QT: Where are the “trans men” athletes winning against men?

submitted by BiologyIsReal from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Greensquidsphone 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (12 children)

Some crazy links, Mark. I know you didn't do more than glance at them, though, because they're literally all the exact same study. A study of 98 participants, all of which are from the exact same clinic and so without a doubt all have the exact same doctor. Which I conveniently can't critique the data of because the single study you gave me (3 times in a row) has no full text available nor do they list any useful numbers in their abstract. And as i've stated, with regards to sports, I don't disagree. My issue is with junk science claims made in a topic it's clear they know nothing about. I really wonder if you actually read the things you link beyond a cursory peek.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I provided three different ways to access the same paper coz not everyone is able to access the same sites/resources, & because each one of these three framed & phrased the findings of that paper in the same way I never suggested or intimated that I was citing three separate sources.

But at least I provide links. You just make assertions without any substantiation. A paper from a major medical center using the lab tests results for 98 actual medical patients certainly doesn't constitute the last word, but it's more credible than a lone person repeatedly insisting this is how it is because I say so.

[–]Greensquidsphone 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (10 children)

One of the links is just a rephrasing of thr abstract, and the other two are exactly the same.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15532739.2017.1290566

Here's a study of 86 patients on low cypro doses with comparable female t levels. I think that link has full access but if it doesn't let me know and I'll find it when I have access to my computer.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

Thanks, Greensquidsphone. Very interesting.

But sorry, I have the feeling that the medical journal Endocrine Practice might be a little less biased than the International Journal of Transgenderism, which is owned & operated by WPATH.

WPATH's entire purpose is to promote & normalize transgenderism and to get more children to identify as trans and undergo life-altering medical interventions that will stunt their development, leave them sterile & sexually dysfunctional, and make them lifelong "trans medicine" patients reliant on Big Pharma drugs until the end of their days on earth. Coz medicalizing "gender identity" in kids is big money.

WPATH functions more as a political lobbying organization, gender-ideology propaganda machine and child grooming outfit than anything else. WPATH actively promotes subjecting children and adolescents to damaging medical interventions like puberty blockers and CSH and is known to have told a lot of outright lies. WPATH is also associated with with such discredited, unethical characters and organizations as Susie Green/Mermaids, Helen Webberly/Gender GP, Gender Spectrum (of the infamous gender jelly babies chart) and Jack Turban.

As its website shows, WPATH campaigns for a slew of odious policies that are harmful to women and to children. Including ending female-only sports (coz all that matters to WPATH is what "trans girls" want) and overturning the UK High Court's ruling in Bell v Tavistock that put the brakes on the irresponsible, injurious practice of putting confused, mentally unwell often autistic children on puberty blockers & CSHs rather than help them sort out their issues, come to terms with their bodies and develop healthy self-concepts and self-esteem.

The International Journal of Transgenderism , together with its partner organization the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), provides an intellectual forum that stimulates new ways of thinking and understanding various aspects of sex, gender identity, and gender expression for academics, practitioners, policy makers, and the general population.

https://duotrope.com/listing/20400/international-journal-transgenderism

[–][deleted]  (8 children)

[removed]

    [–][deleted]  (5 children)

    [removed]

      [–]BiologyIsReal[S,M] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Please remove the part about Greensquid's "passing" in your comment.

      [–]BiologyIsReal[S,M] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      I'll ask it again, remove the part about Greensquid's "passing" in your comment.

      [–]Greensquidsphone 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

      https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15532739.2017.1290566?casa_token=bXuUAMoa9hkAAAAA%3Ag1EkP5Gntrpu3M5ieN6ySVaUBlKvbXhwLjxTPvS0CLyZdglgz0W7kBccTf081SeDGUoUAtIsaTew9w Let me know if this link doesn't work, I think I somehow stumbled upon a full access link the other day that no longer functions, I'll just pm you the plaintext of the study if it's broken.

      It's one thing to respond to posts you don't like with rude, puerile put downs such as "pointless" and "crap" and whingey throwaway phrases like "dogwhistle rant," "don't waste your time" and "why should I bother."

      If you don't like it then don't write three paragraphs of personal opinion that literally reads to me as nothing but you stroking the egos of other radfem posters here.

      But why make a vulgar reference to male group masturbation? Do you really think likening the "GC" side - most of whom are women - to a bunch of fellas sitting around with their dicks in their hands wanking & jizzing makes you come off as persuasive?

      I mean, I know you know that in context I'm not saying you and the gals are whipping out dicks to what you wrote. And if you somehow dont:

      "Circle Jerk" is a pejorative slang term referring to a positive feedback loop which occurs when an idea or belief that is already customary within an online community becomes re-iterated and rewarded in a perpetual cycle

      And that it will help convince others that you "pass" as a woman IRL as you tell us you do?

      Besides this being arguably against the rules (No personal attacks. This includes insults, inquiring into a person's appearance or passability...), why do I care if a group of women on the internet think I don't pass because I use an internet word on the internet?

      https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/031_expert_affidavit_of_dr._stephen_levine_with_exhibit.pdf

      This Levine guy really likes to quote himself. Again I don't know what you want out of me here, I too have qualms with WPATH SOC. They aren't yours, but they are there.

      BTW, I never mentioned the word "evil." Only you did. Twice

      True, I used my magic power of 'inference'. You didn't use evil, but you did use:

      -Big pharma (a conspiracy surrounding an evil corporatist plot)

      -SUBJECTING children and adolescents to DAMAGING medical intervention

      -slew of odious policies

      -irresponsible, injurious practice

      I don't see it as that much of a stretch, to be honest, Mark.

      I take issue with the fact that you're preaching the clinical treatment of people with a medical disorder as a harmful practice. It's done so without proof, I've had people on this site go so far as to tell me they have no proof at all. Your "come to terms with their bodies and develop healthy self-concepts and self-esteem." is thinly veiled conversion therapy advocation unless you can provide concrete evidence loving oneself more is an effective cure for GD.

      In conclusion, Mark, I don't believe it's a post you wrote to me, I believe it's a post you wrote to your GC audience. Considering to even get through the first couple of sentences I have to go off the assumption that gender dysphoria doesn't exist, an assumption which I will not make, I think that's a fairly safe guess.

      Again, "WPATH is biased I don't trust your source" would have sufficed.

      [–]BiologyIsReal[S,M] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      Ok, Greensquid, that is enough. You don't get to tell other users what they can or can't say here just because you disagree with their premises. Otherwise, GC users could also tell you that basing your arguments presuming TWAW is only stroking the QT's ego. If you can't argue without putting others down, I suggest you came back to this thread once you've calmed down.

      [–]Greensquidsphone 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

      There is a small difference between TWAW (a phrase I'm fairly certain I've never even used) and WPATH being part of a larger big pharma conspiracy and also a "child grooming outfit".

      Making spurious, not only unproven but literally unprovable claims is an action which has no place in a debate space. I, again, have told no one what they are and are not allowed to say, but im not going to respond to bad faith arguments in good faith. Don't worry, though, I've made my point, I'm only coming back to the thread to copy/paste the full text of my study if my link isn't working.

      [–]BiologyIsReal[S,M] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

      This is a debate sub. She is allowed to make all the GC talking points she want as long she is following the rules, just like you can do the same with your views. Try to engage with other users' arguments rather than jump to rude comments and "threatening" not to read/reply what they say like you often do.

      Edit: I was too lenient the first time around, so I'm deleting this comment now.

      [–]Greensquidsphone 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

      I mean if someone clearly is writing to an audience that clearly isn't me I don't see why I should bother responding. It's so asinine and far-reaching the only legitimate response I can give it is "lol".