Penn teammate speaks out against transgender swimmer Lia Thomas

[Emily Lake]

There is very little evidence of the long term effects of puberty suppression in adolescence, as those that pioneered the treatment acknowledge. As to the medium term benefits the evidence is also weak.

But again, that’s a separate consideration to the participation of males who identify as females participating in female sports.

The vast majority of self identified trans women have not undergone any puberty suppression, and the majority are not undertaking hormone treatment at all.

As evidenced by the UK investigation into Tavistock and GIDs, which showed a severe disruption in the accretion of bone density in children on puberty blockers, and provided zero evidence of improved mental health for those children, and considerable harm done to some - particularly the litigants in that case, particularly Keira Bell.

Also as evidenced by Sweden's Karolinska institute discontinuing the "affirmation only" approach, and significantly reducing the situations in which it is acceptable to provide puberty blockers to minors.

 

[Emily Lake]

And lest I remind you, we have been suppressing puberty in other ways for centuries. We have plenty of evidence surrounding that.

I cannot believe that you are calling on the LITERAL mutilation of children as support for your position. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, “the hormones one has been affected by” maps to “male/female”, “ man/woman”, “penis/vagina”, 99.95% of the time. And the very rare occasions where the distinction isn’t clear has nothing at all to do with being trans.

So in other words, you admit that it is insufficient for accuracy to use those words, and there is a better way to refer to these things, that your correlation is imperfect in the face of a causality, and you just don't want to relent on behalf of the people stepped on by a willful misapplication of these ideas.

The nice thing about my position is that it does not even require the rare distinctions to have anything to do with being trans for to fix them.

The difficulty lies in certain very rare DSD conditions, and even then people affected are either male or female. That is an entirely separate issue to trans identity. As I suggested before, a fair solution would be to reclassify sport into an Open category, and a non-androgenised category that all but essentially means biologically female.

And then you step in it again.

All you had to do was just stop without bringing up the bolded portion. Then demand that this is what happens.

Why are you so frightened of females that the very term is verboten to you?

As will and does happen more and more every day, children born with testes are growing up without testosterone, generally with progesterone and estrogen instead.

Some so born may never be affected by either.

Some born with ovaries will grow up indistinguishable from a fair number of folks born with testicles, with broad shoulders and square chins and low cheekbones.

And in a generation we're going to look back and try to figure out why we let this travesty occur to so many helpless children, what kind of social madness grabbed hold of us all and made us as a society think that mutilating and sterilizing children was a good thing to do.

I'll also point out again that SKELETAL FORMATION IS NOT A RESULT OF HORMONE EXPOSURE. It exists from birth. It exists from birth because males and females are different. We're different from the point at which that sperm breaches the egg.

Generally, it will be the case that most will probably be competing mostly with "girls", at least until they get old enough for a hormone prescription. Doesn't mean they are on a team specifically for girls; some will be people born with testicles, yet who are not girls!

As I have stated, the relevant factor is hormones.

You keep misconstruing from some perhaps unintentional ignorance you can consider yourself relieved of today, insofar as trans kids are growing up into trans adults who have never been subjected to the effects of testosterone.

Most wish to be called women! But my compromising on 'women' you secure the win for all who shouldn't be deprived of fair competition!

You know, all you're doing is making it clear that women (adult human females) and girls (immature human females) absolutely 100% should NOT surrender the language with which we identify and describe ourselves and our experiences. If you're going to force a pairing in which engaging in the polite fiction that a transgender identified male is a "woman" necessarily requires that I also surrender the very real differences of their sex from my entire vocabulary, then I'm sorry, but my politeness ends at the point where my existence, my experience, my rights, my dignity - and that of all other female human beings - is erased from our communications and is rendered meaningless.

No Thank You

Except the experiences in question are not just yours, and this is the entirety of the issue!

You wish to use language that implies that it is, in fact, just yours. And this use of language that you would use so as a massive penis-like cudgel against trans people and people outside that experience, is entirely shaped like the actions of a bully.

I think that slavers should surrender whips, I think that racists should surrender slurs, and I think that TERFS, no matter how they might pretend reasonability despite their regular production of villains, need to surrender the use of language in situations where it is not accurately descriptive.

"Women's sports" is not accurately descriptive. Not even male/female is, really, by any definition except "male = testosterone puberty and nothing else, really".

The issue is that when people DO use the description used the way you want it used, it becomes about "women" and your cudgel.

 

[Emily Lake]

It's exactly an argument from tradition because the purpose has been laid bare "some half of people have innate biological advantages", and exactly the subject is "how do we protect those without those advantages from competing with those who have them, for the sake of fairness?"

Your argument is literally, '"sex" is what we did, sex is what we should do' insofar as you stand with Metaphor.

Sex is THE material cause for that difference in performance!

The reason there is a performance difference is because of evolution in a sexually dimorphic species! A disparity exists because two different sexes exist! That is the exact reason why there is a difference, and that is the exact reason why we separate sports on the basis of the cause of those differences!

 

[Emily Lake]

No, that is not an argument from tradition. It is also not the argument posed. It is also still not an effective argument:

You are making a causal admission here and then stepping away from the causality, in a bait/switch format of fallacious thinking.

The next portion that I can draw from your own premise, corrected in accuracy, is that we should focus on the "testosterone" not the "male".

"Male" or "female" is confounding data.

Only PEOPLE who actually have gotten those advantages matter in the calculus and the fact you can't bring yourself to argue that means it is about hurting trans people rather than fixing sports so that it's not an issue.

You keep pretending that objective reality is responsive to your wishes and whims, that your imagined sci-fi future is already here.

All of your pretense is wrong.

 

[Jarhyn]

Pre or peripubertal treatment does, however. Which is the second half of that discussion.

There are years of results now, many lives impacted, and mostly for the better.

If you wish to claim a potential for harm, you are now the one with the burden to show it, and show it sufficiently outstrips the other concerns.

If course it ignores the current concerns because the shape of this behavior puts a pin in the whole issue: it rips the rug out of all comers with bad faith, and even compromises on all post-pubertal transitions.

We have centuries of observations of eunuchs, as well. All evidence shows forgoing testosterone can increase expected lifespans...

I find it truly bizarre that you are literally advocating for the eugenic sterilization of gender non-conforming children.

And you think this is progress.

I am for the self-elected pubertal pathway for all gender nonconforming persons, including "none", if they feel this is what best supports their view of sex and gender for themselves.

