BREAKING: NCAA says state of North Carolina will again be considered for championship hosting....

[Deleted member 2897]

Yes. I looked at the study and it has one major flaw that isn't (and can't be) addressed in the design: it looks at transgendered people after they have had sexual reassignment surgery then looks at problems that, according to our friend, indicate a continuing difficulty with adjustment due to a basic unresolved conflict. The problem with the study design - admitted by the authors - is that, in the instance of psychiatric care and suicide attempts, the damage is already done. People who had sex reassignment surgery had higher rates of psychiatric problems before reassignment. As the authors say, "In other words, the results should not be interpreted such as sex reassignment per se increases morbidity (they include psychiatric treatment in this) and mortality. Things might have been even worse without sex reassignment." Indeed, as they point out, that is what the meta-analyses of studies about transgender people who have sex reassignment surgery indicate; anxiety due to gender mis-identity decreases after reassignment. That there are significant increases in overall mortality only for those who got the surgery before 1989 is also indicative; as the authors note, treatment now is more sophisticated and societal attitudes have changed. Or, to put this short, people who have psychiatric problems continue to have psychiatric problems, even their gender identity problems have been addressed by reassignment.

There are other problems with the study, but the authors are candid about those. What the study doesn't support, however, is the conclusion that transgendered people are "living a lie" or that "Deep inside is this identity crisis that is going to decay in them forever if we keep playing this make believe game". Quite the contrary. They instead recommend that more attention be paid to overall health problems of people who have had reassignment surgery. Full Stop.

Full Stop for me too; this is my last on this subject.

Of course they didn't say that. Those were my words. Supported by the data. My final conclusion was exactly what they said - psychiatric treatment. Until we help them understand their identity, be proud of it, and love themselves, we'll not make any progress.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Getting back to the original topic, will this change the face of intercollegiate athletics? No. It won't. It will have less than zero impact on the money sports. Our sacred cow, football, is safe.

 

[Cam]

All of this talk reminds me of Renee Richards. For those unfamiliar, she was a male-to-female sexual reassignment transgender person who competed on the women's circuit in tennis back in the 70's. Performed fairly well for a 40+ year old athlete, a lot due to what she gained physically by living a life as a man for the first half of her life. I think even she thought if she underwent reassignment surgery in her early 20's she would have been dominant. The key relation to this thread in regards to politics is how she challenged the New York Supreme Court to allow her to compete in the US Open. Grabbing the quote from Wikipedia:

On August 16, 1977, Judge Alfred M. Ascione found in Richards' favor. He ruled: "This person is now a female" and that requiring Richards to pass the Barr body test was "grossly unfair, discriminatory and inequitable, and a violation of her rights." He further ruled that the USTA intentionally discriminated against Richards, and granted Richards an injunction against the USTA and the USOC, allowing her to play in the US Open.​

All this being said, the amount of commitment someone who need to have to make this switch over to another gender's sports category is an incredible amount. I think some of the fear people have for women's sports being flooded by male-to-female transgender people is unwarranted. There would surely be very strict ways of confirming that someone isn't lying.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

All of this talk reminds me of Renee Richards. For those unfamiliar, she was a male-to-female sexual reassignment transgender person who competed on the women's circuit in tennis back in the 70's. Performed fairly well for a 40+ year old athlete, a lot due to what she gained physically by living a life as a man for the first half of her life. I think even she thought if she underwent reassignment surgery in her early 20's she would have been dominant. The key relation to this thread in regards to politics is how she challenged the New York Supreme Court to allow her to compete in the US Open. Grabbing the quote from Wikipedia:

On August 16, 1977, Judge Alfred M. Ascione found in Richards' favor. He ruled: "This person is now a female" and that requiring Richards to pass the Barr body test was "grossly unfair, discriminatory and inequitable, and a violation of her rights." He further ruled that the USTA intentionally discriminated against Richards, and granted Richards an injunction against the USTA and the USOC, allowing her to play in the US Open.​

All this being said, the amount of commitment someone who need to have to make this switch over to another gender's sports category is an incredible amount. I think some of the fear people have for women's sports being flooded by male-to-female transgender people is unwarranted. There would surely be very strict ways of confirming that someone isn't lying.

But she was lying in this example. And everybody knew it. Its not that people would get fooled and not know it. Everyone does know it. They just don't care. I don't think people go through this to get an advantage in sports. I just think they use the inherent advantages given in the spot they are in.

