of-boys-and-girls-across-age-range_fig1_267046053

 

[Trausti]

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?

 

[laughing dog]

This father is talking about a young child. At that age, biological girls tend to physically mature faster than biological boys. Without knowing the specifics about his child, it is problematic to claim his child will somehow have a biological advantage over others.

But it's not. Newborns are the same, sure. Think around four or five boys' physical dominance begins.

"Physical dominance"? Only someone unfamiliar with children would write something so silly.

 

[Trausti]

This father is talking about a young child. At that age, biological girls tend to physically mature faster than biological boys. Without knowing the specifics about his child, it is problematic to claim his child will somehow have a biological advantage over others.

But it's not. Newborns are the same, sure. Think around four or five boys' physical dominance begins.

"Physical dominance"? Only someone unfamiliar with children would write something so silly.

See grip strength graph above.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

 

[Trausti]

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.

Touche. Male characteristics. When female fetuses are exposed to testosterone, not so good.

 

[laughing dog]

"Physical dominance"? Only someone unfamiliar with children would write something so silly.

See grip strength graph above.

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.

 

[atrib]

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.

Yeah... I think we can dispense with the postmodern solipsism and stick with the fact that objective reality exists regardless of whether we are personally observing it or not.

Depends on how you define the word "reality". I think reality is an experience that is constructed by our brains based on interactions between the components of our nervous system and matter/energy external to these systems. Reality is subjective; no two humans experience the universe in precisely the same way, because no two humans are constructed precisely the same way. We train our brains to recognize certain interaction patterns and assign agreed upon labels to them so we can communicate our experiences with each other. At the most fundamental level, we appear to live in a universe that is populated by various arrangements of matter/energy. To insist that these arrangements are static and absolute, and will always be perceived in exactly the same way by every single human on the planet, or even by the same human over an extended period of time is absurd.

Also, look up the double slit experiment. This may dispel your misconception regarding the existence of objective realities independent of observers.

 

[Trausti]

Yeah... I think we can dispense with the postmodern solipsism and stick with the fact that objective reality exists regardless of whether we are personally observing it or not.

Depends on how you define the word "reality". I think reality is an experience that is constructed by our brains based on interactions between the components of our nervous system and matter/energy external to these systems. Reality is subjective; no two humans experience the universe in precisely the same way, because no two humans are constructed precisely the same way. We train our brains to recognize certain interaction patterns and assign agreed upon labels to them so we can communicate our experiences with each other. At the most fundamental level, we appear to live in a universe that is populated by various arrangements of matter/energy. To insist that these arrangements are static and absolute, and will always be perceived in exactly the same way by every single human on the planet, or even by the same human over an extended period of time is absurd.

Also, look up the double slit experiment. This may dispel your misconception regarding the existence of objective realities independent of observers.

57. Refutation of Bishop Berkeley
After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus."

Boswell: Life of Samuel Johnson.

 

[Trausti]

"Physical dominance"? Only someone unfamiliar with children would write something so silly.

See grip strength graph above.

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.

 

[laughing dog]

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