If this makes them non-reproductive, I see no issues with this.

It will most certainly affect a very small percentage of the population and here's a hint for you: I didn't need to fuck anyone for what I am, genetically and neurologically, to get passed sufficiently onto someone else!

I will most certainly also not need to do so to pass on what I am intellectually to someone else.

More people understanding this and accepting it would absolutely be progress, as our geometric growth as a species needs to stop anyway.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's exactly an argument from tradition because the purpose has been laid bare "some half of people have innate biological advantages", and exactly the subject is "how do we protect those without those advantages from competing with those who have them, for the sake of fairness?"

Your argument is literally, '"sex" is what we did, sex is what we should do' insofar as you stand with Metaphor.

Sex is THE material cause for that difference in performance!

The reason there is a performance difference is because of evolution in a sexually dimorphic species! A disparity exists because two different sexes exist! That is the exact reason why there is a difference, and that is the exact reason why we separate sports on the basis of the cause of those differences!

No, testosterone is the immediate . You are mixing up immediate causes and material causes. If you want to play that game, maybe @fromderinside can jump in and explain it is caused by the big bang happening.

Testosterone is the last element of the chain that you can change, the final ingredient that actually makes it happen.

 

[Jarhyn]

And lest I remind you, we have been suppressing puberty in other ways for centuries. We have plenty of evidence surrounding that.

I cannot believe that you are calling on the LITERAL mutilation of children as support for your position. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

Yes, I can point to the tragic effects of centuries of mutilations of children as clear evidence that what I am saying is true and correct.

You might as well argue the centuries of grave robbing and corpse desecration don't support our understanding of anatomy.

Facts are facts, even if you would rather the event that unearthed them had never happened.

 

[Emily Lake]

And the fact is, everything I propose protects everyone,

"Separate, but equal" and "Affirmative Action" rolled into one.
You are a genius.

Why don't those cis-females recognize that? Dumb bitches. Why do us guys listen to them?
Baby, you can't swim! Fetch me a beer.
Tom

I like to point out that when it comes to males and females, it is absolutely NOT "separate but equal", it is, and has been since we fought for the right to gain entry into society as full members, "separate because unequal".

 

[Metaphor]

It's exactly an argument from tradition because the purpose has been laid bare "some half of people have innate biological advantages", and exactly the subject is "how do we protect those without those advantages from competing with those who have them, for the sake of fairness?"

Your argument is literally, '"sex" is what we did, sex is what we should do' insofar as you stand with Metaphor.

Sex is THE material cause for that difference in performance!

The reason there is a performance difference is because of evolution in a sexually dimorphic species! A disparity exists because two different sexes exist! That is the exact reason why there is a difference, and that is the exact reason why we separate sports on the basis of the cause of those differences!

Gender cultists have got religion, but it's not a closed practice. No: the Good News of Gender Jesus needs to be spread to the unBelievers.

It is not enough to say to Jarhyn "sports should be separated by sex". That does not slake the thirst of the gender cultists, who need sports separated by 'gender identity', so that some men can be affirmed as women.

And you'll affirm them whether you like it or not.

 

[Emily Lake]

Which cis females. I am pretty sure most such athletes are serious enough that they don't really care whether the person they are playing against was born with balls so long as they never got a significant competitive advantage on account of them in particular.

Seriously? Are you so wrapped up in your religion that you are unaware that the complaints coming from women are because they are being forced to play with males who absolutely 100% got the advantage of being male? And they are losing competitions, losing the opportunity to compete... and they are losing it to males who are being lauded as "brave and stunning" for competing against those women. Even though every single rational individual with a moderately functioning brain knows that it is strikingly unfair and that it harms and displaces women.

You're arguing against an imaginary opponent, arguing for what you think the argument ought to be, while blithely dismissing the reality of what is occurring right now.

And you insult those of us who are engaging in reality at the same fucking time.

 

[Emily Lake]

So, I'm going to take the vocal minority and disregard them same as I would for metaphor and his concerns about men.

IF you wish to make this about "female" concerns over all others, then it's really about catering to TERFs.

Emily is a TERF and Emily can pound sand as long as she holds onto her crazed TERFy behavior.

Wow. At least you're not trying to pretend that you aren't a blatant fucking misogynist. How dare women actually give a fuck about women, rather than submitting to the desires of men and subjugating themselves to what men want them to do.

Fuck that.

No Thank You
Women Won't Wheesht
Sex Matters

 

[Emily Lake]

It's not my fault that an entire generation of girls was sold on a subtle lie that it might destroy their dream to compete against women born without ovaries, but never significantly affected by anything but the products of such.

I care about all the people, not just the girls, and I care about all of them equally.

If you wish to argue against my position, it's in the first post I made here. Anything else is arguing again nst arguments against arguments not even related to that position.

Sure, sure, sure. The "subtle lie" that males are stronger and more aggressive than females, that males commit 98% of sexual crimes and that 95% of their victims are female, that males have developed a society and a social structure that centers them and ignores females, that they develop products that are designed around male body sizes and shapes and that frequently present risks to females, that males get paid more for the same fucking work, that males dominate the leadership of business and politics, and that socially, females are treated as less-than-full humans, and are expected to submit to men's wishes and desires or be labeled and abused. The "subtle lie" that we live in a sexist world... and that is has gotten unquestioningly MORE sexist since I was a child.

The "subtle lie" that male prisoners are being placed in women's prisons on the basis of nothing more than their declaration to "feel like a woman" even though there is no explanation of what that feels like, and those men have then gone on to rape and sexually assault female inmates, and the media turns a blind eye to it, and the president of the US puts forth legislation that would make it even easier for any male to gain access to women who can't get away from them in prison.

The "subtle lie" that women no longer have access to single-sex rape shelters or domestic violence refuges in the UK, Canada, and many parts of the US, because those shelters are required to allow entrance to any male who claims to be "a woman" with no consideration given to the trauma this causes the victims seeking help.

The "subtle lie" that women have been oppressed for eons on the basis of our sex - our actual physical reproductive anatomy, have been denied citizenship and equal standing, have been treated as chattel, have been viewed as broodmares, and have been the property of men.

I don't believe that you care about females at all.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, your Gish Gallop seems completely to ignore some things here, and designed to bury them, so I'm going to reiterate here:

Which cis females. I am pretty sure most such athletes are serious enough that they don't really care whether the person they are playing against was born with balls so long as they never got a significant competitive advantage on account of them in particular.

