Can a person who supports LGBTQ be opposed to transgender women competing in women's sports?

Sure why not.

Can a person who supports LGBTQ be opposed to transgender women competing in women's sports?
What are the reasons to be opposed?

What are the reasons to be opposed?

That a mind change does not change the body that the person was born with. The musculature, the skeletal structure, the stamina, range of power, etc. is still the same and far more powerful than the average woman.

Even after a year of hormone therapy, the male characteristics, while somewhat diminished, still far outperform the women.

In my mind, these things add up to an unfair advantage.

I FB messaged with a transgender woman friend who said this:

Usually with parental support transitioning can start before puberty. No surgeries until 18 though. Have to give time for natural development to occur on hormones. Plus the puberty-to-18 span gives a natural delay for thought and therapy. At 18 they just need two letters from independent therapists and schedule consults.



Officially it's this list:

Gender Therapist.
Hormone clearance letter.
Hormones. (for FtM, reduce muscle mass, strength)
Living full-time 24/7/365.
Name/gender changes.
Changes on utilities and banking.
Changes on insurance. I got a female discount on car insurance because males are high risk. https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/t4f/1/16/1f601.png
First surgery letter good for orchie.
Second therapist.
Second surgery letter.
Picking a surgeon.
Surgical consult.
Booking surgery.
New vulva!!!!!

Absolutely no surgeries allowed until one full year on hormones. Entire transition process takes 4-6 years or more. Is very expensive overall.

"transitioning" is mutilation

"transitioning" is mutilation
Nope. For MtF, it's fixing what Mother Nature or the pregnant woman misused regarding estrogen. Genital Confirmation Surgery (GCS) by a fully informed adult is the final part of the MtF trans process.

Another early-in-transitioning friend (who is living and of course dressing as female) told me recently:

"Every time I go out I’m just further amazed at how wonderful I feel. This is so absolutely who I am. OK raccoons occasional stare but I really don’t care about that. Because I know who I really am now."

I FB messaged with a transgender woman friend who said this:

Usually with parental support transitioning can start before puberty. No surgeries until 18 though. Have to give time for natural development to occur on hormones. Plus the puberty-to-18 span gives a natural delay for thought and therapy. At 18 theOfficially it's this list:

Gender Therapist.
Hormone clearance letter.
Hormones. (fo...........................................and banking.
Changes on insurance. I got a female discount on car insurance because males are high risk. https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/t4f/1/16/1f601.png
First surgery letter good for orchie.
Second therapist.
Second surgery letter.
Picking a surgeon.
Surgical consult.
Booking surgery.
New vulva!!!!!

Absolutely no surgeries allowed until one full year on hormones. Entire transition process takes 4-6 years or more. Is very expensive overall.

That has nothing to do with the question. The question was whether transgendering from male to female gives an unfair advantage to the person who transgendered.

I'm sorry you went through all that trouble without referring to or answering the question.

Are you able to answer it now?

That has nothing to do with the question. The question was whether transgendering from male to female gives an unfair advantage to the person who transgendered.

I'm sorry you went through all that trouble without referring to or answering the question.

Are you able to answer it now?
Oh, I thought the fun, even excitement, of this site is to switch gears mid-thread!

All that I wrote was preface to this addition from my trans friend, speaking to the question asked:

"Total BS that MtFs have an advantage in sports! I have lost 60% muscle. If a trans female starts hormones at 12 or 13, there is no difference in body development between born male and cis girl with those receiving hormones. At 6 months of hormone therapy, sex drive is gone, most likely sterile, loss of muscle, etc."

Oh, I thought the fun, even excitement, of this site is to switch gears mid-thread!

haha - can't argue that....


All that I wrote was preface to this addition from my trans friend, speaking to the question asked:

Why the preface? The added part was far more direct, although still not speaking to the question.


"Total BS that MtFs have an advantage in sports! I have lost 60% musclea trans fem. If ale starts hormones at 12 or 13, there is no difference in body development between born male and cis girl. At 6 months of hormone therapy, sex drive is gone, most likely sterile, loss of muscle, etc."

Your trans friend is demonstrably wrong. To you and to her, I would suggest you can easily google the facts on transgender from male to female and how the newly gendered female is far superior to the women.

I understand your friend is speaking from her subjective feelings, but that is not science nor representative of the facts. For example, "If a trans female starts hormones at 12 or 13, there is no difference in body development between born male and cis girl." If this is an argument for male-to-female transgenders not being superior in sports, in fails dismally by not addressing the question.

Another: "At 6 months of hormone therapy, sex drive is gone, most likely sterile, loss of muscle, etc." Again, this does not address the question.

All you need to see are the results . Transformer Lia Thomas consistently defeats women competition and breaks records doing it . Coming in 2nd is the new 1st place in woman's swimming . This is Title IX down the toilet .and it make lie to all the NCAA efforts to eliminate PEDs from the sport .Transformers should have their own category if they are really looking for a politically correct woke solution .

All you need to see are the results . Transformer Lia Thomas consistently defeats women competition and breaks records doing it . Coming in 2nd is the new 1st place in woman's swimming . This is Title IX down the toilet .and it make lie to all the NCAA efforts to eliminate PEDs from the sport .Transformers should have their own category if they are really looking for a politically correct woke solution .

It's transgender, not transformer. Other than that, I agree with what you wrote.

definitely transformer

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FOIhbELXIAUxYXA?format=jpg&name=large

definitely transformer

There's no need to insult her with nasty remarks.

HE spent 21 years as a man . He still has male organs .

HE spent 21 years as a man . He still has male organs .
That's the last thing to go. Now, report on her testosterone and progesterone and estrogen levels and how long she has been taking the latter two.

From Wikipedia --
In one notable race during January 2022 at a meet against UPenn's Ivy league rival Yale (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale), Thomas finished 6th place in the 100m freestyle race, losing to four cisgender (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender) women and Iszac Henig, a transgender man (transitioning without hormone therapy).

https://scontent-atl3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/275998621_10159645603101585_9038248334291059843_n. jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s600x600&_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=HhrdUT69C_0AX_ti72f&_nc_ht=scontent-atl3-2.xx&oh=00_AT8I1fmsmxwcjS52Lm3HM1uYczp_qzM6-spi6yGCOdaJcQ&oe=6239DBB5

Just because she still has male sex organs, she's a cheat??? You apprently didn't read my earlier response to you and are also grossly uninformed. You're a very intelligent guy, tomder; I know that from the Q&A sites (askme and answerway, maybe sploofus) we've been on together for years. (I used another name then.) Please do some honest research on transgender and what happens when and how. Thanks!

Just because she still has male sex organs, she's a cheat???

Unfortunately, WG, yes, she's a cheat.

Not because she still has male sex organs, but because her body retains male characteristics (noted earlier) that prove her far more physically powerful than women.

The number of SOME women that may be able to defeat her athletically from time to time is infinitesimally small and only goes to prove the rule. The typical woman will never be able to do so.

Male-to-female transgenders will always have a physical advantage in sports rendering the sport unfair to women.

Speaking of the very intelligent, I would apply that to you also, and hope that you reconsider your position.

Unfortunately, WG, yes, she's a cheat.

Not because she still has male sex organs, but because her body retains male characteristics (noted earlier) that prove her far more physically powerful than women.
Sex organs don't make the gender, the male or the female. It's the HORMONES (produces by those sex organs) that do that. She's been doing female hormone therapy -- progesterone and estrogen -- probably for several years. Her testosterone has been greatly reduced. She still needs time taking female hormones, and also maybe for voice coaching, possibly face sculpting (if desired), allowing hair to grow out, and, near the end of probably six years, Genital Reassignment Surgery (GRS).

"Under the standards of care adopted by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), (http://admin.associationsonline.com/uploaded_files/140/files/Standards%20of%20Care,%20V7%20Full%20Book.pdf)the first step usually is meeting with a mental health professional for a diagnosis and psychotherapy. A diagnosis of gender identity disorder or gender dysphoria and a letter of recommendation from the therapist allows a person to begin hormone therapy with a doctor. That is usually followed by a period of living publicly as a member of the opposite sex and, finally, surgery to alter the genitalia and other body parts."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/02/09/heres-how-sex-reassignment-surgery-works/

The number of SOME women that may be able to defeat her athletically from time to time is infinitesimally small and only goes to prove the rule. The typical woman will never be able to do so.
Ha, ha, a "typical woman" on any sports teams. Apparently, you don't understand what coaches want on their teams. (I'm a typical woman who was told no by more than one coach.) A typical woman (whatever that is -- weak as a kitten?) isn't it. And she must have passed the gender test to be on that team.

Male-to-female transgenders will always have a physical advantage in sports rendering the sport unfair to women.
Untrue.

Speaking of the very intelligent, I would apply that to you also, and suggest that you reconsider your position.
Nope. Please consult with your favorite librarian for more information.

Sex organs don't make the gender, the male or the female.

I was responding to YOUR comment on sex organs!


t's the HORMONES that do that. She's been doing hormone therapy -- progesterone and estrogen, probably for years. Her testosterone has been greatly reduced. She still needs time taking female hormones, and also maybe for voice coaching, possibly face sculpting, if desired, allowing hair to grow out, and, near the end of probably six years, Genital Reassignment Surgery (GRS).

The issue is transgenders competing in women's sports. Not transgendering.


"Under the standards of care adopted by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), (http://admin.associationsonline.com/uploaded_files/140/files/Standards%20of%20Care,%20V7%20Full%20Book.pdf)the first step usually is meeting with a mental health professional for a diagnosis and psychotherapy. A diagnosis of gender identity disorder or gender dysphoria and a letter of recommendation from the therapist allows a person to begin hormone therapy with a doctor. That is usually followed by a period of living publicly as a member of the opposite sex and, finally, surgery to alter the genitalia and other body parts."

PLEASE stay on track. Your lengthy links/quotes do not apply to male-to-female transgenders competing with women in sports.


Ha, ha, a "typical woman" on any sports teams. Apparently, you don't understand what coaches want on their teams. A typical woman (whatever that is -- weak as a kitten?) isn't it. And she must have passed the gender test to be on that team.

Untrue.

I'm trying to keep this a serious discussion, but you are making it difficult. The nastiness is unnecessary. The topic is male-to-female transgenders competing with women in sports. It's a simple enough topic. I'm not asking about the processes or self-identities of transgenders - I've said that repeatedly now trying to keep you on track, but I seem to be failing.


Nope. Please consult your favorite librarian for more information.

It gives me great sadness to say I no longer have a favorite librarian. The one I did have is gone. If there's a chance she should return, I would welcome her back.

I have no clue what you're complaining about, Athos.

She is well on her way to being female, thanks to hormone therapy.

Nastiness? That wasn't my intent. Read it over. I don't see nastiness in that.

I have no clue what you're complaining about, Athos.

Avoiding the direct answer re women's sports.


Nastiness? That wasn't my intent. Read it over. I don't see nastiness in that.


Ha, ha, a "typical woman" on any sports teams.

Laughing at me is nasty.


Apparently, you don't understand what coaches want on their teams.

A gratuitous comment criticizing my lack of understanding. To be accurate, I've played on enough teams to know very well what coaches want.


A typical woman - (whatever that is -- weak as a kitten?) isn't it.

Not nice - nasty - implying what I never said or even hinted at.


And she must have passed the gender test to be on that team.

I don't know what a gender test is. Don't explain - I'll take your word for it. But, again, that is not the issue.

I was not being mean. I even said I'm a typical woman who has been turned down by coaches because I wasn't "right" for some reason. Typical women are too often dissed as wusses -- "She's such a typical woman!"

Do you know what coaches of women's teams want? I had forgotten to add that adjective, women's. I did not intend to criticize you. I thought that adjective would be understood because we're talking about women and sports.

Do you know what coaches of women's teams want?

I assume they want what any coach wants regardless of team.


.......... because we're talking about women and sports.

No, not exactly. The topic is male-to-female transgenders competing unfairly on women's sports teams.

No, not exactly. The topic is male-to-female transgenders competing unfairly on women's sports teams.
If the preliminary hormone testing and other exams are done correctly, fairly, and accurately, a MtF transgender can be eligible for a women's sports team.

If the preliminary hormone testing and other exams are done correctly, fairly, and accurately, a MtF transgender can be eligible for a women's sports team.

That's not the issue.

Can a MtF trans compete fairly with women?

That's not the issue.

Can a MtF trans compete fairly with women?
Yes!!!! And I have given you the reasons why she can.

Yes!!!! And I have given you the reasons why she can.

No, you gave me no reasons. You gave me a lot of info re transgendering, but no reasons a MtF trans can compete fairly in women's sports.

OTOH, I gave you many reasons why they can't. I will restate some of them here:
1. Skeletal structure is denser and stronger than women.
2. Musculature is denser and larger than women.
3. Stamina is greater based on larger lung capacity than women.
4. Males are larger than women in height and weight.

Some less than obvious ones:
1. Men have a higher metabolism which lets them burn more calories gaining more strength. Women have slower metabolism which coverts food to greater proportions of body fat necessary to withstand cold and to provide nourishment to babies.

MtF trans retain these male characteristics although sometime in diminished amounts especially after extensive hormone therapy.

There is much more but I do not need to create a library here on all the factors. We can each research the issue, keying on the issue of sports. If you can find data supporting your position I will promise to read it.

Aerosmith - Dude (Looks Like A Lady) (Official Music Video) - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf0oXY4nDxE)

As one commenter so eloquently put, you cannot drive a truck in a bicycle race...

No, you gave me no reasons. You gave me a lot of info re transgendering, but no reasons a MtF trans can compete fairly in women's sports.
My MtF trans friend said:

"There is no strength advantage! If anything it's a disadvantage. We have larger bones and the muscle loss kills us. Like toting a #50 feed bag 24/7."

FACT: Trans athletes do not have an unfair advantage in sports.
MYTH: Trans athletes’ physiological characteristics provide an unfair advantage over cis athletes.
Women and girls who are trans face discrimination and violence that makes it difficult to even stay in school. According to the U.S. Trans Survey (http://www.ustranssurvey.org/reports#USTS), 22 percent of trans women who were perceived as trans in school were harassed so badly they had to leave school because of it. Another 10 percent were kicked out of school. The idea that women and girls have an advantage because they are trans ignores the actual conditions of their lives.
Trans athletes vary in athletic ability just like cisgender athletes. “One high jumper could be taller and have longer legs than another, but the other could have perfect form, and then do better,” explains Andraya Yearwood (https://www.aclu.org/blog/lgbt-rights/transgender-rights/banning-trans-girls-school-sports-neither-feminist-nor-legal), a student track athlete and ACLU client (https://www.aclu.org/cases/soule-et-al-v-ct-association-schools-et-al). “One sprinter could have parents who spend so much money on personal training for their child, which in turn, would cause that child to run faster,” she adds. In Connecticut, where cisgender girl runners have tried to block Andraya from participating in the sport she loves, the very same cis girls who have claimed that trans athletes have an “unfair” advantage have consistently performed as well as or better than transgender competitors.
“A person’s genetic make-up and internal and external reproductive anatomy are not useful indicators (https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/hecox-v-little-safer-declaration) of athletic performance,”according to Dr. Joshua D. Safer. “For a trans woman athlete who meets NCAA standards (https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Transgender_Handbook_2011_Final.pdf), “there is no inherent reason why her physiological characteristics related to athletic performance should be treated differently from the physiological characteristics of a non-transgender woman.”
https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/four-myths-about-trans-athletes-debunked/

Gotta agree with Athos on this one. Other than one off the cuff comment by a friend of yours, there was very little compelling evidence.


“A person’s genetic make-up and internal and external reproductive anatomy are not useful indicators (https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/hecox-v-little-safer-declaration) of athletic performance,”according to Dr. Joshua D. Safer.Seems like a really foolish statement, easily disproven by the fact that men routinely outperform women in athletic endeavors. I remember hearing a story about a female athlete (maybe Jackie Joyner Kersee??) one time. She had won the Olympic 400 meter run and held the women's world record. At that same time, there were literally dozens of high school boys with better times than her world record.

She also said:
"Ask them if real men lactate, because I sure do. I have lost 60% muscle mass too. I used to pick up #500 poles like my son Jason did when we built a fence. I couldn't even budge it.

Our muscle turns to fat plus our metabolism goes away down. We walk past a Mrs. Fields and gain ten pounds."

Still just an anecdotal account.

Still just an anecdotal account.
Lots more accounts are available from others. Plus, she, when male, worked EMS/Fire/Police, was a private military contractor at an Air Force base, flew helicopters and knows a great deal about aviation.


AND none of us are true binaries. That doesn't exist.

Why have "men's" teams and "women's" teams? Why can't teams be made up of people, regardless of gender, who qualify?

So he/she knows about aviation? How does that matter?

Still just anecdotal.

So he/she knows about aviation? How does that matter?
Just to include that she had a very full and interesting life as a male. And that male gave all that up to be a ... uh ... woman??? Hmm... wonder why.

All of which has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion. Many people choose to "switch" genders and then give it up to "switch" back to what they really are. But that also has nothing to do with the topic.

All of which has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion. Many people choose to "switch" genders and then give it up to "switch" back to what they really are. But that also has nothing to do with the topic.
I merely answered your question. And no, people don't switch back and forth from gender to gender. Are you taking a new med, jlisenbe?

I don't make claims I cannot support.

https://www.hli.org/resources/what-percentage-of-transgenders-regret-surgery/#:~:text=The%202015%20U.S.%20Transgender%20Survey% 20%28page%20111%29%E2%80%94the%20most,chose%20to%2 0revert%20cited%20a%20variety%20of%20reasons.

I don't make claims I cannot support.

https://www.hli.org/resources/what-percentage-of-transgenders-regret-surgery/#:~:text=The%202015%20U.S.%20Transgender%20Survey% 20%28page%20111%29%E2%80%94the%20most,chose%20to%2 0revert%20cited%20a%20variety%20of%20reasons.
Ah, pro-life, right-wing. Gotcha.

You probably missed this section that I posted earlier:

Trans athletes vary in athletic ability just like cisgender athletes. “One high jumper could be taller and have longer legs than another, but the other could have perfect form, and then do better,” explains Andraya Yearwood (https://www.aclu.org/blog/lgbt-rights/transgender-rights/banning-trans-girls-school-sports-neither-feminist-nor-legal), a student track athlete and ACLU client (https://www.aclu.org/cases/soule-et-al-v-ct-association-schools-et-al). “One sprinter could have parents who spend so much money on personal training for their child, which in turn, would cause that child to run faster,” she adds. In Connecticut, where cisgender girl runners have tried to block Andraya from participating in the sport she loves, the very same cis girls who have claimed that trans athletes have an “unfair” advantage have consistently performed as well as or better than transgender competitors.

Never mind. It's hopeless. The data was from the National Center for Gender Equality, hardly a "pro-life, right-wing," organization. But you just had to make a knee jerk comment rather than spend ten minutes actually reading the data.

Wouldn't you be much better served to simply admit you were wrong? It would certainly look better.

Never mind. It's hopeless. The data was from the National Center for Gender Equality, hardly a "pro-life, right-wing," organization. But you just had to make a knee jerk comment rather than spend ten minutes actually reading the data.
I will when you will.

And what you posted was from hli.org, Human Life International,
Catholic, Pro-Life Mission. We teach the world to value life and follow God's plan for the family.

Wouldn't you be much better served to simply admit you were wrong? It would certainly look better.
You first.

FACT: Trans athletes do not have an unfair advantage in sports.


MYTH: Trans athletes’ physiological characteristics provide an unfair advantage over cis athletes.


Women and girls who are trans face discrimination and violence that makes it difficult to even stay in school. According to the U.S. Trans Survey (http://www.ustranssurvey.org/reports#USTS), 22 percent of trans women who were perceived as trans in school were harassed so badly they had to leave school because of it. Another 10 percent were kicked out of school. The idea that women and girls have an advantage because they are trans ignores the actual conditions of their lives.
Trans athletes vary in athletic ability just like cisgender athletes. “One high jumper could be taller and have longer legs than another, but the other could have perfect form, and then do better,” explains Andraya Yearwood (https://www.aclu.org/blog/lgbt-rights/transgender-rights/banning-trans-girls-school-sports-neither-feminist-nor-legal), a student track athlete and ACLU client (https://www.aclu.org/cases/soule-et-al-v-ct-association-schools-et-al). “One sprinter could have parents who spend so much money on personal training for their child, which in turn, would cause that child to run faster,” she adds. In Connecticut, where cisgender girl runners have tried to block Andraya from participating in the sport she loves, the very same cis girls who have claimed that trans athletes have an “unfair” advantage have consistently performed as well as or better than transgender competitors.
“A person’s genetic make-up and internal and external reproductive anatomy are not useful indicators (https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/hecox-v-little-safer-declaration) of athletic performance,”according to Dr. Joshua D. Safer. “For a trans woman athlete who meets NCAA standards (https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Transgender_Handbook_2011_Final.pdf), “there is no inherent reason why her physiological characteristics related to athletic performance should be treated differently from the physiological characteristics of a non-transgender woman.”
https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/four-myths-about-trans-athletes-debunked/


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The comment above discusses violence to MtF transgenders, athletic ability factors, an anecdote in Connecticut, and the position of Dr. Joshua Safer who is the head of the Transgender Department in Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York. There is nothing directly claiming that MtFs do not have an advantage over women in women's sports. However, it is implied by the anecdote and by Dr. Safer who is the parent of an MtF. The implied claim is unsubstantiated in either case.


SPECIFICS:

The first three sentences discuss anti-MtF violence without discussing the issue at hand (sports advantages by MtFs).
The next three sentences discuss various differences in athletic ability among cisgenders based on parental care.
The last part is the Connecticut anecdote - an unsubstantiated claim of no difference in athletic ability between genders.

A sample anecdote from me is the answer the top tennis star Serena Williams gave when asked about competing with top male tennis stars. "No way", she said. "Their serves are far more powerful than mine. There is no way I could compete with that." This anecdote is not offered as proof, simply as an anecdote.

Dr. Safer's contribution is to state without substantiation that, “There is no inherent reason why her (transgender woman) physiological characteristics related to athletic performance should be treated differently from the physiological characteristics of a non-transgender woman.”

The link from ACLU is its opinion on the matter. It is not defended in any way.

Finally, it was subsequently asked, "Why have "men's" teams and "women's" teams? Why can't teams be made up of people, regardless of gender, who qualify?

I have no difficulty with teams being made up of people who qualify, regardless of gender.


CONCLUSION:

My position is derived from speculation based on common sense observation.
Your position is derived from speculation that is unsubstantiated and anecdotal.
Both positions are speculative.

The answer will be derived from statistical data calculated over a finite period of time. The time period is one month to three months depending upon accurate collection of data.

The answer will be derived from statistical data calculated over a finite period of time. The time period is one month to three months depending upon accurate collection of data.
How about you and I do this collection and calculation of statistical data?

Emma Weyant is the fastest FEMALE swimmer in the nation! The title that she rightfully won was taken from her by a male.

tomder, have your muscle mass evaluated and then take estrogen and progesterone for at least three years. After that, have your muscle mass reevaluated.

you can mutilate the body all you want to inside and out . A man is a man and a woman is a woman.

you can mutilate the body all you want to inside and out . A man is a man and a woman is a woman.
Nope, that's scientifically untrue. I ask you: What is a man? What is a woman?

(Btw, every human fetus begins as female.)

https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/276319413_10159648996611585_6864565822415446936_n. jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s600x600&_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=OsPa2wRvju4AX_rUfTX&_nc_ht=scontent-atl3-1.xx&oh=00_AT9mwYsaAmeJHTTVpTj4SHknlYc7jhxJvXoz6Id7qSwQ wg&oe=623BB5FF

Aha, he won't answer my two questions -- so why is he stepping over them? (No high school or college biology?)

A man is a man and a woman is a woman.It's quite a comment on the deception our culture has entered into that such a plainly true statement would even be questioned. I suppose change of species in next? After all, what is a dog? What is a cat? What is a person?

Ah, JL can't define them. And the definitions have nothing to do with external sex organs.

How about you and I do this collection and calculation of statistical data?

You criticize tomder for not answering your questions, yet you offer this as one of your answers. Trying to be funny is just another form of distraction from the issue.

In case you are offering this as a serious reply, there is no way either one of us can perform a statistical survey on the issue. The only conclusion I can make from your reply is that you cannot defend your position.

There is nothing wrong with believing something without being able to prove the belief. Faith is the prime example. When you claim that a belief in something is based on proven fact when it clearly is not, that is where you go off the rails and lose credibility.

Barring new actual factual evidence on the issue, I will leave the discussion at my post # 96 as the definitive answer to date and consider any further commentary as superfluous.

Nothing serious about this . While the world is blowing up America debates shemales as our contribution to demonstrate our decadence . The Babylon Bee has it right . They nominated Rachel Levine as man of the year .

Thomas' time in the 500 free style was 4:33.24.
Enough to take 1st place . How would he have done in the men's 500 free style ?
There is a comparison to last year's times . The NCAA champ swam it in 4:07.97. The slowest of the men swam it in 4:16.13, 17 seconds faster than Thomas’s winning time in the women’s event.

As I said above ,there is nothing serious about this debate except for how women are being deprived of the opportunity to fairly compete .

btw Twitter ;which has become the point of the spear for suppressing any thought that run counter to woke wisdom ,has cancelled Babylon Bee for their satirical post about Rachel Levin. They promise to reinstate the Bee if it recants .

removed comment

Sen. Marsha Blackburn asked Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to define the word “woman.”
“I can’t ” Jackson replied.

“You can’t?” Blackburn said.


“Not in this context. I’m not a biologist,” Jackson said.

“The meaning of the word woman is so unclear and controversial that you can’t give me a definition?” Blackburn asked. “The fact that you can’t give me a straight answer about something as fundamental as what a woman is underscores the dangers of the kind of progressive education that we are hearing about,”

Clueless nominated her because she was a Black Woman . Does she know if she is a woman ?
Feminism is dead .It died when the feminists allowed men to define who is a woman.

Blackburn asked what message allowing Thomas to compete sends to “girls who aspire to compete and win in sports?”
“Senator, I’m not sure what message that sends. If you’re asking me about the legal issues related to it — those are topics that are being hotly discussed, as you say, and could come to the court,” Jackson said

Blackburn countered “I think it tells our girls that their voices don’t matter .I think it tells them that they’re second-class citizens. And parents want to have a Supreme Court justice who is committed to preserving parental autonomy and protecting our nation’s children.”

https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/277003710_1151457298727214_6584062123774931844_n.j pg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=C8-QGw4dSosAX_hsPBA&_nc_ht=scontent-atl3-1.xx&oh=00_AT84chrM8-qtRsbgv2tGuOL0p_gfBZbij25Ck4k6ujb3ug&oe=623F4DFC

Hilariously accurate.

From the Bee today.

U.S.—Hunter Biden's laptop has been validated by major new sources and the Babylon Bee has secured an exclusive look at the Google search history therein. Our team of Beexperts has been analyzing the search history for a couple of minutes and we are now ready to share the less horrifying ones with the world.
"find old laptop"
"where is Margaritaville?"
"what does a board of directors do?"
"what is oil?"
"Hunter Biden a star WArs Story"
"There Will Be Blood cliff notes"
"Barisma barista difference"
"prostitute reviews near me yelp"
"how muvch coccaime is to much cxocaine"
"are twinkies born with frosting inside them?"
"what is obama's last name?"
"can you get in trouble for taking bribes reddit"
"interstellar ending explained reddit"
"how to find multiple lost laptops"
"can you get someone pregnant in pool"
"presidents son average salary"
"epstein island flights + southwest airlines"
"How tell if someone you know has dementia"
"hey siri find my old lapdog"
"hey siri not lapdog lapdog"
"hey siri no i said lapdog"
"LAPDOG"
LAP. TOP."
"call dad"
"call joe biden"
"call + 'biden dad'"
"cat gifs"
"why am I in a bathtub?"
"computer please call dad"
"If you sleep with the Vice President does that make u President"
"laptop repair near me"
"Is the food good in jail"

So now a Supreme Court nominee cannot define what the word "woman" means. It certainly makes this comment from Tom Fitton relevant. "If one can't define what a ‘woman’ is, how can one protect ‘women’ from discrimination?"

What's YOUR definition?

P.S. EVERYONE must be protected from discrimination!

I’m happy to stand by Fitton’s quote. Any answer?

XX chromosomes. That’s the answer of science.

I’m happy to stand by Fitton’s quote. Any answer?

XX chromosomes. That’s the answer of science.
So we have to drag her to a doctor and get chromosomes checked before protecting her from discrimination? And no one with XY chromosomes is to be protected?

No and no. Can you answer fitton’s question absent the dramatics?

No and no. Can you answer fitton’s question absent the dramatics?
The question: "If one can't define what a ‘woman’ is, how can one protect ‘women’ from discrimination?"

Your answers: no and no

Thus, you can't define what a woman is nor can you protect any woman from discrimination.

Plainly you can’t.

Plainly you can’t.
*giggle* You made me laugh. :)

The justice is lying . She knows what a woman is ;but is afraid to give an answer to the committee .She has continuously lied and evaded answers throughout the hearing as most nominees do. The last nominee that gave complete truthful answers was Bork ;and he was rejected for his candor.


She takes the cake and has brought this to a new level with nonsense answers like her exchange above and even refusing to answer simple pertinent questions about what her judicial philosophy is.
She claims not to have formed a judicial philosophy she can describe, even after a decade as a
judge. She never answers that and uses a dodge describing her methodology in coming to a decision. It is clear that her methodology is to predetermine a decision based on an unstated philosophy.

As to the question at hand ;Clueless specifically selected her because she is a Black WOMAN . How do we know she is a woman ? She hid behind an increasingly used dodge by the left and the 'party of science' .... "I am not a biologist " . Well I am not a brain surgeon .But I know what a brain is. What she fails to say in her walk on egg shells is that a woman cannot be identified scientifically if anyone who "identifies " as a woman is a woman in the woke world .7 years of a Harvard education on full display and a decade on the bench as an activist judge.

For someone who cannot identify what a woman is ,she has used the word a number of times in responses to other questions . In her opening statement she said she stands "on the shoulders of so many who have come before me, including Judge Constance Baker Motley, who was the first African-American woman to be appointed to the bench.”......“I am humbled and honored to have the opportunity to serve in this capacity and to be the first and only black woman to serve on the United States Supreme Court,” ....“I gave a speech about black women in the civil rights movement, most of the speech if not all of the speech was focused on African American women, their contributions to the civil rights movement, unsung contributions in many cases, and then some of the more recent African American women who have made claims, who have done things in our society.”

She used the word in answers about abortion. “Roe and Casey are the settled law of the Supreme Court concerning the right to terminate a woman’s pregnancy,”
Her judicial record is chock full of times she made decisions about woman issues. Too many to mention in fact.

Judges have learned that they can be evasive in confirmation testimony and then do as they will in a lifetime appointment. That is why I believe it is critically important that these black robed oligarchs be held accountable with term limits .They should periodically be re-confirmed where their record can be scrutinized and questioned .

This is still the question of the day here, unanswered for the same reason that Ketanji Brown Jackson refused to answer. An honest answer makes many people feel uncomfortable. They don't like the implications of such honesty, so the question is simply evaded. As Tom said above, "She knows what a woman is ;but is afraid to give an answer to the committee." Evade, evade, evade has become the MO for nominees.

"If one can't define what a ‘woman’ is, how can one protect ‘women’ from discrimination?"

At least we know that this calculated evasiveness is nothing new.

Jesus answered them, “I also will ask you one question, and if you tell me the answer, then I also will tell you by what authority I do these things. 25 The baptism of John, from where did it come? From heaven or from man?” And they discussed it among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ 26 But if we say, ‘From man,’ we are afraid of the crowd, for they all hold that John was a prophet.” 27 So they answered Jesus, “We do not know.”

How does she interpret Title IX ? How does she interpret the 19th Amendment ?

How can anyone state that she will be the first black WOMAN on the Supreme Court?

Please review the entirety of the question and state, what was the context?

***Sen. Marsha Blackburn asked Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to define the word “woman.”
“I can’t ” Jackson replied.

“You can’t?” Blackburn said.***

“Not in this context. I’m not a biologist,” Jackson said.

tomder, what a lot of gibberish you and your lap dog are spewing -

WG just blew your entire argument out of the water by a simple recitation of the truth clearly shown in the context.

Still the unanswered question. "If one can't define what a ‘woman’ is, how can one protect ‘women’ from discrimination?"

A Supreme Court nominee who cannot define what it is to be a woman. Wow. What's next?

Still the unanswered question. "If one can't define what a ‘woman’ is, how can one protect ‘women’ from discrimination?"

A Supreme Court nominee who cannot define what it is to be a woman. Wow. What's next?
Neither can you apparently.

Post 66 was my answer.

