Question about the homophobia thread

[Anonymous]

Actually, Jeff, I would be very curious about your take on the decision. I’ve appreciated your thoughts and contributions in this thread.

I believe that this outcome is entirely what trans rights advocates want, and that under current laws protecting against gender identity discrimination, it would be discriminatory to allow spa workers to refuse to provide services to naked people with penises, regardless of any safety concerns for the women spa workers.


Link here:
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/06/06/women-only-naked-spa-lacks-constitutional-right-to-exclude-transgender-patrons-with-pensises/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

Depends on what, how, where you say it.

What did she say? I’m not on Twitter.

1 + 1 = 2 regardless of what, how, where you say it.

If something is true or not, hateful or not, depending on "what, how, where you say it" ... you're just a Nazi trying to police science and freedom of speech for some political agenda.

Must have been really hateful that it’s blocked by Twitter and you won’t share it here.

??

You must realize there's more than one poster here and that I have no idea about whatever Twitter post, just stating a general principle?

You know what principles are, I hope?

Context absolutely matters.

Must be bad if you’re this determined to deflect.

Laetitia is awesome, but this is a bit of a derail. The context here is that Laetitia was previously banned from twitter for asserting that biological females are different than biological males. The context is that she frequently shares her lived experiences as a young african woman and how she faces oppression due to her biological sex (not gender) in her culture. Here is a link if you sincerely want to check it out: https://twitter.com/laetiky?lang=en

That’s not representative of the few unrestricted posts that I could see which show that she’s very vocally and publicly anti-trans.

You are a good example of what I meant by competing hierarchies of privilege. She is an African woman who is focused on the very serious sex-based issues faced by African girls (FGM, child marriage, etc.). You are worried about lockstep validation from everyone around the world. They are different levels of problems.

Seems like she’s more focused on how to fight transgenderism and stan Rowling.

My God you are a narcissist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

+ a million.

What is hateful is to attack facts, biology and billions of people who acknowledge facts and biology.

Example of someone hatefully “attacking” facts, biology, and billions of people?

I'm not the PP, but I will weigh in. I think that we have all agreed that biological sex is different than gender identity, and that humans are indeed a sexually dimorphic species as understood in biology, and there are biological differences between males and females. Is that fair?

Recently, transgender activists have used legal proceedings to make unscientific claims that humans are not sexually dimorphic, nor have distinguishing biological sexual characteristics. Needless to say, this is not supported by evolutionary biology. It may not be an "attack" but it is indeed science denialism and it is dangerous.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea74d8342386a7ebc52/t/627ae90d50d43d059255d661/1652222223090/Intervenor+Proposed+answer.pdf

That is a legal complaint from “self-described radical feminists who oppose transgender rights and gender identity legislation.”

Stop deflecting. It doesn't matter if a complaint was filed by radical feminists, gay men, or male supremacists. It is a fact based statement that the suit alleges that “males” and “females” do not exist. Which is in fact a denial of science.

That is a response to a complaint. Do you have a link to the actual complaint? It is impossible for me to tell what that document is saying because it constantly references the original complaint.

I am not an attorney and do not know how to search for legal databases or motions. I am also unclear if attorneys have the ability to retract, edit, or amend legal documents if they realize that their complaint asserts ideas which are unscientific and easily disprovable based on evolutionary biology.

My point is that people, including respected American political institutions, are asserting that biological sex differences do not exist and do not matter.

Citation?

Here is just one example of and person denying the reality and science of biological characteristics between men and women. There are many and I'm tired of being told that this isn't happening.
https://twitter.com/IWF/status/1641468030721961984?s=20

Here is another article which confidently asserts that transwomen (biological males) have no advantages over biological women (females) in sports based on biological sex diffrences. Precisely that "there is no inherent reason why her physiological characteristics related to athletic performance should be treated differently from the physiological characteristics of a non-transgender woman.” I am quite tired of being gaslit that no one is "denying the science" that there are real biological sexual differences between males and females.
https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/four-myths-about-trans-athletes-debunked

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:There were several good and interesting replies above and rather than single one of them out to which to reply, I'll start a new post.