 

[takethepoints]

Of course they didn't say that. Those were my words. Supported by the data. My final conclusion was exactly what they said - psychiatric treatment. Until we help them understand their identity, be proud of it, and love themselves, we'll not make any progress.

Ok, one last time.

1. The people who wrote the study are the best judges of how the data should be interpreted. They don't agree with your interpretation. I'd go back, read the thing, and see why, if I were you.

2. Their final conclusion was not - repeat, not - that people who had had reassignment surgery should have psychiatric treatment. It was that there are multiple health problems, including psychiatric ones that they usually had before surgery (too bad they don't tell us what they were), that these folks are subject to and that all of them should be monitored. Also, there is no intimation in the study that the psychiatric problems are due to continuing anxiety about gender reassignment.

3. I doubt seriously that these folks have a big problem with understanding their identity (whatever that means in this context), being proud of themselves, or loving themselves (don't we all?). The study certainly cited no evidence of this.

Now I really am finished with this.

 

[Cam]

But she was lying in this example. And everybody knew it. Its not that people would get fooled and not know it. Everyone does know it. They just don't care. I don't think people go through this to get an advantage in sports. I just think they use the inherent advantages given in the spot they are in.

Can you clarify what you mean by lying? If someone has the commitment to their gender identity to undergo sexual reassignment surgery, I would wager they weren't making it up. Everything I have read about her also indicates that she has never questioned her decision and considered herself "anatomically, functionally, socially, emotionally and legally [a female].” Though, if I understand correctly from your previous posts, you mean that they are inherently lying to themselves because they identify as a different gender? Correct me if I am wrong.

What I mean by "lying" is that someone can't say, "I am a Division II level men's college tennis player. So, I'll pretend I identify as a woman to get a women's tennis scholarship at a Division I school for a full ride. The university cannot prove otherwise because it the only proof exists in my personal statement of identification." In the case of Renee Richards, it was determined that she was indisputably a woman after her surgery and repeated hormone therapies. If that is the bench mark that we need to set to prevent scenarios like I described, then that should be the case (and currently looks to be the case given the lack of instances).

 

[SlawDog]

But she was lying in this example. And everybody knew it. Its not that people would get fooled and not know it. Everyone does know it. They just don't care. I don't think people go through this to get an advantage in sports. I just think they use the inherent advantages given in the spot they are in.

I think you misspelled 'nuts'

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Ok, one last time.

1. The people who wrote the study are the best judges of how the data should be interpreted. They don't agree with your interpretation. I'd go back, read the thing, and see why, if I were you.

2. Their final conclusion was not - repeat, not - that people who had had reassignment surgery should have psychiatric treatment. It was that there are multiple health problems, including psychiatric ones that they usually had before surgery (too bad they don't tell us what they were), that these folks are subject to and that all of them should be monitored. Also, there is no intimation in the study that the psychiatric problems are due to continuing anxiety about gender reassignment.

3. I doubt seriously that these folks have a big problem with understanding their identity (whatever that means in this context), being proud of themselves, or loving themselves (don't we all?). The study certainly cited no evidence of this.

Now I really am finished with this.

"there is no intimation in the study that the psychiatric problems are due to continuing anxiety about gender reassignment."
I did not mean to imply that.

"I doubt seriously that these folks have a big problem with understanding their identity."
Not sure what you mean here, this is the entire problem and always has been. It's the very definition of their condition.

To the other person asking what I mean by lying, I am not saying people are/will lying/lie to gain a scholarship or advantage in sports. (Like, man I'm no good, I'll just pretend to be a woman.). All I'm saying is simply that they aren't a woman. I don't really care the motivation (I think its simply a medical condition from everything I read), it's just not the truth. If you're a man, it doesn't matter if you think you're a woman or even if you start taking hormones, neither actually makes you a woman and you shouldn't compete in women's sports.

This dovetails back to the earlier comments in my post and supports my arguments there too.

 

[vamosjackets]

Ok, one last time.

@takethepoints, I know you're probably ready to drop out of this conversation. I probably am too. But, I had asked you this a couple pages ago (maybe you didn't see it) and would really like to know if this is a way forward between someone on your side and someone on mine. Would you be good with body exposing facilities (bathrooms, changing rooms, showers, etc) being determined by anatomy (not birth certificate)?

