Utah creates 5 person commission to regulate one trans girl playing sports

[Phoenixmgs]

Well, look at the paper. The way you've utilised the data here is a masterclass in cherry-picking.

1) we were talking about infection. The paper is specifically about symptomatic infection. Before you respond that symptomatic infection is the only kind that matters: we know for a fact that the asymptomatic can reinfect others, causing potential death/hospitalisation in others and prolonging the pandemic as a whole.

2) You quoted one of the 5 vaccines they studied. 3 of them performed significantly better.

3) the one you quoted only dropped to 8.8% after half a year. That's a huge period of significantly successful protection when we're talking about managing the spread of a pandemic.

4) The paper is specifically about the performance of the existing vaccines against Omicron, when the existing vaccines weren't designed to combat omicron. It was you that said the existing vaccines would work fine against future variants. This paper you're victoriously holding up now literally disproves a key argument you were pushing a short while ago!

In short: the vaccines work well at preventing infection on the variants for which they were designed. They work less well over time for Omicron, though still significantly well in the shorter term (less than 10 weeks).

1) If symptomatic infection protection drops to 8%, then asymptomatic infection protection is even lower than that.

2) I quoted the Pfizer vaccine, which is probably the most popular. If I really wanted to cherry-pick, I would've went with the AstraZeneca data that had no effect at all. I went with the most popular vaccine, you act like I'm using like the Chinese or Russian vaccine and trying to pull one over on you or something. The other "vaccines" that performed significantly better were not vaccines but the boosters and the time period was much shorter. Of course, you're going to get better protection the closer to any dose of any of the vaccines. The boosters only help for a couple months so unless you can predict the future and know when you'll get infected, they are basically pointless (not counting the vulnerable which they do seem to help actually).

3) How is half a year a huge period? Are we supposed to get a shot quarterly or something? Also, one of the great aspects of mRNA was that they can quickly change the vaccine yet we are still getting the same exact vaccine, which is rather pointless.

4) Natural immunity and vaccines are still preventing severe disease and death, that's the point. Again, I was too bullish on infection protection earlier but so was literally every other medical professional. What's the point in trying to prevent infection when we are still preventing bad outcomes? The ship for getting to covid zero (or very low covid) has left the harbor and crashed into an iceberg at this point.

You're last bit is jumping to conclusions. How do we know the vaccines protect against infection from the variant they were based on as it's not circulating anymore? All the vaccine data that said 90+% effective was based off short-term data. The closer to a vaccine dose the more protected you are obviously. There's no reason to believe if the same covid was still circulating that it would protect against infection much at all (sure, probably better than omicron but it wouldn't be sticking to those high percentages that the trial data told us).

I'm moderately aware of the literature, which suggests vaccines may have a modest impact on transmission, with the omicron variant being probably least affected, although data is sparse on it. Nor is it a surprise that vaccines are not hugely effective at preventing spread - in a certain sense, they never have been for this sort of infection, the main aim is to reduce symptoms (and thus hospitalisations and deaths).

The point is really just that you cited a paper on a different topic.

I get how my paper wasn't quite on transmission but there's scant few papers that use the methods yours did. I feel logically that if the vaccine isn't preventing symptomatic disease, then transmission isn't going to be too limited as they've always claimed transmission is highest pre-symptoms with covid. In theory, if you're clearing a virus faster, you're infection window is probably shorter. Though, with omicron numbers, it's pretty hard to argue getting vaccinated is any kind a significant help to the community spread anymore. Plus, especially now (and only getting larger), is that a significant amount of non-vaccinated have been exposed and have natural immunity so we're close to butting our heads against the ceiling for increasing community immunity percentages.

Yes, we know. You don't know why you'd want to change. I'll repeat. I heard. YOU don't understand why people want to change their birth certificate. People have pointed this out many times in this thread, so we heard you.

I'm going to let you in on a little secret. People are allowed to have different opinion than you. You ARE NOT the population of the world. They don't copy they way you think. And you don't get to decide how they live. All you are doing is demanding everyone follow your personal ideology

Now, here is the best part. You're current knowledge isn't required. If you don't know, that's fine. You can leave whatever knowledge you have at the door. In fact, that is preferable. People HAVE told you why they want to change, including in this thread. All you have to do is listening

Now, if you actually mean, 'I don't like their reasons why they want to change their birth certificate', we can have a different conservation.

