Supreme Court upholds Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth

[Lisa]

Why wouldn't I????

As long as she hasn't broken the banned substance rules by taking too much testosterone, what grounds would a person have for objecting to her competing against her peers?

Why does every single post from you have to be a gotcha? Why the hell can't you just discuss things?

That trans guys are easily twice as strong as trans females. The results are going to be wildly uneven, despite the fact that trans guys were born female. The trans guys who transition as females are equal to cisgender guys, unlike transfems who are on female levels of HRT that add signifigant fat and drastically reduce their strength. Any competition between trans guys and cisgender females will be a blowout. Trans females would be a much more even competition as long as they are on female level HRT for a minimum of one year prior to competition.


This is what happens when trans guys are forced to compete as female. Mack Beggs.

En route to the state championships in 2017, two of his opponents forfeited.He ended the 2017 season with a 57–0 record, winning the 110 lb weight class in the girls' division.

In 2018, he was the best in the girls' division with a 32–0 record.

His State Championships were considered controversial by some because of the low doses of testosterone Beggs was taking beginning his high school freshman year. Citing the possible advantages testosterone could give Beggs over his female wrestling competitors, some wrestlers and their parents protested, some even forfeiting matches.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mack_Beggs#cite_note-7"> In a later interview, Beggs said he took hormone blockers to prevent any advantage that could be provided by testosterone

During high school, Beggs also had finishes in boys' division tournaments, including third place in Greco-Roman (3 person bracket) and third in freestyle wrestling at the USA Wrestling Texas State Championships in 2018 (6 person bracket)

Mack Beggs - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[stevecanuck]

That trans guys are easily twice as strong as trans females.

STOP! Yer killin' me. My ribs are aching from laughter.

Chaz Bono is twice as strong as Lea Thompson. Oh damn, I think a rib just broke.

 

[Lisa]

STOP! Yer killin' me. My ribs are aching from laughter.

Chaz Bono is twice as strong as Lea Thompson. Oh damn, I think a rib just broke.

Call an orthopedic specialist. They like busted ribs.


Testosterone makes muscles grow. Estrogen and anti-androgens cause muscle tissue to atrophy.

 

[Ouroboros]

The question isnt whether anyone uses it to play a game of basketball, it's whether a trampoline is a tool some people use to help them to dunk. It is. There's no need to be this frail about that simple fact.

It's not my fault your fake paradigm makes no real-world sense.

Also I googled it because I did recall a basketball variant (like indoor football or soccer) that did use trampolines. Here it is.

Then those are specialized games that don't observe the rules of basketball, and they still don't apply to the case of the limbless swimmer overcoming his flaws with tools.

I'm not talking about the rules of basketball, I'm talking about a tool that helps people who can't dunk to dunk.

Yes, your inability to understand rules has become legendary.

I'm just using your defintion of flawed, which was simply being unable to do something someone else can. Not being able to dunk is functionally the same as not being able to cross the English Channel and not being able to cross it as fast as others is functionally the same as you not being as fast as Bolt.

Still a false equivalence because Bolt's abilities are a matter of degree and Croizon's flaws are a matter of kind. But I understand that you must resort to false parallels to soothe your troubled feelings.

I'm pointing out that even with two legs there are people who aren't as quick as Bolt or able to dunk like LeBron and under your simple defintion would also be considered flawed. Is that how you intend to mean flawed? Or do you have a better definition you'd like to use?n

There's still no rational comparison between ordinary people not possessing extraordinary capacities, and less-than-ordinary ones not possessing ordinary capacities. The fact that you find that reasonable remains hilarious.

And you continue to mix facts with your feelings because you don't understand the difference. Are you trying to make a point about facts or about rules that you feel validated by?

I already know from your false equivalence that you are immune to talking facts because they don't validate your emotions.

Because as everyone can see above you dont understand the difference between facts and opinions.

Your false equivalence remains opinion only.

As is one leggedness.

My definition of flaw remains an aspect of reality while your exception remains mere posturing not connected with any sort of facts.

I don't know what you mean by evil, I just know that I dont argue in terms of evil.

Every time you inveigh against some perceived injustice, you are opposing your superficial idea of evil.

