Question about the homophobia thread

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the suppression of speech in academia regarding transgender issues, the Mayo Clinic suspended without pay a doctor who is a specialist in the physiology of male and female athletes after that doctor was interviewed by the NYT. The suspension letter is below, and the article that the letter references is below that.

https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/mayo-clinic-disciplinary-letter-michael-j-joyner-march-5-2023

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/19/sports/fina-transgender-women-elite-swimming.html

This is what he said in the NYT article that triggered the disciplinary actions, for those who don’t have access:

Peer-reviewed studies show that even after testosterone suppression, top-level transgender women retain a substantial edge when racing against top biological women, according to Michael J. Joyner, a doctor at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who studies the physiology of male and female athletes.

Men on average have broader shoulders, bigger hands, longer torsos, greater lung and heart capacity and their muscles are denser.

“There are social aspects to sport, but physiology and biology underpin it,” Dr. Joyner said in an interview with The New York Times this year.

You are significantly misrepresenting the facts. Thanks for linking to the letter because, having read it, it is clear that the quotes in the NYT were only a small part of what got the doctor in trouble. The CNN interview in which he criticized NIH appears to have been a larger factor. The doctor had a host of HR issues including bullying colleagues. It would also be interesting to know what was blacked out in that letter.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the suppression of speech in academia regarding transgender issues, the Mayo Clinic suspended without pay a doctor who is a specialist in the physiology of male and female athletes after that doctor was interviewed by the NYT. The suspension letter is below, and the article that the letter references is below that.

https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/mayo-clinic-disciplinary-letter-michael-j-joyner-march-5-2023

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/19/sports/fina-transgender-women-elite-swimming.html

This is what he said in the NYT article that triggered the disciplinary actions, for those who don’t have access:

Peer-reviewed studies show that even after testosterone suppression, top-level transgender women retain a substantial edge when racing against top biological women, according to Michael J. Joyner, a doctor at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who studies the physiology of male and female athletes.

Men on average have broader shoulders, bigger hands, longer torsos, greater lung and heart capacity and their muscles are denser.

“There are social aspects to sport, but physiology and biology underpin it,” Dr. Joyner said in an interview with The New York Times this year.

You are significantly misrepresenting the facts. Thanks for linking to the letter because, having read it, it is clear that the quotes in the NYT were only a small part of what got the doctor in trouble. The CNN interview in which he criticized NIH appears to have been a larger factor. The doctor had a host of HR issues including bullying colleagues. It would also be interesting to know what was blacked out in that letter.

Misrepresenting facts is a weighty accusation, Jeff, especially when the letter is right there. The letter references the June NYT discussion, and the committee meeting in November in response. This is all laid out in the second paragraph of the letter. I cannot agree that his June comments regarding transgender athletes were only a “small part” of his suspension, particularly given their prominence in the disciplinary letter.

In any event, we can agree to disagree. The letter is there for everyone to read, minus the redacted parts. People can reach their own conclusions.

[Anonymous]

PP here. And not just “misrepresenting facts” but significantly so. It is okay to disagree; reasonable people can read the exact same document and reach different conclusions. But to state that someone is significantly misrepresenting facts when the letter is there to read is a step further. I would appreciate it in fact if you could bold the precise lines in my post where I “significantly misrepresented facts” because I just re-read my post, and I cannot see it. But we are all blind to our own flaws, and I respect your judgment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“It is a cheap rhetorical trick to constantly pretend, as Trans Radical Activists do, that this debate is the same as the Civil Rights Movement or the Gay Rights Movement. It isn’t, because in those debates, there was no conflict of rights between peoples.” X Shahana Ashur

This was incredibly helpful for me when trying to understand how to frame the argument.

Christians in TN refusing to process paperwork for gay men getting married. Cake shops. All that freedom of religion stuff where people claim their god hates gays.

Yes, and white supremacists had their feelings hurt by the Civil Rights Act.

But none of that is remotely similar to the actual increased physical risks that women take on to benefit the trans rights movement. And in the other two civil rights movements, there wasn’t a new rapacious medical industry whose continued profit depended on the success of the movement. And that is the difference here.

Yes, obnoxious Christian bakers got told to bake a stupid cake. I think most Americans rolled their eyes and told them to bake the stupid cake. That’s not a conflict of rights, that’s some snowflakes being told to do something that doesn’t physically hurt them at all.