Lastly, your answer does not tackle why you want to ban people from changing their birth certificate. It just tells us why you don't want to do it to YOUR birth certificate. It's not related to anyone else

I listed a good reason why it could be bad to be able to change your sex on your birth certificate. Your best reason people are wanting to change their sex is to be able to play on a sports team they want to play on (not to actually play because that is not banned) whereas my reason is about being able to get proper medical treatment in an emergency situation. Unless you're going to shine some more light on the reasoning, I honestly don't find the trans argument strong at all.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

In what world do you live where a doctor will have access to your birth certificate and nothing else? I've literally never given a doctor a copy of my birth certificate

Which would be reflected on your official ID that the doctor would look at, not literally your actual birth certificate.

I mean, we *do* know the value of eggs in a diet, it's just that Superfood Diet Culture goes through trends. You're attributing Wellness Culture's bullshit to scientific knowledge. On top of that, this is just the "it's not perfect so it's worthless" argument stapled to an impossible standard

I was alluding to the fact that the official health messaging still lasting to today that was cholesterol and saturated fat is bad that turned out to be wrong, which has nothing to do with trends in diet culture. A food is either good or bad for you regardless of trends.

Disorders are societally defined.

Not medical disorders. Most of the tallest women had major health problems because it's a disorder. Unless life expectancy is socially defined..

Well, they've been allowing them for over a decade now, they have very few takers, trans women have earned zero medals, and the only people those regulations have hurt thus far have been cis women, so...

Argument could be made that these rules trying to protect women's sport are only detrimental to cis women.

You can say the same about any rule. Should we even screen for any performance enhancing drugs because it will only have athletes using newer, less known drugs that could be even more detrimental?

My beliefs don't require perfect scientific standards to justify. I'm well aware that current standards are likely not exactingly 100% fair, either giving trans *or* cis women an advantage.

Because my belief is that the napkin math checks out and that the single trans girl in the state of Utah isn't going to destroy women's sport by being allowed on the high school girl's basketball team. (Or whatever, I don't actually know what sport she plays)

Is more study required? Yes, absolutely. In general. For everything. Information is good and never perfect. But we will never *perfectly* compensate with HRT. In either direction. And that's not a good reason for a total ban

Why can't trans women play on the men's teams until we have much better data on the subject? Nobody is stopping them from playing and participating. Is a single trans girl playing on the men's team in Utah that big of a deal? Girls quite often play on men's teams because a girl's team doesn't exist because there's not enough girls wanting to play. My high school soccer team had a girl and she was even a starter.

You're the one making the claim that trans people somehow possess superpowers the rest of us don't. Burden of proof is on you, duder.

In science you have to prove something works, not that it doesn't work. Does sex change work?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Which would be reflected on your official ID that the doctor would look at, not literally your actual birth certificate.

Which would make your strawman argument of "but what if eye color" really dumb, huh.

And no, I've never had a doctor read off info from my driver's license either. The odds that it would be relevant while I'm hurt bad enough to be unconscious is fantastically low

I was alluding to the fact that the official health messaging still lasting to today that was cholesterol and saturated fat is bad that turned out to be wrong, which has nothing to do with trends in diet culture. A food is either good or bad for you regardless of trends.

You're alluding to meme food trends because Americans can't accept anything besides "eat this food all the time" and "never eat this food". Turns out, most food is a sometimes food. It's not "saturated fats good" vs "saturated fats bad" and outside the wellness cults it never has been

Not medical disorders. Most of the tallest women had major health problems because it's a disorder. Unless life expectancy is socially defined..

Most of the tallest men do to, but you left that out for unfathomable reasons

You can say the same about any rule. Should we even screen for any performance enhancing drugs because it will only have athletes using newer, less known drugs that could be even more detrimental?

...so, we should keep banning cis women from competitions over naturally occurring testosterone levels?

Why can't trans women play on the men's teams until we have much better data on the subject? Nobody is stopping them from playing and participating. Is a single trans girl playing on the men's team in Utah that big of a deal? Girls quite often play on men's teams because a girl's team doesn't exist because there's not enough girls wanting to play. My high school soccer team had a girl and she was even a starter.

I mean, the one you brought up as a gotcha dropped 500 rankings on 6 months of HRT.