I don't think that anyone in all the pages of this thread has denied a historical linkage of sex roles and gender identity. Nor has anyone denied that a connection continues today. However, while nobody has actually articulated it so far, I also don't think that anyone would deny that the linkage is somewhat loose. The gender roles of women may be intricately linked to child bearing, but I am pretty sure that nobody here advocates that an inability of an otherwise biological woman to give birth means that she is not a woman. I would therefore posit that an inability of trans women to give birth is similarly not disqualifying.

One poster above seemed to indicate support for expansive interpretations of gender such that they become almost meaningless. If men can wear dresses and women can hunt, then there is really no reason for a trans person to change gender (this is a vast oversimplification of the argument). I'd be interested in hearing a transperson's response to that idea.

To take that idea a bit further, how much of the movement toward non-binary identity might be a rejection of gender identity altogether? Could this be a movement among youth saying that they are dissatisfied with existing gender ideas and rather than reform them, are smashing them into a million pieces?

Finally, I generally accept the contention that men are more physically dangerous than women. But, how much of the fear of trans people or non-trans people taking advantage and entering women's spaces (bathrooms in particular) is based on reality rather than fear? Are there any stats about this? The one study I was able to track down is fairly dated but suggests that this is not factually supported:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z

We are 20 pages in and yet no one has responded to our moderators question asked here. I wonder why? I'd like to hear a different opinion on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

+ a million.

What is hateful is to attack facts, biology and billions of people who acknowledge facts and biology.

Example of someone hatefully “attacking” facts, biology, and billions of people?

I'm not the PP, but I will weigh in. I think that we have all agreed that biological sex is different than gender identity, and that humans are indeed a sexually dimorphic species as understood in biology, and there are biological differences between males and females. Is that fair?

Recently, transgender activists have used legal proceedings to make unscientific claims that humans are not sexually dimorphic, nor have distinguishing biological sexual characteristics. Needless to say, this is not supported by evolutionary biology. It may not be an "attack" but it is indeed science denialism and it is dangerous.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea74d8342386a7ebc52/t/627ae90d50d43d059255d661/1652222223090/Intervenor+Proposed+answer.pdf

That is a legal complaint from “self-described radical feminists who oppose transgender rights and gender identity legislation.”

Stop deflecting. It doesn't matter if a complaint was filed by radical feminists, gay men, or male supremacists. It is a fact based statement that the suit alleges that “males” and “females” do not exist. Which is in fact a denial of science.

That is a response to a complaint. Do you have a link to the actual complaint? It is impossible for me to tell what that document is saying because it constantly references the original complaint.

I am not an attorney and do not know how to search for legal databases or motions. I am also unclear if attorneys have the ability to retract, edit, or amend legal documents if they realize that their complaint asserts ideas which are unscientific and easily disprovable based on evolutionary biology.

My point is that people, including respected American political institutions, are asserting that biological sex differences do not exist and do not matter.

Citation?

Here is just one example of and person denying the reality and science of biological characteristics between men and women. There are many and I'm tired of being told that this isn't happening.
https://twitter.com/IWF/status/1641468030721961984?s=20

She cut him off before he could fully answer.

There are certainly scenarios where you can’t definitively determine sex from bones. Look at how many mistakes were made before DNA analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

+ a million.

What is hateful is to attack facts, biology and billions of people who acknowledge facts and biology.

Example of someone hatefully “attacking” facts, biology, and billions of people?

I'm not the PP, but I will weigh in. I think that we have all agreed that biological sex is different than gender identity, and that humans are indeed a sexually dimorphic species as understood in biology, and there are biological differences between males and females. Is that fair?

