The costs of trans visibility

Here is the problem. You are just plain wrong. And you are aggressively wrong which makes you stupid.

Notice where I said "I think"? No? You can't read? That isn't surprising.

Stop being aggressively stupid please or I'll just stop engaging with you while you flail around like a inflatable doll in the wind

Puberty blockers and hormone have shown a reduced rate of suicide attempt and success after use. There isn't enough data on this but the data that is there is in favor. Pretty straight forward.

There is no error. I told everyone up front there is no accepted cause currently. Don't be mad you got laughed at for your dual gendered mandate yesterday

As always, I'm open to someone posting studies that contradict me

No you aren't, when we link papers to you about the insane advantage in some sports of biological men you deny that, or claim it doesn't apply to trans people

The support is going down as we learn more about the influence on male puberty on competitive advantage. It was widely the position of the IOC and other sports that trans women did not have a competitive advantage. Now as more evidence comes out, that has been reversed and sporting agencies are tightening up on the requirements.

You're completely overestimating the levels of support by just looking at the raw data of a poll. Remember, the vast majority of questions asked in polls do not place any weight on level of belief or interest in a certain topic. They just ask them a question about an issue and people give their yes, no, or unsure on whether they agree. That's why it was found in certain polls when Bernie was running that a majority of Republicans support medicare for all, which is actually absurd if people really believe that would be the case if we were to go into more detail with Republicans as to what that would entail.

What you're engaging in here is pure rhetoric, not an actual analysis of whether or not this is a huge issue to American/Democratic voters. The reason why Democrats have been supportive of this stuff is because it's such a tiny issue.

Oh no! Whatever you do, please don’t stop engaging me. I couldn’t handle that!
Suicide is not a medical condition, it’s a mental health problem and your side maintains that trans is not a mental problem. Try again.

Come on, everyone has always known that males have an advantage. It was an absurd position pushed by extreme activists that got enough political blowback that it became indefensible and was dropped. The entire reason we have women's sports is because of the advantages of male puberty.

interesting

from my memory it definitely feels like more than just coordi - perhaps i'm guilty of lumping in a bunch of people as having the same position too often

Super famous study by Simon leVay. Not only are men's and women's brains different, but hetero brains are different from gay men's brains.

A difference in hypothalamic structure b...

Given that we know that gay brains are different from straight brains, and women's brains are different from men's brains, it's very likely trans brains are different from typical brains.

thought gay brains would make a great band name but that wasn't enough so entered it into a band name generator to get some derivatives

would definitely go see gay brains boatyard live in concert

Well I think that there is definitely nuance here that is missing in your reply. I know it’s not going to make you happy but common sense isn’t exactly how decisions are made that could potentially have a scientific answer to them. The IOC has attempted to study this question and so far results have been inconclusive on the advantage that transgender women athletes have. However, in my opinion we have to be careful in interpreting this paper. They measured very specific things and there could be more stuff missing from their testing like hand-eye coordination or other skills that need to be looked at.

You could just as easily draw the conclusion from this study that the orange just isn’t worth the squeeze. In order to get more data, there would need to be much more studies on trans women and cis women, and there frankly aren’t too many trans women athletes in the first place.

While it’s definitely true that common sense says that they are probably stronger than cis women, I think that same sense can be applied to competing against cis males. Simply put, a trans woman that falls within the IOC guidelines of is not just like a cis man any measure of athletic performance. Trans women athletes within the guidelines frequently lose to cis women athletes, which would not be the case for male athletes of a similar relative caliber. There really does seem to be a regression in physical ability after prolonged periods of hormone therapy, which makes sense.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/58...

I think that the problem is that from a utilitarian standpoint it hurts transgender acceptance to try to integrate them into female sports, even if it’s done in good faith. I also agree broadly that there was an exaggeration of the evidence in favor of integration into professional sports. And lastly I think holistically we just see that trans women, especially those that have gone through male puberty, have different skeletal structures and the role of that on performance is still way too poor to be justifying their inclusion in many sports.

I do want to end these concessions with a more broad argument for transgender acceptance. I just find it hard to believe that it is merely the performance aspect that you are objecting to. I mean am I really supposed to believe that if all the data showed that trans women are inferior to cis women in sports that suddenly you would support their inclusion? I doubt it, and I think most people that are against people transitioning in general would be. So in truth I’m not going to throw people under the bus for their naive support because I don’t think it was ever seen as a way of supporting what they saw as a discriminated group.