I would say it's your turn, but I already know you will not. You will simply respond with a question of some sort or an unrelated statement. It's what you always do. That is not at all intended to be an ugly or disrespectful comment. It simply reflects what I have encountered here. I sincerely hope you will prove me wrong at this point.

And STILL the unanswered question. "If one can't define what a ‘woman’ is, how can one protect ‘women’ from discrimination?"

And Jackson replied that she is not a biologist in that context.

“Not in this context. I’m not a biologist."

She continued, "Senator, in my work as a judge, what I do is I address disputes. If there is a dispute about a definition, people make arguments, and I look at the law, and I decide. So I'm not---"

At that point, Blackburn rudely interrupted.

How do you think Jackson should have answered?

Nailed it.

"You will simply respond with a question of some sort or an unrelated statement. It's what you always do. That is not at all intended to be an ugly or disrespectful comment. It simply reflects what I have encountered here. I sincerely hope you will prove me wrong at this point."

Dictionary.com. "An adult female person." It sure seems to work well.

And STILLLLLLL the unanswered question. "If one can't define what a ‘woman’ is, how can one protect ‘women’ from discrimination?"

I don’t know what snow is because I’m not a meteorologist.

I don’t know what snow is because I’m not a meteorologist.
Very true. You cannot explain in detail the entire process of how snow comes to exist.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FOpiw9gVkAACNK1?format=jpg&name=small

Very true. You cannot explain in detail the entire process of how snow comes to exist.


Not difficult at all to explain .Warm, moist air rises from the Earth's surface into colder layers of the atmosphere. Clouds form . Ice crystals start to form once cloud temperatures reach about 14 degrees Fahrenheit or lower. Ice crystals in clouds bond until they become heavy enough for gravity to do it's thing.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FOpiw9gVkAACNK1?format=jpg&name=small
No, he isn't. (Throughout history, non-medical people have delivered babies.) The external sex organs are the visual sign of gender. But there are internal indicators as well.


Not difficult at all to explain
Not specific enough. Also, please tighten up your punctuation.

What don't you understand about how snow happens? I gave you the science; something the transformer advocates ignore .

All of the "context" nonsense is just a smokescreen. Context does not change the definition of "woman". Ms. Jackson just sensed that giving an accurate definition of the word was going to put her in a corner on TG issues, so she chickened out.

All of the "context" nonsense is just a smokescreen. Context does not change the definition of "woman". Ms. Jackson just sensed that giving an accurate definition of the word was going to put her in a corner on TG issues, so she chickened out.
Read the entire context!!! She said she'd do the correct, legal thing, what should be done once the details are known.

Smokescreen. The average sixth grader knows what a "woman" is. She was just fearful to answer. The definition of "woman" is a "detail" that must be known? What a strange world you live in.

Truly, she seems to be a lot like you, which is to say unwilling to engage in a serious discussion by answering a serious question such as, "If one can't define what a ‘woman’ is, how can one protect ‘women’ from discrimination?" And no, that is not a mean comment. As I've said before, I fervently hope you will prove me wrong. Alas, that seems unlikely considering that you had a half-dozen or so opportunities yesterday and passed on all of them.

Smokescreen. The average sixth grader knows what a "woman" is.
Apparently, you don't know what a woman is.

I have both given you my definition in post 66 and given a dictionary definition later, so your comment really has the appearance of lying. I sincerely hope that is not the case. Perhaps you just forgot???

To make matters worse, it is actually YOU who has been fearful of answering this question ("If one can't define what a ‘woman’ is, how can one protect ‘women’ from discrimination?") and has, as best as I recall, not given her own definition of what "woman" means. Wonder why?

And please don't respond with a silly counter-accusation that I have been lying. We both know that is not true. Perhaps simply answering the question I posed above would be a good start to a serious, adult discussion?

She was just fearful to answer. The definition of "woman" is a "detail" that must be known? What a strange world you live in.
She wasn't "fearful to answer"! Each court case is different as to details. All those details must be known before a decision can be made.

Medical science now accepts the possibility that a fetus developing in the womb can, with the flow of estrogen and progesterone, form a female brain. Yet at six weeks or so a surge of testosterone would cause the development of male genitals. Result: a binary problem and the gender dysphoria experienced by women beginning when they were children.

Neither you nor I have any real knowledge of why she did not answer, but we do know that she DID NOT answer.

And STILLLLLLL there remains this unanswered question. "If one can't define what a ‘woman’ is, how can one protect ‘women’ from discrimination?" And I wonder why YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED!!

I wonder what Jen Psaki meant by this? " 'The president has stated and reiterated his commitment to nominating a black woman to the Supreme Court and certainly stands by that,' she said, declining to offer more details until the public heard from Breyer."

Did anyone have any trouble understanding what that meant?

Neither you nor I have any real knowledge of why she did not answer, but we do know that she DID NOT answer.
Jackson herself said why she didn't answer.

And STILLLLLLL there remains this unanswered question. "If one can't define what a ‘woman’ is, how can one protect ‘women’ from discrimination?" And I wonder why YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED!!
Why are you obsessing over protecting women from discrimination? Each and every human being should be protected from discrimination!

Why are you afraid to answer a simple question? "If one can't define what a ‘woman’ is, how can one protect ‘women’ from discrimination?"

As you well know by now, I delight in pointing out here the many questions that you liberals on this site simply refuse to answer. It is a hesitancy and seeming fearfulness that I find amazing. I rarely encounter that any place but here.

Jackson did not say why she declined to answer other than a silly, lame appeal to context and an equally lame statement about not being a biologist. It was an absurd, evasive reply. There was no context. It was a simple, straightforward question.

Why are you afraid to answer a simple question? "If one can't define what a ‘woman’ is, how can one protect ‘women’ from discrimination?"
Why don't I? Because it's a stupid question.

Jackson did not say why she declined to answer other than a silly, lame appeal to context and an equally lame statement about not being a biologist. It was an absurd, evasive reply. There was no context. It was a simple, straightforward question.
You stomp on any and every comment or answer you don't like/agree with/understand.

Stupid question? In Title IX, a female can file a legal claim regarding alleged discrimination due to her being a woman. Is that stupid to you?

Jackson's reply was ridiculous, but you can have a chance to redeem it. What context was she appealing to? And already I know you will not answer that question either. It's your way of avoiding a true discussion that might challenge your beliefs.

Stupid question? In Title IX, a female can file a legal claim regarding alleged discrimination due to her being a woman. Is that stupid to you?
Now you've changed the question.

Jackson's reply was ridiculous, but you can have a chance to redeem it. What context was she appealing to? And already I know you will not answer that question either. It's your way of avoiding a true discussion that might challenge your beliefs.
I'm not a judge or a lawyer. Ask me a library question, a question about a book or movie or Dewey number, and I'll be happy to help you.

I wonder what Jen Psaki meant by this? " 'The president has stated and reiterated his commitment to nominating a black woman to the Supreme Court and certainly stands by that,' she said, declining to offer more details until the public heard from Breyer."

Hypocrite Clueless Joe filibustered Janice Rogers Brown when she was up for the DC Circus ;and said he would do the same if she was nominated for SCOTUS .

Now you've changed the question.

I'm not a judge or a lawyer. Ask me a library question, a question about a book or movie or Dewey number, and I'll be happy to help you.Then why are you commenting on a legal matter? It's just a dodge. Sad. I've really never encountered anyone at anytime so reluctant to engage in a serious discussion. Very strange, but I do wish you and the hubster the best. I'll let you and Tom discuss this. He has more patience for which I commend him.

Then why are you commenting on a legal matter?
I'm NOT commenting on a legal matter. It's a moral matter: discrimination.

Btw, is Caitlyn Jenner a woman? Are Chaz Bono and Elliot Page men? Guess what I am, where I fit in the LGBTQ+ community.

No, no, and no. As for you, since you have already told us you have borne children, then you are a woman.

See how simple that is? However, you cannot comment on that since, as you said, "Ask me a library question, a question about a book or movie or Dewey number, and I'll be happy to help you." So you are out in the cold on this one. And you should not have commented on a moral matter either since it is not a "library question". Strange how you paint yourself into corners.

Enough of this silliness. You now are in Tom's domain.

No, no, and no. As for you, since you have already told us you have borne children, then you are a woman.
Maybe. Depends on the definition of a woman. As I just added above, I'm part of the LGBTQ+ community.

Depends on the definition of a woman. Exactly. It's why the question was asked, and it shows that it is far from being a stupid one.

A woman can sleep with five different women every week, and yet she is still a woman. That is not under debate. She is sadly deceived and afflicted, but she is still a woman.

A "woman" can have the sex organs of a female yet can be psychologically and hormonally male. Thus, gender dysphoria. Is she a woman or a man?

A theory with very little support. It's like saying a person can have the organs and body of a human and yet be psychologically a dog or cat.

And your contention about women being "hormonally" male has no support that I know of unless, of course, they are taking male hormones in which case it is hardly valid.

I'm saying that FtM TG persons have not proven to be hormonally different from other women unless, as I said, they choose to take male hormones. If you know of any valid data to the otherwise, then I'd love to see it.

A theory with very little support. It's like saying a person can have the organs and body of a human and yet be psychologically a dog or cat.
Have you ever done an honest study of this?

And your contention about women being "hormonally" male has no support that I know of unless, of course, they are taking male hormones in which case it is hardly valid.
Before birth. Thus, the testosterone "bath" at six or so weeks of pregnancy.

First of all, there is no "testosterone bath". Implantation has already taken place and so there is no "bath" at all other than amniotic fluid, or at least not that I know of. If you have any support for that (sigh), then please share it. But even at that, it would be true for ALL women, not just for TG individuals. So you have no point there at all.

Secondly, I have studied the TG matter. But the question I asked which you, as usual, dodged, is whether or not FtM TG persons have a different hormonal makeup than other women. You provided no support at all, so that pretty much answers the question.

If you are not willing to provide support for you assertions, then please just drop it. It gets tiring. It always becomes you having unsupported opinions. You are welcome to them, but you are not welcome to expect others to believe them just because you do.

First of all, there is no "testosterone bath". Implantation has already taken place and so there is no "bath" at all other than amniotic fluid, or at least not that I know of. If you have any support for that (sigh), then please share it. But even at that, it would be true for ALL women, not just for TG individuals. So you have no point there at all.
For all pregnant women.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17074984/

Secondly, I have studied the TG matter. But the question I asked which you, as usual, dodged, is whether or not FtM TG persons have a different hormonal makeup than other women. You provided no support at all, so that pretty much answers the question.
I can provide immediate support from transgender females, but you spit on that. Read the link I posted above.

I can provide immediate support from transgender females...Anecdotal information means essentially nothing, and they certainly can have no testimony about what happened in their sixth week of development.

As to your article, there was no mention at all of a "testosterone bath", and nothing of any real substance as to what happens in the sixth week to promote TG development, so I'm not sure what you believe your article supports.

Did you read the entire article, or only the abstract? If you read the article, did you see this?

"Despite the influences of testosterone on childhood play behaviour, and to a lesser extent on sexual orientation and core gender identity in adulthood, prenatal levels of testosterone do not appear to influence mathematical abilities or visuospatial abilities that normally show sex differences. These findings imply that sexual differentiation of human behaviour is a complicated process, and that aetiological factors differ between different psychosexual outcomes."

