The transgender insanity movement

[scribblet]

1 hour ago, mowich said:

If anyone needs to be cancelled it is this guy.

Yeah...   you know she/he is  suing the same women again,  https://nationalpost.com/news/trans-activist-jessica-yaniv-files-second-lawsuit-against-3-beauticians-after-losing-human-rights-suit-to-them-in-2019  

Trans activist Jessica Yaniv has filed a civil suit against three female beauticians for close to $12,000, almost a year after a human rights tribunal ruled against her complaints against the same women. 

Documents published to the British Columbia Court services website on Aug. 26 show that Yaniv — who legally goes by Jessica Simpson — filed a suit against Sandeep Benipal, Marcia DaSilva and Sukhdhip Hehar for $11,800. 

[Michael Hardner]

I think it's more insane to let one deranged person represent an entire movement, personally.

[OftenWrong]

Exactly. It is not even a choice to let this train wreck with two legs and unknown other part to represent the movement. We are being fed this by top level media.

Right now Mr. Trudeau is chomping at the bit, I'll wager.

[mowich]

19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I think it's more insane to let one deranged person represent an entire movement, personally.

I don't think this scrofulous pos represents anyone but himself.  He is not representative of the community who, I would not be surprised to learn, share my thoughts on his continued sickening behavior.

[Michael Hardner]

39 minutes ago, mowich said:

I don't think this scrofulous pos represents anyone but himself.  He is not representative of the community who, I would not be surprised to learn, share my thoughts on his continued sickening behavior.

Can you please restate this more clearly?

[Argus]

A revealing look at the fanaticism and dishonesty of the trans movement activists, especially those attacking JK Rowling for simply stating the obvious. Do click on the screenshots link to see the level of viciousness, ignorance, and misogyny of trans activists.

The feminist philosopher Rebecca Reilly Cooper has collected screenshots of some of the many aggressive tweets that either include Rowling’s name or were sent directly to her. Clear themes emerge, “shut the fuck up,” being one. The words “bitch,” “whore,” “hag,” and (ah yes) “Karen” start to give the game away. Many Twitter users seem to be convinced that Rowling’s gender-critical politics can be ascribed to her “stinky” or “dry pussy,” and suggest that she needs to be “fucking punched”. Others write messages like “suck my fat cock and choke on it” or (with no hint of self-awareness) “JK Rowling can suck my big transgender cock.” Have you spotted the pattern yet?

 

https://quillette.com/2020/09/18/the-dishonest-and-misogynistic-hate-campaign-against-j-k-rowling/

Edited September 20, 2020 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

26 minutes ago, Argus said:

A revealing look at the fanaticism and dishonesty of the trans movement activists, especially those attacking JK Rowling for simply stating the obvious.  

A couple of points here:

1. I keep hoping that The Quilette will live up to the promise of being a thought-provoking publication that challenges the prevailing wisdom on controversial topics such as 'woke culture'  They spent most of the article talking about the Twitter mob, which is irrelevant to the points being discussed.  It's like me 'proving' that the current president has bad policies by quoting his followers on twitter.  They only provide superficial coverage of the issues at the heart of the matter.
2. It seems like the 'Insanity Movement' is only marked as insane by the extremists and nutters that support it.  You can't say that anyone who supports a cause by Tweeting a threat is an 'activist'.  It's a kind of ad hominem to the discussion.

You have some good ideas - post them.  Not everyone here is an echo chamber parrot.  Remember when it used to be fun to discuss issues ?

[mowich]

On 12/16/2018 at 2:20 PM, GostHacked said:

We've been overloaded with the awareness of a lot of groups. This is now the Age of Apathy. So some of these groups are being ignored because there is now an ocean of these marginalized groups. Everyone is screaming for attention and I can only pay attention to so many.

I'm certainly with you on this, GostHacked.  Appears that everyone and anyone with an axe to grind whether with good reason or not is out screaming to the skies with little or no reason to do so.  I'm sick to death of being preached at - hell, even commercials are getting in on the act.  Little wonder that people get their backs up when the moaning, groaning, whinging and screeching is what passes for news these days.

[mowich]

On 10/30/2019 at 2:09 PM, Rue said:

I agree that sexual identity has been turned into an often illogical absurd theatre of political correctness. I take the classic conservative approach that sexuality is a private matter and should not be a state matter unless it is to regulate non consexual sex with minors, or violence. I fear  too many people are obssessed with changing who they are rather than accept who they are. That said I speak for no one's genitals but my own.