'Course, the fact that your boy's soccer team had a cis girl starter kinda blows the "but the trans girl has too much of an advantage at high school sport" argument out of the water, doesn't it? Like, if a random cis girl can fairly compete with a gaggle of cis boys, one trans girl isn't gonna upset a cis girl team, yeah? If kids are that close at competition? Or does inclusion matter more than 100% strict fairness?

In science you have to prove something works, not that it doesn't work. Does sex change work?

Yes

Now's the part where you have a different definition of success than me

 

[Cheetodust]

A food is either good or bad for you regardless of trends.

There's almost no food that's "bad for you". There are certainly calorie dense foods lacking in much nutritional value but the idea of "x food" is bad for you mostly comes from the media sensationalising research.

Excepting of course for various additives that have demonstrated negative health effects but are also not really "food"...

 

[Silvanus]

1) If symptomatic infection protection drops to 8%, then asymptomatic infection protection is even lower than that.

Dude, you just quoted the wrong stat and don't have the numbers.

2) I quoted the Pfizer vaccine, which is probably the most popular. If I really wanted to cherry-pick, I would've went with the AstraZeneca data that had no effect at all. I went with the most popular vaccine, you act like I'm using like the Chinese or Russian vaccine and trying to pull one over on you or something. The other "vaccines" that performed significantly better were not vaccines but the boosters and the time period was much shorter. Of course, you're going to get better protection the closer to any dose of any of the vaccines. The boosters only help for a couple months so unless you can predict the future and know when you'll get infected, they are basically pointless (not counting the vulnerable which they do seem to help actually).

No, they weren't just the boosters. The time frame in your study was shorter for them, yes-- the flip side of that is that you have no data to suggest that their efficacy fades as much as Pfizer's does.

Picking one to suit your data, even if its the most widely used, is cherry picking, yes. Its still excluding the majority of people vaccinated.

3) How is half a year a huge period? Are we supposed to get a shot quarterly or something? Also, one of the great aspects of mRNA was that they can quickly change the vaccine yet we are still getting the same exact vaccine, which is rather pointless.

Yet again: it was you preaching that efficacy wouldn't fade, so we didn't need a new one. Now you're moaning about how silly it was that anyone followed the course of action that you advocated?

But yes, half a year is a huge period. That encompasses hundreds of thousands of lives saved or lost. Its time enough to prevent countless outbreaks and untold millions of transmissions. Its time enough to affect the course of the pandemic.

4) Natural immunity and vaccines are still preventing severe disease and death, that's the point.

Already addressed this twice.

You're last bit is jumping to conclusions. How do we know the vaccines protect against infection from the variant they were based on as it's not circulating anymore? All the vaccine data that said 90+% effective was based off short-term data. The closer to a vaccine dose the more protected you are obviously. There's no reason to believe if the same covid was still circulating that it would protect against infection much at all (sure, probably better than omicron but it wouldn't be sticking to those high percentages that the trial data told us).

Yes, they are still circulating.

You have a bad tendency to hear about a trend or tendency, and wrongly interpret it as the entirety of the situation. You did much the same with kids and covid. Kids caught it less often, and they showed much less severe symptoms from it. Great news! Only you then kept saying that kids just don't get it. Which is patently untrue, and an assumption that leads to some terrible mistaken decisions.

Here, you've done the same. Omicron has become dominant in most countries. You've wrongly interpreted that to mean the other variants just aren't around any more. No.

You're the one jumping to conclusions if you post a study specifically about vaccine efficacy against variants for which they were not designed, and extrapolate from that that the data also somehow applies to the variants for which they actually were designed. That's an absurd assumption.

 

[Trunkage]

I listed a good reason why it could be bad to be able to change your sex on your birth certificate. Your best reason people are wanting to change their sex is to be able to play on a sports team they want to play on (not to actually play because that is not banned)

Not to actually play? Do you want to have another go at that sentence? Because if you mean, for example, a transwomen play in a women's league, it was banned. In 14 states

whereas my reason is about being able to get proper medical treatment in an emergency situation. Unless you're going to shine some more light on the reasoning, I honestly don't find the trans argument strong at all.

A birth certificate for a medical professional is very useless

Eg. There are males in Texas who have vaginas, because they aren't allowed to change their birth certificate. A birth certificate would be very misleading.

 

[Buyetyen]

In science you have to prove something works, not that it doesn't work. Does sex change work?

First of all, the scientific method is to attempt to falsify a hypothesis, not prove it. That you don't understand this is a fundamental problem with your arguments.