Seriously? Are you so wrapped up in your religion that you are unaware that the complaints coming from women are because they are being forced to play with males who absolutely 100% got the advantage of being male? And they are losing competitions, losing the opportunity to compete... and they are losing it to males who are being lauded as "brave and stunning" for competing against those women. Even though every single rational individual with a moderately functioning brain knows that it is strikingly unfair and that it harms and displaces women.

You're arguing against an imaginary opponent, arguing for what you think the argument ought to be, while blithely dismissing the reality of what is occurring right now.

And you insult those of us who are engaging in reality at the same fucking time.

So, I'm just going to point out again that NO TRANS PEOPLE HERE SUPPORT THAT.

None.

It's not my fault that an entire generation of girls was sold on a subtle lie that it might destroy their dream to compete against women born without ovaries, but never significantly affected by anything but the products of such.

I care about all the people, not just the girls, and I care about all of them equally.

If you wish to argue against my position, it's in the first post I made here. Anything else is arguing again nst arguments against arguments not even related to that position.

Sure, sure, sure. The "subtle lie" that males are stronger and more aggressive than females, that males commit 98% of sexual crimes and that 95% of their victims are female, that males have developed a society and a social structure that centers them and ignores females, that they develop products that are designed around male body sizes and shapes and that frequently present risks to females, that males get paid more for the same fucking work, that males dominate the leadership of business and politics, and that socially, females are treated as less-than-full humans, and are expected to submit to men's wishes and desires or be labeled and abused. The "subtle lie" that we live in a sexist world... and that is has gotten unquestioningly MORE sexist since I was a child.

The "subtle lie" that male prisoners are being placed in women's prisons on the basis of nothing more than their declaration to "feel like a woman" even though there is no explanation of what that feels like, and those men have then gone on to rape and sexually assault female inmates, and the media turns a blind eye to it, and the president of the US puts forth legislation that would make it even easier for any male to gain access to women who can't get away from them in prison.

The "subtle lie" that women no longer have access to single-sex rape shelters or domestic violence refuges in the UK, Canada, and many parts of the US, because those shelters are required to allow entrance to any male who claims to be "a woman" with no consideration given to the trauma this causes the victims seeking help.

The "subtle lie" that women have been oppressed for eons on the basis of our sex - our actual physical reproductive anatomy, have been denied citizenship and equal standing, have been treated as chattel, have been viewed as broodmares, and have been the property of men.

I don't believe that you care about females at all.

I do not care about "females" at all, nor "males". I care about "people", which are both, and neither.

You wish that I make special considerations for some set that you define, and badly, as "female".

I won't.

Your terminology throws mud in waters that need to remain clear, specifically to prevent these sorts of conflationary events as puts 'roided up bodies in swimming pools where no 'roids belong.

You wish to hold that terminology like a giant penis shaped cudgel with which to abuse people and keep them out of a space because ????.

I have already pointed to shapes of geometry which can be leveraged to stop the problems you describe from arising without reference to sex.

 

[Emily Lake]

This is kind of different twist on the subject of transwomen competing, not against other women in sports, but in a mixed sex gaming competition.

'JEOPARDY!' AMY SCHNEIDER 4TH CONTESTANT TO WIN MORE THAN $1M ... Breaks All Sorts Of Records!!!

Amy Schneider is on a roll ... she just became the 4th player in "Jeopardy!" history to rake in more than $1 mil in non-tournament play, and she's still in the game!!!

Amy, the first transgender contestant to qualify for the show's Tournament of Champions, won her 28th game on the show that aired Friday night, taking her winnings north of $1M ... to be specific, $1,019,001.

She was stoked, saying, "It feels amazing, it feels strange. It's not a sum of money I ever anticipated would be associated with my name."

Amy has now won more loot than any other female contender, and she's now the record-holder for most consecutive wins by a female contestant.

Kudos to Amy for the achievement, but honestly, the accolades about being the "female record holder" do feel a bit wrong to me. I'd be particularly interested in hearing from the females on this forum about this woman's achievement. Is it a fair and square victory for female accomplishment or not? Are biological women (aka women who menstruate) largely cheering her on from the sidelines, or do they think this this whole thing is just dreadful and embarassing?

Many of us think it's a sham and are a bit peeved at it. We're happy for Amy to have won, and we think that celebrating their achievement as the first transwoman to win that much should be quite enough. I'd happily applaud that, with gusto even.

But this is not a female achievement. And it cheapens the achievements of actual women.

For me personally, as well as several other women that I know, this is a slap in the face. It's a hyped up way of saying "men make better women than women, see, this man is the best woman at this!" Media thinks they're being supportive of transgender identities... but in reality they're denigrating women across the whole developed world and setting our accomplishments back decades.

 

[Emily Lake]

And for such humans as you would yourself attempt (and fail) to deny the right to a brain-concordant single puberty.

You can pretend that the numbers are smaller than they are by using a selection bias, but you are just revealing yourself at the extreme end of bias against trans people's existence.

Stop making up bullshit like this. I have one transgender niece who is genuinely trans, and I fully support her despite her having a penis. I also have a niece who has decided she is trans but who I genuinely do not think is, but who has started testosterone and is now looking at significant lifelong harms for a condition that she self-diagnosed and which no clinician has bothered to investigate or challenge in any way.

 

[Jarhyn]

I wonder if I just make a post about something in the middle here if Emily will feel the need to respond to something non-sequential just to have the last post in the chain before she logs out without actually answering or responding to the instant rebuttals to her stream of gish gallop?

 

[Emily Lake]

Maybe because it's dumb and shitty and downright bullying to insist on something that sticks a knife into one of the deepest traumas a human being can experience.

And fuck you if you don't think being forced into the wrong puberty and body against your will is such.

"Wrong puberty" is the deepest trauma... being sold into sexual slavery, having your clitoris removed, being treated as property, being beaten and abused, meh... those are just things that happen to women around the globe every day, those aren't a big deal.

But oh my god, evolution working the way evolution works is the absolute worst thing ever!!!!!

 

[Jarhyn]

Maybe because it's dumb and shitty and downright bullying to insist on something that sticks a knife into one of the deepest traumas a human being can experience.

And fuck you if you don't think being forced into the wrong puberty and body against your will is such.