Recently, transgender activists have used legal proceedings to make unscientific claims that humans are not sexually dimorphic, nor have distinguishing biological sexual characteristics. Needless to say, this is not supported by evolutionary biology. It may not be an "attack" but it is indeed science denialism and it is dangerous.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea74d8342386a7ebc52/t/627ae90d50d43d059255d661/1652222223090/Intervenor+Proposed+answer.pdf

That is a legal complaint from “self-described radical feminists who oppose transgender rights and gender identity legislation.”

Stop deflecting. It doesn't matter if a complaint was filed by radical feminists, gay men, or male supremacists. It is a fact based statement that the suit alleges that “males” and “females” do not exist. Which is in fact a denial of science.

That is a response to a complaint. Do you have a link to the actual complaint? It is impossible for me to tell what that document is saying because it constantly references the original complaint.

I am not an attorney and do not know how to search for legal databases or motions. I am also unclear if attorneys have the ability to retract, edit, or amend legal documents if they realize that their complaint asserts ideas which are unscientific and easily disprovable based on evolutionary biology.

My point is that people, including respected American political institutions, are asserting that biological sex differences do not exist and do not matter.

Citation?

Here is just one example of and person denying the reality and science of biological characteristics between men and women. There are many and I'm tired of being told that this isn't happening.
https://twitter.com/IWF/status/1641468030721961984?s=20

Here is another article which confidently asserts that transwomen (biological males) have no advantages over biological women (females) in sports based on biological sex diffrences. Precisely that "there is no inherent reason why her physiological characteristics related to athletic performance should be treated differently from the physiological characteristics of a non-transgender woman.” I am quite tired of being gaslit that no one is "denying the science" that there are real biological sexual differences between males and females.
https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/four-myths-about-trans-athletes-debunked

That article literally says that the statement “sex is binary, apparent at birth and identifiable through singular biological characters” IS A MYTH.

I did not mistype. They did not say gender. They said SEX.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

Depends on what, how, where you say it.

What did she say? I’m not on Twitter.

1 + 1 = 2 regardless of what, how, where you say it.

If something is true or not, hateful or not, depending on "what, how, where you say it" ... you're just a Nazi trying to police science and freedom of speech for some political agenda.

Must have been really hateful that it’s blocked by Twitter and you won’t share it here.

??

You must realize there's more than one poster here and that I have no idea about whatever Twitter post, just stating a general principle?

You know what principles are, I hope?

Context absolutely matters.

Must be bad if you’re this determined to deflect.

Laetitia is awesome, but this is a bit of a derail. The context here is that Laetitia was previously banned from twitter for asserting that biological females are different than biological males. The context is that she frequently shares her lived experiences as a young african woman and how she faces oppression due to her biological sex (not gender) in her culture. Here is a link if you sincerely want to check it out: https://twitter.com/laetiky?lang=en

That’s not representative of the few unrestricted posts that I could see which show that she’s very vocally and publicly anti-trans.

You are a good example of what I meant by competing hierarchies of privilege. She is an African woman who is focused on the very serious sex-based issues faced by African girls (FGM, child marriage, etc.). You are worried about lockstep validation from everyone around the world. They are different levels of problems.

Seems like she’s more focused on how to fight transgenderism and stan Rowling.

Why are you mocking a woman who is fighting to end FGM, child marriage in her culture? Are you a male supremacist or just supremely entitled and uninformed about the nature of sex-based oppression of women in some cultures?

I didn’t “mock” her at all.

I’m saying the PP’s comments don’t seem consistent with her public persona.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

+ a million.

What is hateful is to attack facts, biology and billions of people who acknowledge facts and biology.

Example of someone hatefully “attacking” facts, biology, and billions of people?

I'm not the PP, but I will weigh in. I think that we have all agreed that biological sex is different than gender identity, and that humans are indeed a sexually dimorphic species as understood in biology, and there are biological differences between males and females. Is that fair?

