The costs of trans visibility
Yesterday, Dylan Mulvaney broke her silence: https://www.tiktok.com/@dylanmulvaney/vi....
For context, this is a trans influencer who built a 10 million strong following on TikTok. She took a brand deal with budweiser to post an ad on an instagram, and the anti-trans right went absolutely ballistic, calling for a boycott, condemning the company, and to some perhaps unknowable degree it influenced that Budweiser sales dropped by a 1/4 and
. Dylan speaks more personally about the effect of the hatred on her.
What strikes me about this story is that it is just about visibility. This isn't inclusion in sports or gender-affirming care for minors, it was just that a trans person was visible. This wasn't even visibility in a TV commerical that a poor right-winger is forced to see, it was an ad on her own instagram page. We're all in our own social media algorithm influenced bubbles, but from my vantage point it really has seemed that in the last year or so things have just gotten worse for trans people and the backlash to even minor visibility is growing.
We need to do better.
You really couldn't figure out they are talking about the high suicide rate amongst trans youth? Like one can debate the exact extent of various measures in the literature, but as ganstaman suggests it is hard to imagine you are in good faith unable to figure out the answer to your question.
Especially for someone who claims to have read the entire 8000+ post thread recently and which the answer is undoubtably in there multiple times.
Well, I’ve checked several reputable references for medications, epocrates, uptodate, etc. I don’t see “suicide prevention” as an indication for any of those drugs. Surely you can understand my confusion.
It is not disingenuous anything, the evidence about the boxers in question having XY chromosomes is overwhelming.
Which is why they never produced proof to the contrary to settle the matter: they can't
The evidence we have that you are a horse****er is also overwhelming.
Why havent't you produced evidence to the contrary yet to settle the matter?
Did you state your point 1 previously backwards? You said you supported including trans people up to “high stakes competition”. I agreed, presuming you meant including them based on how they identify (and obviously asterisks needed on what exactly is high stakes). However, many anti-trans advocates are against that position of trans kids in schools on regional teams being able to be included. That was what I meant by saying many would disag
Yes, to be clear I'm only talking about banning males from the women's category in high stakes competition. For children's sports, I think inclusion is more important than fairness. In other words, it's more important that every child gets a chance to play sport, than for one child to take home a plastic trophy.
The point is that they were never asked to or required to provide proof to compete at the Olympics. The IOC take the vast majority of the blame here for effectively allowing self-ID to gain entry to female events. There is a small question mark as to why these boxers, knowing they had a biological advantage, chose to pursue that advantage. However, they should never have been put in a position where they had the choice.
Yes, to be clear I'm only talking about banning males from the women's category in high stakes competition. For children's sports, I think inclusion is more important than fairness. In other words, it's more important that every child gets a chance to play sport, than for one child to take home a plastic trophy.
Then we agree, up to interpretation of “high stakes”.
Well, I’ve checked several reputable references for medications, epocrates, uptodate, etc. I don’t see “suicide prevention” as an indication for any of those drugs. Surely you can understand my confusion.
With access to resources like that, I bet you pretend to be a doctor sometimes too. I'm sure with that education you can figure this out.
Resources an internist banned many times under other screen names should have access to?
The point is that they were never asked to or required to provide proof to compete at the Olympics. The IOC take the vast majority of the blame here for effectively allowing self-ID to gain entry to female events. There is a small question mark as to why these boxers, knowing they had a biological advantage, chose to pursue that advantage. However, they should never have been put in a position where they had the choice.
They could have appealed in 2023. The Algerian boxer got suspended right before the gold medal match for world championship, iirc.
No appeal is exceptional, it means you truly have 0 chance of winning the appeal.
Keep in mind it would have been paid and managed by Algeria, not by the boxer. No cost, no risk.
Unless... Unless appealing would have provided certainty about the ban and remove the ground for IOC to reinstate.
Yes, to be clear I'm only talking about banning males from the women's category in high stakes competition. For children's sports, I think inclusion is more important than fairness. In other words, it's more important that every child gets a chance to play sport, than for one child to take home a plastic trophy.
Elite athletes tend to come from high-school and college competition, so sport at that level should probably be protected.
With access to resources like that, I bet you pretend to be a doctor sometimes too. I'm sure with that education you can figure this out.
i have no doubts to your career and educational claims and do share some doubt when others make similar claims
and i acknowledge that in this instance, i don't think he made any doctor claims and this is just you saying it's the same person as a previously banned doctor
but i do think it's wrong for you poo-poo on anyone else making similar credential claims as you do, particularly since we're also just taking your word for it as well
Elite athletes tend to come from high-school and college competition, so sport at that level should probably be protected.
Depends on the country, not in Italy at all for example (we don't have college sports as a concept here, and many countries don't).
For rare/niche sports especially, many countries (Italy as well) use the militaries/law enforcement.
That guarantees a salary to the pro, which often can't be achieved in the sport itself (no advertisers, no money to make unless you own a club and/or you coach). Some others come from families in the sport so they survive on their small family business built around the sport itself.
In some places like china the state creates programs to allow to to live with a normal salary while dedicating full time to the sport no matter the financial returns of it (not very different from what we do with the militaries).
Of the iirc 419 athletes Italy sent to the Olympics, 115 are active duty militaries
https://www.difesa.it/primopiano/olimpia...
Then there are sports with clubs. In those cases you grow since high school times in the club which is separated from the high school (at least in Europe it usually is).
All main clubs have "juveniles" where they nurture athletes.
