fipto
that was my first thought, but upon further inspection... the T in "with" is uppercase, and the Ts in trump and epstein are lowercase, looking like crosses. so maybe he's sending a message about christianity as well.
Let me clarify a bit - that's exactly what we agree on: that no one transitions for the advantage. Cause that would just be ridiculous. So no, I can't provide you an athlete who transitioned for that reason...
but that doesn't make my concerns invalid, because it doesn't all rest on that point. People can have good intentions and still cause a result that is unfair (but not because they wanted it to be unfair). That's why I see the hypothetical scenario as a strawman/diversion.
This theoretical scenario about transitioning just to win medals seems like a strawman argument. And the question of "who is stealing medals" is loaded.
...But let me back up a bit to where we probably agree.
Of course these athletes don't want to take steroids, because.. these are not the type of people who want to do that.
I'd like to believe that trans athletes do want to win, AND that they have good intentions. (not trying to steal medals).
Let's put ourselves in their shoes - these athletes get to participate in the sport they love at a high level, and their transition is affirmed. So this is the best of both worlds for them.
If it turns out there is still an advantage left over, however small or large, I don't think the althetes would want to acknowledge it for fear of their opportunities being taken away. This is understandable, no?
As it turns out, estrogen doesn't overwrite absolutely everything. Skeletal structure (taller, longer arms), lung capacity, and heart size for example... these can all give an athletic advantage.
I think these are important to consider.
disclainer: LGB people are not a monolith, so I cant speak for them all. However, some folks are concerned that society is "transing the gay away": encouraging transition as a way out of facing homophobia, instead of fighting homophobia itself. For example, many conservatives are okay with any relationship that looks straight, and see transitioning as a way to conform to hetero-normativity (notable example: Blaire White). There are some gay activists who want to 'change the narrative' on this form of transition in order to fight homophobia and encourage gay acceptance instead.
you have been very respectful, and i mean this with respect as well: do you think it is possible that there is a scientific answer to this, and perhaps you don't know enough to confirm or deny it?
this is really only a debate when it comes to humans, because it is not emotionally charged at all when we speak of the sex of a dog for example. it is reasonable to say that approximately half of dogs produce sperm, and those are the males. the other half produce eggs and are females.
there isn't really a debate there, no one claims that "dogs with long hair are female" or anything stupid like that...
in every animal, sex is determined by what gamete their body is set up to produce. this is just what the scientific method has shown, really. i say this with no hate or love in my heart either way. if science is able to show otherwise, then i shall follow it there. it is not my opinion, and it is not what i want to be true. it is just an observable thing
can you clarify what they are not born with? I want to make sure we're on the same page, and discussing the same specifics. women can still produce ova without a uterus. women can still have a system that supports the production of ova if they have ovaries that don't function for whatever reason.
The Cinderellennium Falcon