This seems like an interesting place to start. I’m making the point this is relevant and not just hypothetical and people are pushing back on that. In addition to posting the absolute dog **** coming out of the gender studies departments I go on to post examples of how this is leaking in the world in a very real way.

Where exactly is this lie? What is the lie? So weird

One example I showed is a story of a girl transitioning to boy participating in highschool wrestling

Yeah testosterone is a performance enhancing drug and is banned in regulated sports If you take exogenous T you will be banned. Vitor Belfort was one of the guy in MMA that found a loop hole to get a T.U.E. and was able to take it legally. The difference in looks and performance was significant



What on earth is the matter with you? It’s totally relevant to the subject matter and interesting on multiple levels. This is a message board. This is a place for people to discuss ideas. You would think you would have a grasp on that as you approach 100k posts and especially considering your participation in politics. You seem to take this tribal binary approach where you can discuss things with your tribe but then just hurl empty attacks at others with zero ability to formulate an actual pov. I’ve even predicted you would do this itt and you proved me right. You seem to have been able to demonstrate you understand the difference between transgender and intersex. I’m not sure why you felt the need to express that, but good for you.

This story doesn’t just deal with T in sports, it can branch off in a bunch of different directions. Keep in mind, this is a message board after all

This is a story of a child in their parents custody who wrestles in high school. They are having hormone treatments. Should we be giving children exogenous hormones, blockers, etc? What are the effects? Side effects? I’ve heard it can sterilize them. Should we be sterilizing minors? Another poster just chimed in they didn’t feel comfortable competing against women in that way.

Fallon Fox is a female MMA fighter who transitioned after living a full life in to adulthood as a man. Operation and all. She didn’t tell some of her opponents about all this and you can watch her wreck them.



Another interesting case of boundaries and testosterone in sports

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/s...nya-loses.html

All of this is real. All of this can be discussed. It can go off in plenty of directions. It seems to me the most common reaction is emotion based insults though. That reaction is coming from same people who can't seem to change even if you spell it out for them. Try formulating an opinion, position, argument or counterargument. The empty insults and attacks are useless and totally uninteresting

Man, never would have guessed that juan, after making a claim that a guy talking about how biological sex is nonbinary is spreading pseudoscience, continues with zero reflection or introspection after being proven 100% wrong.

juan valdez:

Also juan valdez, in the same post:

I definitely find that last sentence to be a bit dubious. Does transitioning address bone density, or bio-mechanical differences in the hips and legs?

Here is an interesting paper on the complex differences in sex-based muscle composition

OK, if you don't think that trans boys should wrestle cis girls, then what is your argument? That trans boys should wrestle with cis boys, or that trans athletes should be banned from all athletic competition entirely? It sure seems like you have little interest in finding a nuanced position where trans people are allowed to compete in athletics, or even that your disgust with trans people is limited to wanting to ban them from any sort of athletic competition, but rather that you think they don't belong in public spaces at all.

I think you guys are locking JV into a position of alt-right and trying to argue against his stance as people on the left and not looking at the overarching point of inconsistent gender science being applied across the board, which I think is part of what hes trying to say with this.

I'm hesitant to speak for him, but I do want to help bridge the gap that seems obvious to me.

I'm trying to get him to articulate a ****ing point instead of just posting a picture and declaring victory.

What would be your position on banning if trans women start to dominate women's Olympic or even collegiate podiums? Mine would be that they have an unfair advantage and shouldn't be allowed to compete above the high school level.

JV apparently does not realize that PEDs (hormones, testosterone and anabolic steroid classes) have been issues in sports since the 1960s and while the delivery and detection systems has become more sophisticated, the elementary issue has always been using chemicals produced in males to make athletes of both genders stronger, faster and lower bodyfat composition.

Why the old system cannot regulate the sports and the use of these drugs for transitioning athletes has not been explained by his pictionary victory speeches.

what is your position that genetically gifted/different individuals already dominate sports over non genetically gifted/different individuals?

what is your position on the kenyan female runner that has naturally higher testosterone production that(JV keeps falsley labeling as trans) being discriminated against?

