Re: OT: Trans Day of Visibility 2025 AMA

On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 17:51:34 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 13:34:39 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>:
>

On 2025-03-31 11:38 a.m., Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

On 2025-03-31 16:19:18 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
 

On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 08:04:13 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>

On 3/30/25 7:00 PM, Kestrel Clayton wrote:

>
The last day of March is the Transgender Day of Visibility, a day to
improve awareness of transgender people, to draw attention to the
challenges and oppression we face, and help people understand us
better.
The TDoV is more important than ever in 2025, as the Trump
Administration has put us squarely in its target sights.
>
One of the ways I can fight for my existence, and that of several of my
friends and loved ones, is by being visible as myself, answering
questions, and demystifying trans people.
>
I am a transgender woman. I am visible. Ask me anything.
>

Intending no disrespect, I'm sympathetic to anyone with gender
dysphoria.  It's probably a conclusion that you and others have reached
only after some serious introspection.  That's your business, not mine,
and doesn't disturb me in the slightest.  I do object to biological
males competing in women's sports, and I think it's a very bad idea for
minors to do anything irrevocable before their brains are at least
soft-boiled.
>

Agreed. All.

 
Agreed. All.
 
 

Sort of agreed, but re: sports, how exactly do you define 'biological
male' and how would you plan to enforce it? And yes, it is a bad idea
for minors to do anything irrevocable. The cases I know of are in late
adolescence with a long history of really knowing what they want and
decisions made by doctor/parent in cases of infants with ambiguous or
damaged genitalia. I'm okay with the first but dead against the second.
>

The issue is regarding the difference between biological
males (generally XY) and biological females (generally XX)
in upper-body strength after puberty; if it weren't a
problem such athletes as "Lia" Thomas wouldn't go from
underperforming in men's sports to record breakers in female
sports, and the records would be comparable between males
and females. But they aren't. Titlele IX was passed for a
reason. If you have no interest in fair competition, fine,
but at least recognize that there *is* a difference.

As I pointed out the last time this was raised on T.O., it's not as
simple as looking at the genes.  The important difference for physical
development is not in the genes, but in the individual physical
responses to the sex hormones.  There are some individuals whose
bodies simply don't respond to them, and so develop as physically
female even though they are genetically XY.  Your argument above
discriminates against them, one of the problems with simplistic
solutions.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge