Hello, Elliot Page

[Agema]

Scientific studies alone do not raise the level of public outcry sufficient to push through sweeping legislation over a 12-24 month time span, damn near globally among Western countries.

No. But merely being a performance-enhancing drug for professional athletes does not raise an outcry that results in additional legal ramifications for misuse, either. Otherwise, like I said, salbutamol and propranolol would be similarly listed as drugs of abuse.

And yet they are far and away the single largest identifiable group among anabolic steroid users. Counting weightlifting as a sport...

If it's not competitive, I'm not counting it as sport for the purpose of this discussion.

...which you seem to not. Pray tell, how was Schwarzenegger "discovered"?

No need to be so pissily disputatious. The 1980s was the peak period of macho muscle fashion, irrespective of where its main proponents came from.

It's funny you mention Stallone, because contrary to public perception today he wasn't actually much of an action star during the '80s.

Yeah, and perception's what matters. I'm old enough to remember perfectly well what Stallone's reputation in the 1980s was.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Otherwise, like I said, salbutamol and propranolol would be similarly listed as drugs of abuse.

So would you care to clarify the official positions of private sports associations, semi-professional and professional leagues, and WADA on either drug's consideration and status, as well as other beta blockers and beta-2 agonists, or will I have to?

Because otherwise, yeah, you're absolutely correct to point out those two are also performance-enhancing drugs. So where's the public outcry leading to listing those on controlled substances lists? As I recall, either of those medications have some pretty potential nasty side effects and consequences, for abuse that are well-documented as well. If that's the bar they should be schedule III too, so why aren't they?

Or are we just going to continue playing denialist games to ignore the obvious trans rights issue?

If it's not competitive, I'm not counting it as sport for the purpose of this discussion.

Other than the actual, you know, competitions on the amateur, semi-professional, professional, and Olympic level, not to mention the figure and fitness contests for men and women (but most notably in this case, men) all the way from local in some areas to international. But even if you clumsily and overtly no true Scotsman your way around all that, even to say "cosmetic" still implies competition, even if on a social level. So cut the shit.

...irrespective of where its main proponents came from.

How gleefully and dubiously fortunate for you.

Yeah, and perception's what matters. I'm old enough to remember perfectly well what Stallone's reputation in the 1980s was.

Perfectly, huh? Your perfect memory account for the Rocky franchise, what put Stallone on the map as an A-list star, being sports movies? Or that First Blood was a drama/fugitive movie that just happened to have a couple famous action set pieces, that were leveraged into turning it into an action franchise for the second installment...in '85? Or are we just considering only the latter half of the '80s to be the entire decade?

But yeah...100% action star.

 

[Agema]

So would you care to clarify...

Perhaps you'd like to engage with my argument instead the weird parallel one going on in your own head?

Or are we just going to continue playing denialist games to ignore the obvious trans rights issue?

Perhaps you'd like to engage with my argument instead the weird parallel one going on in your own head?

Other than the actual, you know, competitions on the amateur, semi-professional, professional, and Olympic level

Most weightlifters / bodybuilders, including those taking anabolic steroids, do not enter competitions. Which is the point, as originally stated.

How gleefully and dubiously fortunate for you.

The increase in use of anabolic steroids in the general public more closely mirrors the desire for super-ripped bods, which are a result of media pressure. Sports is a contributing factor as I have freely agreed, but a lot of it comes from fashions of the era.

Perfectly, huh? Your perfect memory account for the Rocky franchise...

I trust my lived experience over you pettily arguing for the sake of arguing, yeah.

 

[happyninja42]

I trust my lived experience over you pettily arguing for the sake of arguing, yeah.

I'd say your implication about Stallone's reputation might be off by a decade? Your original comment implies that he wasn't considered to be a good actor/star, and that he was something of a joke. And I would agree, based on my own memory of how most viewed his work. But, I would say that was more indicative of the 90s, to the 80s. Maybe late 80s since that's when he started churning out stuff like Cobra. But his 90s films were....less than great.

 

[SupahEwok]

Most weightlifters / bodybuilders, including those taking anabolic steroids, do not enter competitions.

Neither do most people who kick around a soccer ball or dribble a basketball.

The competitive scene for weightlifting and bodybuilding are very active; Schwarzenegger was talent spotted due to his bodybuilding competitions. Trying to sweep away one of the sports with the biggest history of juicing as not a real sport is a bad faith argument.

 

[Agema]

I'd say your implication about Stallone's reputation might be off by a decade?