"Wrong puberty" is the deepest trauma... being sold into sexual slavery, having your clitoris removed, being treated as property, being beaten and abused, meh... those are just things that happen to women around the globe every day, those aren't a big deal.

But oh my god, evolution working the way evolution works is the absolute worst thing ever!!!!!

All of those are bad traumas too. And yes, evolution working the way it works can absolutely be the worst thing ever.

Just ask someone born with Huntington's Disease.

 

[Emily Lake]

I think that slavers should surrender whips, I think that racists should surrender slurs, and I think that TERFS, no matter how they might pretend reasonability despite their regular production of villains, need to surrender the use of language in situations where it is not accurately descriptive.

Translation: women who don't submit to being called "uterus havers" or "birthing parents" or "menstruators" or " non-androgenized people" or "non-men" are evil and are just like racists and slavers!

Yeparooni folks. Women are the most evilest of people ever. Yep, yep, yep.

Let's not even get into those most evil archbishops of all evilness - the lesbians who refuse to have sex with lady-dick and insist that they're same-sex attracted. Those evil bitches really need to unlearn their bigotry and open themselves (literally) to those penises. How dare they exert their sexual boundaries when some males don't want them to?

 

[Emily Lake]

I am for the self-elected pubertal pathway for all gender nonconforming persons, including "none", if they feel this is what best supports their view of sex and gender for themselves.

If this makes them non-reproductive, I see no issues with this.

Eugenic sterilization of the gender non-conforming in the guise of "progressiveness".

How far away from arguing that because children are old enough to decide to be sterilized and mutilated on their say so, they're also old enough to decide that they wish to have sex with whoever they want, regardless of age?

 

[Emily Lake]

It's exactly an argument from tradition because the purpose has been laid bare "some half of people have innate biological advantages", and exactly the subject is "how do we protect those without those advantages from competing with those who have them, for the sake of fairness?"

Your argument is literally, '"sex" is what we did, sex is what we should do' insofar as you stand with Metaphor.

Sex is THE material cause for that difference in performance!

The reason there is a performance difference is because of evolution in a sexually dimorphic species! A disparity exists because two different sexes exist! That is the exact reason why there is a difference, and that is the exact reason why we separate sports on the basis of the cause of those differences!

No, testosterone is the immediate . You are mixing up immediate causes and material causes. If you want to play that game, maybe @fromderinside can jump in and explain it is caused by the big bang happening.

Testosterone is the last element of the chain that you can change, the final ingredient that actually makes it happen.

This is dumb. The skeletal difference exist regardless of testosterone exposure. The height differences are driven by the adrenal gland, not the pituitary, as are the differences in hand and foot size.

Honestly, if you want to get really actually factual about it... testosterone is the FIRST element, and if you want to completely control for almost all of its effects... you're going to need to suppress testosterone's androgenizing effects in the womb during fetal development.

So go ahead, please, argue why we should begin the sterilization process in utero so that you can force your religious views on the rest of us?

 

[Jarhyn]

It's exactly an argument from tradition because the purpose has been laid bare "some half of people have innate biological advantages", and exactly the subject is "how do we protect those without those advantages from competing with those who have them, for the sake of fairness?"

Your argument is literally, '"sex" is what we did, sex is what we should do' insofar as you stand with Metaphor.

Sex is THE material cause for that difference in performance!

The reason there is a performance difference is because of evolution in a sexually dimorphic species! A disparity exists because two different sexes exist! That is the exact reason why there is a difference, and that is the exact reason why we separate sports on the basis of the cause of those differences!

No, testosterone is the immediate . You are mixing up immediate causes and material causes. If you want to play that game, maybe @fromderinside can jump in and explain it is caused by the big bang happening.

Testosterone is the last element of the chain that you can change, the final ingredient that actually makes it happen.

This is dumb. The skeletal difference exist regardless of testosterone exposure. The height differences are driven by the adrenal gland, not the pituitary, as are the differences in hand and foot size.

Honestly, if you want to get really actually factual about it... testosterone is the FIRST element, and if you want to completely control for almost all of its effects... you're going to need to suppress testosterone's androgenizing effects in the womb during fetal development.

So go ahead, please, argue why we should begin the sterilization process in utero so that you can force your religious views on the rest of us?

Prove the prepubertal skeletal differences create material advantage, please.

It is in fact established that the process of being trans involves brains, so unless you believe in lobotomizing babies in utero, or whatever, I think it's alright to let them elect to different hormones in puberty

People like your relative you cast aspersions on can't have exactly what they ask for only because their parents never had the means nor the motive nor the opportunity to bring their child up to be open and accepting with as much of themselves as they can be, and to only seek to change that which is absolutely vital for their own happiness and your insistence on bringing up children into an apparent gender rather than letting them find it for themselves is exactly what gets people into that mess.

It is not erasing women to let anyone who decides to be raised "as a woman, please" do so. It is not erasing athletes from competitive glory to not say they are in "a league for 'women', specifically".

It is in fact seeing them for what is important and real, their achievements among all equals.

It lets us shove the roided up women in with the roided up men, and allows all the ones without the 'roids to compete fairly more or less.

 

[blastula]

Kudos to Amy for the achievement, but honestly, the accolades about being the "female record holder" do feel a bit wrong to me. I'd be particularly interested in hearing from the females on this forum about this woman's achievement. Is it a fair and square victory for female accomplishment or not? Are biological women (aka women who menstruate) largely cheering her on from the sidelines, or do they think this this whole thing is just dreadful and embarassing?

Is this even about gender, or is it about reporters always trying to make the facts seem more important? In a situation like this "female record holder" basically says the reporter is trying to make it a bigger deal than it really is. People are competing on an equal footing, it doesn't matter what gender they are and thus all that really matters is "record holder"--when you qualify it you're actually saying it isn't a record.

It's prbably brought up because men have done a lot better at that game. I've seen different theories why, but I've wondered whether it's all about buzzer skills and that men have faster reflexes.

Another big question is why there has been so many long winning streaks recently.

 

[Jarhyn]

I am for the self-elected pubertal pathway for all gender nonconforming persons, including "none", if they feel this is what best supports their view of sex and gender for themselves.

If this makes them non-reproductive, I see no issues with this.

Eugenic sterilization of the gender non-conforming in the guise of "progressiveness".

How far away from arguing that because children are old enough to decide to be sterilized and mutilated on their say so, they're also old enough to decide that they wish to have sex with whoever they want, regardless of age?