Second, there is ample evidence that has already been posted in this and other threads that gender reassignment therapy is highly beneficial to the well-being of trans people who choose to undergo it. The evidence is there, you just don't give a shit.

 

[Agema]

In science you have to prove something works, not that it doesn't work.

1) Following classic Popperian theory, what is "true" are things we have tested and not found to be false. This theory suggests that in fact nothing is proven to be true, because everything is one good study away from being proven false. We could however just step past this and take an assumption that a vernacular "proven true" is equivalent to a more scientific principle "extremely likely based on plentiful empirical evidence".

2) What on earth do you mean by a sex change "working" or "not working"? What criteria are you basing this notion of success on? Without one, the statement is just gibberish.

3) It's just wrong anyway. You cannot seriously argue no-one has ever set about an experiment to prove something is incorrect. Science is really a tool, and can be used for a wide range of aims, one of which is to demonstrate that something is not true.

 

[Trunkage]

Guys, Phoenixmgs is just doing what they did during the pandemic. If th study (or usually a whole range of studies) doesn't agree with them, it doesn't exist

That's how you get from Ivermectin being studied hundreds of times around the world from the start of the pandemic to Ivermectin was never studied. You just ignore what disagree with you

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Which would make your strawman argument of "but what if eye color" really dumb, huh.

And no, I've never had a doctor read off info from my driver's license either. The odds that it would be relevant while I'm hurt bad enough to be unconscious is fantastically low

What is going to change about your life if you fixed on your birth certificate your eye color or your "gender" (but not really since it's sex)?

You're really trying to argue about emergency medical situations don't occur enough for the doctor having correct information to be important?

You're alluding to meme food trends because Americans can't accept anything besides "eat this food all the time" and "never eat this food". Turns out, most food is a sometimes food. It's not "saturated fats good" vs "saturated fats bad" and outside the wellness cults it never has been

American Heart Association is a wellness cult?

https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-10/DGA_Cut-Down-On-Saturated-Fats.pdf

Saturated Fat

Eating too much saturated fat can raise the level of LDL(bad) cholesterol in your blood.

www.heart.org

Most of the tallest men do to, but you left that out for unfathomable reasons

All the basketball players I listed have medical disorders? Tall women that aren't even that tall compared to normal centers in basketball had a medical disorder that caused them to be that tall. Men are taller than women, I don't know how this fact is being disputed.

...so, we should keep banning cis women from competitions over naturally occurring testosterone levels?

Never said that, my point is that you will kick people out by accident with any kind of drug screenings.

'Course, the fact that your boy's soccer team had a cis girl starter kinda blows the "but the trans girl has too much of an advantage at high school sport" argument out of the water, doesn't it? Like, if a random cis girl can fairly compete with a gaggle of cis boys, one trans girl isn't gonna upset a cis girl team, yeah? If kids are that close at competition? Or does inclusion matter more than 100% strict fairness?

Our soccer team was a newish team for the sport for my high school and we only had a couple players that were legit soccer players. The problem comes in when you're on a good team going for state and national titles.

Yes

Now's the part where you have a different definition of success than me

In this case, success would be 100% equal to a biological female because it's a sport. Anything else, nobody would care and thus that's why there's no bills/laws about trans women participating in any other type of girls clubs/activities/etc. Men being taller, having bigger lungs & hearts, and probably quite a few other things that can't be reversed that affect physical performance creates a fair playing field?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Dude, you just quoted the wrong stat and don't have the numbers.

Asymptomatic infection is kinda a garbage stat anyway. I don't think there's any studies on it because it just means you tested positive and have no symptoms, which could mean you'll get symptoms later and you're just pre-symptomatic (it's not like people are calling back saying they got symptoms so we have perfect data) or you're body gets rid of it so fast you don't get symptoms and probably means your not infectious or the window is very small or maybe you are as infectious as anyone else. We don't know.

No, they weren't just the boosters. The time frame in your study was shorter for them, yes-- the flip side of that is that you have no data to suggest that their efficacy fades as much as Pfizer's does.

Picking one to suit your data, even if its the most widely used, is cherry picking, yes. Its still excluding the majority of people vaccinated.

There's 6 data sets, 2 of them are just for getting normal vaccinated, 4 are for boosters after normal vaccination. We already know boosters fade in a couple months, you're levels return to what they were pre-booster a couple months later. Also if we don't know that booster levels fade, why are people getting 2nd boosters? I picked the most common vaccination and the majority of vaccinated are not boosted.