But trans rights is very different because women are being and will get physically harmed due to the destruction of women’s single-sex spaces. Male predators (who will mostly be cis) have used and will use enhanced access to spaces they couldn’t previously access. Meanwhile, children and vulnerable adults have been and will be hurt by an industry that is profit-driven, growing rapidly, and repressing any academic research critical of their profit.

I want to be clear: I do not support bathroom bans, or bans on children’s access to treatment. But it needs to be okay to talk about the enormous societal harms that some people, disproportionately the most vulnerable, will pay for the advancement of transgender rights. Right now, that discussion is shut down entirely. Academics who so much as question some of the glaringly weak studies on transgender medical care for children risk losing their entire careers at the hands of activists. Women who speak about physical safety risks face grotesquely violent rape and death threats from trans activists.

All of this is very, very different from prior civil rights movements.

Trans people shouldn't be punished for things that a different group is doing. I'm glad you don't support bathroom bans, but so many people do. Cis men sometimes assault women, cis men take advantage to open access, so let's ban trans women from women's bathrooms. I've yet to see any information that shows allowing trans women access to women's bathrooms increases violent crimes against women. I've seen a study that showed violent crimes increase where there are unisex bathrooms, which is a completely different topic. I don't think there's going to be a big rush of cis men claiming to be trans women for 5 minute increments so they can use the women's bathroom, and if that does happen, again, that's a cis men problem not a trans problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP from above and I meant to add:

When people talk about how the trans rights movement is a male supremacist movement, this is what people are talking about. To be clear, I don’t agree with that characterization, at least not as a universal truth. I think the trans rights movement is complex and it isn’t fair to judge all trans people and advocates by the actions of some of the worst activists. But the WA decision is, to me, clearly an example of male supremacy being elevated over women’s safety, and not even because of the transwoman plaintiff. The outcome elevates male access to single-sex spaces over women’s safety; trans rights are just the vehicle by which it is happening. That is inherently a male supremacist outcome.

This is an inherent conflict with non-discrimination. You can't on the one hand argue that discrimination is bad when it negatively impacts women but is good when it negatively impacts trans people. Similarly, there is a conflict between the desire for "safe places" and opposing discrimination because the first often necessities the second. I don't think any of this is limited to trans issues. But, these are complex topics that I don't think will be solved on DCUM.

The other issue is if trans people are excluded from existing safe spaces, they become even more vulnerable than they already are. If trans people are excluded from bathrooms of the gender they identify as, for example, it outs them, and second, it puts them in a room of people they may match biologically but not in any other way. Someone presenting as a woman would be eye catching and stand out in the men's room, and if men should never be in the women's restroom because it's inherently dangerous for men and women to use the bathroom together, how are you not putting the trans woman at risk by forcing her into the men's restroom?

This isn't a trans problem. It's a violent and/or rapey men problem. Maybe that's what we should focus on if we're concerned about men being violent against women. Trans people are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than to commit them.

There is no one in this thread that would debate that there is a harmful epidemic of male violence.

It’s impossible for me to respond to your comments beyond that because I do not understand gender ideology or how natal males become transwomen.

Literally no one in the thousands of comments in this post has been able clearly explain what is gender identity and its relationship to biological sex.

No one has explained the differences between cis males and trans women beyond them making statements about their feelings.

All of my comments are sincere. I genuinely want to know these answers.

I am an atheist and therefore i do not believe in faith-based or supernatural constructs which do not exist in material reality. Gender ideology seems like a type of faith based belief system related to one’s feelings about a hypothetical self which is fully severed from biology. Similar to what Christians call a soul. I know many people have said that it’s entirely separate from biology so I acknowledge that definition may not be correct. Again, please feel free to provide another definition.

So I must bow out of this discussion. I want to thank to people who engaged in sincere discussion as well as our moderator for not deleting my comments. I believe that free and open speech is essential to societal progress and free people.

DP, I posted about this yesterday and have yet to read an explanation as to why having a feeling makes it a reality. I specifically mentioned other conditions such as BIID and anorexia which cause an individual to have feelings or perceptions in opposition to reality. A person with BIID for example may have an intense desire to amputate a leg because their body does not recognize the limb. It literally feels like a foreign object attached to them. How is this any different from gender dysphoria? If doctors will amputate healthy body parts for transgender people why not amputate a health limb for someone suffering from BIID? Why is one considered a mental disorder and the other not? Believing a person really has the opposite sex soul is a spiritual, metaphysical belief not rooted in science.