If you'd rather drop out now without perhaps having to get into another round of debate, I understand that. No worries. But, if the answer is yes, then that would be good to know and wouldn't take any debate.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Exactly. I have 2 daughters as well and recognize someone who wants to rape a woman doesn't care what the law says about which bathroom they are supposed to be in.

One issue is this. The Charlotte law was initially enacted to "protect" the rights of transgender people. I'm a bit dubious as to the necessity of this ordinance and political motivation of those enacting it. I don't recall instances of transgender people being denied access to a bathroom of their choice prior to the ordinance. Doesn't mean it never happened but I'm certainly unfamiliar and suspect such instances are extremely rare. Even If it were to occur our courts are fairly capable of adjudicating any such instance. If the courts were to "fail" to adjudicate it "properly" due to an omission in local, state, or federal laws....then a legislative body could act to correct the omission.

That is how it should typically play out in a reasonable society. I don't believe that was the circumstance in Charlotte.

Most who opposed the ordinance due to safety concerns for their daughters were not in fear of transgender sexual assaults on innocents. I don't know anyone who thinks transgender individuals are a threat in this regard. Most IMO were against it due to the loophole it could create for non-transgender sexual predators. Yes the loophole won't prevent a determined rapist. The loophole would likely prevent the successful prosecution of a sexual predator who entered said facility with the intent to commit a sex crime.

 

[vamosjackets]

One issue is this. The Charlotte law was initially enacted to "protect" the rights of transgender people. I'm a bit dubious as to the necessity of this ordinance and political motivation of those enacting it. I don't recall instances of transgender people being denied access to a bathroom of their choice prior to the ordinance. Doesn't mean it never happened but I'm certainly unfamiliar and suspect such instances are extremely rare. Even If it were to occur our courts are fairly capable of adjudicating any such instance. If the courts were to "fail" to adjudicate it "properly" due to an omission in local, state, or federal laws....then a legislative body could act to correct the omission.

That is how it should typically play out in a reasonable society. I don't believe that was the circumstance in Charlotte.

Most who opposed the ordinance due to safety concerns for their daughters were not in fear of transgender sexual assaults on innocents. I don't know anyone who thinks transgender individuals are a threat in this regard. Most IMO were against it due to the loophole it could create for non-transgender sexual predators. Yes the loophole won't prevent a determined rapist. The loophole would likely prevent the successful prosecution of a sexual predator who entered said facility with the intent to commit a sex crime.

In debates and philosophy definitions are crucial. One question I'm returning to in this thread is what is everyone's working definition of a "transgender person"? If a transgender person is someone who has had surgery to literally, physically change the genitalia to that of the opposite gender, then I am not opposed to that person going to the bath facility that matches their anatomy. However, if a transgender person also includes those who just say they feel like a woman (or man) but their feelings obviously aren't strong enough to make the change, then they should not be able to choose their restroom based on feelings. That's just confusion, not gender identity. A friend who works for Google in California said there is a person in their office who's a man some days and woman the others and is offended if you call it either gender. They are opposed to gender even being real.

 

[takethepoints]

@takethepoints, I know you're probably ready to drop out of this conversation. I probably am too. But, I had asked you this a couple pages ago (maybe you didn't see it) and would really like to know if this is a way forward between someone on your side and someone on mine. Would you be good with body exposing facilities (bathrooms, changing rooms, showers, etc) being determined by anatomy (not birth certificate)?

If you'd rather drop out now without perhaps having to get into another round of debate, I understand that. No worries. But, if the answer is yes, then that would be good to know and wouldn't take any debate.

You're right; I didn't see the earlier post.

Here's the problem with the anatomy angle. Suppose you have a person who identifies as transgendered and has had an orchiectomy. The person involved still has a ***** but no testicles and (usually) is in full hormone replacement. She may or may not decide to go on to full reassignment. Or suppose we are looking at someone who is in a full hormone replacement regime to the point that male sex organs are not functional. Both are living full time as females. What does an ordinance that forbids these people to use the "body exposing" facilities accomplish? And how, in heaven's name, would such a stricture be enforced without a full-scale assault on the privacy of all parties - including natural born women?

Well, you could say that it would spare some of the women involved embarrassment and that's probably true. I can't answer that objection clearly since I don't really know how women's locker rooms work and I haven't tried very hard to find out. Given the privacy concerns that most women I know have, however, I doubt if the transgender folks would be too eager to expose themselves to the curiosity of others. I never asked the two transgender people I know about that, however.