Recently, transgender activists have used legal proceedings to make unscientific claims that humans are not sexually dimorphic, nor have distinguishing biological sexual characteristics. Needless to say, this is not supported by evolutionary biology. It may not be an "attack" but it is indeed science denialism and it is dangerous.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea74d8342386a7ebc52/t/627ae90d50d43d059255d661/1652222223090/Intervenor+Proposed+answer.pdf

That is a legal complaint from “self-described radical feminists who oppose transgender rights and gender identity legislation.”

Stop deflecting. It doesn't matter if a complaint was filed by radical feminists, gay men, or male supremacists. It is a fact based statement that the suit alleges that “males” and “females” do not exist. Which is in fact a denial of science.

That is a response to a complaint. Do you have a link to the actual complaint? It is impossible for me to tell what that document is saying because it constantly references the original complaint.

I am not an attorney and do not know how to search for legal databases or motions. I am also unclear if attorneys have the ability to retract, edit, or amend legal documents if they realize that their complaint asserts ideas which are unscientific and easily disprovable based on evolutionary biology.

My point is that people, including respected American political institutions, are asserting that biological sex differences do not exist and do not matter.

Citation?

Here is just one example of and person denying the reality and science of biological characteristics between men and women. There are many and I'm tired of being told that this isn't happening.
https://twitter.com/IWF/status/1641468030721961984?s=20

She cut him off before he could fully answer.

There are certainly scenarios where you can’t definitively determine sex from bones. Look at how many mistakes were made before DNA analysis.

There are certain scenarios where you can’t do “x” in probably almost every situation imaginable. That doesn’t change the fact that for 99.999 percent of remains you can correctly identify the sex based on bones alone. Outliers are exactly that - outliers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

+ a million.

What is hateful is to attack facts, biology and billions of people who acknowledge facts and biology.

Example of someone hatefully “attacking” facts, biology, and billions of people?

I'm not the PP, but I will weigh in. I think that we have all agreed that biological sex is different than gender identity, and that humans are indeed a sexually dimorphic species as understood in biology, and there are biological differences between males and females. Is that fair?

Recently, transgender activists have used legal proceedings to make unscientific claims that humans are not sexually dimorphic, nor have distinguishing biological sexual characteristics. Needless to say, this is not supported by evolutionary biology. It may not be an "attack" but it is indeed science denialism and it is dangerous.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea74d8342386a7ebc52/t/627ae90d50d43d059255d661/1652222223090/Intervenor+Proposed+answer.pdf

That is a legal complaint from “self-described radical feminists who oppose transgender rights and gender identity legislation.”

Stop deflecting. It doesn't matter if a complaint was filed by radical feminists, gay men, or male supremacists. It is a fact based statement that the suit alleges that “males” and “females” do not exist. Which is in fact a denial of science.

That is a response to a complaint. Do you have a link to the actual complaint? It is impossible for me to tell what that document is saying because it constantly references the original complaint.

I am not an attorney and do not know how to search for legal databases or motions. I am also unclear if attorneys have the ability to retract, edit, or amend legal documents if they realize that their complaint asserts ideas which are unscientific and easily disprovable based on evolutionary biology.

My point is that people, including respected American political institutions, are asserting that biological sex differences do not exist and do not matter.

Citation?

Here is just one example of and person denying the reality and science of biological characteristics between men and women. There are many and I'm tired of being told that this isn't happening.
https://twitter.com/IWF/status/1641468030721961984?s=20

She cut him off before he could fully answer.

There are certainly scenarios where you can’t definitively determine sex from bones. Look at how many mistakes were made before DNA analysis.

She didn’t cut him off. The entire room burst into laughter at the absolute absurdity of the statement he had made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

Depends on what, how, where you say it.

What did she say? I’m not on Twitter.

1 + 1 = 2 regardless of what, how, where you say it.