I didn't say he was a bad actor or only did action films, nor do I really get why people are focusing on him so much. I just meant that he was a conspicuous part of a trend for big, well-defined muscle in the 80s. For instance, prior decades actors like Sean Connery (who was a bodybuilder), Clint Eastwood or Charlton Heston were in great condition at their peak, but they were nothing on the chiselled, gym-honed bodies that became A-list material in the 80s.

Neither do most people who kick around a soccer ball or dribble a basketball.

The competitive scene for weightlifting and bodybuilding are very active; Schwarzenegger was talent spotted due to his bodybuilding competitions. Trying to sweep away one of the sports with the biggest history of juicing as not a real sport is a bad faith argument.

I feel like I'm in a world of people being deliberately unconstructive.

Weightlifting is definitely a sport in the wider sense. The distinction here - following the thread - is the idea of an athlete, who has a dedicated aim of excelling at a competitive, physical sport; as opposed to someone who does a physical activity (which may be a sport) "casually", for instance to keep fit or bulk up or look good. I do not think this is a complex distinction.

 

[happyninja42]

I didn't say he was a bad actor or only did action films, nor do I really get why people are focusing on him so much. I just meant that he was a conspicuous part of a trend for big, well-defined muscle in the 80s. For instance, prior decades actors like Sean Connery (who was a bodybuilder), Clint Eastwood or Charlton Heston were in great condition at their peak, but they were nothing on the chiselled, gym-honed bodies that became A-list material in the 80s.

Ah, the tone of your post kind of seemed like you were implying his work took a dive in quality in the 80s, which I felt was prime Stallone time, followed by the 90s decline. But yes he was definitely part of the roided out 80s when it came to the bulk of his work.

As to focusing on him, I'm not really, just thought you had your aim off a bit based on how I read your post. None of which has anything to do with Elliot Page at this point.

 

[Silvanus]

I feel like I'm in a world of people being deliberately unconstructive.

No you're not! Rabble rabble rabble!

 

[SupahEwok]

I feel like I'm in a world of people being deliberately unconstructive.

Weightlifting is definitely a sport in the wider sense. The distinction here - following the thread - is the idea of an athlete, who has a dedicated aim of excelling at a competitive, physical sport; as opposed to someone who does a physical activity (which may be a sport) "casually", for instance to keep fit or bulk up or look good. I do not think this is a complex distinction.

And yet you don't seem to recognize that there are people who take up weightlifting as athletic sport. Unless you want to further define "athletic sport" as "team-based", you don't have a leg to stand on, or are speaking from ignorance.

It's true that people use weightlifting as general fitness, or as specific fitness for another sport, but you are dismissing those who take up weightlifting as their sport, period. Along with professional bodybuilders, wherein there is indeed competition and also commercial interest.

Like, I'm just going to assume you really don't know, so here:

 

[Eacaraxe]

Perhaps you'd like to engage with my argument instead the weird parallel one going on in your own head?

Fine I'll fuckin' do it.

What is Prohibited

www.wada-ama.org

What is Prohibited

www.wada-ama.org

Well, why don't we take a looky-loo at what beta blockers and beta-2 agonists are classified as performance-enhancing drugs and prohibited by WADA...why good golly gee, right there on the list are both of the pharmaceuticals you just said weren't prohibited as performance-enhancing drugs!

Now I guess you have no choice but to answer what the difference is between T and those two pharmaceuticals that makes the former controlled substances. Maybe after that, if you're done weaseling around you might ante into the discussion of whether that's a legal barrier for trans men to receive hormone therapy and therefore a trans rights issue?

Perhaps you'd like to engage with my argument instead the weird parallel one going on in your own head?

I don't know, perhaps you'd care to explain why you're trying to derail a mention of a trans rights issue unique to trans men, in a thread about a trans man, by engaging in pedantry about how one defines a "sport", arguing about cisgendered male film actors, and quibbling (incorrectly) over minutiae largely about completely unrelated drugs. Because this is coming off a mite transphobic at this point to me, and pretty much perfectly encapsulates how trans men's rights are discussed in the broader trans rights discourse.

Don't think I haven't noticed you glossed straight over my point, which is that T is a controlled substance, and latched yourself onto my (entirely correct) contribution of its prohibition to professional athletics like a rhetorical remora to try to change the topic.

Most weightlifters / bodybuilders, including those taking anabolic steroids, do not enter competitions. Which is the point, as originally stated.