I think the anxiety that comes from the situation that isn't driven by ideological or religious concerns stems from three sources. First, there is concern that some of the transgender people will be lesbian in orientation. I don't see this as a problem myself since women seem to be able to handle this (or not) when it involves non-trans people and the problem is ubiquitous. Second, I think people are concerned that cross-dressers could invade women's facilities and press their attentions on women. Again, I don't think this is a valid concern. These people fall into two categories: they are either homosexual or they are closeted. The first group aren't interested in or sexually aroused by women and the second are extremely unlikely to publicly expose themselves. The final category is men who will dress as women and try to pass their way into women's facilities. This kind of behavior is pretty rare and most women can identify someone like this in a New York minute. But this already exists and there are laws to take care of it if anything develops.

That leaves the ideological and religious concerns that I think are the obvious drivers of the angst involved here. On the religious concerns the answer is obvious: this is a secular country and it's laws should address real problems, not enshrine religious principles. On the second, it is regrettable that we have allowed discomfort with modernity to be so thoroughly politicized. But there it is. Perhaps this whole unseemly episode will bring people who are, in general, unlikely to darken the door of a public exercise facility any more to think twice and leave the whole thing alone. Fat chance, I suppose.

Now that really does finish me on this.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

In debates and philosophy definitions are crucial. One question I'm returning to in this thread is what is everyone's working definition of a "transgender person"? If a transgender person is someone who has had surgery to literally, physically change the genitalia to that of the opposite gender, then I am not opposed to that person going to the bath facility that matches their anatomy. However, if a transgender person also includes those who just say they feel like a woman (or man) but their feelings obviously aren't strong enough to make the change, then they should not be able to choose their restroom based on feelings. That's just confusion, not gender identity. A friend who works for Google in California said there is a person in their office who's a man some days and woman the others and is offended if you call it either gender. They are opposed to gender even being real.

I think there is a middle ground somewhere. Possibly privacy rooms within these spaces.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

You're right; I didn't see the earlier post.

Here's the problem with the anatomy angle. Suppose you have a person who identifies as transgendered and has had an orchiectomy. The person involved still has a ***** but no testicles and (usually) is in full hormone replacement. She may or may not decide to go on to full reassignment. Or suppose we are looking at someone who is in a full hormone replacement regime to the point that male sex organs are not functional. Both are living full time as females. What does an ordinance that forbids these people to use the "body exposing" facilities accomplish? And how, in heaven's name, would such a stricture be enforced without a full-scale assault on the privacy of all parties - including natural born women?

Well, you could say that it would spare some of the women involved embarrassment and that's probably true. I can't answer that objection clearly since I don't really know how women's locker rooms work and I haven't tried very hard to find out. Given the privacy concerns that most women I know have, however, I doubt if the transgender folks would be too eager to expose themselves to the curiosity of others. I never asked the two transgender people I know about that, however.

I think the anxiety that comes from the situation that isn't driven by ideological or religious concerns stems from three sources. First, there is concern that some of the transgender people will be lesbian in orientation. I don't see this as a problem myself since women seem to be able to handle this (or not) when it involves non-trans people and the problem is ubiquitous. Second, I think people are concerned that cross-dressers could invade women's facilities and press their attentions on women. Again, I don't think this is a valid concern. These people fall into two categories: they are either homosexual or they are closeted. The first group aren't interested in or sexually aroused by women and the second are extremely unlikely to publicly expose themselves. The final category is men who will dress as women and try to pass their way into women's facilities. This kind of behavior is pretty rare and most women can identify someone like this in a New York minute. But this already exists and there are laws to take care of it if anything develops.

That leaves the ideological and religious concerns that I think are the obvious drivers of the angst involved here. On the religious concerns the answer is obvious: this is a secular country and it's laws should address real problems, not enshrine religious principles. On the second, it is regrettable that we have allowed discomfort with modernity to be so thoroughly politicized. But there it is. Perhaps this whole unseemly episode will bring people who are, in general, unlikely to darken the door of a public exercise facility any more to think twice and leave the whole thing alone. Fat chance, I suppose.

Now that really does finish me on this.