I am the mental hospital doctor (not psychiatrist) and THIS. I am not a very good writer/speaker and you have summed up my feelings exactly. Thank you.

As a doctor that treats trans patients, what is your suggested treatment for gender dysphoria?

It’s my understanding that most trans people transition and are fine. Aside from transition there is basically people saying, “we know you want to transition but try really hard not to because we don’t want you to do this to your body”.

Sadly, we're not allowed to research what causes individuals to be "trans" because that will promote "eradication." Imagine if we found a successful medical treatment that ameliorated gender dysphoria, making people content in the bodies in which they were born. People wouldn't stand for it because it would essentially eliminate trans people.

There is definitely political/societal pressure to say “this is not a mental disorder, no research necessary, accept and move on.” I don’t agree with this stance at all.

Unfortunately as someone who has spent a lot of time actually looking at the research this is true. Often times studies are poorly designed or not interpreted correctly. For example, many studies do not take into consideration the sexual orientation of the transgender participants. Often times what they are noticing in the brain is due to sexuality not gender identity yet they will make the claim a transgender brain aligns more with the brain of the opposite sex.

This is a very challenging area for researchers to explore and studies have been shut down by activists. Good research and science cannot be obtained if only certain results are allowed.

It’s literally out of control. If you don’t fall in lockstep with the ideology, you are labeled a transphobe or a bigot. I have been called a bigot several times on this thread alone.

There have been many bigoted comments.

And yet, this “bigot” does more for trans people in a day than most of those calling me a bigot will do in their lifetimes. I’m ok with that.

All while considering their transgenderism is mental illness. And wanting to exclude and discriminate against transgender people. No bathrooms, sports, etc.

Gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“It is a cheap rhetorical trick to constantly pretend, as Trans Radical Activists do, that this debate is the same as the Civil Rights Movement or the Gay Rights Movement. It isn’t, because in those debates, there was no conflict of rights between peoples.” X Shahana Ashur

This was incredibly helpful for me when trying to understand how to frame the argument.

Christians in TN refusing to process paperwork for gay men getting married. Cake shops. All that freedom of religion stuff where people claim their god hates gays.

Yes, and white supremacists had their feelings hurt by the Civil Rights Act.

But none of that is remotely similar to the actual increased physical risks that women take on to benefit the trans rights movement. And in the other two civil rights movements, there wasn’t a new rapacious medical industry whose continued profit depended on the success of the movement. And that is the difference here.

Yes, obnoxious Christian bakers got told to bake a stupid cake. I think most Americans rolled their eyes and told them to bake the stupid cake. That’s not a conflict of rights, that’s some snowflakes being told to do something that doesn’t physically hurt them at all.

But trans rights is very different because women are being and will get physically harmed due to the destruction of women’s single-sex spaces. Male predators (who will mostly be cis) have used and will use enhanced access to spaces they couldn’t previously access. Meanwhile, children and vulnerable adults have been and will be hurt by an industry that is profit-driven, growing rapidly, and repressing any academic research critical of their profit.

I want to be clear: I do not support bathroom bans, or bans on children’s access to treatment. But it needs to be okay to talk about the enormous societal harms that some people, disproportionately the most vulnerable, will pay for the advancement of transgender rights. Right now, that discussion is shut down entirely. Academics who so much as question some of the glaringly weak studies on transgender medical care for children risk losing their entire careers at the hands of activists. Women who speak about physical safety risks face grotesquely violent rape and death threats from trans activists.

All of this is very, very different from prior civil rights movements.

Trans people shouldn't be punished for things that a different group is doing. I'm glad you don't support bathroom bans, but so many people do. Cis men sometimes assault women, cis men take advantage to open access, so let's ban trans women from women's bathrooms. I've yet to see any information that shows allowing trans women access to women's bathrooms increases violent crimes against women. I've seen a study that showed violent crimes increase where there are unisex bathrooms, which is a completely different topic. I don't think there's going to be a big rush of cis men claiming to be trans women for 5 minute increments so they can use the women's bathroom, and if that does happen, again, that's a cis men problem not a trans problem.