Thumbs up for this, Rue.

[mowich]

On 11/1/2019 at 6:39 PM, scribblet said:

Worth a read--- we are now effectively experimenting on minors who cannot give meaningful consent; which  alone should give us pause. 

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/11/andrew-sullivan-hard-questions-gender-transitions-for-young.html

 

 

Excellent article, Scribblet.

[mowich]

On 11/28/2019 at 5:42 PM, scribblet said:

Well, this female athlete is taking  the issue to court and has filed a federal complaint...   I`m surprised it took this lone.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/06/18/high-school-girl-who-lost-race-to-transgender-athletes-files-federal-complaint/

 

Good for her.  I hope she wins the suit as this issue of boys who take advantage of claiming they are transgender in order to compete with girls is utter bullshit.

[Argus]

Some sanity starts to appear on the subject of trans athletes performing against women. Not, of course, in Canada, where the rigid policy is "anyone who says they're a woman is a woman" but elsewhere. This is in light of the danger to women playing full contact sports with men.

With worries mounting about safety—especially concussions—and financial liability, World Rugby undertook a review of its transgender policy in February 2020. This might seem to be a common-sense step. Yet among global sports federations, it was actually seen as a ground-breaking moment. World Rugby turned out be the first sport to bring to the table experts on all sides of the eligibility issue, including sociologists, biologists, kinesiologists (my own specialty), and those with a background in human rights. The consultation is reported to have been respectful and thorough. All relevant opinions were heard.

The dominant view that emerged from this summit was that World Rugby would have to amend its policy. It was simply too risky to continue to allow male bodies into the women’s game. The decision-makers relied on data that had been published by the renowned Karolinska Institute (Sweden) in September 2019. Even after a full year of hormonal reduction in accordance with IOC guidelines, the researchers concluded, there was no appreciable loss of mass, muscle mass, or strength in transitioning males. In physical terms, it was just a man playing with women.

https://quillette.com/2020/09/27/keeping-male-bodies-out-of-womens-rugby/

 

[mowich]

On 10/4/2020 at 12:10 PM, Argus said:

Some sanity starts to appear on the subject of trans athletes performing against women. Not, of course, in Canada, where the rigid policy is "anyone who says they're a woman is a woman" but elsewhere. This is in light of the danger to women playing full contact sports with men.

With worries mounting about safety—especially concussions—and financial liability, World Rugby undertook a review of its transgender policy in February 2020. This might seem to be a common-sense step. Yet among global sports federations, it was actually seen as a ground-breaking moment. World Rugby turned out be the first sport to bring to the table experts on all sides of the eligibility issue, including sociologists, biologists, kinesiologists (my own specialty), and those with a background in human rights. The consultation is reported to have been respectful and thorough. All relevant opinions were heard.

The dominant view that emerged from this summit was that World Rugby would have to amend its policy. It was simply too risky to continue to allow male bodies into the women’s game. The decision-makers relied on data that had been published by the renowned Karolinska Institute (Sweden) in September 2019. Even after a full year of hormonal reduction in accordance with IOC guidelines, the researchers concluded, there was no appreciable loss of mass, muscle mass, or strength in transitioning males. In physical terms, it was just a man playing with women.

https://quillette.com/2020/09/27/keeping-male-bodies-out-of-womens-rugby/

 

Good to see that saner minds prevailed and that women will be safer playing their sport.  Well done.

[OftenWrong]

19 minutes ago, mowich said:

Good to see that saner minds prevailed and that women will be safer playing their sport.  Well done.

Well it is Rugby, after all! 

[CampMassad]

I have read studies that 85% of Transgenders are mentally ill.

Edited October 18, 2020 by CampMassad

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, CampMassad said:

I have read studies that 85% of Transgenders are mentally ill.

You edited this by adding "I have read studies that..."

All you need to do now is post a cite to where you read it, so we can read it also.

[CampMassad]

30 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You edited this by adding "I have read studies that..."

All you need to do now is post a cite to where you read it, so we can read it also.

Sorry Michael, I cannot locate the article with the 85% figure. The following article will have to do:

Gender-nonconforming and transgender students are four times more likely to report mental health issues compared to the rest of their peers, according to a new study that is the largest so far to focus on this population of college students.

Researchers relied on data from the Healthy Minds Study, an annual online report on student mental health from college campuses across the country. The new study examined responses of more than 65,200 students from 71 American institutions who were enrolled in college between 2015 and 2017.