I think you make a lot of good points here. I personally differ from many people in that I don't get all wrapped around the axle saying that allowing transgender people into opposite bathrooms creates a safety issue. Although I think those are valid concerns. I just think men and women (and moreso boys and girls) don't need to share these types of intimate facilities together. Its that simple. I don't really care if its a 'real man' going into the women's facility, or a transgender man, or a transgender man who has started taking hormones or any of that. Those are all men with different levels of femininity and masculinity. Yes this creates discomfort on a very small segment of the population, but I'd rather protect 99.5% of the population from discomfort than cause it to that size of the population.

I'm not aware of anything in the Bible or in Republican orthodoxy that lends itself to a particular position with regards to transgenderism. The only thing I could think of is that many progressives place themselves as their own god. I know that sounds insulting and I don't mean it to, I just can't think of a better way to describe it. But what I mean by that is whatever someone's personal choices, situation, morality is, it is infallible - nobody else can question it or deny it. Everyone else has to get out of the way. So I do see that ideology as a driver behind some of this.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

but I'd rather protect 99.5% of the population from discomfort than cause it to that size of the population.

You're making an assumption that 99.5% of the population feels discomfort when a TG uses the same facility.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

You're making an assumption that 99.5% of the population feels discomfort when a TG uses the same facility.

Great point, sorry for that. Pick whatever number you want 95%, 86%, 73%. Apparently a high majority of TG people feel discomfort using the opposite bathroom. I would expect whatever that percentage is to be mirrored the other way around. Otherwise the TG folks wouldn't have much of a justification as the rest of the population would say 'it doesn't bother us so it shouldn't bother you'.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Great point, sorry for that. Pick whatever number you want 95%, 86%, 73%. Apparently a high majority of TG people feel discomfort using the opposite bathroom. I would expect whatever that percentage is to be mirrored the other way around. Otherwise the TG folks wouldn't have much of a justification as the rest of the population would say 'it doesn't bother us so it shouldn't bother you'.

I don't think 95% of "normal" people would even know if a TG person was in the same room with them, especially a bathroom where people typically avoid looking at each other.

 

[AE 87]

I don't think 95% of "normal" people would even know if a TG person was in the same room with them, especially a bathroom where people typically avoid looking at each other.

In middle schools and high schools where it has already been an issue, girls recognize there is something different about the girl with a *****.

Transgender does not necessarily mean transsexual.

 

[The Doddfather]

First off, this is against my better judgement to dive into this deep conversation. Admittedly I have not read through all the posts, but I feel like this is a simple issue and my points may have been covered already, so I apologize for only that in advance.

I am 100% a Christian, and I don't believe that the choice to be transgendered is Biblical. And I do mean choice. God allows sin to be in this world and it is up to us to choose whether to engage in it or not.

Without diving too far into that topic, I will simply state that this whole issue in North Carolina is sad on many levels. The leaders ultimately caved because it was negatively affecting the state budget. I get that, and as political figures who want to be re-elected, it was a no-brainer. But this should not have been an issue in the first place. Here is an excerpt from Christianity Today

"The American Psychiatric Association estimates the number of transsexual adults as low as 0.005 to 0.014 percent of men and 0.002 to 0.003 percent of women. But these are likely underestimates, as they are based on the number of people who visit specialty clinics."

Underestimates or not, there are millions and millions of dollars at stake for the state of NC based on that decision. And for what? To appease the minuscule amount of transgendered people in the population? Let alone the even smaller amount that would've shown up at one of the many sporting events that were later deleted from the state's schedule. The decision by the NCAA and professional sports to pull events from the state were egregious, but sadly anticipated.

In the age of political correctness and a complete void of morals in our society, this is not surprising, but upsetting at the same time. I don't think we should alienate anyone, no matter their choices, but rather help them, because we are only here for a little while, and I want as much company as I can get when my time here is over. I don't mean that to be self-righteous, I'm just extremely confident in my faith and final destination.

I know this a football forum and not really the platform for my personal beliefs, but that ship seems to have already left port.

Rant over. Go Jackets and THWG

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I don't think 95% of "normal" people would even know if a TG person was in the same room with them, especially a bathroom where people typically avoid looking at each other.

Well if a dude dressed as a woman used the urinal next to me to pee standing up, I'd probably know it. It just wouldn't bother me.

I think there is a lot of truth in your point here though. Which is why I think the Charlotte City Council was a bit out of bounds creating this mess to begin with, and which the NC State Legislature managed to mangle further.

The pro Charlotte ideology does seem to unnecessarily create a slippery slope though.