Yet again: it was you preaching that efficacy wouldn't fade, so we didn't need a new one. Now you're moaning about how silly it was that anyone followed the course of action that you advocated?

But yes, half a year is a huge period. That encompasses hundreds of thousands of lives saved or lost. Its time enough to prevent countless outbreaks and untold millions of transmissions. Its time enough to affect the course of the pandemic.

The important efficacy isn't fading. There's literally no reason for the majority of the population to get boosted.

I think we have a misunderstanding with what we are talking about with the time period. I'm saying half a year isn't long in terms of vaccine time, meaning vaccines work from years to lifetimes. I didn't say half a year is nothing for lives saved or whatever.

Yes, they are still circulating.

You have a bad tendency to hear about a trend or tendency, and wrongly interpret it as the entirety of the situation. You did much the same with kids and covid. Kids caught it less often, and they showed much less severe symptoms from it. Great news! Only you then kept saying that kids just don't get it. Which is patently untrue, and an assumption that leads to some terrible mistaken decisions.

Here, you've done the same. Omicron has become dominant in most countries. You've wrongly interpreted that to mean the other variants just aren't around any more. No.

You're the one jumping to conclusions if you post a study specifically about vaccine efficacy against variants for which they were not designed, and extrapolate from that that the data also somehow applies to the variants for which they actually were designed. That's an absurd assumption.

Where is the "wild" type still circulating? A new variant takes over because it's more fit and the less fit ones are circulated less and less as time goes on. I didn't say other variants aren't around, I said the wild type that the vaccines are based on.

I didn't say kids don't get it, I said they are unlikely to transmit it.
Per CDC data

Less than 1% of Florida students got COVID-19 at school

Researchers say the findings add to a growing list of evidence suggesting coronavirus transmission isn't more frequent in schools than outside them.

www.wtsp.com

Do you not see how much more infections there were in the last wave in New York, which has very good vaccine numbers? If the vaccines were stopping infections like you claim, why was the last wave, post-vaccine, like 4 times higher than previous waves, pre-vaccine?

Not to actually play? Do you want to have another go at that sentence? Because if you mean, for example, a transwomen play in a women's league, it was banned. In 14 states


A birth certificate for a medical professional is very useless

Eg. There are males in Texas who have vaginas, because they aren't allowed to change their birth certificate. A birth certificate would be very misleading.

Again, why can't you simply answer a single question? WHAT STATE HAS BANNED TRANS ATHLETES FROM PLAYING SPORTS?

Doctors looks at IDs of people brought in that are unconscious, those IDs use info from your birth certificate.

Changing your birth certificate over a clerical error is different. Birth certificates don't have your gender, they have your sex, and you can't change your biological sex. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you get to change it.

Guys, Phoenixmgs is just doing what they did during the pandemic. If th study (or usually a whole range of studies) doesn't agree with them, it doesn't exist

That's how you get from Ivermectin being studied hundreds of times around the world from the start of the pandemic to Ivermectin was never studied. You just ignore what disagree with you

Don't even know what you're referring to. There's tons of studies on lots of things, you get rid of the poor studies and look at the well done studies.

 

[Trunkage]

Again, why can't you simply answer a single question? WHAT STATE HAS BANNED TRANS ATHLETES FROM PLAYING SPORTS?

[/qoute] TRANSATHLETE High school transgender athlete policies
Here is a summary of every state

I don't know why your complaining about it, you have already stated that transathelees have been banned and said it was only negative when transmen are forced into play in women's leagues.

Doctors looks at IDs of people brought in that are unconscious, those IDs use info from your birth certificate.

Why in Vishnu name would that be?
Is this some stupid America nonsense I don't know about. Having female listed on your driver's license when you look male is misleading information. Your ID, I would hope, would be about who you are NOW, not when you were born. I had very different natural hair and eye colour when I was born. It would be really stupid to have those previous colours on my driver's license.

Changing your birth certificate over a clerical error is different. Birth certificates don't have your gender, they have your sex, and you can't change your biological sex. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you get to change it.