Roughly 1,200 respondents said they had an alternate gender identity, meaning they do not identify with the gender that matches their birth sex. The researchers grouped these students -- about 2 percent of the study's sample, which included transgender students, gender-queer students and gender-nonconforming students and others -- into a category called “gender-minority students.”

Almost 80 percent of these gender-minority students reported having at least one mental health issue compared to 45 percent of their cisgender peers -- students whose gender aligns with their assigned birth sex.

source: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/08/20/survey-finds-mental-health-issues-are-common-among-trans-college-students

 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, CampMassad said:

 

1) Gender-nonconforming and transgender students are four times more likely to report mental health issues compared to the rest of their peers, 

2) Almost 80 percent of these gender-minority students reported having at least one mental health issue compared to 45 percent of their cisgender peers 

 

OK, thanks for the cites.  I'm trying to align the math though: 4X and 45% v 80%

[Argus]

The Economist commenting on the study done by World Rugby which said including male bodied people in with female bodied people posed too much danger to the latter and was unfair.

The evidence presented to World Rugby was not perfect, but it was enough to suggest strongly that this compromise does not work. Suppressing testosterone appears to have only a minor impact on strength—too small to undo the advantages bestowed by male puberty. And no amount of hormone therapy can shrink skeletons. That was enough for World Rugby to decide that the risk posed by trans women to other players in the women’s game would be too great. It has said it is ready to fund more research and will review its decision regularly. But in a risky sport already worried about the long-term impact of common injuries like concussion, its conclusion makes sense.

That evidence matters for non-contact sports, too, for it also concerns fairness. Women’s sport exists precisely to exclude males. That is true at both the elite level, where rewards are greatest, and at the recreational one, where the vast majority of sport is actually played. Without it, half the population would be left struggling against an insurmountable advantage granted by mere biological chance to the other half. If testosterone suppression cannot remove that advantage, then it is unjust for those who still possess it to compete against those who never did. (It is worth noting that this leaves room for trans men—those born female—to play in men’s sports if they wish, since they possess no biological advantage, and in contact sports are unlikely to pose a danger to their fellow competitors.)

https://outline.com/uNTUTe

[Argus]

More discussion on male athletes who self identify as female playing against, and hurting, regular women.

Relying on data published by Sweden’s pre-eminent Karolinska Institute of medical academic research, they concluded that even when following IOC hormone-reduction guidelines, genetically male athletes are, on average, 40 per cent heavier, 15 per cent faster, 30 per cent more powerful and 25-50 per cent stronger than female athletes. These spreads are enormous, considering the minuscule measures of time, distance or weight that distinguish gold from silver, silver from bronze. (Ironically, doping “only” confers an advantage of nine to 12 per cent.)

It should therefore come as no surprise that injury to female athletes increases by 30 per cent when genetically male competitors enter the sport. On Oct. 9, the World Rugby Council issued a new resolution on transgender participation: “Transgender women may not play women’s rugby.” This statement marks the first time a sport federation has broken ranks with the IOC on this issue.

Rugby Canada, however, is run by far left zealots and expressed indignation at the scientifically backed rule. As far as they're concerned anyone who self-identifies as female for even one day should be able to play against women, no matter how much physical damage that causes those women.

Rugby Canada’s response was, disappointingly, to state that the new World Rugby guidelines “are not policy that can or will be adopted.” Instead, it doubled down on commitment to its own Trans Inclusion Policy, which declares that players “should be able to participate as the gender with which they identify and not be subject to requirements for disclosure of personal information beyond those required of cisgender athletes. Nor should there be any requirement for hormonal therapy or surgery.” In other words, anyone is eligible for entry into women’s rugby without preconditions of any kind but the statement, “I identify as female.”

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/barbara-kay-transgender-sports-policies-have-thrown-fair-play-out-the-window

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

More discussion on male athletes who self identify as female playing against, and hurting, regular women.

Relying on data published by Sweden’s pre-eminent Karolinska Institute of medical academic research, they concluded that even when following IOC hormone-reduction guidelines, genetically male athletes are, on average, 40 per cent heavier, 15 per cent faster, 30 per cent more powerful and 25-50 per cent stronger than female athletes. These spreads are enormous, considering the minuscule measures of time, distance or weight that distinguish gold from silver, silver from bronze. (Ironically, doping “only” confers an advantage of nine to 12 per cent.)