What I'm imposing on you is the fact that I don't use evil in my arguments. Its such a shame facts are inconvenient for your make believe.

Every time you inveigh against some perceived injustice, you are opposing your superficial idea of evil.

Can you quote what I said about july 4th instead of pretending at me out of abject fragility?

More sealioning.

If you were brave enough to quote me everyone would then see that my comments about July 4th had nothing to do about how slavery was evil and everything to do with how whites celebrate the 4th as some victory for liberty and freedom when the reality is that the slaver Founders were tyrants. Those are facts you frail pretender.

Your weakness is shown by the fact that you can't admit that your righteous aversion to what you falsely call (or imply to be) hypocrisy is your protest against a social evil. Are you ever going to get around to admitting that the word "evil" does not always have a metaphysical connotation? No, because you alone are allowed to define words. Let me know how many people purchase copies of the MD Dictionary.

 

[Ouroboros]

Why do I need to look up evil to know that I dont use it in my arguments? I know what I post and you pretending isn't confusing me, just yourself apparently.

You are perpetually confused with your delusions of objectivity.

What's the tautology? Why are you so terrified of my real arguments?

I'm still waiting to see any.

You accuse me of arguing that slavery is some objective wrong or evil and when I point out that I argued previously that wanting to slave and rape has no more objective value and equal subjective value to not wanting to be raped or enslaved you claim its a tautology. You're just scared of me and making it obvious to everyone.

Nope, just bored while waiting for you to make another post as lame as "one leggedness is just a variation." And yes, your false equivalence between distinct states of what you falsely label "subjective wants" is a tautology.

Yes, we are all well aware that you've shouted your feelings at me. There there.

Since in online posting "shouting" means capitalization. your claim means nothing unless you can show a *frequent* occurrence of same. And since you don't actually know what facts are, I just showed you one.

I'm not using secret words, all my words and arguments are here for everyone to see and read, as are yours.

Your personal definitions are your secret words by your own claim that you can make up meanings however you please.

I ask questions all the time. I'm asking you currently what you mean by objective and flawed so I can have a better understanding of your arguments. You know why? I'm not frail or afraid of them.

No, that's non-factual. You ask questions to boost your ego with arguments you think you can't lose. Anyone who bothers to read your posturing posts will see you using the exact same strategies with everyone. You make tautological arguments because you think you can win them but none of your questions amount to anything but posturing.

 

[Master Debator]

It's not my fault your fake paradigm makes no real-world sense.

That's just words pretending to be a counter argument. You can't explain how a trampoline isnt a tool that helps people to dunk who couldn't dunk normally. I even provided video.

Then those are specialized games that don't observe the rules of basketball, and they still don't apply to the case of the limbless swimmer overcoming his flaws with tools.

We're not talking about the rules of basketball, at least I'm not. You're trying to because you're frail and afraid of me and my actual argument but my argument has nothing to do with the rules of basketball and everything to do with a trampoline being a tool that people can use to help them dunk if they can't. It's functionally the same as not being able to cross the English Channel without a tool. Thats what your argument was about, not being able to perform some function that other people can. If you want to make it about something else now that you've seen how weak of an argument it is, that's fine but there is no need to pretend that a trampoline can't be a tool to help people dunk. Especially when there's video evidence of it.

Yes, your inability to understand rules has become legendary.

You not understand exceptions to your rules are where your rules breakdown is just funny.

Still a false equivalence because Bolt's abilities are a matter of degree and Croizon's flaws are a matter of kind. But I understand that you must resort to false parallels to soothe your troubled feelings.

See, this is an attempt to make an argument that isn't about function but about form unfortunately it's not very detailed. A flaw in form supposes there was some right form and wrong form rather than just observable different formations of human beings.

There's still no rational comparison between ordinary people not possessing extraordinary capacities, and less-than-ordinary ones not possessing ordinary capacities. The fact that you find that reasonable remains hilarious.

What you just cited was all mathematical comparisons while claiming to not be able to compare them rationally.

**** me you're hilarious! Whether intentionally or unintentionally.

I already know from your false equivalence that you are immune to talking facts because they don't validate your emotions.

