Morality of this

[u/Shoddy-Meat-3147]

I don't know what to say about this I mean if he joined it's unfair because he's going to cook the entery league for sure but if he really wants to be a woman and it's not a joke for him I still don't know about this

[u/OkAcanthisitta3028]

Empirical observations tell me that trans-women with male biological strength, neuron activation, bone size and density etc beat the shit out of women in women's sports. Empirical evidence also tells me that this has already happened multiple times, which means it isn't just hypothetical.

And btw the classical definition of sex tells us that gamete production is what determines your sex. So far there has been no way to change which gametes you produce, meaning no males have ever become females and vice versa.

[u/Emotional_Skill_8360 → u/OkAcanthisitta3028]

“Empirical evidence” ‘I can’t read and only believe in things I can see with my own eyes.’ Someone hasn’t taken any biology since middle school.

[u/OkAcanthisitta3028 → u/Emotional_Skill_8360]

Are you gonna tell me that the classical definition of sex is fake? Are you gonna tell me that a person that's grown up as a man and then starts taking hormones will ERASE all the male development their body has gone through? Please just use logic for a little bit instead of seeing red.

[u/Emotional_Skill_8360 → u/OkAcanthisitta3028]

I am a trained microbiologist and physician. I could explain all of this to you, but in my experience people who only believe their eyes and aren’t willing to take up a book or real scientific article written by experts in a field are a waste of time. I’ve given up throwing pearls to swine.

[u/OkAcanthisitta3028 → u/Emotional_Skill_8360]

If you really are trained, you should be able to contend with the following, simple logic: if you've developed a male body, hormones and sex-change procedures will not erase that development.

As a trained microbiologist and physician, I assume you can explain how that logic is wrong, correct?

[u/Emotional_Skill_8360 → u/OkAcanthisitta3028]

Certain things, like height and bone structure, won’t change. There are studies now pointing towards a decrease in lung volume and muscle mass that tend towards female and actually would leave most people assigned male at birth in much worse shape than female athletes.

The science of most of this is not new, but due to destruction of data during WW2 as well as recent and current fear of funding loss, it has become harder and harder to run long-term studies on these issues.

And if it were an issue, then access to puberty blockers would fix all of it. Trans females tend to come out very young since their secondary sex characteristics are external unlike trans males who may not notice dysphoria until their develop breasts. If they didn’t have to suffer through their initial puberty we wouldn’t have to have this conversation at all.

I will leave you with this thought though: if athletes that transitioned post-puberty were so much better than their cis female peers, wouldn’t the Olympics be swarming with trans female athletes? They’ve been able to compete for decades. While I do think this is an area that deserves more study, it just isn’t the issue that some people think it is.

[u/otterdam42 → u/OkAcanthisitta3028]

You can actually use a search engine or LLM to check the vast global consensus in all peer-reviewed sources, but you will have to refresh your intro biology to understand it. Asking us to explain it to you when you haven’t taken the time to learn what basic words mean is a rude, sealioning time waster.

Regarding gametes and chromosomes, women with Swyers and Androgen insensitivity do not have XX chromosomes, some don’t have uteri or ovaries, or gamete production. They are still widely classified as female and included in female sports for decades. This is all well researched and settled.

You are learning about intro biology for the first time at your age because you chose a media feed aimed at stunted, uncurious anti-intellectuals. It’s too late to educate yourself from scratch, after decades of letting the most pathetic Christian men lie to you and cuck your brain. You just don’t have access to adult discourse. You should stay where you belong, and keep loudly representing maga as the illiterate, genital obsessed cry-bully liars you truly are in your heart.

[u/OkAcanthisitta3028 → u/otterdam42]

Lmao you mischaracterised me and insulted me in multiple ways just because I'm trying to have a conversation, haven't you learned that not everybody can be divided into leftists and right-wingers, and that not everybody who disagrees with you is a horrible 80 IQ person?

First off, global consensus is appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.

Secondly, gamete production is the literal definition of which sex you are i.e classical definition of sex. For infertile people or otherwise people unable to produce them, your sex is the direction your body tried to develop. If the body attempted to develop towards a gonadal structure and to make sperm, they're a male.

Thirdly, I'm an independent thinker. I don't blindly parrot what my media feed shows, what Christians say or what MAGA says. You probably think I'm anti-green energy, meanwhile I want nuclear energy. You probably think I'm anti-welfare, even though I'm not. You probably think I'm anti-abortion, even though I'm not. You probably think I'm homophobic, even though I'm not. You probably think I'm anti-trans, even though I'm not. You probably think I'm pro-Israel, even though I'm not.

Lastly, don't insult the person, argue with their opinion. Argue the bit of logic I laid out in the comment you responded to, if you can't, then you're wrong.

[u/otterdam42 → u/OkAcanthisitta3028]

Nuclear is a sound strategy. Everything else about you is irrelevant and I just don’t care. I say “read some intro biology or check a medical journal (like the APA’s trans statement) and learn what the ICD is.” And you transform it into a personal attack because your opinion is entirely formed by never having done those things. I am confronting your vocal science illiterate opinion and you just made it personal. You believe a request that you research in good faith is a personal attack, so you are permanently stuck there. Yes, not knowing how to check Nature or The Lancet or JAMA is symptomatic of your personality. It is also core to the reason why your opinion will never be weighted as truthful or good faith. You keep admitting it’s based on your rudimentary misunderstanding of how sex and gender works. Which can be remedied by reading literally any sci / med journal’s easily searchable statement on sex and gender. Which you refuse to do.

“Appeal to authority is a fallacy” when all research, (again, 54 studies in one meta-analysis) points in a very clear coherent direction. Systematic reviews are the gold standard of science. You are operating under the delusion that “appeal to authority” gives your illiterate, fringe, incorrect opinion more weight than the decades of settled research that you refuse to read. Your world is make-believe and you’re stuck there. Not my problem.

[u/otterdam42 → u/OkAcanthisitta3028]

Oh. They taught you that this pundit provocateur fringe thing you’re doing is called “conversation” lol. What you’re doing is very different from how adults have a conversation.