It should therefore come as no surprise that injury to female athletes increases by 30 per cent when genetically male competitors enter the sport. On Oct. 9, the World Rugby Council issued a new resolution on transgender participation: “Transgender women may not play women’s rugby.” This statement marks the first time a sport federation has broken ranks with the IOC on this issue.

Rugby Canada, however, is run by far left zealots and expressed indignation at the scientifically backed rule. As far as they're concerned anyone who self-identifies as female for even one day should be able to play against women, no matter how much physical damage that causes those women.

Rugby Canada’s response was, disappointingly, to state that the new World Rugby guidelines “are not policy that can or will be adopted.” Instead, it doubled down on commitment to its own Trans Inclusion Policy, which declares that players “should be able to participate as the gender with which they identify and not be subject to requirements for disclosure of personal information beyond those required of cisgender athletes. Nor should there be any requirement for hormonal therapy or surgery.” In other words, anyone is eligible for entry into women’s rugby without preconditions of any kind but the statement, “I identify as female.”

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/barbara-kay-transgender-sports-policies-have-thrown-fair-play-out-the-window

Adherence to their blinkered ideology means more to them than the health and safety of those they purport to represent.

I find that despicable.

[OftenWrong]

40 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Adherence to their blinkered ideology means more to them than the health and safety of those they purport to represent.

I find that despicable.

Yep.

That's why, vote Trump.

[Argus]

Boutique transgenderism. I love the term. It encapsulates the oh so fashionable woke set and their attitude towards this.

You’re forgiven if you might be hesitant to rewrite the science textbooks for a 33-year-old actress so gullible she wept on national television over the Jussie Smollett hate crime hoax. (A word of advice going forward to the newest member of my gender: there’s nothing manly about crying on TV). For many, Page seems to embody a sort of boutique transgenderism we’re all now accustomed to seeing, a prêt-à-porter queer identity that is so mired with inconsistency and highfalutin gender theory as to be rendered utterly meaningless.

In 2014, Page made a splash when she came out as a lesbian in the most high-profile way possible. Which begs another question: did she know she was a man at the time? If so, why the two-tiered approach? Or, as most people suspect, did Page simply miss seeing her name in the headlines and, like many millennial endorphin-junkies, capitalize a chance to cook up a hot needle of false, detached, insincere digital validation?

https://spectator.us/elleniot-ellen-elliot-page-too-old/

[Michael Hardner]

Am I allowed to question someone's sincerity about, say, their patriotism without any evidence?  Just if I want to?

 

Why do people feel that they can just state someone is insincere about their sexuality or gender?  

 

Seems like there are different rules for respecting points of view.

[Argus]

On 12/6/2020 at 11:22 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Am I allowed to question someone's sincerity about, say, their patriotism without any evidence?  Just if I want to?

Why do people feel that they can just state someone is insincere about their sexuality or gender?  

Seems like there are different rules for respecting points of view.

Your questions both seem odd to me. To start with, these are not 'points of view'. It's not a simple point of view as to whether you're patriotic or gay or trans. I think you're misstating here.

I question people's patriotism based on their behaviour and statements. That's all the evidence I need.

As far as I know nobody questions people's claims about their sexuality, largely because one one cares.

Claims about ones gender, however, are quite another thing. First, they go against clear biological evidence to the contrary. They also go against the past history of the individual making the claim. You say you're a woman now but not ten years ago? When someone presents something as fact it seems to me incumbent upon them to provide the evidence to support this claim, not me to provide evidence to dispute it. Especially when it goes against evidence to the contrary.

And unlike claims of sexuality there are clear advantages to claiming to be another gender. You can, for example, be included in areas set aside for the opposite gender - specifically women. There are seats set aside for women in STEM courses, for example. Should a man unable to qualify for one of the others simply be able to claim he's a she and then be promptly accepted without evidence?

What about a man who is a middling runner or wrestler or weightlifter or rugby player but wishes to be on top (no pun intended) by simply claiming to be a woman so as to face physically slower, smaller, weaker opponents? Quite aside from the injustice and unfairness it could destroy womens sports entirely. What if a six foot three, 250 lb male decides to claim to be a woman in order to get a gold medal in boxing at the Olympics? He - now she - would have to be accommodated, would win, and quite possibly cause a lot of physical harm to 'her' opponents while unjustly taking the gold. Why should this be acceptable?

No, if you claim to be something other than you very visibly are not it's on you to prove it. And even then it would be patently unfair to take a person with a male body and allow them to compete with female-bodied individuals.