The PP is intentionally conflating violent cis-gender men with transgender women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP here. And not just “misrepresenting facts” but significantly so. It is okay to disagree; reasonable people can read the exact same document and reach different conclusions. But to state that someone is significantly misrepresenting facts when the letter is there to read is a step further. I would appreciate it in fact if you could bold the precise lines in my post where I “significantly misrepresented facts” because I just re-read my post, and I cannot see it. But we are all blind to our own flaws, and I respect your judgment.

Jeff can speak for himself, but I agree with him. In the letter, the first and third paragraphs are about the other issues Jeff spoke of, plus there's a redacted portion about who knows what offenses he committed. You said that he was suspended after the NYT interview with no mention of the other issues, including a more recent interview. Yes, the issue you spoke of was in the letter and you didn't misrepresent that part, but by omitting the other information, you misrepresented the facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“It is a cheap rhetorical trick to constantly pretend, as Trans Radical Activists do, that this debate is the same as the Civil Rights Movement or the Gay Rights Movement. It isn’t, because in those debates, there was no conflict of rights between peoples.” X Shahana Ashur

This was incredibly helpful for me when trying to understand how to frame the argument.

Christians in TN refusing to process paperwork for gay men getting married. Cake shops. All that freedom of religion stuff where people claim their god hates gays.

Yes, and white supremacists had their feelings hurt by the Civil Rights Act.

But none of that is remotely similar to the actual increased physical risks that women take on to benefit the trans rights movement. And in the other two civil rights movements, there wasn’t a new rapacious medical industry whose continued profit depended on the success of the movement. And that is the difference here.

Yes, obnoxious Christian bakers got told to bake a stupid cake. I think most Americans rolled their eyes and told them to bake the stupid cake. That’s not a conflict of rights, that’s some snowflakes being told to do something that doesn’t physically hurt them at all.

But trans rights is very different because women are being and will get physically harmed due to the destruction of women’s single-sex spaces. Male predators (who will mostly be cis) have used and will use enhanced access to spaces they couldn’t previously access. Meanwhile, children and vulnerable adults have been and will be hurt by an industry that is profit-driven, growing rapidly, and repressing any academic research critical of their profit.

I want to be clear: I do not support bathroom bans, or bans on children’s access to treatment. But it needs to be okay to talk about the enormous societal harms that some people, disproportionately the most vulnerable, will pay for the advancement of transgender rights. Right now, that discussion is shut down entirely. Academics who so much as question some of the glaringly weak studies on transgender medical care for children risk losing their entire careers at the hands of activists. Women who speak about physical safety risks face grotesquely violent rape and death threats from trans activists.

All of this is very, very different from prior civil rights movements.

Trans people shouldn't be punished for things that a different group is doing. I'm glad you don't support bathroom bans, but so many people do. Cis men sometimes assault women, cis men take advantage to open access, so let's ban trans women from women's bathrooms. I've yet to see any information that shows allowing trans women access to women's bathrooms increases violent crimes against women. I've seen a study that showed violent crimes increase where there are unisex bathrooms, which is a completely different topic. I don't think there's going to be a big rush of cis men claiming to be trans women for 5 minute increments so they can use the women's bathroom, and if that does happen, again, that's a cis men problem not a trans problem.

But it’s okay to punish women for something a different group is doing?

Unisex bathroom research is relevant because when single-sex spaces can’t be enforced, they become de facto unisex spaces. Again, you are deliberately trying to obfuscate and minimize the real risks here (which are born out by the unisex research). Nobody believes there is going to be a rush of cis male predators pretending to be trans to get access to women. The point is that they don’t even need to pretend, because those single-sex spaces won’t be for women any more. Their access can’t be challenged, which is why the unisex bathroom research is precisely relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“It is a cheap rhetorical trick to constantly pretend, as Trans Radical Activists do, that this debate is the same as the Civil Rights Movement or the Gay Rights Movement. It isn’t, because in those debates, there was no conflict of rights between peoples.” X Shahana Ashur

This was incredibly helpful for me when trying to understand how to frame the argument.

Christians in TN refusing to process paperwork for gay men getting married. Cake shops. All that freedom of religion stuff where people claim their god hates gays.

Yes, and white supremacists had their feelings hurt by the Civil Rights Act.

But none of that is remotely similar to the actual increased physical risks that women take on to benefit the trans rights movement. And in the other two civil rights movements, there wasn’t a new rapacious medical industry whose continued profit depended on the success of the movement. And that is the difference here.