What facts? I understand that Bolts speed is above average, but that's a simple mathematical statement, not one that suggests people with one leg are born wrong. Born different than people with two legs, yes, but that's not how I define flawed. Do you mean flawed to just mean different since you abandoned your argument about function and are now on to form?

Your false equivalence remains opinion only.

False equivalence, false equivalence, false equivalence blah blah blah...

My definition of flaw remains an aspect of reality while your exception remains mere posturing not connected with any sort of facts.

What? Is that supposed to clarify your argument?

 

[Master Debator]

Every time you inveigh against some perceived injustice, you are opposing your superficial idea of evil.

You mean I'm giving an opinion? Yes, I occasionally give opinions. None of them have to do with how things are evil. You're just make believing that.

Every time you inveigh against some perceived injustice, you are opposing your superficial idea of evil.

I'm just opposing things I don't like. I don't have to construct a fantasy of evil forces to support my opinions. Fantasy is your jam.

More sealioning.

Your weakness is shown by the fact that you can't admit that your righteous aversion to what you falsely call (or imply to be) hypocrisy is your protest against a social evil.

Funny though how you cant quote me ever saying anything about social evils. Innit?

Are you ever going to get around to admitting that the word "evil" does not always have a metaphysical connotation?

Evil can mean whatever you want it to mean but until you tell me what that is all you're leaving me is with my notion of evil which I see as a crutch for the frail.

No, because you alone are allowed to define words. Let me know how many people purchase copies of the MD Dictionary.

The only one preventing you from sharing your meaning is you. I don't have these powers that you fantasize me having.

 

[Master Debator]

You are perpetually confused with your delusions of objectivity.

Describe one.

I'm still waiting to see any.

Well anything you dont see obviously doesnt exist. Thats only logical....

Nope, just bored while waiting for you to make another post as lame as "one leggedness is just a variation."

One leggedness is a variation. That is a fact. If you want to argue it's more than a variation you need a better argument than your one about function.

And yes, your false equivalence between distinct states of what you falsely label "subjective wants" is a tautology.

What's false about wanting to rape and not wanting to be raped both being subjective (matters of personal opinion) wants? Its right there in the sentence.

Since in online posting "shouting" means capitalization. your claim means nothing unless you can show a *frequent* occurrence of same. And since you don't actually know what facts are, I just showed you one.

Your personal definitions are your secret words by your own claim that you can make up meanings however you please.

They're not at all secret. Unlike you I'm happy to tell people exactly what I mean.

No, that's non-factual. You ask questions to boost your ego with arguments you think you can't lose. Anyone who bothers to read your posturing posts will see you using the exact same strategies with everyone. You make tautological arguments because you think you can win them but none of your questions amount to anything but posturing.

You haven't presented a tautological argument by me. Me explaining to you that two different wants are equally subjective is not a tautological statement.

 

[Master Debator]

yet remains reality all the same.

Your pretend reality where you don't see information that disagrees with you. Everyone sees you being frail, even the people inclined to agree with your position like @stevecanuck.

 

[Master Debator]

It sure looks as though the DSM has caved to the social/political left.

Do you have anything to support this claim? Did they cave on homosexuality as well or did their understanding of homosexuality evolve?

However, it does create a separation (sex and gender) that makes it easier to debate certain points. For example, regarding trans'women' competing in women's sports, it makes it easier for us to point out that people play sports with their bodies (their sex), and NOT their identities (gender).

Sure, but bodies don't come into being out of magic. Hormones and genetics shape how our bodies develop. Now take a guess at what hormone blockers and therapies do.

 

[Lisa]

Do you have anything to support this claim? Did they cave on homosexuality as well or did their understanding of homosexuality evolve?

I wonder if Steve Canuk will claim that the medical establishment caved to liberals on the issue of gender identity medical care in 1950, 1965, 1980, 1990, or 2015?

 

[rahl]

Your pretend reality where you don't see information that disagrees with you. Everyone sees you being frail, even the people inclined to agree with your position like @stevecanuck.

Reality doesn’t care about your feelings. A man can’t become a woman. It’s scientifically impossible.

 

[stevecanuck]

Do you have anything to support this claim?