So, here's the rub: you don't get to define "mutilation" for other people. You only get to define mutilation as to what relates to yourself. Funny thing, that.

And as has been repeatedly brought up, I am not advocating surgical interventions for kids.

The fact that you keep bringing this up is a clear "don't beat your wife" form of bad faith.

They are old enough to do exactly the same thing (get exposed to testosterone, or merely just progesterone and estrogen) as you expect one half or the other to do.

I'm just not concerned with 99.98% vs 98% of the population being potentially fertile. And neither are the people getting their hormones switched up.

We seek to see exactly zero percent people of puberty age have sex.

We seem to seek to see one hundred percent or thereabouts experience puberty. YOU expect nearly 100% to experience puberty. I would seek to give them a choice which, and potentially whether.

And yes, being forced into the wrong body is every bit as traumatic as having the body you do have mutilated.

It is in many ways more fucked up than even many forms of slavery, because all the while you are still looking ahead seeing how much further you haven't gone yet, feeling like there's time still to do the other thing, and then knowing that those who claim to love you, who think that what they are doing is "love" continue to force that on you anyway, and you can never ever escape it. They did it to your whole body, forcing you to have that one.

It is a special kind of powerlessness in the face of indifference.

You would think that people who had been hurt would understand having the life they seek ripped from them on account of the decisions of someone else.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

So, here's the rub: you don't get to define "mutilation" for other people. You only get to define mutilation as to what relates to yourself. Funny thing, that.

Actually, she does not get to define mutilation in regards to herself either. Neither do you, or I, or anyone else for that matter.
For example, if someone cuts my arms off and Joe Doe says I was mutilated and I honestly say I wasn't mutilated, then I am in error and he is correct, because I was mutilated. Words like "mutilated", "mutilation", etc., have a meaning (at least one) in English. Individual speakers do not get to pick any meaning they like. Rather, it is the result of how a linguistic community uses the word. If there is more than one meaning, the speaker may choose among those - though they might misspeak if context indicates they picked another one -, but they cannot make up a meaning, if they are speaking in English rather than a non-standard variant they invent. And in any case, it is the speaker who chooses among the meanings, not the person about whom others are speaking.

 

[Emily Lake]

It is in many ways more fucked up than even many forms of slavery, because all the while you are still looking ahead seeing how much further you haven't gone yet, feeling like there's time still to do the other thing, and then knowing that those who claim to love you, who think that what they are doing is "love" continue to force that on you anyway, and you can never ever escape it. They did it to your whole body, forcing you to have that one.

This is a very strange position. You're arguing that puberty, as governed by evolution, is worse than slavery? What's next, are you going to argue that someone who feels like they should have been an amputee has it worse than an actual slave, because their development gave them two functioning legs and doctors refuse to cut them off for them?

More than anything, what your position demonstrates is a complete lack of any real challenges or hardships in your life.

 

[Jarhyn]

It is in many ways more fucked up than even many forms of slavery, because all the while you are still looking ahead seeing how much further you haven't gone yet, feeling like there's time still to do the other thing, and then knowing that those who claim to love you, who think that what they are doing is "love" continue to force that on you anyway, and you can never ever escape it. They did it to your whole body, forcing you to have that one.

This is a very strange position. You're arguing that puberty, as governed by evolution, is worse than slavery? What's next, are you going to argue that someone who feels like they should have been an amputee has it worse than an actual slave, because their development gave them two functioning legs and doctors refuse to cut them off for them?

More than anything, what your position demonstrates is a complete lack of any real challenges or hardships in your life.

When it is not the puberty you seek yes, just like when Huntington's Disease, as governed by evolution, is also worse than slavery.

Slavery can be escaped, lived down, or released.

You are stuck in the body that grows around you forever, or at least this is the case this far.

I've played a few games which echo reality insofar as they actually do feature people whose self actualization takes them through a path of amputation and prosthetics. When prosthetics performance exceeds meat performance, I expect this to be quite common, people chopping off perfectly serviceable limbs to get them replaced... And donating them to people whose limbs have been otherwise mangled and can't afford prosthetics.

It's a common theme in fiction because it's a common desire.

I'm planning on doing something similar with my whole body.

You also speak rather blithely about what "hardships" a soldier has or hasn't experienced in their life.

 

[Trausti]

When it is not the puberty you seek yes, just like when Huntington's Disease, as governed by evolution, is also worse than slavery.

And encouraging a young person who feels awkward that the solution to their awkwardness is to mutilate their body and take irreversible hormones is worse than the holocaust.

 

[Jarhyn]

When it is not the puberty you seek yes, just like when Huntington's Disease, as governed by evolution, is also worse than slavery.

And encouraging a young person who feels awkward that the solution to their awkwardness is to mutilate their body and take irreversible hormones is worse than the holocaust.

The fact that you keep bringing this up is a clear "don't beat your wife" form of bad faith.

I will exactly encourage young people to:

be open and accepting with as much of themselves as they can be, and to only seek to change that which is absolutely vital for their own happiness

When that involves interrupting a pubertal process with a different one, so be it.

To pretend that letting people have the body they wish to grow is worse than the Holocaust is insulting to literally everyone here.

 

[Trausti]

When it is not the puberty you seek yes, just like when Huntington's Disease, as governed by evolution, is also worse than slavery.

And encouraging a young person who feels awkward that the solution to their awkwardness is to mutilate their body and take irreversible hormones is worse than the holocaust.

The fact that you keep bringing this up is a clear "don't beat your wife" form of bad faith.

I will exactly encourage young people to:

be open and accepting with as much of themselves as they can be, and to only seek to change that which is absolutely vital for their own happiness

When that involves interrupting a pubertal process with a different one, so be it.

To pretend that letting people have the body they wish to grow is worse than the Holocaust is insulting to literally everyone here.

To pretend that an adolescent has the knowledge to make irreversible and life altering decisions to satisfy someone else’s political agenda is worse than the worse thing that was worse. We should permit people who were cajoled into mutilating their body during adolescence to sue, personally, up to the age of 30, the “healthcare” provider who injected them with hormones and cut up their body. That would stop this ghastliness right quick.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, nobody is cajoling. It is in no way cajoling to say "some people grow up "women" some grow up "men" some grow up "neither" and these are the general effects of those choices" and then when someone says "woman please" despite the fact that this, for them, takes a bit of doing.