I am not sure what the line should be, but I am sure that it should not be "this photograph makes me feel uncomfortable, therefore the trans person should be banned." I would be uncomfortable articulating my own line without hearing more from trans athletes of who would wish to compete.

I'm fine with that.

I don't know enough about the particulars in that case, but in a general sense I'm okay with excluding extreme outliers of any sort from sport.

Since it's not directly related to higher education, I'd like to move this discussion about transgender athletes here instead: Transgender athletes and segregating sports by sex. If I was smart enough to move some existing posts there and have them appear after my new OP I would do that, but I'm not sure I am, so just move future replies there or I will :P

Thanks.

JV,

Did you ever answer the question as to why it matters if some colleges teach fat studies courses or some sociology professors hold the opinion that there are many or infinite genders or that gender studies courses/majors exist? I think that is a question that if answered might provide some more useful insight. Frankly, I don’t see why anyone would care?

Well, one concern is it would appear the concepts taught in such courses are being weaponized to stifle open inquiry and debate, and control speech.

I don’t think it is coincidental that activists that undergo such speech/inquiry stifling activities to great success disproportionately come from these disciplines.

I can’t dredge it up right now, but there is some study floating around the “ether” indicating that a majority of college student today support censorship of “hate speech,” which is a pretty radical shift from not too long ago.

You may or may not agree that Peterson is giving Derrida way too much credit for this, but it appears reasonable to draw a line from activism from disciplines grounded in critical theory and intersectionality to this phenomenon.

Yelling at someone that they are an ******* isn't censorship. Hope this helps.

It sounds to me like you are denying my lived experience. As a cis white male, it is clear to me you are doing this as a means of oppression and continuing the vicious, racist cycle of patriarchal white supremacy

“Hey hey, ho ho. MR Wookie have got to go”
“Hey hey ho ho. These racist cops have got to go”
“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”

I've seen a few surveys related to college students (or millennials more broadly) views on speech.

Knight Foundation with Gallup (2017)

Knight + Gallup 2016

Pew (2015)

So the 2015 Pew study headline is "40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities". Millennials are not substitutable for college students though.

In the 2016 Knight Foundation survey 27% of college students said that colleges should be able to restrict expression of potentially offensive political views, but 63% said that colleges should be able to restrict students from wearing costumes which stereotype racial/ethnic groups.

The 2017 version has this question:



I think the distinction students are drawing between "intentionally offensive" slurs and "offensive political views" is pretty reasonable from the standpoint of balancing the goals of freedom of expression and inclusion, personally.

30% agreeing that upsetting political views should be censored is pretty damn high, and suggests a radical paradigm shift has occurred IMO.

I've not seen a much older survey to compare the number to in order to tell whether it is in fact a radical shift. I wouldn't presume that it is, but maybe.

is it? are there polling numbers from previous time periods?

the pew research i have seen say 25% of boomers think speech against minorities should be censored versus 40% of millennials. i dont know if thats exactly "radical". also America has a whole is 28%-67% where the other nations polled were 65-35 the other direction..

i'd be interested to see the break down on different things that boomers think should be censored. these polls show they are in favor of free speech when i would bet they are most definitely not as accepting when it comes to minorities/other religious groups having the same freedoms.

for example, my super conservative boomer god-mother, would absolutely say free speech is important and is mad that twitter is banning people, but she would also 100% encourage and participate in a Quran burning

Do you have any evidence that a shift has even occurred? What have these numbers been historically? 30% amongst college-age people doesn’t sound surprising.

It looks like you can find a comparison here, albeit only for students at one university, which seems a bit problematic to me.

I'm not a huge fan of the way they've worded some of their questions either, because it leaves things a bit fuzzier than the wording used by Gallup.

But, I would accept it as some evidence of a likely shift. Hard to say the exact size though though given the different questions, and the limitations of the sample from one university.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by “great success”?

Also, I would guess that way more people don’t understand what type of speech is protected under the Constitution than think speech should be censored in some way. To me, that’s certainly a bigger issue.

Jonathan Haidt has a heterodox academy website where he uses a lot of statistics to make these kind of arguments about trends towards increasing censorship on campus (his hypothesis). But we might have to check with Fly first whether this is a morally acceptable website to go to or not.

Charitable take.