Do you not understand what "It sure looks as though" means? It means I'm expressing an opinion.

Did they cave on homosexuality as well or did their understanding of homosexuality evolve?

That makes more sense to me (again - opinion).

Sure, but bodies don't come into being out of magic.

Yes, I unreservedly retract my many assertions that bodies come from magic.

Hormones and genetics shape how our bodies develop. Now take a guess at what hormone blockers and therapies do.

They mitigate the difference, but they don't overcome the advantages that puberty creates.

Trans powerlifter faces backlash for setting Canadian women's record: 'Bodies play sports, not identities'

The biologically male athlete's score was more than 400 pounds higher than the closest competitor.

katv.com

 

[Lisa]

Do you not understand what "It sure looks as though" means? It means I'm expressing an opinion.



That makes more sense to me (again - opinion).

60 years ago they claimed that being gay was a mental illness but that stance changed in the 1970s.

Yes, I unreservedly retract my many assertions that bodies come from magic.



They mitigate the difference, but they don't overcome the advantages that puberty creates.

Trans powerlifter faces backlash for setting Canadian women's record: 'Bodies play sports, not identities'

The biologically male athlete's score was more than 400 pounds higher than the closest competitor.

katv.com

An adult would not be taking puberty blockers.

 

[stevecanuck]

60 years ago they claimed that being gay was a mental illness but that stance changed in the 1970s.

Yup, I know.

An adult would not be taking puberty blockers.

Errmmm, and who suggested they did?

 

[Lisa]

Yup, I know.



Errmmm, and who suggested they did?

Conservatives need to mind their own damn business and stay out of medical care of others, but because they are stupid stupid to know fact from propaganda they have bought into the conservative medias lies about trans care for teens and adults. Even the existence of transgender people is at risk because of MAGA idiots.

F' them and the lies they rode in on.

 

[stevecanuck]

Conservatives need to mind their own damn business and stay out of medical care of others, but because they are stupid stupid to know fact from propaganda they have bought into the conservative medias lies about trans care for teens and adults. Even the existence of transgender people is at risk because of MAGA idiots.

F' them and the lies they rode in on.

Well, bless your heart.

Bye.

 

[Lisa]

Well, bless your heart.

I don't live in the south.

Bye.

see ya'.

 

[Master Debator]

Do you not understand what "It sure looks as though" means? It means I'm expressing an opinion.



That makes more sense to me (again - opinion).



Yes, I unreservedly retract my many assertions that bodies come from magic.



They mitigate the difference, but they don't overcome the advantages that puberty creates.

Trans powerlifter faces backlash for setting Canadian women's record: 'Bodies play sports, not identities'

The biologically male athlete's score was more than 400 pounds higher than the closest competitor.

katv.com

You have an anecdote. What you don't have are studies that show trans athletes who transitioned have athletic advantages. The data so far is inconclusive. They might retain some advantages, like lung capacity, other advantages like skeletal structure and muscle mass might suffer from not having the fuel source, testosterone, to fuel all that extra mass. It might be that those are detrimental. We don't know. That's the real answer.

 

[Ouroboros]

That's just words pretending to be a counter argument. You can't explain how a trampoline isnt a tool that helps people to dunk who couldn't dunk normally. I even provided video.

A trampoline is not a tool used in a basketball game. While you're at it, why don't you say that anyone who doesn't need a ladder to change a light bulb is the norm and the people who do need ladders constitute a unique genetic sampling because they do require that tool? Again, you aren't making an honest comparison to the much greater limitation of a person being born without legs, which means that such a person must use tools ALL THE TIME, not just in your contrived examples.

We're not talking about the rules of basketball, at least I'm not. You're trying to because you're frail and afraid of me and my actual argument but my argument has nothing to do with the rules of basketball and everything to do with a trampoline being a tool that people can use to help them dunk if they can't.

No one's afraid of your fake arguments. But continue to fool yourself, it's funny.

It's functionally the same as not being able to cross the English Channel without a tool. Thats what your argument was about, not being able to perform some function that other people can. If you want to make it about something else now that you've seen how weak of an argument it is, that's fine but there is no need to pretend that a trampoline can't be a tool to help people dunk. Especially when there's video evidence of it.

