Pervert alert: Kansas GOP overrides Governor's veto, allowing child genital inspections for sports

[John Dule]

There is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that trans women have an advantage over cis women in sports, so the entire premise that conservatives are pretending to believe in is faulty.

I'm not going to disrespect you by pretending you're dumb enough to actually believe this.

[John Dule]

It's far more cruel to penalize a larger number of females by allowing biological males to compete in their sport.  It's far more unfair.  

I’m sorry I wasn’t aware of all ciswomen hanging themselves for coming in second in high school sports

"So long as you don't kill yourself, people should be able to treat you as unfairly as they want."

[John Dule]

It's far more cruel to penalize a larger number of females by allowing biological males to compete in their sport.  It's far more unfair.  

I’m sorry I wasn’t aware of all ciswomen hanging themselves for coming in second in high school sports

"So long as you don't kill yourself, people should be able to treat you as unfairly as they want."

That’s not what I’m implying, you should now that, but im not surprised you don’t. So I’ll explain.

Fuzzy was saying it was “ far more cruel to penalize a larger number of females by allowing biological males to compete”.

That statement is ridiculous as, while loosing a competition, especially when you’re developing your mental state in high school are therefore more volatile in emotions, is incredibly disappointing. I’ve lost state championships before, my sister has as well, but we move on we get past it.

The act of othering and discriminating against a person to where you completely exclude them from certain activities is by far crueler. This othering is basically state sponsored bullying and torments a person.

Now I don’t think you’ll find many trans people committing suicide solely over not being allowed to play sports, but it is another crack in their mental health among the thousands dealt to them by people like you. This constant badgering and hate for being different often leads them to commit suicide.

You may ask how I know this? Well because I have been exactly in their position. I wasn’t barred from playing sports because I was gay, but I was called f*got when I ran for class president, have been heckled on the streets for holding hands by a grown man when I was just 16. That is what drives a person to suicide. My loss at state did not.

Now if that’s your end goal (and I honest to god think for some of this forum it is) then by all means go ahead and ban trans people from playing sports. But don’t act like this is some grave injustice.

There is no mental health exception for fairness. It is not "othering" to require trans people to abide by the basic principles of fairness in athletic competitions that have existed for thousands of years.

Your personal experience here is not applicable because being gay did not provide you with an innate biological advantage in running for class president.

[John Dule]

snip for thread neatness

So let me understand you correctly. You are willing to let trans individuals be subjected to mental anguish in the name of athletic fairness?

Yes. Emphatically.

[John Dule]

There is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that trans women have an advantage over cis women in sports, so the entire premise that conservatives are pretending to believe in is faulty.

I'm not going to disrespect you by pretending you're dumb enough to actually believe this.

Is your argument that the Scientific American is lying?

Yes, they clearly are. But while their article misrepresents the science, your post further misrepresented the article. Most of the article is dedicated to social and policy arguments, not science. And the portion you quoted does not show that biological men don't have an advantage; it only argues that biological men who've been undergoing puberty blockers from a young age don't have this advantage (a dubious claim given the small sample size), and then it obfuscates the question by saying "But some women have high testosterone!" This does not resolve this debate in the slightest.

Here's a good rule of thumb: When you find that you have to misrepresent science, lie about your own understanding of issues, and deliberately play dumb in order to make your argument, perhaps you're not being honest. You might even be-- dare I say it?-- arguing in bad faith!

[John Dule]

I already stated why the Scientific American article seems to be out of sync with "common sense." It's comparing transwomen athletes who didn't go through male puberty at all to ciswomen. It's believable at least that that subset of transwomen wouldn't have advantages.

Yes, and this is why I said they are misrepresenting the science. I don’t know what percentage of transgenders begin puberty blockers from age 10 (or whatever it would take to be effective), but Fergie is acting like it’s 100%. More quackery from the anti-science left!

[John Dule]

I already stated why the Scientific American article seems to be out of sync with "common sense." It's comparing transwomen athletes who didn't go through male puberty at all to ciswomen. It's believable at least that that subset of transwomen wouldn't have advantages.

Yes, and this is why I said they are misrepresenting the science. I don’t know what percentage of transgenders begin puberty blockers from age 10 (or whatever it would take to be effective), but Fergie is acting like it’s 100%. More quackery from the anti-science left!

Well I wouldn't go so far as to say they're "misrepresenting" the science. I wouldn't be surprised if a transwomen who had 0% of male puberty had no advantage over ciswomen athletes (I don't know though). I just don't think those transwomen are the ones driving the controversy. (And they're about to be way less common as the red states illegalize teenage transitions and detransition the ones who've already started.)

Well, the title of the article is Trans Girls Belong on Girls’ Sports Teams: There is no scientific case for excluding them. So it sounds like we agree that, at the very least, this headline is deliberately misleading.

[John Dule]

If you're at the point where your argument relies on a literal conspiracy theory (as in you are literally alleging that there is a secret plot by the scientific community to lie to the public), you've lost the plot.

How is it a "theory" when we've already established that the article you posted was full of misrepresentations and lies? I get that you're too much of a coward to directly respond to my points in this thread, but you don't get to just ignore the fact that your argument was thoroughly debunked and proceed as if nothing happened.