By the way I don’t want to go off topic, but as an aside, I think your view of vaccination is completely off base. The effectiveness against transmission of the vaccine is widely based on what variant it is, and whether you have had a booster. Also no one denies that it reduces hospitalizations, death, and severe illness.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1...

Idk what this has to do with trans sports but I did think it was worth responding to since you threw it in there as some gotchya towards “current thing”-ism.

Common sense is exactly the way you avoid the worst disasters, by using it as a check to prevent unwarranted radical change in general.

The idea that "science" should structurally supplant common sense (=aggregated wisdom of the crowds) is deeply undemocratic and abhorrent. Especially given we know, as an absolute certainty, that "science" the way you guys define is , is completly captured by political processes, in the social sciences.

On the topic of "transgender acceptance", the topic is clear: i completly refuse to damage the majority to try to "accept" a tiny minority, i think that approach is morally horrific, anti-human, and destructive for society.

Same reason why affirmative action is such a monstrous policy.

Tolerating a minority (ie avoiding being destructive on purpose against that minority) is the cap. There is no moral mandate to sacrifice ANYTHING to "help" a minority being "accepted", to "include" (which doesn't mean anything in actual reality).

I said i am in favor of having women who live as men participate against men in sports. But you keep going with "the data", in the "scientific" way. If people whose morally value i can 100% trust started publishing research in papers whose editors moral value i can 100% trust showing that men who live as women aren't better at sports than women i would have no problem.

But that won't happen because of the common sense thing above, and this is not something that can change with time you understand that yes? it's not like researching subatomic particles where we keep discovering things. There is nothing to discover about averages and tails in performances in sports of biological men vs biological women. It's settled.

The vaccination example was very specific: vaccination mandates for not-at-risk people were justified by the fact that the vaccine sterilized against infection. That was the talk for months, and the "scientifical" (and often legal, in countries that wouldn't have allowed mandates constitutionally without a proven huge protective effect for others) reason for mandates (for the not-at-risk; mandating it on elders or otherwise weak people for paternalistic reasons is a completly different topic).

You understand we have proof that the protection vs infection fades quickly right? as all models would have predicted for an RNA virus with a high rate of functional mutation?

How the hell can you mandate something because it protect others on 4 or 6 months of data, if you know there is a very high chance such protection fades, and isn't necessarily close to 100% to begin with?

It has to do with using "science" to make legal changes. Lying about it, slicing it up the way you want, "peer reviewing" among yourselves patting yourselves on the back and going to a journal with people of your tribe deciding what gets published (and so becomes "science" usable to force legal changes to others).

Basically my claim is that the entirety of the intellectual production of any person or institution on the left should never be allowed to be used to justify anything with legal consequences in any field. It's not that i don't trust the left, is that i know for a certainty they weaponize that to further their horrific preferences, and i fully refuse to play their game.

You admitted they exaggerated for "trans acceptance". They do it every single time about every single topic, from the effects of unfiltered immigration to analysis of taxation to everything else. Every single time. And of course social consequences of climate change, which is the big thing today.

And yes it's related to trans matters, everything is correlated in these spaces, because it's the same people. Climate crisis extremists overlap with trans activists to an incredibly degree which overlap with people who wanted to put the unvaxxed in prison which overlaps with people who hate capitalim. All very highly correlated, so discussing one of those things, is discussing all those things, where "science" is used as a weapon of mass destruction to push what at the end is the same old trope: marxist revolution.

Bro, if all you got is a study from 1991 that has been picked apart, you have some problems:

From Matthe Mcglaughlin in 2018
“In 1991 neuroscientist Simon LeVay published “A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men”, which reported the discovery of a ‘region’ in the anterior hypothalamus of the brain that determined sexual orientation in men. LeVay's study was an attempt to revolutionize the scientific study of sexual orientation, as previous decades of research had failed to isolate the biological determining factor of human sexual orientation. Blinded by his political motivation to aid the gay rights movement at the end of the twentieth century, LeVay's study - as well as the countless other scientific investigations of human sexuality - merely succeeded in naturalizing socially constructed categories through 'objective' scientific facts.”

HIV can attack the central nervous system, and nearly all of the gay men in LeVay's study had died of AIDS. What effect, if any, did HIV have on this region of the brain? Were the perceived differences the result of biology or because of HIV's actions on the brain?[16][11][22]

LeVay's study only considered 41 brain samples.[18] Too few data points can make study results unreliable.[23][11][24]

In straight males, LeVay found that the INAH3 structure was about the size of a grain of sand. In women (and in gay men), it was almost non-existent.[18] Because of the extremely small size, these structures could be difficult to precisely measure in tissue slices.[25]

LeVay's data showed a range of size values for INAH3 in both the homosexual and heterosexual brains. Some of the gay men had larger INAH3 structures, some of the straight men had smaller structures, and the numbers overlapped.[18] Anne Fausto-Sterling at Brown University said, "If LeVay picked a nucleus size in the middle, he couldn't tell if it was heterosexual or homosexual."[3]

The brain influences the way the person acts, but the environment can influence brain structures. There was not enough information about the people in the study to know whether the results were biological in nature, or whether the behavior of the gay participants caused that region of the brain to change over time.

This is from 2021

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-0...

Homosexuals have different brain structures than heterosexuals (but the differences aren't the same for all aspects for gay and lesbians)

The pro-trans crowd has been trying for years to prove that trans is a biological phenomenon. They’ve failed miserably at every attempt.

Every behaviour, preference, attitude is at least in part inheritable so i disagree here, i don't see why trans ness shouldn't behave like everything else about human being.

Inheritable at least in part, with identifiable , measurable epigenetics con-causing more than random the epiphenomenon and so on.

Afaik studies looking for that found some evidence (unsurprisingly, there is this kind of evidence for basically everything you care to measure about human behavioral propensities)

Introduction: The main objective was to carry out a global DNA methylation analysis in a population with gender incongruence before gender-affirming hormone treatment (GAHT), in comparison to a cisgender population.

Methods: A global CpG (cytosine-phosphate-guanine) methylation analysis was performed on blood from 16 transgender people before GAHT vs. 16 cisgender people using the Illumina© Infinium Human Methylation 850k BeadChip, after bisulfite conversion. Changes in the DNA methylome in cisgender vs. transgender populations were analyzed with the Partek® Genomics Suite program by a 2-way ANOVA test comparing populations by group and their sex assigned at birth.

Results: The principal components analysis (PCA) showed that both populations (cis and trans) differ in the degree of global CpG methylation prior to GAHT. The 2-way ANOVA test showed 71,515 CpGs that passed the criterion FDR p < 0.05. Subsequently, in male assigned at birth population we found 87 CpGs that passed both criteria (FDR p < 0.05; fold change ≥ ± 2) of which 22 were located in islands. The most significant CpGs were related to genes: WDR45B, SLC6A20, NHLH1, PLEKHA5, UBALD1, SLC37A1, ARL6IP1, GRASP, and NCOA6. Regarding the female assigned at birth populations, we found 2 CpGs that passed both criteria (FDR p < 0.05; fold change ≥ ± 2), but none were located in islands. One of these CpGs, related to the MPPED2 gene, is shared by both, trans men and trans women. The enrichment analysis showed that these genes are involved in functions such as negative regulation of gene expression (GO:0010629), central nervous system development (GO:0007417), brain development (GO:0007420), ribonucleotide binding (GO:0032553), and RNA binding (GO:0003723), among others.

Strengths and Limitations: It is the first time that a global CpG methylation analysis has been carried out in a population with gender incongruence before GAHT. A prospective study before/during GAHT would provide a better understanding of the influence of epigenetics in this process.

Conclusion: The main finding of this study is that the cis and trans populations have different global CpG methylation profiles prior to GAHT. Therefore, our results suggest that epigenetics may be involved in the etiology of gender incongruence.

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neu...

Odd. I never thought you were an ally. Interesting.

I am a rational person with libertarian, rightwing preferences. Pretty sure radical leftists wouldn't consider me "an ally" of trans people.

Btw the origins of trans ness would have no effect, in my world, in what society has to do in their regards.

Exactly what an irrational person would say.

I'd be interested in seeing this study run again but with the cis population being homosexual.

Nope. You’re an ally. The first step in dealing with your problem is accepting it.

good post

That's right. And I generally think D1 individual sports are probably a good place to be considered "elite enough". That said, any lines between conflicting values are going to be murky and so I'm much more agnostic of the exact location of "elite enough".

What can science say about whether or not the self exists? This question is in the moral domain.