And your example is still unbelievably contrived and therefore a sophism.

You not understand exceptions to your rules are where your rules breakdown is just funny.

"I understand" you don't understand the range of possibilities embraced by rules and that exceptions do not disprove them.

See, this is an attempt to make an argument that isn't about function but about form unfortunately it's not very detailed. A flaw in form supposes there was some right form and wrong form rather than just observable different formations of human beings.

Of course there is a right form for human beings, and when a given human lacks any of those capacities, that constitutes a flaw. That fact does not marginalize the flawed person, for he/she can find specialized ways to excel. But you do them no favors with your paper-thin relativism.

What you just cited was all mathematical comparisons while claiming to not be able to compare them rationally.


**** me you're hilarious! Whether intentionally or unintentionally.

No, YOU are.

What facts? I understand that Bolts speed is above average, but that's a simple mathematical statement, not one that suggests people with one leg are born wrong. Born different than people with two legs, yes, but that's not how I define flawed. Do you mean flawed to just mean different since you abandoned your argument about function and are now on to form?

Being born flawed is an objective lack of a capacity possessed by the norm, so that affects both form and function. I haven't abandoned anything, that's still you clinging to your delusions of grandeur.

False equivalence, false equivalence, false equivalence blah blah blah...

What? Is that supposed to clarify your argument?

My argument is pellucid and your sophism is the spawn of the swamp for clarity.

 

[Ouroboros]

You mean I'm giving an opinion? Yes, I occasionally give opinions. None of them have to do with how things are evil. You're just make believing that.

More sophistic logic-chopping. Your opinions are predicated on what you regard as good and evil, even if you have some allergic reaction to those terms.

I'm just opposing things I don't like. I don't have to construct a fantasy of evil forces to support my opinions. Fantasy is your jam.

More misattribution, already covered.

Funny though how you cant quote me ever saying anything about social evils. Innit?

When you can quote me using the above term "evil forces," send up a flare.

Evil can mean whatever you want it to mean but until you tell me what that is all you're leaving me is with my notion of evil which I see as a crutch for the frail.

Nope, you're the one who established that you think you can use words with any kind of meaning, and that's your crutch, for which you have no objective necessity. That makes you more pitiable than any physically flawed being.

The only one preventing you from sharing your meaning is you. I don't have these powers that you fantasize me having.

Your pretense of not understanding anything you don't like merely shows your utter dependence on your subjective needs.

 

[Ouroboros]

Describe one.

Your fake interpretation of July 4, wherever that was.

Well anything you dont see obviously doesnt exist. Thats only logical....

I see your sophisms as your crutch, and other posters here have already indicated that they see through your BS.

One leggedness is a variation. That is a fact. If you want to argue it's more than a variation you need a better argument than your one about function.

It's a flaw in both form and function, and that's the real fact.

What's false about wanting to rape and not wanting to be raped both being subjective (matters of personal opinion) wants? Its right there in the sentence.

Because one involves an objective defense of one's bodily integrity and the other is a subjective desire to violate that integrity. You would have learned that the first time I said it if you weren't so triggered all the time.

They're not at all secret. Unlike you I'm happy to tell people exactly what I mean.

No, you present fake conclusions from false premises. I don't know if you literally can't tell the difference between true and false, or you're just pretending not to in order to support some gadfly delusion. But pretending an equivalence between all emotional states, irrespective of their objective grounding, is a dismal and unimpressive tautology.

 

[Master Debator]

A trampoline is not a tool used in a basketball game.

Its a tool to help people dunk. You can't argue that it isn't a tool so you're left with this lame argument about how it isn't a tool for the game of basketball. Still a tool nonetheless though, innit? There's no need for you to act like a tool over this simple fact.

While you're at it, why don't you say that anyone who doesn't need a ladder to change a light bulb is the norm and the people who do need ladders constitute a unique genetic sampling because they do require that tool?

Why would I say that? That's a bad argument. That looks more like an argument you would make which makes sense since it came from your imagination.

Again, you aren't making an honest comparison to the much greater limitation of a person being born without legs, which means that such a person must use tools ALL THE TIME, not just in your contrived examples.

