Penn teammate speaks out against transgender swimmer Lia Thomas

[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.