If something is true or not, hateful or not, depending on "what, how, where you say it" ... you're just a Nazi trying to police science and freedom of speech for some political agenda.

Must have been really hateful that it’s blocked by Twitter and you won’t share it here.

??

You must realize there's more than one poster here and that I have no idea about whatever Twitter post, just stating a general principle?

You know what principles are, I hope?

Context absolutely matters.

Must be bad if you’re this determined to deflect.

Laetitia is awesome, but this is a bit of a derail. The context here is that Laetitia was previously banned from twitter for asserting that biological females are different than biological males. The context is that she frequently shares her lived experiences as a young african woman and how she faces oppression due to her biological sex (not gender) in her culture. Here is a link if you sincerely want to check it out: https://twitter.com/laetiky?lang=en

That’s not representative of the few unrestricted posts that I could see which show that she’s very vocally and publicly anti-trans.

You are a good example of what I meant by competing hierarchies of privilege. She is an African woman who is focused on the very serious sex-based issues faced by African girls (FGM, child marriage, etc.). You are worried about lockstep validation from everyone around the world. They are different levels of problems.

Seems like she’s more focused on how to fight transgenderism and stan Rowling.

Why are you mocking a woman who is fighting to end FGM, child marriage in her culture? Are you a male supremacist or just supremely entitled and uninformed about the nature of sex-based oppression of women in some cultures?

I didn’t “mock” her at all.

I’m saying the PP’s comments don’t seem consistent with her public persona.

OK. Please share a post of hers which is "hateful".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

Depends on what, how, where you say it.

What did she say? I’m not on Twitter.

1 + 1 = 2 regardless of what, how, where you say it.

If something is true or not, hateful or not, depending on "what, how, where you say it" ... you're just a Nazi trying to police science and freedom of speech for some political agenda.

Must have been really hateful that it’s blocked by Twitter and you won’t share it here.

??

You must realize there's more than one poster here and that I have no idea about whatever Twitter post, just stating a general principle?

You know what principles are, I hope?

Context absolutely matters.

Must be bad if you’re this determined to deflect.

Laetitia is awesome, but this is a bit of a derail. The context here is that Laetitia was previously banned from twitter for asserting that biological females are different than biological males. The context is that she frequently shares her lived experiences as a young african woman and how she faces oppression due to her biological sex (not gender) in her culture. Here is a link if you sincerely want to check it out: https://twitter.com/laetiky?lang=en

That’s not representative of the few unrestricted posts that I could see which show that she’s very vocally and publicly anti-trans.

You are a good example of what I meant by competing hierarchies of privilege. She is an African woman who is focused on the very serious sex-based issues faced by African girls (FGM, child marriage, etc.). You are worried about lockstep validation from everyone around the world. They are different levels of problems.

Seems like she’s more focused on how to fight transgenderism and stan Rowling.

Why are you mocking a woman who is fighting to end FGM, child marriage in her culture? Are you a male supremacist or just supremely entitled and uninformed about the nature of sex-based oppression of women in some cultures?

I didn’t “mock” her at all.

I’m saying the PP’s comments don’t seem consistent with her public persona.

You look more and more a fool. She is known for her artistic work advocating against FGM and child marriage. Your narcissistic world view can’t comprehend that, but that doesn’t change the reality.

Besides which, are you really taking the side of the people calling her the n-word? Sending her graphic rape threats? Is that what you stand for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

+ a million.

What is hateful is to attack facts, biology and billions of people who acknowledge facts and biology.

Example of someone hatefully “attacking” facts, biology, and billions of people?

I'm not the PP, but I will weigh in. I think that we have all agreed that biological sex is different than gender identity, and that humans are indeed a sexually dimorphic species as understood in biology, and there are biological differences between males and females. Is that fair?