In other words, they can't say anything for sure. And as has become utterly predictable, you completely ignored my question. "...whether or not FtM TG persons have a different hormonal makeup than other women." The answer, of course, is that they do not.

I am not trying to cause you any emotional distress on this issue. I really don't know what part of the LGxxxxx community you belong to, and it's none of my business other than to hope you successfully navigate your way through that difficulty.

"...whether or not FtM TG persons have a different hormonal makeup than other women." The answer, of course, is that they do not.
Exactly! And that's why they have lost a huge amount of muscle mass.


hope you successfully navigate your way through that difficulty.
No difficulty at all! It has saved my self esteem on many occasions and helped me immensely in school, sports, and marriage.

Uhm...FtM means female to male. You read it backwards. The females who want to become males have, initially, no different hormonal makeup than other women, so it is not a hormonally driven issue.

And that's why they have gained a huge amount of muscle mass. Oh, that testosterone!

Exactly! And that's why they have lost a huge amount of muscle mass.


And that's why they have gained a huge amount of muscle mass.

Or something like that.

I corrected my verb. Husband had been talking to me about Brussels sprouts while I was posting.

Well, you have not supported your testosterone bath idea, nor have you given any hormonal reason why a given woman feels she is a male.

Best wishes.

How do transgender folk harm you? Why are you so against them? You couldn't pick them out of a crowd anyway. Live and let live.

Well, you have not supported your testosterone bath idea
The Y Chromosome & Testicle Development
​
Testicles and ovaries develop from the same gonad tissue in a developing baby. At around the seventh week of pregnancy the SRY gene (which is only found on the Y chromosome) signals the gonad tissue to become a testicle. Since only the Y chromosome has the SRY gene, it is the Y chromosome that dictates a baby will be a boy.
Once the SRY gene triggers the gonad to become a testicle, the testicle begins to produce three main hormones:


Testosterone
DHT (dihydroxytestosterone)
MIH (short for Mullerian Inhibiting Hormone)


These hormones cause the creation and development of the male reproductive system and the female reproductive tracts to regress.
https://www.menshealthhandbook.org/fetal-development

What happens to a female human fetus exposed to excess testosterone? (https://findanyanswer.com/open-detail/133468A8)
Scientists have long known that prenatal exposure to androgens, such as the hormone testosterone, causes genital defects in females. Androgens act as masculinizing hormones, directing formation of male genitalia and preventing formation of a vaginal opening in boys.
https://findanyanswer.com/how-is-a-fetus-exposed-to-testosterone

This is too deep for me .I am willing to venture that the vast majority (or at least a plurality ) of Dem voters knows what a woman is .

WG did try, but she provided nothing to support her contentions about a "testosterone bath" or TG people having a different natural hormonal makeup than others. This, for instance, is just basic ninth grade bio. "Testicles and ovaries develop from the same gonad tissue in a developing baby. At around the seventh week of pregnancy the SRY gene (which is only found on the Y chromosome) signals the gonad tissue to become a testicle. Since only the Y chromosome has the SRY gene, it is the Y chromosome that dictates a baby will be a boy." Yes, and water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen. There is nothing in science to support her idea that TG individuals have a different hormonal makeup than others. Her own link, in fact, provided the concept that X and Y chromosomes determine the sex of the new human. Perhaps she should send that to the SCOTUS nominee.

This quote would only support the idea that a woman with some sort of defect in her sex organs might have been exposed to excessive levels of testosterone in the womb. It does NOT support the idea of that being a cause of TG. "Scientists have long known that prenatal exposure to androgens, such as the hormone testosterone, causes genital defects in females. Androgens act as masculinizing hormones, directing formation of male genitalia and preventing formation of a vaginal opening in boys."

So WG is basically providing answers to questions that have not been asked. And no, that is not spitting on her link. I'm simply pointing out that she provided nothing in the way of support for her ideas.

It was Part One.

It was part zero.

Stay tuned.

OK, but you will need to come up with something that supports your assertions. Just random facts of science won't get it done.

Those random facts are the basis. There will be a test next Tuesday.

"The default gender in the womb is female, which is perhaps hardly surprising given that the womb is an environment awash with female hormones. A genetically male fetus will therefore de­velop the female form of sexual organs until ‘maleness’ is switched on by the SRY* gene on the Y chromosome, and the fetal testis starts to develop and then produce testosterone." ["testosterone bath"]

In the same article:
"A clue about the effect of hormones in the womb comes from the Diethylstilboestrol (DES) tragedy. DES is a synthetic oestrogen. From the end of the Second World War on, it was prescribed to pregnant women mainly in the US, in the mistaken belief that it would prevent miscarriage...DES was a potent carcinogen and twenty years on was dis­covered to cause a rare and sometimes fatal type of vaginal cancer in some young women who had been exposed to it in the womb, as well as infertility in others. It was withdrawn from use in 1971. The cancers affected females but there was also a curious effect on males exposed to DES: they were more likely to show female-typical behaviour such as enacting social themes in their play or caring for dolls." [transgender]
https://healthdoctrine.com/hormones-factors-in-fetus-gender-and-child-future-development/

*The sex-determining region Y (SRY) gene is located on the Y chromosome. SRY is the main genetic switch for the sexual development of the human male. If the SRY gene is present in a developing embryo, typically it will become male.

an environment awash with female hormones.I thought it was a "testosterone bath" which is a MALE hormone. Are you confused now? Which one is it?

DES was withdrawn in 71 so anyone under fifty has no side effects from that, but even at that your article was primarily about CANCER, not TG.

Your final paragraph is just more gobbley gook about general principles in bio and has nothing to do with TG or "testosterone baths".

I'm done with this foolishness. You have zero. You are just frantically throwing mud up against a wall in the hope that something will stick. It did not.

And to say again, I say that with no malice at all. I'm convinced you know all of this already. You simply have no support for your ideas.

I thought it was a "testosterone bath" which is a MALE hormone. Are you confused now? Which one is it?
Ah, the cherry-picker, literalist at work again!

We start out as female. Estrogen. By six weeks or so into the pregnancy, the fun begins with testosterone!

DES was withdrawn in 71 so anyone under fifty has no side effects from that, but even at that your article was primarily about CANCER, not TG.
The cancer affected the offspring of the DES recipients, including TGs'. Read the entire article, please.

Your final paragraph is just more gobbley gook about general principles in bio and has nothing to do with TG or "testosterone baths".
Read the entire article.

I'm done with this foolishness. You have zero. You are just frantically throwing it up against a wall in the hope that something will stick. It did not.
Read the entire article.

If you have anything to offer other than asking me to read what I guess you could not figure out how to post, then go for it. Yet again I'm sorry, but what you posted offered nothing of substance at all. You have theories without support.


By six weeks or so into the pregnancy, the fun begins with testosterone!This is really bad. Your own post shows that is not true. "...given that the womb is an environment awash with female hormones. A genetically male fetus will therefore de­velop the female form of sexual organs until ‘maleness’ is switched on by the SRY* gene on the Y chromosome, and the fetal testis starts to develop and then produce testosterone."

Must I tell you again that testosterone is NOT a "female hormone"? There is nothing there about a "testosterone bath" in the womb. It is the MALES and males only which it refers to having testosterone. Is your knowledge of science that deficient??

The plain truth is very apparent. You are so invested in your TG beliefs that you are desperately pulling at straws in the hope of accidentally finding something helpful to your beliefs. It is a sad venture to have to watch, and one which has been wildly unfruitful for you.

If you ever post anything of substance on this topic, then I'll respond. Otherwise, stick to grammar. You're good with that. Science? Fraid not. Your understanding is too, too limited and your bias overrides your common sense, a fatal flaw in science. It's like telling someone, "You should put a period there, man, because, like, I really love periods!!" (<:

I see you read and understand other things the same way you read and understand the Bible.

Maybe you will attend classes in heaven and learn how to read more carefully.

https://scontent-atl3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/277437335_970113627026110_108072802221867295_n.png ?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=rqK_wZqCdToAX_cFB_b&tn=D3-YMvk4ckA6zEtC&_nc_ht=scontent-atl3-2.xx&oh=00_AT_WueZ1rU4cFNkKjoKJpOqfqX8mZjo_UTtNT8LbY2mL Tw&oe=6246C75C

https://scontent-atl3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/276137760_7318834798187741_2664475543230339459_n.p ng?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=17NTxXtWz4EAX-RZ4aJ&_nc_ht=scontent-atl3-2.xx&oh=00_AT-anKQGX-uP0UFVLzf2-4oNsacdBaoBKFEMqnGAx269XQ&oe=6246D406

Those are hilariously accurate. Perhaps she was using the literary device of depending on the compliant press for support?

To sum it up ;Jackson knows what a woman is . She lied about it because her confirmation is a sure thing but she does not want to anger the Dem pc/woke constituency . If she is so transparently lying about something like this then what else is she lying about ? I have surmised that her biggest lie in testimony is that she has no judicial philosophy and that her methodology is that of a textual originalism who knows the limits of the power of the judiciary . The decisions she has made that I have read do not support that of a judge who believes in judicial restraint . They support the conclusion that she is an activist judge who injects her political beliefs above determining if a law or the application of the law is constitutional .

btw ;how did Carol King know how it feels to be a 'natural woman' ? She is not a biologist.

How did Helen Reddy know what it means to say, "I am woman, hear me roar?" She was likewise not a biologist.

It is sometimes disheartening to see what kind of utter nonsense we Americans will accept.

It's not just elite sports in the USA, but in UK as well..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/60960213

That's why hormones have been and are continuously taken, to change gender characteristics.

By the time you are twenty, it's too late for that to be completely effective. The science is clear on that.

"The recent International Olympic Committee (IOC) (2015) guidelines allow transwomen to compete in the women’s division if (amongst other things) their testosterone is held below 10 nmol/L. This is significantly higher than that of cis-women."

"We conclude that the advantage to transwomen afforded by the IOC guidelines is an intolerable unfairness."

https://jme.bmj.com/content/45/6/395

The paper stated healthy male test subjects “did not lose significant muscle mass (or power)” when their testosterone levels were suppressed below the International Olympic Committee guidelines for transgender athletes of 10nmol/L.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/08/study-transgender-male-athletes-keep-physical-advantages-even-female-hormone-injections/

No, the science isn't clear on the that!!!

The Federalist??? Surely you jest!

The Federalist? Yeah. All they were doing was referring to an article from the Journal of Medical Ethics. And they had actually READ the research!!

You can say the science isn't clear all you want, but other than just asking us to take your word for it, you would need to appeal to research. You have not demonstrated an ability to do that. Not trying to be ugly, but we both know that is true.

I have, but you spit on it because it came from a "liberal dem" (me, hahahaha) and you cherry-picked.

You are referring to the article you posted that actually contradicted your fake idea about a "testosterone bath". So I will wait patiently. I've grown accustomed to it.

It didn't contradict, but then we know you didn't read it honestly and with an open mind, you ol' literalist, you.

