Comment on A real question about trans athletes and records
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 day agoYou do understand that it’s about trans women competing in women’s sports, not about cis men competing in women’s sports, right…? Because those aren’t the same.
I’m sorry but they are the same thing. Trans women are biologically male, and being biologically male means that they have physical attributes that give them advantages over women - everything from height to wingspan to lung capacity to the shape of their hips gives them an advantage that no amount of testosterone blockers or oestrogen shots can take away.
There’s far more overlap between the physiolgical characteristics of transsexual females and cissexual females than there is between transsexual females and cissexual males
This is just flat out unquestionably incorrect.
so by categorically conflating trans females with males you’re really just showing off that you know sweet fuck all about this issue.
Trans women are males - that’s where the TRANS part of “trans women” comes from. You’re getting your terminology mixed up by the way - Female and Male are the sexes, not genders. You can’t change sex - it is physically and biologically impossible in the human race. There are no “trans females” or “trans males”, only trans women and trans men.
Walk_blesseD@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
Yeah righto, you haven't got a clue what you're on about but because you're an entitled fuck with an opinion, you're just putting it out there as confidently as you can because you're hoping people will uncritically agree with it since it reaffirms their priors.
But you're wrong. Biological sex is malleable. The whole fucking point of sex hormones is to guide the development of sex characteristics. It's kinda in the name. Or did you think people's bodies somehow magically just do that by themselves during puberty and that sex hormones have nothing to do with it??? Are you stupid????
If what you're saying were true and trans women were, as you say, "biOlogiKalLy maLe," and had all the many advantages over cis women in sports that come with that, surely you'd feel confident in providing research that supports your conclusion specifically as regarding trans women instead of having to equivocate them with a completely different demographic—because tbh doing the latter and calling it a day just screams of intellectual cowardice.
And no, I'm not getting anything mixed up, you smug arsehole. Trans people do (broadly speaking—some don't but those aren't relevant to this discussion) change sex by undergoing various processes that alter their bodies' sex characteristics on a biological level, and you living in denial isn't gonna change that. I'm really curious as to what, specifically, you think determines sex.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 23 hours ago
I absolutely know what I’m talking about, because it’s basic human biology and physiology.
100% incorrect. No amount of hormones can ever change your sex. You’re equating having boobs to being female, or getting a deep voice to being male, which is just absurd. Your sex is written in every single cell of your body, and it can never change. If you honestly believe what you just wrote, you really should go and get some help.
Secondary sex characteristics != sex. No one in the history of the world has ever changed sex. Never. Not a single person. It is biologically impossible in the human race.
Your chromosomes. Got a Y? You’re a male. Just X’s? Female. What do you think determines sex?
Walk_blesseD@piefed.blahaj.zone 20 hours ago
First, everybody should take note of the fact that you still haven't provided a source showing that trans women have any sort of across-the-board competitive advantage over cis women in sport. I can only presume that's because you don't have any. Pathetic. Moving on.
Claiming that the fact you're arguing from a "basic" understanding is somehow a point in your favour is some pigeon-shitting-on-the-chessboard-and-claiming-victory type shit, and you should feel embarrassed.
Sure, you personally are allowed to use a model of sex as determined by the presence or absence of a Y chromosome, but such a model is overly simplistic, and to act as though that's the only correct model that either society or science broadly operates on is completely disconnected from reality.
This should be painfully obvious to everybody, given that people have been determining sex since long before the discovery of DNA, nevermind sex chromosomes. Likewise, medical staff determine the sex of babies not by running DNA tests, but by visually examining the genitals, ie a primary sex characteristic.
But furthermore, a Y-chromosome-as-sole-determinant-of-sex model is flawed for other reasons, too. For one thing, it's not the Y chromosome itself that causes male sex development, it's a specific gene that just usually happens to exist on it: the SRY gene. Someone can have a Y chromosome, but lacking the SRY gene will develop a female phenotype. Conversely, it's also possible for the SRY gene to attach itself to an X chromosome and cause someone lacking a Y chromosome to nevertheless follow a male pattern of sex development.
Now get this through your skull: the SRY gene doesn't actually do a whole lot, either—it mostly just instructs the gonads to develop into testes rather than ovaries, and it's the—you're not gonna believe this—sex hormones which the gonads go on to produce that cause the body to develop pretty much every primary and secondary sex characteristic down the line—barring insensitivities to them, of course, and it is in the actual materially observable sex characteristics, primary and secondary alike, that people are most likely to realise differences in sex, rather than in some chromosome we don't know is there or not until it's specifically tested for….
And gonads can be removed. Primary sex characteristics can be surgically altered. Exogenous sex hormones can become dominant in a person's endocrine system and can cause the development of new secondary sex characteristics.
So relying on just the Y chromosome as a measure of sex comes across as really arbitrary and not functionally useful, given that it doesn't really do a whole lot. In fact, the only reason I can come up with as to why one might hyperfocus on the Y chromosome would be to be shitty to trans and intersex peolpe 🤷♀️
Also, given that not all red blood cells contain DNA, you're wrong again—it's also not written into every cell of a person's body 🤓👆
And finally, it's a blatant example of hypocrisy for you to say I'm equating tits and vocal tone to the essence of human sex (which is itself a wild misrepresentation of my argument) when you yourself did the exact same thing earlier with height, wingspan and lung capacity, which are all also secondary sex characteristics 🤣 make it make sense 🤣🤣
You're clearly being intellectually dishonest here, because you know you haven't got a leg to stand on. Dickhead.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 20 hours ago
Trans women are males. Males have across-the-board competitive advantages over women. This is the entire reason why womens sports exists lol.