Recently, transgender activists have used legal proceedings to make unscientific claims that humans are not sexually dimorphic, nor have distinguishing biological sexual characteristics. Needless to say, this is not supported by evolutionary biology. It may not be an "attack" but it is indeed science denialism and it is dangerous.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea74d8342386a7ebc52/t/627ae90d50d43d059255d661/1652222223090/Intervenor+Proposed+answer.pdf

That is a legal complaint from “self-described radical feminists who oppose transgender rights and gender identity legislation.”

Stop deflecting. It doesn't matter if a complaint was filed by radical feminists, gay men, or male supremacists. It is a fact based statement that the suit alleges that “males” and “females” do not exist. Which is in fact a denial of science.

That is a response to a complaint. Do you have a link to the actual complaint? It is impossible for me to tell what that document is saying because it constantly references the original complaint.

I am not an attorney and do not know how to search for legal databases or motions. I am also unclear if attorneys have the ability to retract, edit, or amend legal documents if they realize that their complaint asserts ideas which are unscientific and easily disprovable based on evolutionary biology.

My point is that people, including respected American political institutions, are asserting that biological sex differences do not exist and do not matter.

Citation?

Here is just one example of and person denying the reality and science of biological characteristics between men and women. There are many and I'm tired of being told that this isn't happening.
https://twitter.com/IWF/status/1641468030721961984?s=20

Here is another article which confidently asserts that transwomen (biological males) have no advantages over biological women (females) in sports based on biological sex diffrences. Precisely that "there is no inherent reason why her physiological characteristics related to athletic performance should be treated differently from the physiological characteristics of a non-transgender woman.” I am quite tired of being gaslit that no one is "denying the science" that there are real biological sexual differences between males and females.
https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/four-myths-about-trans-athletes-debunked

That article literally says that the statement “sex is binary, apparent at birth and identifiable through singular biological characters” IS A MYTH.

I did not mistype. They did not say gender. They said SEX.

They then go on to say that there are no physical attributes of males vs females which require distinction in athletic competitions. Do you believe that male sexual biological characteristics are irrelevant in athletic competition?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

+ a million.

What is hateful is to attack facts, biology and billions of people who acknowledge facts and biology.

Example of someone hatefully “attacking” facts, biology, and billions of people?

I'm not the PP, but I will weigh in. I think that we have all agreed that biological sex is different than gender identity, and that humans are indeed a sexually dimorphic species as understood in biology, and there are biological differences between males and females. Is that fair?

Recently, transgender activists have used legal proceedings to make unscientific claims that humans are not sexually dimorphic, nor have distinguishing biological sexual characteristics. Needless to say, this is not supported by evolutionary biology. It may not be an "attack" but it is indeed science denialism and it is dangerous.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea74d8342386a7ebc52/t/627ae90d50d43d059255d661/1652222223090/Intervenor+Proposed+answer.pdf

That is a legal complaint from “self-described radical feminists who oppose transgender rights and gender identity legislation.”

Stop deflecting. It doesn't matter if a complaint was filed by radical feminists, gay men, or male supremacists. It is a fact based statement that the suit alleges that “males” and “females” do not exist. Which is in fact a denial of science.

That is a response to a complaint. Do you have a link to the actual complaint? It is impossible for me to tell what that document is saying because it constantly references the original complaint.

I am not an attorney and do not know how to search for legal databases or motions. I am also unclear if attorneys have the ability to retract, edit, or amend legal documents if they realize that their complaint asserts ideas which are unscientific and easily disprovable based on evolutionary biology.

My point is that people, including respected American political institutions, are asserting that biological sex differences do not exist and do not matter.

Citation?

Here is just one example of and person denying the reality and science of biological characteristics between men and women. There are many and I'm tired of being told that this isn't happening.
https://twitter.com/IWF/status/1641468030721961984?s=20

Here is another article which confidently asserts that transwomen (biological males) have no advantages over biological women (females) in sports based on biological sex diffrences. Precisely that "there is no inherent reason why her physiological characteristics related to athletic performance should be treated differently from the physiological characteristics of a non-transgender woman.” I am quite tired of being gaslit that no one is "denying the science" that there are real biological sexual differences between males and females.
https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/four-myths-about-trans-athletes-debunked

That article literally says that the statement “sex is binary, apparent at birth and identifiable through singular biological characters” IS A MYTH.

