This stupid bullshit will continue until Women decide to make it stop.

[BenjaminFeldman]

Very amusing, and highly original. Were you at the Apollo last weekend?
So the answer is no...you in fact do not personally know anyone who is transgender. Got it.

What I got so far is that you implicitly claim to have anecdotal evidence. Unless it is at a statistically significant scale, it is without relevance.

(1) You realize here that you're making a circular argument, right? Gay men who are out of the closet still suffer from higher rates of depression and suicide than the non-gay population. Therefore, gay men who decide to bang dudes clearly didn't cure their "affliction" because they still disproportionately suffer from depression and suicide...we just need to give them better psychological treatment (like conversion therapy) so that they'll be happy again. What's wrong with my argument here?

"Gay men" is a label that is attached to men, who are attracted to men and may perform sexual activities with them. The attraction and conduct is not the consequence of a mental illness.
Furthermore they do not undergo surgery that mutilates them irreversibly and is meant to "cure" them. Lastly, sexual activities between men are not a cure. A cure is an effective treatment
of an illness. Homosexual activities are not an illness. Depression is an illness and is not treated by sexual intercourse with the same sex. Psychotherapy and medication are used to cure depression.
That is wrong with your argument.

The most obvious confounding factor is that transgender people are generally not accepted in society, especially after transitioning. Which would pretty expectedly lead to higher rates of depression, suicide, and social anxiety.

Indeed. Consequently, a cure of sexual dysmorphia will have to take this into account to be effective. Removing sexual organs and replacing them with "look-a-likes" of the opposite sex does
not change the attitude of the person's environment.

Ah, so transgender people may still remain depressed and suicidal post-op because of a "lack of acceptance" afterwards. That's a very good point, and one that I wished someone else would have made earlier in this thread.

I think this kind of hectoring works better in oral rhetoric. Rereading my comment, I don't see how you could have arrived at this conclusion.

You got me. If someone suffers from a mental illness completely unrelated to sexual dysmorphia, a sex change operation will not cure that mental illness. In other news, Ritalin does not effectively treat bipolar disorder.

I was referring to what is called comorbidity. The depression or suicidal tendency is not necessarily based on the dysmorphia alone. Therefore treatment of dysmorphia alone is not necessarily a cure
for the depression.

I do share your worry that other mental disorders are frequently confused with sexual dysmorphia. Unfortunately as you know, sexual reassignment surgery is very inexpensive, and very easy to get--there's practically, like, no psychological evaluation or required courses of treatment before it's approved. It's practically like getting medical marijuana in California.

As we are talking about persons who _underwent_ surgery, these other options are already exhausted. What I am arguing against is that the surgery is an option at all. That is seen as the last
resort is consequently immaterial.

Yeah, we should just make decisions for them and tell them how they should feel. After all, if someone suffers from depression, you can't trust their judgment on anything.

While their suicide or suicide attempts would not be based on an informed decision, consenting in their neutering and remodeling with the outlook of being socially ostracized, is?

[ColoWayno]

Writing gay inspirational thoughts, just like baking a gay cake, would make you a participant in gayness. This could lead to your untimely death, as the word of God in Leviticus and the Koran prescribe that you be killed with rocks. You will then suffer eternal torture. Writing, like baking a cake, is considered equivalent to homosexual sodomy in the eyes of the Lord. It's in a book.

Fortunately for you, a writer would not be considered a public accommodation under the Civil Rights Act, and could not be compelled under that act to produce such writings.

Woe unto you if you decided to bake cakes for the public, and open a shop to bake cakes for the public, you might actually be required to bake cakes for the public, an awful fate for a baker.

I jest, but I understand it's about values. Liberty, freedom, equality, justice. Different people prioritize them differently.

Some people may have been inspired to bake wedding cakes because of their belief in the value of traditional marriage. You probably don't believe spending your money on making political statements is protected speech either.

Let me put this in a way you might relate to. Rip runs a public forum, he runs a gym open to the public. Rip is inspired to teach proper low bar squatting, I don't think there's a question about it. Yet, a good number of people here prefer high bar. Rip can't be bothered to teach them. They should demand the same level of enthusiasm from Rip to teach high bar because they, the public, need to be accommodated.

What about that, Rip?

[Mark Rippetoe]

The public should be accommodated at the post office, since public money built the post office.

[chrisd]

Well, back to the opening controversy.

Infinite Elgintensity has now made video about this. No original arguments put forward, but actual video of the event and some commentary from those involved and from some not involved.

'Lauren' was in the 90kg+ weight category. Stood a head taller than any other competitor (admittedly not such an advantage). Appears to have a receding hairline (okay, that's irrelevant).

Here are the IOC regulations that allowed this:

2. Those who transition from male to female are eligible to compete in the
female category under the following conditions:

2.1. The athlete has declared that her gender identity is female. The
declaration cannot be changed, for sporting purposes, for a minimum
of four years.

2.2. The athlete must demonstrate that her total testosterone level in serum
has been below 10 nmol/L for at least 12 months prior to her first
competition (with the requirement for any longer period to be based on
a confidential case-by-case evaluation, considering whether or not 12
months is a sufficient length of time to minimize any advantage in
women’s competition).

2.3. The athlete's total testosterone level in serum must remain below 10
nmol/L throughout the period of desired eligibility to compete in the
female category.

2.4. Compliance with these conditions may be monitored by testing. In the
event of non-compliance, the athlete’s eligibility for female competition
will be suspended for 12 months.