"The default gender in the womb is female, which is perhaps hardly surprising given that the womb is an environment awash with female hormones. A genetically male fetus will therefore de­velop the female form of sexual organs until ‘maleness’ is switched on by the SRY gene on the Y chromosome, and the fetal testis starts to develop and then produce testosterone."

"The default gender in the womb is female, which is perhaps hardly surprising given that the womb is an environment awash with female hormones.Not only does this not support the idea of a "testosterone bath", it proposes the exact opposite. You know so little science.


‘maleness’ is switched on by the SRY gene on the Y chromosome, and the fetal testis starts to develop and then produce testosterone."And this gives us the startling news (to you) that males produce testosterone, even in the womb. It in no way supports your fake idea that all unborn children are subject to a testosterone bath.

I'm done with this. Any even semi-educated person reading this will immediately see that you have nothing and actually contradicted your own idea. That you cannot see that speaks both of your lack of knowledge in the arena of science and an unwillingness to acknowledge information that doesn't support your preconceived notions.

And besides all of that, I get tired of trying to explain these things to you repeatedly. It gets old, and I end up resorting to sarcasm which tends to be unkind, so it just doesn't pay.

Stick with grammar. It's your strong point. I will agree any day that you are very good with it.

Not only does this not support the idea of a "testosterone bath", it proposes the exact opposite. You know so little science.
Every embryo starts out as FEMALE!!!!


And this gives us the startling news (to you) that males produce testosterone, even in the womb. It in no way supports your fake idea that all unborn children are subject to a testosterone bath.
That's how some of those female embryos develop male sex organs. Testosterone, weeks 7-9.

That is not what your article is saying, but even if it was, it would in no way support your contentions.

This is research from Johns Hopkins U.


"Every developing embryo, irrespective of its sex, at one point contains both male and female reproductive tracts, referred to as the wolffian duct and the müllerian duct, respectively. If the fetus produces testosterone and the anti-müllerian hormone (AMH) gene products from the Y chromosome — these molecules elicit cellular signaling events that lead to the destruction of the female müllerian ducts. The wolffian ducts subsequently develop into male reproductive organs, such as the seminal vesicles, vas deferens and accessory structures. In the absence of testosterone or AMH, the wolffian ducts degenerate and the müllerian ducts develop into female reproductive organs including the fallopian tubes, uterus, cervix and upper vagina. These pathways were first identified and elucidated in the 1940s by the French endocrinologist Alfred Jost, who conducted intricate experiments using rabbits and showed that female development is a "default" pathway that needs to be actively overridden for the development of male sex organs.

https://biomedicalodyssey.blogs.hopkinsmedicine.org/2017/09/its-hard-work-being-a-boy-and-it-turns-out-a-girl/


That's how some of those female embryos develop male sex organs. Testosterone, weeks 7-9.Please read your own articles. I've already posted the quote above. You are being ridiculous. "and the fetal testis starts to develop and then produce testosterone." If you don't know what "testis" means, then for goodness sakes look it up. FEMALES DON'T HAVE THEM!!!

That article begins after gender has been established and external sex organs have formed.

Your own article clearly states that the Y chromosome is responsible for the development of testis and thus testosterone.

Your own article clearly states that the Y chromosome is responsible for the development of testis and thus testosterone.
Yes! When? After what has happened?

It's hopeless. You didn't even read the article or you would never have made such a comment. Gender is established at the moment of conception. It's a well known truth that everyone but you, evidently, is well aware of. Even your own article, at this point the worst enemy of your now hopelessly forgotten "testosterone bath" and assertion that TG individuals begin with a different hormonal makeup than others have, says this. "Being XX or XY makes you female or male, of course..." Do you really not understand that???


After what has happened?Concerning your fake idea, the primary point is more like, "BEFORE what happens?" It is BEFORE testosterone is produced, so females are not subject to a "testosterone bath". Good grief. Could it be any more plain???

It's hopeless. You didn't even read the article or you would never have made such a comment. Gender is established at the moment of conception.
Nope. Not true. I'm done with this. And since you must have had a double testosterone bath in the womb, you will force yourself to post the last word in this discussion.

Indeed I will. Your own article, as I noted above, said that. If you didn't like it, then you shouldn't have posted it.


"Being XX or XY makes you female or male, of course..." Do you really not understand that???

"Being XX or XY makes you female or male, of course..." Do you really not understand that???

Your own article, as I noted above, said that. If you didn't like it, then you shouldn't have posted it.
That comes later. Not at conception.

Nope. It happens at the moment of conception. "It is thus the male's sperm that determines the sex of each offspring in such species." This is because the female can only contribute an X chromosome, but the male can contribute either an X or Y. If it's a Y, then the offspring is male from the very beginning. The fertilized egg's gender has already been established at that point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_chromosome

Dear WG, I am stating nothing that has not been well known for decades. Sex chromosomes were discovered early in the 20th century.

The prince is not a biologist . Not only does he not know if she is a girl. He doesn't even know her species .

The Little Mermaid - Kiss the Girl - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZng4CSob3A)

Perfect example of sexual assault. He never ASKED her permission. Shame!! He should've gotten it in writing.

The disease is evidently highly contagious. Now the Biden admin itself cannot define what "woman" means.


A handful of Biden administration federal agencies (https://www.foxnews.com/category/person/joe-biden) were unable to define the meaning of the word "woman" – in some cases, even in relation to their own uses of terms such as "women's health" – when asked by Fox News Digital.The Biden administration's Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Education, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Federal Bureau of Prisons were all contacted by Fox News Digital requesting a definition of "woman." None of the agencies provided their definition or criteria for an individual to be categorized as a "woman," despite each boasting entire initiatives aimed at helping women and DOJ declined to comment.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-agencies-define-woman

https://scontent-atl3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/276320214_10227774554890074_8976997147468968408_n. jpg?_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=eMuCa-J60L8AX-UfZu2&_nc_ht=scontent-atl3-2.xx&oh=00_AT_oGvE1p2wfpBnFXpMhpkqrSEgj3NTtOFi7E93Jv25c ZQ&oe=624FB378

The Washington Post, unsurprisingly, ran a headline about "pregnant people" being at risk from Covid. Pregnant "people"??? The entire article magically managed to never use the word "woman" a single time. It included this.


"Pregnant people who are vaccinated against the coronavirus are nearly twice as likely to get covid-19 as those who are not pregnant, according to a new study that offers the broadest evidence to date of the odds of infections among vaccinated patients with different medical circumstances," they wrote.

So not even the Post can decide what it means to be a woman. I suppose the next mystery for liberal dems will be what it means to be a person. Will we see an article about "pregnant hominids" next?

https://static.metacritic.com/images/products/movies/5/703b8d22c0ecd83d7a8cf25e268d595f-250h.jpg

Junior Official Trailer #1 - Danny DeVito Movie (1994) HD - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNfsJuv0bJU)

https://scontent-atl3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/277771537_1616709305374692_4861941477861295100_n.j pg?stp=dst-jpg_p526x296&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=R4seLrrqu5kAX9waTmh&_nc_ht=scontent-atl3-2.xx&oh=00_AT-9UN6azPMPQyCBdHf8s6O0ECev_iMZHbVYgiQwRtI23g&oe=6250E994

My heart goes out to the TG pop. It must be a horrible disorder to have to deal with, but telling 6 year olds that it's perfectly normal is not the answer. There seems to be no genetic or biological connection to it that I can find. I suspect an unbiased research effort would unlock at least some clues.

My heart goes out to the TG pop. It must be a horrible disorder to have to deal with, but telling 6 year olds that it's perfectly normal is not the answer. There seems to be no genetic or biological connection to it that I can find. I suspect an unbiased research effort would unlock at least some clues.
You are seriously misinformed.

I'm always open to correction, but you have not managed to present anything to the contrary. Gender is determined at conception. That is an obvious and plain biological truth which can be found in any 9th grade biology textbook and has been known for more than a century. There seems to be no hormonal keys to the condition and certainly no "testosterone bath" that all unborn children, male and female, are subjected to, or at least not that you have been able to present. But like I say, I am open to evidence. I wish everyone the best, TG individuals included, but I am not willing to believe that which is clearly not true.

"All human individuals—whether they have an XX, an XY, or an atypical sex chromosome combination—begin development from the same starting point. During early development the gonads of the fetus remain undifferentiated; that is, all fetal genitalia are the same and are phenotypically female. After approximately 6 to 7 weeks of gestation, however, the expression of a gene on the Y chromosome ["testosterone bath"] induces changes that result in the development of the testes."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222286/

You don’t understand what you are discussing. Phenotype only refers to appearance and not to genetic nature. Look up genotype. Gender is locked in at conception. Your “testosterone bath” was not in your article and completely unsupported. It is just poor conjecture. So you simply have no support. You don’t understand the science.

You can also look up “undifferentiated”. It will be enlightening.

This part of your article really makes it clear. "Until about the 12-millimeter stage (approximately 42 days of gestation), the embryonic gonads of males and females are indistinguishable."

This portion of the article you linked pretty much says it all.


In contrast, mammalian sex determination is more directly under the control of a single internal event: fertilization. Under normal conditions, the direction of sexual development is initiated and determined by the presence or absence of a Y chromosome (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/nap10028/ddd00184/def-item/ggg00064/).

You don’t understand what you are discussing.
No wonder you don't understand the Bible!

Ugly comments don't amount to rational discussion.

Look up genotype, phenotype, and undifferentiated. It will help you.

You might also read the article you linked.

the embryonic gonads of males and females are indistinguishable."
Right. They show as female.

undifferentiated -- synonyms:identical (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+identical&FORM=DCTRQY) · similar (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+similar&FORM=DCTRQY) · alike (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+alike&FORM=DCTRQY) · (exactly) the same · indistinguishable (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+indistinguishable&FORM=DCTRQY) · uniform (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+uniform&FORM=DCTRQY) · twin (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+twin&FORM=DCTRQY) · homogeneous (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+homogeneous&FORM=DCTRQY) · of a piece (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+of+a+piece&FORM=DCTRQY) · cut from the same cloth (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+cut+from+the+same+cloth&FORM=DCTRQY) · corresponding (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+corresponding&FORM=DCTRQY) · correspondent (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+correspondent&FORM=DCTRQY) · commensurate (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+commensurate&FORM=DCTRQY) · equivalent (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+equivalent&FORM=DCTRQY) · matching (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+matching&FORM=DCTRQY) · like (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+like&FORM=DCTRQY) · parallel (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+parallel&FORM=DCTRQY) · analogous (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+analogous&FORM=DCTRQY) · comparable (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+comparable&FORM=DCTRQY) · cognate (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+cognate&FORM=DCTRQY) · equal (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+equal&FORM=DCTRQY)

Ugly comments don't amount to rational discussion.
Like "you don't understand the science"? Look in the mirror when you say that.

You did not read the definition of undifferentiated. Sad. You also should look up "indistinguishable".

Did you look up genotype/phenotype? You will find that very helpful.

undifferentiated. not having any distinguishing features

In other words, you cannot tell one from the other.