I did not mistype. They did not say gender. They said SEX.

They then go on to say that there are no physical attributes of males vs females which require distinction in athletic competitions. Do you believe that male sexual biological characteristics are irrelevant in athletic competition?

Having a penis and testes is irrelevant. Having increased muscle mass, arterial oxygen levels and lung capacity is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

+ a million.

What is hateful is to attack facts, biology and billions of people who acknowledge facts and biology.

Example of someone hatefully “attacking” facts, biology, and billions of people?

I'm not the PP, but I will weigh in. I think that we have all agreed that biological sex is different than gender identity, and that humans are indeed a sexually dimorphic species as understood in biology, and there are biological differences between males and females. Is that fair?

Recently, transgender activists have used legal proceedings to make unscientific claims that humans are not sexually dimorphic, nor have distinguishing biological sexual characteristics. Needless to say, this is not supported by evolutionary biology. It may not be an "attack" but it is indeed science denialism and it is dangerous.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea74d8342386a7ebc52/t/627ae90d50d43d059255d661/1652222223090/Intervenor+Proposed+answer.pdf

That is a legal complaint from “self-described radical feminists who oppose transgender rights and gender identity legislation.”

Stop deflecting. It doesn't matter if a complaint was filed by radical feminists, gay men, or male supremacists. It is a fact based statement that the suit alleges that “males” and “females” do not exist. Which is in fact a denial of science.

That is a response to a complaint. Do you have a link to the actual complaint? It is impossible for me to tell what that document is saying because it constantly references the original complaint.

I am not an attorney and do not know how to search for legal databases or motions. I am also unclear if attorneys have the ability to retract, edit, or amend legal documents if they realize that their complaint asserts ideas which are unscientific and easily disprovable based on evolutionary biology.

My point is that people, including respected American political institutions, are asserting that biological sex differences do not exist and do not matter.

Citation?

Here is just one example of and person denying the reality and science of biological characteristics between men and women. There are many and I'm tired of being told that this isn't happening.
https://twitter.com/IWF/status/1641468030721961984?s=20

Here is another article which confidently asserts that transwomen (biological males) have no advantages over biological women (females) in sports based on biological sex diffrences. Precisely that "there is no inherent reason why her physiological characteristics related to athletic performance should be treated differently from the physiological characteristics of a non-transgender woman.” I am quite tired of being gaslit that no one is "denying the science" that there are real biological sexual differences between males and females.
https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/four-myths-about-trans-athletes-debunked

That article literally says that the statement “sex is binary, apparent at birth and identifiable through singular biological characters” IS A MYTH.

I did not mistype. They did not say gender. They said SEX.

They then go on to say that there are no physical attributes of males vs females which require distinction in athletic competitions. Do you believe that male sexual biological characteristics are irrelevant in athletic competition?

Having a penis and testes is irrelevant. Having increased muscle mass, arterial oxygen levels and lung capacity is not.

I'm not understanding your point. Are you trying to make the case that a males increased muscle mass, bone density, lung capacity, and different skeletal structure is unrelated to his penis and testes and chromosomes? Or are you trying to make the case that muscle mass, oxygen levels, and lung capacity are the only biological sex characteristics which influence male ability to dominate sports.

[Anonymous]

I like how these threads always bounce around between protecting the kids, sports, bathrooms, locker rooms, self ID, prison, and back to sports without any apparent reason for the changes.

My favorite part was a couple pages back where someone was talking about their trans kid needing to go to a therapist to get hormones and someone else said they were wrong because adults can get HRT without a therapist and implies that adults shouldn’t have bodily autonomy.