It is in fact the opposite of cajoling to...

encourage young people to:

be open and accepting with as much of themselves as they can be, and to only seek to change that which is absolutely vital for their own happiness

 

[TSwizzle]

This is kind of different twist on the subject of transwomen competing, not against other women in sports, but in a mixed sex gaming competition.

Amy Schneider is on a roll ... she just became the 4th player in "Jeopardy!" history to rake in more than $1 mil in non-tournament play, and she's still in the game!!!

Amy, the first transgender contestant to qualify for the show's Tournament of Champions, won her 28th game on the show that aired Friday night, taking her winnings north of $1M ... to be specific, $1,019,001.

Kudos to Amy for the achievement, but honestly, the accolades about being the "female record holder" do feel a bit wrong to me.

Kudos to TMZ for stating is Amy transgender right out of the gate. But in he grand scheme of things I don't think the achievement is at all noteworthy. If you hadn't posted it, I would never have known.

 

[Jarhyn]

When it is not the puberty you seek yes, just like when Huntington's Disease, as governed by evolution, is also worse than slavery.

And encouraging a young person who feels awkward that the solution to their awkwardness is to mutilate their body and take irreversible hormones is worse than the holocaust.

The fact that you keep bringing this up is a clear "don't beat your wife" form of bad faith.

I will exactly encourage young people to:

be open and accepting with as much of themselves as they can be, and to only seek to change that which is absolutely vital for their own happiness

When that involves interrupting a pubertal process with a different one, so be it.

To pretend that letting people have the body they wish to grow is worse than the Holocaust is insulting to literally everyone here.

To pretend that an adolescent has the knowledge to make irreversible and life altering decisions to satisfy someone else’s political agenda is worse than the worse thing that was worse. We should permit people who were cajoled into mutilating their body during adolescence to sue, personally, up to the age of 30, the “healthcare” provider who injected them with hormones and cut up their body. That would stop this ghastliness right quick.

To undergo any puberty is equally life changing and irreversible, and you already expect them to do it, just not the one they want.

What you are proposing is exactly to pretend that you have the right to impose on someone else a policy of banning (not just gatekeeping, BANNING) people from escaping life altering changes that YOU elect for them to satisfy YOUR political agenda.

It's also really hard to claim a basis to sue when the only thing people did was...

encourage young people to:

be open and accepting with as much of themselves as they can be, and to only seek to change that which is absolutely vital for their own happiness

...And to not stand between them and the means to accomplish their desired self-actualization.

And if someone is really being stupid about what they are doing, I'm not going to stop Augustus Gloop from going to the crumbling edge of a chocolate river, either, beyond doing my best Gene Wilder impersonation for a number of years by saying "take blockers for now, don't go all the way" and giving them as many years to desist as they need or go on ahead, they're 'adults' now.

 

[fromderinside]

My brother's son was destroyed when a PE teacher forced him to change with other freshmen. He was becoming sensitive to his feelings about others, he was opting for liking men over women. That his father sided with his teacher finished the job.

He's in his late forties, lives with his mother who is married to a sexist, homophobic, SOB now. He's a completely broken person but, his birth father comforts and mourns for him. His father, a shallow man, who has a lot of guilt but not an understanding bone in himself is "looking out" for him.

 

[Emily Lake]

When it is not the puberty you seek yes, just like when Huntington's Disease, as governed by evolution, is also worse than slavery.

Slavery can be escaped, lived down, or released.

You are stuck in the body that grows around you forever, or at least this is the case this far.

I've played a few games which echo reality insofar as they actually do feature people whose self actualization takes them through a path of amputation and prosthetics. When prosthetics performance exceeds meat performance, I expect this to be quite common, people chopping off perfectly serviceable limbs to get them replaced... And donating them to people whose limbs have been otherwise mangled and can't afford prosthetics.

It's a common theme in fiction because it's a common desire.

I'm planning on doing something similar with my whole body.

I can't find the right words for this, so I'll just stumble through. There's something deeply disturbing about your approach here. On one hand, it's frighteningly naive in its acceptance of fiction as plausible. And on the other hand, there's an unmitigated arrogance in the assumption that one's desires should be sufficient to override the reality of evolution.

Yes, most humans at some point in their lives wants to be different than they actually are... which is why it's a common theme in *fiction*. Those works of fiction that allow the protagonist to overcome their limitations through character are those that stick with us through our lives, those that focus on developing the noble character to which one aspires often hold a special place in our hearts and minds. It's a particularly childish mythology where the protagonist magically transforms their physical self, and through such effortless and superficial magic attains happiness. Such stories usually lose their luster about the same time we understand that Santa Claus is an idea, not a real fat man that slides down our chimneys. During normal human development, we learn that magic isn't real, and that fiction is not reality.

You also speak rather blithely about what "hardships" a soldier has or hasn't experienced in their life.

Oh come off it. Most of my family has been either military or law enforcement (or both). Many have seen actual combat. I stand by my comment, that your view is evidence of a lack of actual challenges in your life. It's the kinder interpretation.

 

[Emily Lake]

To undergo any puberty is equally life changing and irreversible, and you already expect them to do it, just not the one they want.

What you are proposing is exactly to pretend that you have the right to impose on someone else a policy of banning (not just gatekeeping, BANNING) people from escaping life altering changes that YOU elect for them to satisfy YOUR political agenda.

You keep framing this as if a child's desire impacts objective reality. It's baffling, because your entire argument is Not Even Wrong. Puberty is exactly as life-changing and irreversible as being born, as being conceived, as losing one's baby teeth. There's no "expectation", there is no relevant "want" involved in those processes. You keep framing your narrative as if water running downhill is being *forced* on the river, and is somehow unfair to the river.

And if someone is really being stupid about what they are doing, I'm not going to stop Augustus Gloop from going to the crumbling edge of a chocolate river, either, beyond doing my best Gene Wilder impersonation for a number of years by saying "take blockers for now, don't go all the way" and giving them as many years to desist as they need or go on ahead, they're 'adults' now.

It is an abject failure of adults that Gloop falls into the river. Adults failed to do their duty to safeguard Gloop. You're applying a standard of extrapolatory agency to Gloop that Gloop does not have, precisely because Gloop is a child. Your position is akin to saying that if a child is about to do something that you, as an adult, can easily see is harmful and damaging to them, you feel no responsibility to intervene because it's their choice. And that's a dumb position.