You don't understand how phenotype and genotype differ. You blew past the definition of "undifferentiated". You do not understand the article, and you will not affirm what has been known for a century and is acknowledged in your own article, that gender is determined at conception by the sex chromosomes.

Good night.

Good night.
You misunderstand what happens.


Did you look up genotype/phenotype? You will find that very helpful.

undifferentiated. not having any distinguishing features

In other words, you cannot tell one from the other.
Exactly. Both look female. No testes or penis is visible to show it's a male. Then, if it's truly male, things change at 6-7 weeks.

Please try to understand.

Your “testosterone bath” was not in your article and completely unsupported. It is just poor conjecture. So you simply have no support. You don’t understand the science.
The author of an article or book uses parentheses to add explanations or asides.
A reader, quoting material, uses brackets to do the same.

Yes, I understand the science and even gave you a very reliable article that supports that science.

Your own article said nothing of a testosterone bath and contradicted your idea. You included that idea deceptively. You were caught.

“Truly male”. How is that determined?

Your own article said nothing of a testosterone bath and contradicted your idea. You included that idea deceptively. You were caught.

“Truly male”. How is that determined?
"...the expression of a gene on the Y chromosome ["testosterone bath"] induces changes that result in the development of the testes."

Truly male with XY chromosomes and internal/external male sex organs.

Like I said. No support for a testosterone bath. Period. A gene expression must come before testosterone and not afterwards.. Sorry.


Truly male with XY chromosomes and internal/external male sex organs.But you referenced six weeks. There are, you said, no male genitalia at six weeks, so you are just left with sex chromosomes. When are those established?

How can you have a "testosterone bath" PRIOR to the development of the testes? "["testosterone bath"] induces changes that result in the development of the testes."

Spoke with a pro-abortion med student at the abortion clinic yesterday. Asked her when male/female was established. Answer? At conception.

Spoke with a pro-abortion med student at the abortion clinic yesterday. Asked her when male/female was established. Answer? At conception.
That's not the right question. I haven't said it doesn't.

But you referenced six weeks. There are, you said, no male genitalia at six weeks, so you are just left with sex chromosomes. When are those established?
In the brain.

How can you have a "testosterone bath" PRIOR to the development of the testes? "["testosterone bath"] induces changes that result in the development of the testes."
That "testosterone bath" is what gives the fetus observable male sex organs.

Hormones are hard at work during pregnancy and can influence the appearance and gender confusion of the resulting human. Cf. DES, a synthetic form of the female hormone estrogen, prescribed to pregnant women between 1940 and 1971 to prevent miscarriage, premature labor, and related complications of pregnancy.

In the brain.So evasive. The question was "when" and not where. And are you really suggesting that sex chromosomes do not reside outside the brain? Well, that question is answered. It is established at the moment of conception. Even your own article agreed with that.


That "testosterone bath" is what gives the fetus observable male sex organs. But you originally said that ALL embryos were subjected to your "testosterone bath". At least you now recognize that only the males are affected by testosterone coming from their own testes. We are making progress!!


Hormones are hard at work during pregnancy and can influence the appearance and gender confusion of the resulting human. Cf. DES, a synthetic form of the female hormone estrogen, prescribed to pregnant women between 1940 and 1971 to prevent miscarriage, premature labor, and related complications of pregnancy.DES was not given to those babies by nature. That was a man-made intervention. The rest of your statement is simply common knowledge OTHER THAN the gender confusion part. You have yet to support that, but I'm open to it being possible. You would need something substantial. I have looked and come up with nothing of any real substance. It's just a lot of "maybes" and "possibles". At any rate, if it was true, then it would be a simple idea to verify. Track a thousand or so pregnant women, monitoring their uterine testosterone levels, and then follow their children to see if TG has an indicator. That it seems to have not been done speaks volumes.

At least the issues of sex determination and "testosterone baths" have been put to rest.

As I said, hormones (from the mother and from the developing fetus) greatly influence that fetus.

Yes, DES (an "estrogen wash") was an intervention by physicians, and it greatly, negatively!!! affected the brain of the unborn, creating transgenders by the millions. Their brain tells them they are one gender; their bodies say they are the opposite gender.

The terrible DES situation came to a close in 71. It is not effecting anyone under the age of fifty now, so that cannot be an appeal to this current day.

Hormones influence the fetus? That was never an issue. Your now revealed to be unsupported assertion that ALL embryos, including female ones, were subjected to a "testosterone bath" that somehow resulted in gender confusion was the issue.

I have no issue with TG people. I wish them all well and pray for God's deliverance and freedom to rest on them, but I will not buy into pseudoscience in a misguided attempt to make it all appear to be just another way of living. You are free to believe what you want, but not free to ask me to believe it unless you can support it.

No, there isn't only one hormone influence on that fetus. As I said, not only do physicians give the pregnant female estrogen/progesterone by injection or prescription in order to prevent a miscarriage, hormones from the mother and from the developing fetus itself greatly influence that fetus and its brain and how it will consider its own gender after birth, in early childhood.

hormones from the mother and from the developing fetus greatly influence that fetus and its brain and how it will consider its own gender after birth, in early childhood.Just an unsupported idea if you are referring to gender confusion.

Then, if it's truly male, things change at 6-7 weeks.This was the statement that really settled it. You are agreeing here that an embryo is "truly male" PRIOR to the development of testes, release of testosterone, and development of male genitalia. The only factor existing prior to that would be the sex chromosomes, and that is established at conception.

Surely now we can talk about something else.

The influence of testosterone and/or estrogen and progesterone on the outward appearance vs. what their influences on the brain telling that human what gender it is. (P.S. The brain wins; outward appearance loses and doesn't matter.)

P.S. You need some support for the idea of hormones "telling the brain" what gender it is. You have presented nothing to back that idea up. You especially need support that hormones "tell the brain" that even though the child is XY, it is nonetheless a female gender.

I have been a little surprised you made no effort to look up identical twin studies. They are often considered to be the gold standard for issues such as these. I did find this.


Combining data from the present survey with those from past-published reports, 20% of all male and female monozygotic (identical twins J.L.) twin pairs were found concordant for transsexual identity. This was more frequently the case for males (33%) than for females (23%). The responses of our twins relative to their rearing, along with our findings regarding some of their experiences during childhood and adolescence show their identity was much more influenced by their genetics than their rearing.

20% is an interesting finding. It would seem to suggest that while some sort of genetic or intrauterine influence was in play, there would seem to be something else of greater significance at work as well. After all, the 80% negative result is far higher than one would expect if it was ONLY genetic or intrauterine. Wonder what?

https://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2010to2014/2013-transsexuality.html

You're saying hormones have no influence on a fetal brain?

Where did you see me say that?

Where did you see me say that?
Here --


P.S. You need some support for the idea of hormones "telling the brain" what gender it is. You have presented nothing to back that idea up. You especially need support that hormones "tell the brain" that even though the child is XY, it is nonetheless a female gender.

What you alleged. "You're saying hormones have no influence on a fetal brain?"

What I REALLY said. "You need some support for the idea of hormones "telling the brain" what gender it is...You especially need support that hormones "tell the brain" that even though the child is XY, it is nonetheless a female gender."

I was very specific in referring to your idea that hormones "tell the brain" that a male is really a female. The general influence of hormones on the growing child, including its brain, has never been an issue and you know it.

It really bugs me when someone runs out of ideas and so just starts making things up such as, "You're saying hormones have no influence on a fetal brain?" Pitiful.

It really bugs me when someone runs out of ideas and so just starts making things up such as, "You're saying hormones have no influence on a fetal brain?" Pitiful.

You asked: Where did you see me say that?

I can't read your mind. (Thank God!!!)

Here's a fun read for you:

https://transgenderwoman.home.blog/tag/transgender-chromosomes/#:~:text=Someone%20born%20male%20has%20XY%20chromo somes%20and%20someone,very%20very%20big%20extent%2 0–%20we%20are%20women.

You asked: Where did you see me say that?

I can't read your mind. (Thank God!!!)No, but you can read my posts, and that was, after all, what you were referring to.

Your link is just basically an op-ed. No science to be found there. This part was, indeed, "fun" (as in funny) to read.


Anti-transgender people often say things such as “If a person is born with male chromosomes and male genitals, they’re a male, end of story. That’s a fact of science.”
Actually, science has moved on since the days when such statements were accepted as being the last word on gender matters. The people who make such arguments are behind the times and perhaps don’t even realise it.
Medical science now accepts the possibility that a foetus developing in the womb could form the basis of a female brain but that an unintended surge of testosterone within the mother’s body could cause the foetus to develop male genitals, thus resulting in the mismatch and dysphoria felt and experienced by transgender women from early childhood onwards.

After assuring us that "science has moved on", we are told that medical science accepts this stunning "possibility". Now that is really funny. Possibilities are what advocates refer to when they have no real evidence. And how do we know that medical science has "accepted" this? Why, it's because the author tells us so, of course.

And that's not to mention that you actually agreed with this part of it. "If a person is born with male chromosomes and male genitals, they’re a male..." Post 184. "Truly male with XY chromosomes and internal/external male sex organs." I guess that makes you an "anti-transgender person"?

And that's not to mention that you actually agreed with this part of it. "If a person is born with male chromosomes and male genitals, they’re a male..." Post 184. "Truly male with XY chromosomes and internal/external male sex organs." I guess that makes you an "anti-transgender person"?
Not at all. Take off that male child's pants. What do you see? Yes, he's physically a male. Now, find out what's going on in his brain after prenatal hormone influences. Humans are not always what they look like naked.

Transgender women call themselves transgender women or transwomen or Tgirls. They invest 5-7 years of gender therapy, professional counseling, HRT, perhaps electrolysis and possibly the expensive face planing/voice coaching, and VERY expensive gender-affirming surgery.

And that's not to mention that you actually agreed with this part of it. THEY SAID, "If a person is born with male chromosomes and male genitals, they’re a male..." In post 184. YOU SAID, "Truly male with XY chromosomes and internal/external male sex organs." I guess that makes you an "anti-transgender person"?You said just what they said, you anti-transgender hater!!! (<:

You said just what they said, you anti-transgender hater!!! (<:
I have absolutely no clue what you're saying.

I think you get it. You just don't like. You said exactly what the supposed "anti-transgender people" referenced in your article said.

Talk to you tomorrow. Heading to a pro-life meeting.

Apparently, you misunderstood.

Figured you'd like this one. https://scontent.fmem1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/277991435_7975978885752928_7825419414474124367_n.j pg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=5cd70e&_nc_ohc=RM1ZKjshXj8AX9cYusf&_nc_ht=scontent.fmem1-2.fna&oh=00_AT_mONoxXojAaHDb2r0KRTZYkA_N54LQrW8xqRI43lAY zg&oe=62557417

https://scontent.fmem1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/278027620_10222226128984104_1219096964944432845_n. jpg?_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=sfHxyCAfJ4YAX8YZoCI&tn=Zh6zc79Y1X0_h_re&_nc_ht=scontent.fmem1-1.fna&oh=00_AT9gk_1vqFoyxMsRnq2wrwqLH4xtwd4qoeq6ABg3a9Lk uw&oe=6254902D

I saw the librarian one a few days ago and passed it on.