If a person with vagina, breast and a fuck load of oestrogen turns up to a hospital but it's state mandated that their birth certificate says they are male because they are banned from changing it, it's giving you incorrect information. Thus useless. Plus, I haven't even gotten out my birth certificate in 20 years. Why would I need it?
People already have stated that giving your birth certificate to a doctor in the US is not a thing. So I dont know why we are still talking about it

Don't even know what you're referring to. There's tons of studies on lots of things, you get rid of the poor studies and look at the well done studies.

That would be really cool if you started doing that.
Also, if a study attains a negative result, that does not mean its a poor study

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

What is going to change about your life if you fixed on your birth certificate your eye color or your "gender" (but not really since it's sex)?

The ability for my driver's license to be accurate

You're really trying to argue about emergency medical situations don't occur enough for the doctor having correct information to be important?

Correct, emergency medical situations where the doctor has access to my birth certificate and nothing else are so vanishingly rare they may as well be non-existanat

American Heart Association is a wellness cult?

https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-10/DGA_Cut-Down-On-Saturated-Fats.pdf

Saturated Fat

Eating too much saturated fat can raise the level of LDL(bad) cholesterol in your blood.

www.heart.org

Me: "Eggs are good for you, just watch your saturated fats, the problem is an all or nothing mentality"
You: "but what about the American Heart Association, who says that eggs are good for you, just watch your saturated fats because an all or nothing mentality is bad for you?"

All the basketball players I listed have medical disorders? Tall women that aren't even that tall compared to normal centers in basketball had a medical disorder that caused them to be that tall. Men are taller than women, I don't know how this fact is being disputed.

My cis-female cousin is 6'8" without a medical disorder or resultant medical problems. *Some* tall women have issues. *Some* tall men have issues. And using general advantages to declare specific individuals have an advantage is not how that works, see also the latest MMA bout where the trans gal was shorter than her opponent

Never said that, my point is that you will kick people out by accident with any kind of drug screenings.

Nobody involved is being screened for drugs, it's just a basic hormone test hurting cis women

Our soccer team was a newish team for the sport for my high school and we only had a couple players that were legit soccer players. The problem comes in when you're on a good team going for state and national titles.

So a trans girl should be allowed to join a girl's team if they all suck, got it

In this case, success would be 100% equal to a biological female because it's a sport. Anything else, nobody would care and thus that's why there's no bills/laws about trans women participating in any other type of girls clubs/activities/etc. Men being taller, having bigger lungs & hearts, and probably quite a few other things that can't be reversed that affect physical performance creates a fair playing field?

Then in that case, yes: we frequently have sex changes that are successful

 

[Buyetyen]

Would it be fruitless of me to point out that biological sex doesn't refer to the equipment between your legs or your chromosomes, just what type of gametes your body produces?

 

[tstorm823]

Would it be fruitless of me to point out that biological sex doesn't refer to the equipment between your legs or your chromosomes, just what type of gametes your body produces?

If you hold that position consistently, that doesn't sound fruitless at all.

 

[Buyetyen]

If you hold that position consistently, that doesn't sound fruitless at all.

I mean, that is literally the scientific definition of biological sex, but trying to explain that to conservatives feels a bit like pulling teeth.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Here is a summary of every state

I don't know why your complaining about it, you have already stated that transathelees have been banned and said it was only negative when transmen are forced into play in women's leagues.

Why in Vishnu name would that be?
Is this some stupid America nonsense I don't know about. Having female listed on your driver's license when you look male is misleading information. Your ID, I would hope, would be about who you are NOW, not when you were born. I had very different natural hair and eye colour when I was born. It would be really stupid to have those previous colours on my driver's license.

If a person with vagina, breast and a fuck load of oestrogen turns up to a hospital but it's state mandated that their birth certificate says they are male because they are banned from changing it, it's giving you incorrect information. Thus useless. Plus, I haven't even gotten out my birth certificate in 20 years. Why would I need it?
People already have stated that giving your birth certificate to a doctor in the US is not a thing. So I dont know why we are still talking about it

That would be really cool if you started doing that.
Also, if a study attains a negative result, that does not mean its a poor study

Again, please tell me a state that has banned trans athletes from playing sports. I never said trans athletes have been banned from competing, I keep asking you the question and you keep not answering it.

Your biological sex is who you are NOW. I'm pretty sure based on biological sex, a doctor will treat certain things differently. I'm not a doctor but I'm guessing it's highly likely there's some circumstances where it would come into play. And you having your sex reflect your gender is going to come into play when?

