Being trans and being gay aren't even a tiny bit related. They have nothing to do with each other. One is a personal preference and the other is believing you're something your not. And if you tell me religion is a mental disorder I'll just disagree and say it's more of a mental brainwashing.
Innocent question regarding the future of Women’s Basketball
- Thread starter vegashawki
- Start date
Fryowa
Administrator
That whole statement just showed that you think it's up to you to arbitrarily decide what a mental disorder is.
As far as trans and gay being not "even a tiny bit related," holy smokes. Personal preference vs. believing something you’re not?
Yikes. I’m just gonna bow out of this LOL
Fryowa
Administrator
Yep. It’s been clinically studied over extremely long periods of time using empirical data and peer review, it’s been shown to have harmful effects on the people suffering from it as well as those surrounding the sufferers, genes have been identified that show strong suggestion of triggering it, methods of therapy and medications have been developed that have been shown effective to treat it. Pretty sure it’s a mental disorder as defined by broader society.
Perry much everyone agreed body dysmorphia was a mental disorder until yesterday. And how are gay and trans related?That whole statement just showed that you think it's up to you to arbitrarily decide what a mental disorder is.
As far as trans and gay being not "even a tiny bit related," holy smokes. Personal preference vs. believing something you’re not?
Yikes. I’m just gonna bow out of this LOL
Sounds familiar in a lot of ways.
Fryowa
Administrator
Anorexia is for the same reasons schizophrenia is. And yeah, I'm gonna bow out. I don't care enough if you think someone's gender opinions are mental disorders or not. Kinda like how I don't care about Angel Reese or Dawn Staley or Geno Auriemma or Kim Mulkey. If you want to take that as winning an argument, I also don't care about that
Yes, I am sure about the research as the state of evidence stands right now (it could always change, that is how science works). Regarding conversion therapy, there is no evidence that it works, and there is weak evidence that it might be harmful.
Regarding the benefits from gender-affirming care, the research field is young. This recent JAMA paper does a nice job providing a summary of the research in their introduction, with links to other sources. In short, there is suggestive evidence that gender-affirming care is associated with long-term positive mental health outcomes. There is less evidence in the immediate mental health effects of initiating gender-affirming care, which is the linked paper is looking at (they found positive effects). There are cases of regret following gender-affirming care (surgeries, specifically, which only a minority of individuals with gender-dysphoria seek), which speaks to the need to improve counseling and decision-making with regard to these health-care decisions.
I will concede that science like this is done by University Professors, and they trend about 90% liberal, and personal bias definitely influences science. Some papers I have read tend to make the existing research look a lot more conclusive than it is. This is why AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) just commissioned a massive systematic review of the evidence to guide their future guidelines.
I have a hard time buying some or your conspiratorial ideas. I am not sure how anyone plans to make money off of the issue of gender dysphoria. Further, you really think that you're going to get a massive network of disconnected researchers, as well as major medical organizations with large boards and commissions and teams to all go in on this plan? What do they have to gain?
Hell yes I finally won something!Anorexia is for the same reasons schizophrenia is. And yeah, I'm gonna bow out. I don't care enough if you think someone's gender opinions are mental disorders or not. Kinda like how I don't care about Angel Reese or Dawn Staley or Geno Auriemma or Kim Mulkey. If you want to take that as winning an argument, I also don't care about that
Is the evidence on therapy for all topics or just for this one? My point is I find a hard time believing the people who do these studies are trying to make a point that therapy is pointless. But if they are trying to say it doesn't help for gender dyspohoria, that's the argument they're accidently making.
I've seen stats on how much money is being made with transition surgeries and how easily they're being pushed onto kids these days. Who knows, maybe they're exaggerated or completely fake. But if they're not, it's pretty damning.
I compare your last point to asking how doctors could all be in on a vaccine scam. My answer is the same. Most people believe what they are told by higher ups. All it takes are a few corrupt individuals at the top. Or possibly even a few people who truly believe what they're saying (as you say, liberals) to make shit trickle down to everyone. You're definitely the kind of guy who likes researching stuff. More so than I am. Maybe try looking into numbers on the money involved in gender affirming care. I've never tried. Maybe it's all lies. I honestly wouldn't be too surprised.