Furthermore, you seriously do NOT understand the impact of blockers. You're still parroting the line that they're harmless and reversible, which is not the case. I know I've provided the information before regarding the time-bound system of puberty, and the fact that it involves multiple processes occurring in tandem, and that interruption of one of those processes has life-long repercussions. So suffice it to say that puberty blockers are neither safe nor reversible. Extremely short-term use is not seriously dangerous, but it's also too short a time to be of any use. Additionally, blockers halt the emotional development that is necessary to make an informed adult decision.

 

[Jarhyn]

You keep framing this as if a child's desire impacts objective reality. It's baffling, because your entire argument is Not Even Wrong. Puberty is exactly as life-changing and irreversible as being born, as being conceived, as losing one's baby teeth. There's no "expectation", there is no relevant "want" involved in those processes. You keep framing your narrative as if water running downhill is being *forced* on the river, and is somehow unfair to the river

It is only as inevitable as you force it to be. People are not rivers. They can see where the paths in the landscape bend below their momentum and they have the power within and among them to change that momentum.

The person changing has expectation. The person changing has want.

Humans are having changes induced on them by society, by their parents, by their own bodies!

But this is not a law of physics like gravity, but instead is a mutable process and whose trunk of process derives from a small batch of chemicals at the stage being discussed.

You wish to see everyone undergo a puberty and you have DEMANDS!! On which you think people must undergo. Your DEMANDS!! That someone born with a vagina allow their body to grow breasts, for example.

There is no reason, no vital purpose by which someone must let this happen! Someone can say NO in a very particular way and stop it.

You will not respect their desire to say NO.

You will not even respect their desire for that which they wish to say YES.

 

[Trausti]

What you are proposing is exactly to pretend that you have the right to impose on someone else a policy of banning (not just gatekeeping, BANNING) people from escaping life altering changes that YOU elect for them to satisfy YOUR political agenda.

Adults can do what they want. But when adults groom children to satisfy their sexual proclivities, we call them predators.

 

[Trausti]

 

[Jarhyn]

What you are proposing is exactly to pretend that you have the right to impose on someone else a policy of banning (not just gatekeeping, BANNING) people from escaping life altering changes that YOU elect for them to satisfy YOUR political agenda.

Adults can do what they want. But when adults groom children to satisfy their sexual proclivities, we call them predators.

Exactly. Like when adults groom children to think they must like and must be some specific thing outside their own choices, like when people are "assigned to be male at birth" and then put in blue clothes and given only cars and told not to play with dolls or that they cannot have long hair, that they will not be allowed to grow bigger hips, or sprout breasts from their breast seed tissues...

Like that? Yeah, pretty gross.

Let me reiterate on what I ACTUALLY keep saying is doing right by children:

be open and accepting with as much of themselves as they can be, and to only seek to change that which is absolutely vital for their own happiness

Anything else would, in fact, be the act of a predator.

 

[Emily Lake]

Exactly. Like when adults groom children to think they must like and must be some specific thing outside their own choices, like when people are "assigned to be male at birth" and then put in blue clothes and given only cars and told not to play with dolls or that they cannot have long hair,

So, up to here, I'm pretty much with you. Adults should not impose social expectations of behavior on children on the basis of their observed sex. I will quibble though, as sex is not assigned at birth, it is observed and noted. If sex is assigned at any particular time, it's assigned when that first sperm breaches the egg.

that they will not be allowed to grow bigger hips, or sprout breasts from their breast seed tissues...

Yep, here's where you lose me and you go skipping off into la-la-land.

Why are you constantly conflating socially imposed constructs of behavior with biological processes?

Also, why aren't you lamenting the poor children who are forced to lose their baby teeth when they don't want to, and the evil adults who won't let them decide on their own whether they want to lose their baby teeth and grow adult teeth?

 

[Jarhyn]

Exactly. Like when adults groom children to think they must like and must be some specific thing outside their own choices, like when people are "assigned to be male at birth" and then put in blue clothes and given only cars and told not to play with dolls or that they cannot have long hair,

So, up to here, I'm pretty much with you. Adults should not impose social expectations of behavior on children on the basis of their observed sex. I will quibble though, as sex is not assigned at birth, it is observed and noted. If sex is assigned at any particular time, it's assigned when that first sperm breaches the egg.

that they will not be allowed to grow bigger hips, or sprout breasts from their breast seed tissues...

Yep, here's where you lose me and you go skipping off into la-la-land.

Why are you constantly conflating socially imposed constructs of behavior with biological processes?

Also, why aren't you lamenting the poor children who are forced to lose their baby teeth when they don't want to, and the evil adults who won't let them decide on their own whether they want to lose their baby teeth and grow adult teeth?

"Socially imposed constructs" are willfully and being forced on people's biological processes.

Everyone is expected to lose baby teeth.

Only half of people are by you expected to have male puberty. I expect it of zero people, though many people expect it of themselves and that is OK.

Of course I will admit, I do not necessarily demand people actually go through puberty at all, so long as they are aware of the effects of doing so; if someone takes blockers until the age of 18, and then continues beyond that in some manner as to not have puberty at all that may also be a goal for some people and they would also be able to see satisfaction.

When you can provide examples of people you do not expect to lose their baby teeth, your ridiculous comparison might have value.

Also, I might add...

bring... child[ren] up to be open and accepting with as much of themselves as they can be, and to only seek to change that which is absolutely vital for their own happiness

 

[Emily Lake]

"Socially imposed constructs" are willfully and being forced on people's biological processes.

Such as? What socially imposed constructs are being forced on biological processes?

Everyone is expected to lose baby teeth.

Only half of people are by you expected to have male puberty. I expect it of zero people, though many people expect it of themselves and that is OK.

You're creating a distinction in your own head that is meaningless in reality. Everyone is expected to lose baby teeth, and everyone is expected to go through puberty. The pathway for that puberty is determined when the egg is fertilized.

And for the record... providing a male person with exogenous estrogen during the time-bound process of puberty will *NOT* provide them with a "female puberty". A male person CANNOT HAVE a female puberty. Providing exogenous testosterone to a female person will *NOT* provide them a "male puberty", because a female person CANNOT HAVE a male puberty. It's a fantasy to think this can happen.

Providing a pubescent person with cross-sex hormones results in that person never attaining sexual maturity.

 

[Jarhyn]

Such as? What socially imposed constructs are being forced on biological processes?

The socially imposed construct that "all those born with testicles ought be influenced by the chemicals they would produce".

