Sadie Young

"No no see, my guy wasn't "selling out" when he started a podcast purely for attention and controversy. He just doesn't agree with stuff!"

What insane phrasing. The good reason is trans women are human people for whom inclusion in social activities allows for healthy relationships with the people around them to develop.

The question actually is; "What is so important you'd get in the way of that?"

I was just saying this earlier. All this bioessentialism does is reduce all female athletes (all women, actually, cis and trans) to a cookie cutter stereotype that punishes any girl who deviates.

That last part is important. This conversation is designed to make sure any trans girl who wins is automatically suspect.

There's a more important fairness at play.

The Sophie's Choice narrative these Democrats are engaging in gets so tired after the 50th or 60th time they choose to shoot one of their kids rather than actually fight the Nazis.

It really looks like they just enjoy killing their kids.

It's literally an endorsement of the CR. You don't get much more endorsing of a thing than officially attaching your name to it. I'm pretty sure that's actually the definition of the word "endorsement."

All the rest is excuses and justifications. God, y'all act like toddlers.

Regardless. There aren't enough trans people to form a league. Really wish people would stop floating that feelgood bullshit and just admit y'all want trans women out of sight.

Apparently according to the Olympics kerfluffle, even if you were born with a vagina and grew up being a girl your entire life, that's not enough, so...

Maybe the issue isn't trans women at all.

The point is the only reason you're even here is because they've artificially created two categories to compare to each other (and place us in the male one despite it not representing our real bodies).

IF you included ALL trans women within the female category, *there would be no outliers.*

Nope. I'm pissed. You're stupid. Congrats.

WE ARE NOT TAKING PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS. Furthermore, we don't have any advantages which would be associated with that.

It is wild that you think there are only like 5 cis women taller than me in ALL OF SPORTS.

And you have the balls to call me intellectually dishonest lol.

You don't even know cis female physiology. You're just hodgpodging excuses for exclusion. Just let us play it's fine lol.

You are lost in the weeds on an expedition through a thought experiment that has nothing to do with actual trans female bodies. It's all theory to you.

It's literally my body I live inside. You are completely out of touch.

If there's EVEN ONE COMPETING, I'd just be competing as a tallish girl. But there are, in fact, thousands of girls taller than 5'8" who compete in sports. There are 500,000 competing women at the collegiate level.

The only exclusionary factor is categorical. It has nothing to do with my REAL body.

Ar 5'8" there are plenty of women taller who compete. The only reason you'd exclude me and not them is you're saying the word "male" about me.

That's literally it. All the rest is sophistry.

And again you CANNOT USE A DISTRIBUTION WHICH DOESN'T ACCOUNT FOR TRANS FEMALE PHYSIOLOGY TO REPRESENT US

We are closer. By every measure. I know because I personally know trans women, and I am one. I can compare my body to what I used to have and to the cis women I know.

My strength, stamina, musculature, reflexes, center of mass, body fat distribution, and flexibility have ALL SIGNIFICANTLY changed.

No. You keep assuming we do without evidence and alluding to two categories when there's a WIDE scale of "advantage" between and within both groups.

Trans women are CLOSER to cis women than men. You can't use cis male statistics to represent trans women. That's what's intellectually dishonest.

Depersonalized as a token minority to support following a widely despised senate vote almost certainly isn't helping either.

That last sentence is a wildly ignorant assumption, and again, TRANS WOMEN DO NOT HAVE MALE PHYSIOLOGY.

IF you're right, and "much remains unknown academically," then the reasonable course of action which *doesn't conflict with civil rights* would be inclusion.

That would also definitively give you more data by direct comparison.

We're not talking about poison, we're talking about people.

People downtalked "gender studies" as an academic field when I was a kid. In the 80s.

It's been this way all along you're just being a little bitch about more people understanding it.

Lol this is just historical ignorance.

Trans women do NOT retain advantages that allow for comparison to cis men. We just don't.

Any reference to cisgender men is irrelevant both to our physiology and our performance, full stop.

This is not true. It would require you to actually listen to trans people, but I started HRT at 40yo, completely shifted muscle mass, lost two shoe sizes, and lost bone density.

Height is irrelevant if there are competing cis women in the 6-7 foot range.

This is what you have to prove wrong:

And I know this, because this identical argument was made 75 years ago about another kind of segregation.

That's incredibly fucking stupid.

If you isolated any group within women, you could create statistical attributes that would place them in one 35th percentile or another.

You solely want to continue calling us men. Literally, it's the base, foundation, and entirety of your argument.

THERE IS NO PHENOTYPICAL DIFFERENCE IN GENETICS. THAT'S GENOTYPE.

Fucking hell lmao.

Lol what?

All you're saying by this is every cis woman my height also has that trait. They should be excluded too? That doesn't make being trans an advantage.

Casually admitting y'all don't understand how to APPLY statistics aside, it's all just a front for transphobia.

This results in two things:

It reduces cis female athletes to a cookie cutter average, which punishes women who deviate, like Imane Khelif.

It reduces trans female athletes to a cookie cutter average, which excludes all of us. It's *insanity* to insist my 5'8" ass benefits against a 6' average.