As for the dairy cow one, this website might interest you:
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/animals-that-can-change-gender.html

And, just for fun, read about the sea bunny:
https://centerforsurfresearch.org/sea-bunny/

The World Atlas article said nothing that pertains to humans. All of the examples, non of which involved mammals, have been well known for years other than the frogs being influenced by toxins. In every case, the cause is well known and well established. That cannot be said at all of TG. And mysteriously missing from the article was anything about, for instance, male frogs who THOUGHT they were actually female frogs. In every instance cited, it was an animal that actually developed the genitalia when it switched from male to female or vice versa. . In other words, it actually DID become the opposite sex. That is not the case at all with TG individuals. And of course hermaphroditic animals possess fully mature and functioning genitalia for both sexes. They don't just THINK they are something else.

The World Atlas article said nothing that pertains to humans. All of the examples, non of which involved mammals, have been well known for years other than the frogs being influenced by toxins.
Gee whiz!!! I can't even have a bit of fun because you always go all out Mr. Serious and Exactitude.

Btw, LGBT+ -- we don't choose to be that way. Life would be much simpler if we could choose or not choose.

Gee whiz!!! I can't even have a bit of fun because you always go all out Mr. Serious and Exactitude.Serious attitude warranted by a serious subject.


Btw, LGBT+ -- we don't choose to be that way. Life would be much simpler if we could choose or not choose.We frequently cannot choose what we are tempted by, but we can choose how we respond. True of drug addiction. True of porn addiction. True of adulterous inclinations. True of just about everything on a moral level. That certainly does not make any of this easy. I'm sure that those who are seriously inclined towards sex with children would say the same thing.

When did you choose your eye color? Your skin color? Your ethnicity or race? Your handedness?


we can choose how we respond.
Exactly!!! And that's what transitioning is all about. Instead of drowning in dysphoria and depression, steps can be taken to right what Mother Nature got wrong.

When did you choose your eye color? Your skin color? Your ethnicity or race? Your handedness?Those are all genetic issues. TG is not genetic.


Exactly!!! And that's what transitioning is all about. Instead of drowning in dysphoria and depression, steps can be taken to right what Mother Nature got wrong.Or a person could put his/her faith in God and draw on His resources, just like everyone else has to do. Now you might have a valid point, but I somehow doubt it. It's the same issue as a man who wants to have sex with other men. It is plainly out of bounds according to the Bible, so it becomes a walk by faith.

It's the same issue as a man who wants to have sex with other men. It is plainly out of bounds according to the Bible, so it becomes a walk by faith.
Surely you jest!

Find the place where it says same gender sex is fine, and I'll show you MANY places where it says it is not.

Interesting backlash to all of this:
Transgender women no longer able to compete at elite female events run by British Cycling (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/61036110)

To my mind this is the most unfair part of all of this mess:
Bridges, 21, began hormone therapy last year as part of her gender dysphoria treatment, and raced in men's events until February.

Would be a different matter if the person participated as a single gender rather doing the old mix and match as it suited.
So, a mediocre male elite athlete can swap genders and compete as female, sorry but really how is that actually fair to all involved...

Thankfully there is a smidgeon of common sense left across the pond. There is none here. The consensus opinion now is that mutilation by chemical castration is "gender affirming " .

Edna Mahan women's prisoners pregnant after sex with transgender inmate (nypost.com) (https://nypost.com/2022/04/14/edna-mahan-womens-prisoners-pregnant-after-sex-with-transgender-inmate/)

The insanity continues.

Clueless announced his Press Sec. replacement for Peppermint Patty Psaski . He made sure he hit all the politically correct woke buttons . Karine Jean-Pierre is a Black/Woman /LGBT++XYZ who's sexual partner,Suzanne Malveaux, works for CNN as a national correspondent Jean-Pierre previously worked as Chief of Staff for Kam the Sham where she was another 1st ;the 1st Black Woman LGBTQ++XYZ to hold that position .She has also worked as a national spokesperson for Moveon.org and as an activist political commentator for MSNBC and NBC compliant press. Oh yeah ;she is also a hyphenated French-American . There's probably a 1st somewhere in that too.

Is she capable of doing the job assigned?

That's a fair question. I thought the same thing, but it's also a fair question to ask if she got the job because the Biden admin wanted to make a political statement.

[Did she get] the job because the Biden admin wanted to make a political statement.
So what. The message I get is "We're inclusive, not prejudicial."

She is perfect for the job as she represents the nexus of the swamp and the compliant press. I'm sure there are plenty of qualified applicants. Is she the best for the job ? Who knows ? But when you see many headlines like CNNs ;one could conclude that the woke factors were the key factors .
Karine Jean-Pierre to become White House press secretary, the first Black and out LGBTQ person in the role - CNNPolitics (https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/05/politics/jen-psaki-karine-jean-pierre/index.html)

Well, the current Jeopardy champion (over half a million dollars won so far, and she's going strong!) is a 23 y/o lesbian who follows closely in the footsteps of Amy Schneider, a transgender woman who has the show's 2nd longest winning streak of 40 wins. Apparently, being in the LGBTQ+ community doesn't prevent one from achieving success (and having a high IQ). I'm in that community too, always scored high on tests/exams, and have been in Mensa for many years.

I'm sure she can evade and obfuscate as well as Peppermint Patty Psaki.

Apparently, being in the LGBTQ+ community doesn't prevent one from achieving successUnless you consider pleasing God to be an essential element of success. Having same-gender sex doesn't get that done at all.

Unless you consider pleasing God to be an essential element of success. Having same-gender sex doesn't get that done at all.
I'll introduce you to them when we're all in heaven.

(What is "same-gender sex"???)

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[c (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+6&version=ESV#fen-ESV-28460c)] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 [B]And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.


Foootnote "c" reads, "The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts."

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[c (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+6&version=ESV#fen-ESV-28460c)] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 [B]And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.


Foootnote "c" reads, "The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts."
What does all that have to do with the topic at hand?

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven. Luke 6:37 (KJV)

You claim homosexuals will be in heaven. Paul says otherwise.

In posting that passage about judging, how are you not judging me and thus violating your own flawed understanding of that teaching? At any rate, I didn't judge you or anyone else. I simply posted a passage of scripture.

You claim homosexuals will be in heaven. Paul says otherwise.
Paul was wrong.

In posting that passage about judging, how are you not judging me and thus violating your own flawed understanding of that teaching? At any rate, I didn't judge you or anyone else. I simply posted a passage of scripture.
Your posting it was a surreptitious judgment.

Paul was wrong.Yeah. I'm really going to take your view over his.


Your posting it was a surreptitious judgment.And there you go openly judging me again. Have you no shame?

This is interesting --

"I've been watching people with golden crosses around their necks and on their lapels shout at the TV about how serving gay and lesbian people is a violation of their “sincerely-held religious beliefs.”

And I can't help but laugh at the sad irony of it.

Two-thousand years ago, Jesus hung from that cross, looked out on the people who put him there and said, "Father, forgive them." Jesus served sinners all the way to the cross.

The truth is, evangelical Christians have already "lost" the culture wars. And it's not because the "other side" won or because evangelicals have failed to protect our own religious liberties. Evangelicals lost the culture wars the moment they committed to fighting them, the moment they decided to stop washing feet and start waging war.

And I fear that we've lost not only the culture wars, but also our Christian identity, when the "right to refuse" service has become a more sincerely-held and widely-known Christian belief than the impulse to give it." - Rachel Held Evans

What a judgmental diatribe. At any rate, the primary culture evangelicals should be concerned with is the culture within the genuine Christian church. But even at that, do evangelicals not have a right to influence American culture as part of the American electorate?


"I've been watching people with golden crosses around their necks and on their lapels shout at the TV about how serving gay and lesbian people is a violation of their “sincerely-held religious beliefs.I'd like to know of an example of that happening. From what I've seen, the right to reserve service is not the issue. The issue is the right to not be forced to participate.

https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/280386739_5425433760823790_5312294046167735050_n.j pg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-6&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=YNRqKhT44vIAX9dFYdP&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=00_AT-6LA7nrZTUpXClgX7zZUf2pyonwqVTfOINapsVZZFD3Q&oe=627D8B7D

You’ll need more than make believe.

insane

Whenever I see stories like this my first thought is that I am reading a parody publication .

Oregon law requires menstrual products in boys bathrooms (nypost.com) (https://nypost.com/2022/05/06/oregon-law-requires-menstrual-products-in-boys-bathrooms/)

Then I dig deeper and go to the source .Sure enough the news is truth and not fiction or parody
Starting next year (2022-23), products will be available in all restrooms (male, female, and all-gender) in every PPS building where education occurs. To ensure timely compliance, PPS ordered 500 dispensers. Dispensers have been installed in all elementary and middle school girls’ restrooms, and more will be installed in all remaining bathrooms, including boys’ restrooms, next year. Instructions for how to use tampons and pads will be posted in all bathrooms.
District News - Detail Page (pps.net) (https://www.pps.net/site/default.aspx?PageType=3&DomainID=6181&ModuleInstanceID=1492&PageModuleInstanceID=42726&ViewID=ad4d6d9d-7046-48e7-a548-a6a23a68d076&RenderLoc=0&FlexDataID=178501&PageID=16209)

Schools should have girl menus and boy menus in separate cafeterias. Separate classrooms. Boy school buses and boy school buses. No girl-boy school activities - nature hikes, dances, assemblies, gym classes, etc. In fact, girls and boys should attend separate schools.

Nope but they definitely should have separate bathrooms and locker rooms .

Schools should have girl menus and boy menus in separate cafeterias. Separate classrooms. Boy school buses and boy school buses. No girl-boy school activities - nature hikes, dances, assemblies, gym classes, etc. In fact, girls and boys should attend separate schools.Not too sure how you got to that simply from a discussion about the insanity of putting female hygiene products in boys restrooms.

Why should they have separate bathrooms? Cubicles would solve the problem of watching someone "evacuate".

Why should they have separate facilities ? common decency That's all I have to say on the issue . Any other position is just too creepy for me . I totally oppose the world vision of the new left .

Family members share bathrooms. Siblings take baths together. What aren't we supposed to see that we've already seen hundreds of times?

Siblings take baths together.Yeah. That's the answer for sure. We'll just middle schoolers all bathe together.

I'm not sure how to explain to someone that allowing middle schoolers or high schoolers of both genders to be unsupervised in the same restroom is a recipe for disaster. If you can't see it in about two seconds, then there's no real point in an explanation.

Family members share bathrooms. Siblings take baths together. What aren't we supposed to see that we've already seen hundreds of times? Delving for the irrelevant again ?

I certainly doubt that 13 year old siblings are in the habit of bathing together.

https://scontent-atl3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/281198862_3195681590656811_4549021266868140588_n.j pg?stp=dst-jpg_p180x540&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-6&_nc_sid=5cd70e&_nc_ohc=n-HMmdW5koEAX_xHoEB&_nc_ht=scontent-atl3-2.xx&oh=00_AT8Ab5H-1nvZWh-bhozrm4M5CApNiJ6vH0CTmyu2IYJpyw&oe=62863A6A