The frequency of tool usage has nothing to do with my argument, if it has something to do with yours then it's your job to explain it. What does frequency of use matter? What's the argumentative difference between me always needing a trampoline to dunk and me always needing a prosthetic leg to walk? Some people never need a trampoline to dunk or a prosthetic to walk. What about me always needing a tool for one endeavor (walking) means I'm flawed but always needing a tool for the endeavor of dunking doesnt? Why the inconsistency?

No one's afraid of your fake arguments. But continue to fool yourself, it's funny.

Then address my real counter arguments instead of make believing your own silly ones.

And your example is still unbelievably contrived and therefore a sophism.

That's just a dodge.

"I understand" you don't understand the range of possibilities embraced by rules and that exceptions do not disprove them.

Exceptions lie outside those ranges of possibilities. Exceptions prove there are instances where your rules are inadequate.

Of course there is a right form for human beings, and when a given human lacks any of those capacities, that constitutes a flaw.

Of course isn't proof. Provide some. What's the right way for humans to be? Where does this righteousness originate from?

That fact does not marginalize the flawed person, for he/she can find specialized ways to excel. But you do them no favors with your paper-thin relativism.

Prove it's a fact. My contention is that you're still confusing facts for feelings.

No, YOU are.


Being born flawed is an objective lack of a capacity possessed by the norm, so that affects both form and function. I haven't abandoned anything, that's still you clinging to your delusions of grandeur.

So according to this argument if the norm (average) can write right handed but you're left handed, that makes you flawed?

My argument is pellucid and your sophism is the spawn of the swamp for clarity.

Whereas no one would mistake spawn of the swamp for anything but your feelings.

 

[Master Debator]

More sophistic logic-chopping. Your opinions are predicated on what you regard as good and evil, even if you have some allergic reaction to those terms.

You thirstly wanting me to think and argue in these terms won't make it so. I don't use good and evil because I see them as attempts to make claims about the nature of the objective world, rather than about yourself. When I say I personally dont like slavery that is a statement about my nature. When people say slavery is evil, that's a statement about the nature of slavery that isnt supported by any objective fact.

More misattribution, already covered.

When you can quote me using the above term "evil forces," send up a flare.

I can't quote you trying to ascribe evil as an argument to me where it doesn't exist. You do it above.

Nope, you're the one who established that you think you can use words with any kind of meaning,

Because you can. There's just no reason to be soy or coy over what you mean.

and that's your crutch, for which you have no objective necessity. That makes you more pitiable than any physically flawed being.

More of your feelings. There there.

Your pretense of not understanding anything you don't like merely shows your utter dependence on your subjective needs.

Or you just don't want to explain yourself....

Your fake interpretation of July 4, wherever that was.

What's fake about the fact that American Independence marked the creation of a new slave state?

I see your sophisms as your crutch, and other posters here have already indicated that they see through your BS.

I use facts.

It's a flaw in both form and function, and that's the real fact.

Explain it.

Because one involves an objective defense of one's bodily integrity and the other is a subjective desire to violate that integrity.

You're switching from actions to feelings to suit your argument. It is an objective defense of bodily integrity. That's an act. Its also an objective assault on bodily integrity. That's also an act. We can list all sorts of objective facts associated with the act of rape. It won't change the fact that desiring not to be raped is a feeling, not an act, just as desiring to rape is feeling and not an act and it won't change the fact that all feelings have equal objective value which is to say, none. The values of either of those sentiments are entirely subjective.

You would have learned that the first time I said it if you weren't so triggered all the time.

If I didn't constantly trigger you maybe you wouldn't confuse actions and feelings so much.

No, you present fake conclusions from false premises.

The premises I address are the ones you present.

I don't know if you literally can't tell the difference between true and false, or you're just pretending not to in order to support some gadfly delusion.

Says the guy that thinks the act of defending your bodily integrity gives your feelings more objective value than the person trying to penetrate it.

But pretending an equivalence between all emotional states, irrespective of their objective grounding, is a dismal and unimpressive tautology.

Every emotional state has objective grounding. That isnt unique to the ones you have sympathy for.