So that's it. Declare yourself female and be prepared to stick to it for four years. Have a low T count for 12 months prior to competition. More to the point, be recorded as having a low T count for 12 months. I presume these are serum levels, which (I believe) are not necessarily that relevant. If you can find the right drugs to get a low free T reading for a year (or while being tested) and insist on not being called "Sir" you're in.

No removal of any bits, you don't have to wear a dress. The name change is probably optional.

The runners up in the contest did not look impressed on the podium and this looked bad.

The future of the Olympics could look like the return of the Press sisters, only less attractive.

[John Watson]

Some people may have been inspired to bake wedding cakes because of their belief in the value of traditional marriage. You probably don't believe spending your money on making political statements is protected speech either.

Let me put this in a way you might relate to. Rip runs a public forum, he runs a gym open to the public. Rip is inspired to teach proper low bar squatting, I don't think there's a question about it. Yet, a good number of people here prefer high bar. Rip can't be bothered to teach them. They should demand the same level of enthusiasm from Rip to teach high bar because they, the public, need to be accommodated.

What about that, Rip?

High bar squatters are not a protected class. Their freedom to travel was never impinged by hotels, restaurants, gas stations, refusing them service due to the bar placement of their squats.
It's not enthusiasm that is legislated, it's equal accommodation to all members of the public regardless of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. And I guess LGBTQ was somehow added ex post facto.

I acknowledge that not having a cake baked for you will not impinge very much on your freedom as a member of the American public in any significant way whatsoever, and this test case is somewhat frivolous.

I also acknowledge and concede that the state forcing a public accommodation to accommodate all members of the public equally, violates your liberty and freedom to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. I'm just not convinced why I should feel bad for you if you do, especially if you cite Jesus, Leviticus, or the Koran as your reasons.

[Matthew_888]

Rip, could you please change these lines:

зачем: how did you get to that conclusion? Roughly: why?
почему: to which end? Roughly: why?

to these:

зачем: to which end? Roughly: why?
почему: how did you get to that conclusion? Roughly: why?

?

I made a mistake and exchanged the two translations.

Or else you may ignore this post altogether.

Either way, thanks.

[johnnys]

Let's do a thought experiment.

Let's take a female fetus, and start dosing it with testosterone, up to the level that would be had by a male fetus. Then, once born, let's continue dosing that female with testosterone up to the level of that of an average male, age for age, as that female grows up. Let's say her 'rents wanted her to be the best female athlete on the block. Provided the block was, like, the entire world. And lets say this continued up to college. Then, said female decided "I want to compete in women's sports in college," and stopped taking testosterone for a year.

Is this "fair" to all the other female athletes (that grew up without this testosterone supplementation) participating in that sport? If there's no advantage to dosing someone with testosterone over such a long period of time, why are you still reading this?

If your goal is perfect fairness, I suggest you read Harrison Bergeron. Assuming your goal is some version of limited fairness, why not just accept that there are infinite versions of unfairness, and that we all choose to compete on the playing field that's as level as we care to have it. You'll have to understand that enough others may not share your view to make your version of fair a viable athletic league, or whatever, but there are certainly powerlifting federations that slice "fair" pretty thin. The MTF Oly lifter met the rules in her sport - if you don't like the rules, and think enough others agree, start your own organization to compete with hers.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I acknowledge that not having a cake baked for you will not impinge very much on your freedom as a member of the American public in any significant way whatsoever, and this test case is somewhat frivolous.

I also acknowledge and concede that the state forcing a public accommodation to accommodate all members of the public equally, violates your liberty and freedom to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. I'm just not convinced why I should feel bad for you if you do, especially if you cite Jesus, Leviticus, or the Koran as your reasons.

So you think that everybody should just think like you do, and not mind being forced to do things for other people, even if their rights are being violated by the coercion?

The MTF Oly lifter met the rules in her sport - if you don't like the rules, and think enough others agree, start your own organization to compete with hers.

I absolutely agree with this. When China fields a team of MTF athletes, it will happen.

Lots of people are noticing: Female athletes crushed by ?women who were once men?

[nykid]

You obviously don't own a business.

Ha. I don't see why that is so. I'm not saying every business has to serve everyone all the time no matter what - not even close.

When you brought up the coercion of the baker via force, you compared an emotional harm (the "inconvenience" of being refused service) to a material harm (paying legal fees). That's not the correct comparison. The correct comparison is between the emotional harm to the customer refused service and the emotional harm to the baker of baking a cake for someone whom he prefers not to serve. The customer could go to another bakery, okay, but the baker could just bake the cake, also. Those are the two harms that are relevant here, neither of them material. And I don't think there's a strong case to make that one is merely an "inconvenience" while the other is not.

All I'm saying is that, as a matter of principle, public businesses in this country should be constrained from discriminating against people on the basis of "identity." That's it. If a business owner doesn't like [type of person] and one walks into his bakery, he has several options. A) Serve that person as he would serve any other customer (the easiest choice, and while it may constitute some kind of emotional harm, I'd argue it's not greater than the harm caused to the customer by refusing service). B) Refuse them service based on their specific conduct/actions (they were rude, etc). C) Refuse them service on the basis of their identity, in violation of the law, and risk the consequences.

If they choose C, that doesn't mean I think they should be sued out of house and home -- in most cases, I think the consequences will be negligible. But I do think it's important that the law of the land not be that it is permissible to discriminate based on identity.

[Mark Rippetoe]

When you brought up the coercion of the baker via force, you compared an emotional harm (the "inconvenience" of being refused service) to a material harm (paying legal fees). That's not the correct comparison. The correct comparison is between the emotional harm to the customer refused service and the emotional harm to the baker of baking a cake for someone whom he prefers not to serve.

This is an amazing piece of bullshit equivocation.