Others already handled this far better than I will.

The increase in use of anabolic steroids in the general public more closely mirrors the desire for super-ripped bods, which are a result of media pressure. Sports is a contributing factor as I have freely agreed, but a lot of it comes from fashions of the era.

Yes, that very media pressure that seems to have manifested directly from the luminiferous aether, entirely absent context, one fine day which spontaneously exploded into a bunch of people who non-competitively participate, for reasons that have nothing to do with social capitol, in something that isn't actually a sport, except for all the times it is, which just amazingly enough for you so happen to be all those times that would fundamentally contradict your argument.

I trust my lived experience over you pettily arguing for the sake of arguing, yeah.

And the petty arguments of sources like Sylvester Stallone's filmography during the '80s, but go on.

 

[Silvanus]

And yet you don't seem to recognize that there are people who take up weightlifting as athletic sport. Unless you want to further define "athletic sport" as "team-based", you don't have a leg to stand on, or are speaking from ignorance.

Well, sure, but what proportion of weightlifters are doing so in a competitive or athletic context? I would think it's a tiny percentage.

With team sports like football, even amateur playing will have a competitive structure, which most people think of as integral to something being a sport. But with weightlifting, most amateurs are doing it at the gym. Without competition, without point-scoring, purely for self-improvement, like working out-- and we wouldn't call working out a sport.

So sure, it's a sport in the sense that it can be played competitively or with an external points system, but it isn't done that way 80% of the time.

Well, why don't we take a looky-loo [...] why good golly gee

D'you think this aggressive condescension is conducive to any kind of discussion? I really hope you don't speak to people in this manner in real life.

 

[Eacaraxe]

With team sports like football, even amateur playing will have a competitive structure, which most people think of as integral to something being a sport. But with weightlifting, most amateurs are doing it at the gym. Without competition, without point-scoring, purely for self-improvement, like working out-- and we wouldn't call working out a sport.

We call running a sport and it operates under the exact same principles you just outlined, by the same people, for the same reasons, and on an amateur all the way to professional level. Gymnastics, same deal. Martial arts, same deal. Skiiing and waterskiing, same deal. Right down the list, same deal.

It's still a no true Scotsman argument. No amount of arguing otherwise will not make it so.

I really hope you don't speak to people in this manner in real life.

I don't. I'm downright polite here, constrained by rules as I am on these forums, compared to how I would speak to bad-faith actors making bad-faith arguments to excuse systemic bigotry.

 

[Silvanus]

We call running a sport and it operates under the exact same principles you just outlined, by the same people, for the same reasons, and on an amateur all the way to professional level. Gymnastics, same deal. Martial arts, same deal. Skiiing and waterskiing, same deal. Right down the list, same deal.

It's still a no true Scotsman argument. No amount of arguing otherwise will not make it so.

I mean, I wouldn't call running a sport. Racing maybe.

I don't. I'm downright polite here, constrained by rules as I am on these forums

Good grief. Get a blood pressure test.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Ah... Nothing like a freshly brewed AgemaxEacaraxe debate.

 

[Houseman]

Ah... Nothing like a freshly brewed AgemaxEacaraxe debate.

I like it. I respect them both. This is a true clash of the titans.

 

[Agema]

And yet you don't seem to recognize that there are people who take up weightlifting as athletic sport.

No, I realise that perfectly well. I'm just drawing a distinction between people who dedicatedly lift weights for the intent of entering competitions where they try to out-lift other people who also lift weights for competition, and people who just go into a gym to lift weights occasionally for general fitness, strength or muscle building. Which is basically repeating exactly what I said last comment in a slightly different fashion.

It has been estimated that in the UK, about 1-2% of the population are taking anabolic steroids outside prescription use. The stated reasons were (more than one could be picked, so they add up beyond 100%):
1) Develop body image (~55%)
2) Non-competitive bodybuilding (~45%)
3) Develop sporting / athletic performance (~25%)
4) Support occupational performance (~10%)
5) Increase sex drive (~10%)

Note the difference between (1)/(2) and (3).

Fine I'll fuckin' do it.

To restate my original comment:

Contast with salbutamol (/albuterol) which is heavily restricted for professional athletes, but as it poses no significant abuse risk for the general public is just a regular prescription medicine.

I don't know, perhaps you'd care to explain why you're trying to derail a mention of a trans rights issue unique to trans men

Yes. I'm explaining what a sport is because you went on one of your rants after I pointed out that androgens were restricted because of abuse by the general public rather than by high level athletes. So if you want to know why this thread became so derailed: it's your fault.