Methods decide poor study.

The ability for my driver's license to be accurate

Correct, emergency medical situations where the doctor has access to my birth certificate and nothing else are so vanishingly rare they may as well be non-existanat

Me: "Eggs are good for you, just watch your saturated fats, the problem is an all or nothing mentality"
You: "but what about the American Heart Association, who says that eggs are good for you, just watch your saturated fats because an all or nothing mentality is bad for you?"

My cis-female cousin is 6'8" without a medical disorder or resultant medical problems. *Some* tall women have issues. *Some* tall men have issues. And using general advantages to declare specific individuals have an advantage is not how that works, see also the latest MMA bout where the trans gal was shorter than her opponent

Nobody involved is being screened for drugs, it's just a basic hormone test hurting cis women

So a trans girl should be allowed to join a girl's team if they all suck, got it

Then in that case, yes: we frequently have sex changes that are successful

Sex and gender are 2 different things. Your sex is accurate.

The info from you birth certificate is used on your IDs, which a doctor will look at in certain circumstances.

No you said people saying eggs are bad for you are only wellness cults when for like 50 years America has had a war on fat and cholesterol that has no scientific backing and has only made the population even less healthy by promoting foods that are far less healthy as healthy foods. My mom's doctor literally told her that eggs aren't good for her...

What don't you get about, ON AVERAGE, men are taller than women? Just because one woman is taller than a man or a man is shorter than a woman doesn't disprove that.

I just used drug screening for a catch all for screening for substances that increase physical performance since it's easier to type and assume the other person gets the gist of it. I don't really care about the semantics of what is a drug and what isn't.

Twisting words again.

No, no we haven't. You're just making up shit at this point.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Again, please tell me a state that has banned trans athletes from playing sports. I never said trans athletes have been banned from competing, I keep asking you the question and you keep not answering it.

We never banned any people from getting married either. Nobody does

Sex and gender are 2 different things. Your sex is accurate.

The info from you birth certificate is used on your IDs, which a doctor will look at in certain circumstances.

If you're arguing that people should have to out themselves to cops, I'd argue that that's dangerous. Especially for theoretical emergency situations that happen so rarely they might as well not exist

No you said people saying eggs are bad for you are only wellness cults when for like 50 years America has had a war on fat and cholesterol that has no scientific backing and has only made the population even less healthy by promoting foods that are far less healthy as healthy foods. My mom's doctor literally told her that eggs aren't good for her...

Doctors are not immune to wellness cults.
Too much saturated fat is bad. Too much of anything is bad. Eggs have a lot of saturated fat, so maybe don't declare them a superfood and have 4 every meal.

Thus does not mean "we don't even know if eggs are good for you" unless you're prone to intense black-and-white thinking.

What don't you get about, ON AVERAGE, men are taller than women? Just because one woman is taller than a man or a man is shorter than a woman doesn't disprove that.

Correct. Which is why using that general fact as a means to ban each and every trans person from women's sport is stupid

I just used drug screening for a catch all for screening for substances that increase physical performance since it's easier to type and assume the other person gets the gist of it. I don't really care about the semantics of what is a drug and what isn't.

So the banning of non-cheating cis women with naturally elevated testosterone should continue to protect the integrity of women's sport?

Twisting words again.

You said it was fair because your team wasn't in the running for state and national championships.

No, no we haven't. You're just making up shit at this point.

Sure we have. Most trans girls and women don't win anything. Those that do tend not to be invincible, only acting more-or-less in line with their equivalent ranks pre-transition. Napkin math checks out, more stringent math is inconclusive. And baring top level athletes, trans women who started near the meale average end up near the female average. According to your definition, that's a successful sex-change

(Anecdotal personal story, trans woman I'm friends with is actually stronger now that she's transitioned, due to having better motivation, morale, and energy in her new body. Can't open jars as well, but stronger everywhere else. It's amazing what you can achieve when you're comfortable in your body)

 

[Trunkage]

If you hold that position consistently, that doesn't sound fruitless at all.

I would imagine that it doesn't fit well with all humans

 

[McElroy]

I would imagine that it doesn't fit well with all humans

A binary definition of sex fits well. Categories are male (produces small gametes), female (large gametes), and if neither we can still keep the binary with "small/large gamete production inhibited because of [biological reason]". Sure, it's not 100% fool proof, but the exceptions that don't fit are fewer than 1/million.