Think as if an NBA club started picking people at 14 for it's juvenile team, from which the club drafted the picks for the real league
Elite athletes tend to come from high-school and college competition, so sport at that level should probably be protected.
yeah i think you two are the same page, he said children should be open and you wouldn't use the word children to describe college and probably wouldn't with high school either
yeah i think you two are the same page, he said children should be open and you wouldn't use the word children to describe college and probably wouldn't with high school either
Other than the "we don't want biological men to win everything" part, there is the "we don't want women to get massacred" detail.
So contact sports should be treated very differently.
It's one thing to allow a biological man to swim vs women if the stakes are null or close to it, whatever, but lol at letting them play rugby vs women after puberty.
That is if we care at least a little about women safety, such a bigoted concept.
Other than the "we don't want biological men to win everything" part, there is the "we don't want women to get massacred" detail.
So contact sports should be treated very differently.
It's one thing to allow a biological man to swim vs women if the stakes are null or close to it, whatever, but lol at letting them play rugby vs women after puberty.
That is if we care at least a little about women safety, such a bigoted concept.
yeah which is why it really depends on your interpretation of children
a lot of youth sports at the very early ages are coed just because everyone sucks
a few girls played hockey with me when i was super young but then they transitioned to all girls teams once checking became allowed at age 12
likewise, a bunch of girls played in the tee-ball leagues but then quit playing and switched over to an all girls league once little league came around
H index of 12, while not "Olympic", and Just run of the mill decent, says hi to "0 support of the scientific community"
I’m not going to bother confirming but I’m guessing the mass majority of citations are pointing out how wrong and harmful the paper has been. I know many of the studies I’ve posted cite it as such
The point is that they were never asked to or required to provide proof to compete at the Olympics. The IOC take the vast majority of the blame here for effectively allowing self-ID to gain entry to female events. There is a small question mark as to why these boxers, knowing they had a biological advantage, chose to pursue that advantage. However, they should never have been put in a position where they had the choice.
The boxer in question was medically IDd. Wild to claim otherwise. It wasn’t a personal choice to be identified as female.
You have such a distinct ignorance on the subject despite engaging on the subject for the past weeks
The boxer in question was medically IDd. Wild to claim otherwise. It wasn’t a personal choice to be identified as female.
You have such a distinct ignorance on the subject despite engaging on the subject for the past weeks
The Algerian boxer was considered a woman by the Algerian government all her life yes.
Doesn't matter in the slightest (or shouldn't) in order to be allowed to compete or not with women though.
And her being considered a woman legally while actually being a man biologically (XY chromosomes) is what makes it a trans issue btw.
A disconnect between biological sex, and the gender you go by in life.
but i do think it's wrong for you poo-poo on anyone else making similar credential claims as you do, particularly since we're also just taking your word for it as well
I doubt that people who aren't doctors even know what those resources are, which supports my assumption that this poster (and any related previous posters) is actually a doctor -- that's not something I actually doubt. My post was simply a little ribbing back since the post I responded to said that I "claim" to be a psychiatrist.
i have no doubts to your career and educational claims and do share some doubt when others make similar claims
and i acknowledge that in this instance, i don't think he made any doctor claims and this is just you saying it's the same person as a previously banned doctor
but i do think it's wrong for you poo-poo on anyone else making similar credential claims as you do, particularly since we're also just taking your word for it as well
Quite honestly, his behavior causes everyone here to seriously doubt he’s a psychiatrist.
I doubt that people who aren't doctors even know what those resources are, which supports my assumption that this poster (and any related previous posters) is actually a doctor -- that's not something I actually doubt. My post was simply a little ribbing back since the post I responded to said that I "claim" to be a psychiatrist.
A claim that your thin skinned behavior and unwillingness to answer a simple question causes the more rational posters here to question.
A claim that your thin skinned behavior and unwillingness to answer a simple question causes the more rational posters here to question.
Doctors are often very upset when anyone even slightly disagrees with them about anything that they can even tangentially consider part of their own domain of expertise actually.
They live basked in a light of superiority with people often enough bending the knee to whatever they say on the job. This include co-workers of lower ranking.
Exceptions exist but being thin skinned when confronted on something related to their profession is very normal for doctors (more than for other professions, except perhaps lawyers).
Quite honestly, his behavior causes everyone here to seriously doubt he’s a psychiatrist.
although i did indeed start the whole thing, i don't actually doubt for one second that's his line of work
would be an incredibly exhaustive long con if it were - whereas the ones you doubt are ones where only when it helps establish credibility on certain issues is it brought up - whereas i had no reason to doubt the most recent "im a doctor" - the timing of which that was introduced was pretty convenient - but alas it would make sense for him to drop a "no i'm actually a doctor" there if he were one as well
while he has leaned on his credentials here to set policy - he was like "oh and btw this is my career" as he is one of the people who are more open about their careers here and i've known that was his job (or at least feels like i did) long before it ever came about as a method for policy setting
i also highly doubt he mods this thread in the same manner he works - again, i poo pooed on that but it was more rhetorical than substantive to try to get him to consider moving away from his "my interpretation is the only correct one and all others are evil" which is more akin to a fatwa issued from an iman than
i think gansta has the best of intentions - he's never said nasty things (although i'm sure many times he's wanted to do so) but he does slip up a bit by looking the other way when his "allies" do
i still think it would be better to shut down this thread than to have it be the only thread on 2p2 with a stated doctrine that must be adhered to