Yes, obnoxious Christian bakers got told to bake a stupid cake. I think most Americans rolled their eyes and told them to bake the stupid cake. That’s not a conflict of rights, that’s some snowflakes being told to do something that doesn’t physically hurt them at all.

But trans rights is very different because women are being and will get physically harmed due to the destruction of women’s single-sex spaces. Male predators (who will mostly be cis) have used and will use enhanced access to spaces they couldn’t previously access. Meanwhile, children and vulnerable adults have been and will be hurt by an industry that is profit-driven, growing rapidly, and repressing any academic research critical of their profit.

I want to be clear: I do not support bathroom bans, or bans on children’s access to treatment. But it needs to be okay to talk about the enormous societal harms that some people, disproportionately the most vulnerable, will pay for the advancement of transgender rights. Right now, that discussion is shut down entirely. Academics who so much as question some of the glaringly weak studies on transgender medical care for children risk losing their entire careers at the hands of activists. Women who speak about physical safety risks face grotesquely violent rape and death threats from trans activists.

All of this is very, very different from prior civil rights movements.

Trans people shouldn't be punished for things that a different group is doing. I'm glad you don't support bathroom bans, but so many people do. Cis men sometimes assault women, cis men take advantage to open access, so let's ban trans women from women's bathrooms. I've yet to see any information that shows allowing trans women access to women's bathrooms increases violent crimes against women. I've seen a study that showed violent crimes increase where there are unisex bathrooms, which is a completely different topic. I don't think there's going to be a big rush of cis men claiming to be trans women for 5 minute increments so they can use the women's bathroom, and if that does happen, again, that's a cis men problem not a trans problem.

The PP is intentionally conflating violent cis-gender men with transgender women.

Everyone who uses women's safety in bathrooms is doing that IMO. It sucks. They're effectively saying, "some cis men rape women, so lets not allow trans women to use the bathroom with cis women." I wish trans men would start using the bathroom with the people making a big stink, but it's not their responsibility to out themselves and risk their safety to prove a point.

[Anonymous]

I have not posted on this thread although I have read every post. I think the part about bathroom and locker room access that sticks with me is that, as a woman, I know I would turn around and leave a bathroom if I saw a male-presenting person in there. I would think there was something wrong and that I should leave. Now maybe that will never happen in my life but at this point I feel like it could and I’m not sure what the right answer is. Should I not feel comfortable using a bathroom? Am I a transphobe if I turn around and walk away? What if I need to use the bathroom? Obviously if it was a female presenting person I would not even notice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here. And not just “misrepresenting facts” but significantly so. It is okay to disagree; reasonable people can read the exact same document and reach different conclusions. But to state that someone is significantly misrepresenting facts when the letter is there to read is a step further. I would appreciate it in fact if you could bold the precise lines in my post where I “significantly misrepresented facts” because I just re-read my post, and I cannot see it. But we are all blind to our own flaws, and I respect your judgment.

Jeff can speak for himself, but I agree with him. In the letter, the first and third paragraphs are about the other issues Jeff spoke of, plus there's a redacted portion about who knows what offenses he committed. You said that he was suspended after the NYT interview with no mention of the other issues, including a more recent interview. Yes, the issue you spoke of was in the letter and you didn't misrepresent that part, but by omitting the other information, you misrepresented the facts.

So you agree I was factually accurate in my post and did not “significantly misrepresent” anything in my exact written words. You instead argue that by not describing every single paragraph of the letter, I misrepresented the letter. That seems like a significant stretch to me, especially given the prominence of the NYT interview in the letter and the role it played in the initiation of the process, but I accept reasonable people can disagree. I provided letter for everyone so everyone could reach their own conclusions.

However, let’s say that you and Jeff are right and the (prominently placed) discussion of the NYT interview was just a “small part” of the suspension. Given what exactly the doctor said to the NYT, do you think that is okay? Do you support suspension of academics even partially for those exact remarks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“It is a cheap rhetorical trick to constantly pretend, as Trans Radical Activists do, that this debate is the same as the Civil Rights Movement or the Gay Rights Movement. It isn’t, because in those debates, there was no conflict of rights between peoples.” X Shahana Ashur

This was incredibly helpful for me when trying to understand how to frame the argument.

Christians in TN refusing to process paperwork for gay men getting married. Cake shops. All that freedom of religion stuff where people claim their god hates gays.