Just to illustrate how you do this, when I brought up Stallone as a simple example of the 1980s popularisation of the hyper-muscled male image contributing to increased societal steroid use, you started a bizarre digression about precisely what year he became associated with action movies, and that it was only about 1985/1986 (as if that is somehow not the 1980s), etc. That's what you do when get this weird rush of blood to the head.

Don't think I haven't noticed you glossed straight over my point, which is that T is a controlled substance, and latched yourself onto my (entirely correct) contribution of its prohibition to professional athletics like a rhetorical remora to try to change the topic.

Controlled substance is anything the government puts a restriction on; this therefore means both prescription medicines and illegal drugs. Some of course (like heroin and some androgens) effectively exist as both, mostly depending on who makes, supplies and buys them.

Yes, that very media pressure that seems to have manifested directly from the luminiferous aether, entirely absent context, one fine day which spontaneously exploded into a bunch of people who non-competitively participate, for reasons that have nothing to do with social capitol, in something that isn't actually a sport, except for all the times it is, which just amazingly enough for you so happen to be all those times that would fundamentally contradict your argument.

The incredibly boring thing about this is you're arguing about almost nothing. We don't appear to disagree about unhealthy issues of body image that are fostered by idealised societal images. You just have this weird objection to me saying it goes further and deeper than professional sports. That is literally all it is.

 

[Eacaraxe]

I'm explaining what a sport is because you went on one of your rants after I pointed out that androgens were restricted because of abuse by the general public rather than by high level athletes.

And you were fucking wrong, because the public outcry to make it happen was thanks to the Olympics doping scandal. As you said yourself, no scientific study on the planet would have generated that level of outcry. Hell, thalidomide didn't.

So if you want to know why this thread became so derailed: it's your fault.

And my "me", you mean "your red herrings and no true Scotsmen arguments".

Just to illustrate how you do this, when I brought up Stallone as a simple example of the 1980s popularisation of the hyper-muscled male image contributing to increased societal steroid use, you started a bizarre digression about precisely what year he became associated with action movies, and that it was only about 1985/1986 (as if that is somehow not the 1980s), etc.

Because you were not only wrong, you were trying to change the subject away from a trans men's rights issue I brought up, in a thread about trans men, in response to a point I made about the widespread erasure of trans men's rights issues, and to a broader extent, the mere existence of trans men.

And you're still doing it. At what point do we conclude you're being transphobic?

Controlled substance is anything the government puts a restriction on; this therefore means both prescription medicines and illegal drugs. Some of course (like heroin and some androgens) effectively exist as both, mostly depending on who makes, supplies and buys them.

Anybody facing possession charges for having estradiol, or can I get online and buy some right now on a grey market pharmacy site like I would not for T? If I get shaken down by a cop and have my albuterol (since you brought it up) inhaler on me and can't show a script, am I facing a misdemeanor charge?

That is literally all it is.

No it's you latching onto a sidebar I made to avoid having to discuss my actual point. Because you're being transphobic.

 

[Agema]

And you were fucking wrong, because the public outcry to make it happen was thanks to the Olympics doping scandal. As you said yourself, no scientific study on the planet would have generated that level of outcry. Hell, thalidomide didn't.

There had been growing concerns about steroid abuse for years. The Olympic scandal may well have provided a key PR motivation to push action over the line in the USA, but fundamentally the rationale to make possession of androgens illegal was wide scale abuse by the general public.

Because you were not only wrong, you were trying to change the subject away from a trans men's rights issue I brought up, in a thread about trans men, in response to a point I made about the widespread erasure of trans men's rights issues, and to a broader extent, the mere existence of trans men.

And you're still doing it. At what point do we conclude you're being transphobic?

The accessibility of sex hormones to trans men and women should not be controversial. Nor for hypogonadism, contraception, and other genuine medical reasons. But androgens are readily abused drugs, so there is a clear rationale to restrict their access to people who do not have legitimate reasons. This is not transphobia.

 

[Silvanus]

And you're still doing it. At what point do we conclude you're being transphobic?

Just a reminder that a few pages ago you were insinuating a trans public figure was coming out for attention.

 

[Agema]

Just a reminder that a few pages ago you were insinuating a trans public figure was coming out for attention.

Yeah, I nearly went there too, but you know, conflict de-escalation and all.