There are many areas where reasonable people could disagree, areas where evidence is equivocal or there is enough uncertainty that it is hard to tell what is most likely true. However, vaccine efficacy is not such an area. There is overwhelming evidence that vaccines do much more good than harm. You could argue that the benefits of some vaccines are overblown, or that vaccine risks might not be worth the benefits for certain combinations of disease/population (e.g. it is unclear if COVID vaccines are necessary in healthy kids). But vaccine outcomes are studied extensively, and that data is unequivocal.
Thus, you cannot really argue this issue from the standpoint of what the evidence says. You can only argue the issue from the standpoint of believing the global scientific community is part of a vast conspiracy to enrich pharmaceutical companies. Conspiracies, by their nature, are unfalsifiable as any evidence presented just proves the depth and scope of the conspiracy.
I appreciate your open-minded way of thinking...Candace Owens said something a few months back about conspiratorial thinking being a good way to open your mind to what is possible in the world, and I think there is truth to that. But I don't have much time for conspiracies myself, and don't feel like debating whether or not gender-affirming surgeries are being pushed to enrich the medical community.
On my way out, I will address one other thing you said previously that could use some clarification: you thought some guys might pretend to be transgender in order to see boobies in a locker-room and earn some trophies. All sporting organizations that have seriously considered this issue AND considered allowing trans women to compete with women have discussed restrictions specifying that the trans woman in question would have to undergo hormonal therapy to suppress androgens to normal female levels. I like boobies as much as the next guy, and I enjoyed competing in sports, but getting rid of my testosterone, growing breasts (I gotta admit, my man-boobs are coming in nicely in middle-age), and opting into one of the most discriminated against groups of people within our country seems like a pretty high price to pay. The internet has a lot of boobies, and I don't need any hormonal therapy to access it.
p.s.- This is nothing against you, you seem like a decent guy. Who knows, maybe the future will prove your stance on this issue is closer to the truth than mine? But I don't think the 2 of us can agree on the nature of the evidence to move forward in a constructive way, we would just be talking back and forth and wasting both of our time.
To be clear, when mentioning vaccines, I was specifically referring to the covid vaccine. That vaccine is new technology that hasn't had the benefit of long term studies. To me, it's blatantly obvious those have failed miserably. Especially in children which they are still pushing them on. So when you say there would have to be a mass conspiracy in the scientific community, how else can you explain them saying the covid vaccine is still important for kids?
I've heard interviews of scientists that were shunned by the community for not getting on board with the covid vaccines. They say you have to back what you're told to back or you lose funding and credit. Is it that hard to believe that happens in a community where there are billions of dollars to be made?
With the whole me too movement, anyone who spoke up or didn't play ball were outcast and shunned by the community. It used to be a conspiracy that Hollywood operated like that and now it's common knowledge. Obviously for all I know these people being interviewed are full of shit. And if they are, they duped me. They're probably getting rich off of going against the grain. But if what they say is true, then it's also true that the scientific community has been bought and paid for.
As far as the rule where you have to take certain steps to get into the woman's locket room, I'm sure that's true for some things but not true for others. Places like Planet Fitness sure aren't asking for proof of those steps. And obviously you wouldn't go that far just to see some boobies. But I sure would......
#1DieHardHawk
Well-Known Member
This is certainly a broad-ranged discussion and it's easy to get lost in the weeds so to speak.
I think several things can be true at the same time, so situations are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For instance, allowing someone with a history of intersex/DSD diagnosed at birth and gender reassigned to participate in sports is quite different than someone with gender dysphoria that decides to transition well after puberty. DSD patients generally will not have an inherent physical advantage. That said, DSD definitely muddies the waters in terms of defining legislation. Fortunately, it is a very small percentage of the population.
A good example is Jamie Lee Curtis. She was born with what used to be termed Testicular Feminization Syndrome, now known as Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. The defect essentially means that despite being born "male" with an XY chromosome, her cells will not respond to stimulation from testosterone. Hence, the phenotype is ambiguous genitalia with a short rudimentary vagina. These patients are raised as girls and undergo early reconstructive surgery (she underwent reconstruction early at the Mayo Clinic, including removal of the gonads and bowel interposition to form a functional vagina). There would be no reason whatsoever to bar her from participating in female sports.