Yes, and white supremacists had their feelings hurt by the Civil Rights Act.

But none of that is remotely similar to the actual increased physical risks that women take on to benefit the trans rights movement. And in the other two civil rights movements, there wasn’t a new rapacious medical industry whose continued profit depended on the success of the movement. And that is the difference here.

Yes, obnoxious Christian bakers got told to bake a stupid cake. I think most Americans rolled their eyes and told them to bake the stupid cake. That’s not a conflict of rights, that’s some snowflakes being told to do something that doesn’t physically hurt them at all.

But trans rights is very different because women are being and will get physically harmed due to the destruction of women’s single-sex spaces. Male predators (who will mostly be cis) have used and will use enhanced access to spaces they couldn’t previously access. Meanwhile, children and vulnerable adults have been and will be hurt by an industry that is profit-driven, growing rapidly, and repressing any academic research critical of their profit.

I want to be clear: I do not support bathroom bans, or bans on children’s access to treatment. But it needs to be okay to talk about the enormous societal harms that some people, disproportionately the most vulnerable, will pay for the advancement of transgender rights. Right now, that discussion is shut down entirely. Academics who so much as question some of the glaringly weak studies on transgender medical care for children risk losing their entire careers at the hands of activists. Women who speak about physical safety risks face grotesquely violent rape and death threats from trans activists.

All of this is very, very different from prior civil rights movements.

Trans people shouldn't be punished for things that a different group is doing. I'm glad you don't support bathroom bans, but so many people do. Cis men sometimes assault women, cis men take advantage to open access, so let's ban trans women from women's bathrooms. I've yet to see any information that shows allowing trans women access to women's bathrooms increases violent crimes against women. I've seen a study that showed violent crimes increase where there are unisex bathrooms, which is a completely different topic. I don't think there's going to be a big rush of cis men claiming to be trans women for 5 minute increments so they can use the women's bathroom, and if that does happen, again, that's a cis men problem not a trans problem.

But it’s okay to punish women for something a different group is doing?

Unisex bathroom research is relevant because when single-sex spaces can’t be enforced, they become de facto unisex spaces. Again, you are deliberately trying to obfuscate and minimize the real risks here (which are born out by the unisex research). Nobody believes there is going to be a rush of cis male predators pretending to be trans to get access to women. The point is that they don’t even need to pretend, because those single-sex spaces won’t be for women any more. Their access can’t be challenged, which is why the unisex bathroom research is precisely relevant.

Women aren't being punished. That's just nonsense.

Bathroom gendering wasn't enforced until republicans started coming after trans people when they realized coming after gay people wasn't a game they could win anymore. No one noticed or cared until people started trying to make it illegal for trans women to use the bathroom comfortably.

Cis men can sneak into a bathroom now. No one is monitoring bathrooms for safety in a meaningful way, and if they are, those aren't the bathrooms being used to assault women. Going back to using the bathroom how we did in 2002, when we used the bathroom labeled with the gender we identify as (and generally present as), didn't lead to cis men waltzing in to women's rooms and committing crimes. Completely open access to unisex bathrooms is different from allowing someone who looks like a woman to use a woman's bathroom.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:PP here. And not just “misrepresenting facts” but significantly so. It is okay to disagree; reasonable people can read the exact same document and reach different conclusions. But to state that someone is significantly misrepresenting facts when the letter is there to read is a step further. I would appreciate it in fact if you could bold the precise lines in my post where I “significantly misrepresented facts” because I just re-read my post, and I cannot see it. But we are all blind to our own flaws, and I respect your judgment.

The entire thrust of your post is that the doctor was punished as a result of his comments about transgender issues. Here is the first part of your post where I have bolded words to make this clear:

Regarding the suppression of speech in academia regarding transgender issues, the Mayo Clinic suspended without pay a doctor who is a specialist in the physiology of male and female athletes after that doctor was interviewed by the NYT.