We invented that. That "ought" right there came from mere "social construct" a mere declaration that this is so, in all it's Naturally Fallacious glory.

Everyone is expected to lose baby teeth, and everyone is expected to go through puberty.

It's this expectation that you hold, and also the fact that you only expect particular puberties from some.

You do not expect male puberties from all humans.

And for the record... providing a male person with exogenous estrogen during the time-bound process of puberty will *NOT* provide them with a "female puberty". A male person CANNOT HAVE a female puberty. Providing exogenous testosterone to a female person will *NOT* provide them a "male puberty", because a female person CANNOT HAVE a male puberty. It's a fantasy to think this can happen.

(Not so) nice religion you have there.

 

[Emily Lake]

Such as? What socially imposed constructs are being forced on biological processes?

The socially imposed construct that "all those born with testicles ought be influenced by the chemicals they would produce".

We invented that. That "ought" right there came from mere "social construct" a mere declaration that this is so, in all it's Naturally Fallacious glory.

Everyone is expected to lose baby teeth, and everyone is expected to go through puberty.

It's this expectation that you hold, and also the fact that you only expect particular puberties from some.

You do not expect male puberties from all humans.

And for the record... providing a male person with exogenous estrogen during the time-bound process of puberty will *NOT* provide them with a "female puberty". A male person CANNOT HAVE a female puberty. Providing exogenous testosterone to a female person will *NOT* provide them a "male puberty", because a female person CANNOT HAVE a male puberty. It's a fantasy to think this can happen.

(Not so) nice religion you have there.

First off, there's no "ought" involved in biological processes at all, and I'm most definitely NOT the person foisting one in there - you are. You're the one adding some kind of moral judgement onto a process that is inherently amoral. You're the one who is playing semantic games based on imagination and science fiction.

I'm the one observing that water runs downhill. You're the one who is attacking me and criticising me for the morally reprehensible failure of thinking that water "ought" to run downhill, as if some other option were even available. This is a complete and utter failure on your part. I have no moral judgement on water, I have no "expectation" of water. I have an observation of how water behaves, and that observation is FACTUAL.

Secondly, I don't expect a male puberty from all humans. I observe that all humans experience puberty (unless there is external interference), and I observe that the pathway of that puberty is determined by the sex of the human in question. You're the one engaging in wishful thinking and pretending that somehow the entire animal kingdom is engaged in a great conspiracy to force male mammals to experience puberty as male mammals.

As for your parting comment, well, that is straight up dumb and ridiculous. It's not religion to observe that only males can experience the puberty of a male.

But here, let me spell this out for you <edited>: There exists no amount of testosterone that will cause a female human's non-existent testicles to descend from her body, nor will any amount of testosterone cause a female human's non-existent penis to elongate to adult proportions, nor will any amount of testosterone cause a female human to produce sperm. There exists no amount of estrogen that will cause a male human to experience menarche, nor will any amount of estrogen cause a male human's hips to separate and widen in preparation for the offspring that he absolutely will not gestate.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm most definitely NOT the person foisting one in there -

You are, no matter how you try to hide it:

You pose that people ought be affected by the specific chemicals their gonads produce in puberty, and not the chemicals other gonads would be producing.

Not that they do, but that you EXPECT them to.

Expect is a permutation of "ought".

I don't in fact expect it of anyone, or not expect it of them. If people want it, or don't care, they get what they want or don't care about.

It's the ones that don't want it that I care about.

 

[Metaphor]

But here, let me spell this out for you, since you're so wrapped up in woo that your brain seems to no longer function at full capacity: There exists no amount of testosterone that will cause a female human's non-existent testicles to descend from her body, nor will any amount of testosterone cause a female human's non-existent penis to elongate to adult proportions, nor will any amount of testosterone cause a female human to produce sperm. There exists no amount of estrogen that will cause a male human to experience menarche, nor will any amount of estrogen cause a male human's hips to separate and widen in preparation for the offspring that he absolutely will not gestate.

All of the above is true. I'd also like to point out the body-horror results of current 'gender affirming' surgery. Even what I would consider one of the least complicated procedures (women and girls getting healthy breast tissue cut off) does not result in anything like a 'male' chest. It results in a scarred chest (often without nipples but with the added gift of phantom pain) of someone who had their breasts amputated.

 

[Jarhyn]

So I might say without engaging with personal attacks that I have been accused of "woo". I would like very much to see this "woo".

I have only ever claimed to be exactly what I am, to the best of my ability, and to only recognize that which is, as it is.

Now, some may claim that my compatibilism is "woo" excepting that it's a widely held position among determinists.

Or you may claim that my positions on gender and identity are woo? But that is not debating, discussing, even having a rational conversation.

It's just saying "you're wrong and *thumb nose*".

I in fact provide arguments all the way back to my principles and philosophical underpinnings.

I've never even seen mention of such from Emily.

I have now a number of times two or greater asked Emily what it is, exactly, that she thinks I said that is beyond reason. I offered my reasons, yet I am as much deprived of her offering of whatever of her reasons as may not be founded on pure fallacy as I am deprived of her criterion of such rites of passage as might define "wizard".

I'm pretty sure in fact that I made some positions quite clear on coincidence and causal adjacencies and some very hard declarations on the limits of reasonable dances in the spooky side in the thread on such but, alas, no Emily there to discuss or even see what the actual shape of my worldview is.

I personally just think she's sore that I spent my time on this planet learning to do cool shit and she spent all her time doing... Something else.

A lot of people have tried repeatedly to misrepresent my views so let me say it again, what it is people are trying to cry "woo" loudly around, namely to bring up children such that they

be open and accepting with as much of themselves as they can be, and to only seek to change that which is absolutely vital for their own happiness

And then to support them as best as we may in that happiness. Sometimes that means recognizing "tits, hips, and the emotional balance of their brain on estrogen and progesterone in the absence of testosterone" is vital to their happiness.

Sometimes it's giving them a few years reprieve to come to terms and figure out what they want.

 

[Emily Lake]

You pose that people ought be affected by the specific chemicals their gonads produce in puberty, and not the chemicals other gonads would be producing.

This doesn't even make sense, Jarhyn!

It's asinine for you to be arguing that any person "ought" to experience puberty based on what someone else's gonads produce in the first place! It's completely irrational and nonsensical!

People's bodies are affected by the processes of the body they have. People's bodies are not affected by the processes of a body they do NOT have.

It's not even remotely approaching coherence to think otherwise.