Another good example is Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH). These are genetic girls that are exposed to excess androgens in utero, resulting in ambiguous genitalia, with clitoral hypertrophy and undescended gonads. Over 40 years ago, these patients routinely underwent extensive reconstructive surgery and were raised as girls (the genotype). After several years, it became apparent that the end result was severe gender dysphoria and there were frequent suicides. After several studies, it became apparent that the decision to maintain the original genotypic sex assignment was immoral. In fact, much of that research is the basis for our knowledge today regarding the effects of hormones on brain development.
In terms of sports, the bottom line is to draw a balance between inclusivity and protection of the right of female athletes to participate in fair competition. As CP87 points out, the dividing line likely will hinge on whether or not gender reassignment occurred before or after exposure to a surge in testosterone. I don't think a third league is necessarily the answer, but a late transitioner should be allowed to participate in boy sports IMO, as the physical advantage would be moot.
In terms of children, I will throw out an opinion here: In my view, allowing say a six year old to determine whether or not they should undergo biochemical and subsequent mechanical transitions is abhorrent and borderline criminal. Parents and teachers that strongly advocate that stance represent the worst of extremists in my view.
I think several things can be true at the same time, so situations are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For instance, allowing someone with a history of intersex/DSD diagnosed at birth and gender reassigned to participate in sports is quite different than someone with gender dysphoria that decides to transition well after puberty. DSD patients generally will not have an inherent physical advantage. That said, DSD definitely muddies the waters in terms of defining legislation. Fortunately, it is a very small percentage of the population.
A good example is Jamie Lee Curtis. She was born with what used to be termed Testicular Feminization Syndrome, now known as Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. The defect essentially means that despite being born "male" with an XY chromosome, her cells will not respond to stimulation from testosterone. Hence, the phenotype is ambiguous genitalia with a short rudimentary vagina. These patients are raised as girls and undergo early reconstructive surgery (she underwent reconstruction early at the Mayo Clinic, including removal of the gonads and bowel interposition to form a functional vagina). There would be no reason whatsoever to bar her from participating in female sports.
Another good example is Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH). These are genetic girls that are exposed to excess androgens in utero, resulting in ambiguous genitalia, with clitoral hypertrophy and undescended gonads. Over 40 years ago, these patients routinely underwent extensive reconstructive surgery and were raised as girls (the genotype). After several years, it became apparent that the end result was severe gender dysphoria and there were frequent suicides. After several studies, it became apparent that the decision to maintain the original genotypic sex assignment was immoral. In fact, much of that research is the basis for our knowledge today regarding the effects of hormones on brain development.
In terms of sports, the bottom line is to draw a balance between inclusivity and protection of the right of female athletes to participate in fair competition. As CP87 points out, the dividing line likely will hinge on whether or not gender reassignment occurred before or after exposure to a surge in testosterone. I don't think a third league is necessarily the answer, but a late transitioner should be allowed to participate in boy sports IMO, as the physical advantage would be moot.
In terms of children, I will throw out an opinion here: In my view, allowing say a six year old to determine whether or not they should undergo biochemical and subsequent mechanical transitions is abhorrent and borderline criminal. Parents and teachers that strongly advocate that stance represent the worst of extremists in my view.
Damn I didn't know that about Jamie Lee Curtis. I was just watching some True Lies clips the other day and now I'm really questioning my sexuality.
Really good post by the way.
Transgender lizard people...I knew it.
Gander Hawk
Well-Known Member
nonsense
I heard that the Porter guy that the NBA just banned for gambling is going to 'transition' into a woman so he can go to the WNBA as Patrice and dominate.
I do wonder though what would some of the staunch liberal Clark fans think if a man got himself into playing womens hoops dominated and just destroyed all the records she just set how that'd go over. I'm just saying... As we sit here today that's not an impossibility.
I do wonder though what would some of the staunch liberal Clark fans think if a man got himself into playing womens hoops dominated and just destroyed all the records she just set how that'd go over. I'm just saying... As we sit here today that's not an impossibility.