Anyone reading this would naturally assume that the doctor gave an interview to the NYT in which he discussed transgender topics and then was disciplined in response. Based on the letter, what actually happened is:

1) In June 2022 the doctor spoke to the NYT. This caused clinic administrators to have a discussion with him but no punishment;

2) In November 2022, approximately 5 months later, Members of the Personnel Executive Committee met with him "to discuss several concerns". So, this meeting was not only about the NYT interview or in its immediate aftermath;

3) The doctor has a history of communications issues. For years he failed to observe the clinic's media guidelines, he is accused of "bullying" colleagues, and one colleague has asked not to work with him anymore due to is lack of professionalism;

4) There is then a part that is entirely redacted which may relate to "offline conversations" with reporters since he is told to stop engaging in those despite such conversations not being among the allegations to which we are privy;

5) Finally, in January 2023, the doctor gave an interview to CNN in which he harshly criticized NIH and referred to patients as "these people".

So, what we see is a doctor who has a history of poor relations with his colleagues and failing to adhere to the clinic's media policy. That failure to adhere involved in at least one instance, discussion of transgender athletes, but appears to involve a range of topics. He was given multiple opportunities to comply with the clinics policy but continued to violate it. The final straw came 7 months after the NYT interview and his suspension was two months after that.

So, you are attributing his punishment to an interview that was 9 months before his suspension and describing this as "suppression of speech in academia regarding transgender issues". Meanwhile, you are ignoring everything that came before and after that interview. That is clearly a misrepresentation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have not posted on this thread although I have read every post. I think the part about bathroom and locker room access that sticks with me is that, as a woman, I know I would turn around and leave a bathroom if I saw a male-presenting person in there. I would think there was something wrong and that I should leave. Now maybe that will never happen in my life but at this point I feel like it could and I’m not sure what the right answer is. Should I not feel comfortable using a bathroom? Am I a transphobe if I turn around and walk away? What if I need to use the bathroom? Obviously if it was a female presenting person I would not even notice.

You’ve definitely been in a women’s bathroom with a trans woman at some point in your life. Multiple times. It’s just very rare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“It is a cheap rhetorical trick to constantly pretend, as Trans Radical Activists do, that this debate is the same as the Civil Rights Movement or the Gay Rights Movement. It isn’t, because in those debates, there was no conflict of rights between peoples.” X Shahana Ashur

This was incredibly helpful for me when trying to understand how to frame the argument.

Christians in TN refusing to process paperwork for gay men getting married. Cake shops. All that freedom of religion stuff where people claim their god hates gays.

Yes, and white supremacists had their feelings hurt by the Civil Rights Act.

But none of that is remotely similar to the actual increased physical risks that women take on to benefit the trans rights movement. And in the other two civil rights movements, there wasn’t a new rapacious medical industry whose continued profit depended on the success of the movement. And that is the difference here.

Yes, obnoxious Christian bakers got told to bake a stupid cake. I think most Americans rolled their eyes and told them to bake the stupid cake. That’s not a conflict of rights, that’s some snowflakes being told to do something that doesn’t physically hurt them at all.

But trans rights is very different because women are being and will get physically harmed due to the destruction of women’s single-sex spaces. Male predators (who will mostly be cis) have used and will use enhanced access to spaces they couldn’t previously access. Meanwhile, children and vulnerable adults have been and will be hurt by an industry that is profit-driven, growing rapidly, and repressing any academic research critical of their profit.

I want to be clear: I do not support bathroom bans, or bans on children’s access to treatment. But it needs to be okay to talk about the enormous societal harms that some people, disproportionately the most vulnerable, will pay for the advancement of transgender rights. Right now, that discussion is shut down entirely. Academics who so much as question some of the glaringly weak studies on transgender medical care for children risk losing their entire careers at the hands of activists. Women who speak about physical safety risks face grotesquely violent rape and death threats from trans activists.

All of this is very, very different from prior civil rights movements.

Trans people shouldn't be punished for things that a different group is doing. I'm glad you don't support bathroom bans, but so many people do. Cis men sometimes assault women, cis men take advantage to open access, so let's ban trans women from women's bathrooms. I've yet to see any information that shows allowing trans women access to women's bathrooms increases violent crimes against women. I've seen a study that showed violent crimes increase where there are unisex bathrooms, which is a completely different topic. I don't think there's going to be a big rush of cis men claiming to be trans women for 5 minute increments so they can use the women's bathroom, and if that does happen, again, that's a cis men problem not a trans problem.

There is plenty of documentation regarding cis males who transition to trans woman when incarcerated when they have never before identified as women. Are these Cis men claiming to be transgender woman for access to women’s prisons? Or are they trans woman who discovered their trans feelings coincidentally when incarcerated? How do we tell the difference?