Even if you give a boy puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones at very young age, his body will never undergo the changes that a female body experiences during puberty, when a girl's pelvis expands to enable the capacity to gestate and birth, when her ovaries and uterus will commence her menstrual cycle (with all its implications for the iron levels in her blood), when her upper torso grows breasts, which changes the kinetic dynamics of her body. It is profoundly disrespectful to ignore the reality of female puberty, which only girls experience. No boy who is blocked from his natural male puberty goes through a female puberty! Female puberty is a complex process of its own.
IRBs have failed badly around trans stuff. The worst case of which I have heard is Duke allowing a clinician to help a man express chemically induced goop from his nipple and feed it to a baby. Utterly criminal disregard for that baby’s well being in favor of the “affirmation” experienced by that man.
I wrote Duke’s IRB about it but they did not respond.
Even worse is that La Leche League, created in the 1950s to support nursing mothers, has now been captured by trans ideology and is permitting men to join.
Women bring their babies to meetings and may nurse them. It’s not appropriate for men to be present.
Sarah, another great column. We want the women's category to be for those who are female and individuals who have no male androgenization at any time during their development or life. This latter description would cover those very rare DSD (Difference of Sexual Development) athlete who is genetically male but androgen insensitive (so the closest to a physiological female of any DSD person). We do not want to leave a loop hole for DSD athletes who were "assigned" female due to ambiguous genital at birth but are genetic males (e.g., Imane Khelif) or have benefited from any androgenization.
Agreed Mary. I'm not sure, but I thought "born female" would exclude male DSDs who were mistakenly assigned female at birth but later discovered to be male with a DSD. These people, like Khelif, actually were born male, not female. It's just that the error by the birth attendant was not discovered until later in life.
yes, it is all in the wording! "Born female" SHOULD mean genetic female. But others may use "born female" to equate to "assigned female at birth" which would create the loophole for DSD males to compete as women (as I know you are well aware).
Yes. And in any case, the studies are pointless, since athletic advantage in males begins prior to puberty, as any parent who's raised athletic kids of both sexes could tell us, and the statistical evidence confirms:
“Males in the 8 and under and 9–10-year-old age groups typically run faster than females of the same age by 2.9%–6.7%”
“Males in the 8-and-under and 9–10-year-old age groups typically performed long jump and throw the shot put and javelin farther than females of the same age”
“Males in the 10-and-under age group were 1.16%–2.63% significantly faster than females in the 50 yards (yd; 45.7 M), 100 yd (91.4 m), and 200 yd (182.9 m) freestyle, 100 yd backstroke, 50 yd breaststroke, 100 yd butterfly, and 100 and 200 yd individual medley (IM)."
Studying boys who are being actively chemically emasculated and sterilized seems to be a problem in any medicine. The ethics of it are clear, since parents should not be able to emasculate and castrate a child, and a child cannot give informed consent.
Up through the 70’s forced sterilization was allowable, and was disproportionally applied to women of color - “Mississippi appendectomy”
In 19 states permanent forced sterilization is illegal, 31 states allow it for “unfit” children and 17 states for children with disabilities.
It would be simple to cease all the discussion by making permanent forced sterilization and genital mutilation illegal at the federal level.
I would alert a new crew that children are being forcibly permanently sterilized, something done in the past done to unruly children and people of color.
IIRC the ACLU was weirdly concerned with special pleading on behalf of 12-y.o. boys on puberty blockers in their first Hecox v Little filing. They may have amended but the passage stood out when I read it a few years ago. I thought, "What does this have to do with a grown man cheating at cross country?" Now I wonder if Ackerman was part of the discussion, or on the plaintiff's witness list.
I think that there's one important factor, which has global implications, that's being overlooked. As always - follow the money$$. In countries that have socialized medicine they will have years of paying, far into the future, for the damage done by puberty blockers and surgery with little recompense. On the other hand, a country like the USA, with much for-profit medicine, can look forward to hefty profits from drugs and surgery, far into the future. A look at the countries like Norway, France and England that are starting to put on the brakes and proceed with caution the profits from medicalization might not be as lucrative. Would that be a factor? Looking at the opioid bonanza, profit in the medical world seems to have the upper hand over the 80,000 lives that that are lost to that scourge every year. It appears one can never be too cynical.
In August 2024, the Biden/Harris reversed Title IX giving all male students female sex-based rights under threat of loss of academic funding. A reversal is my description; Dems call it a minor rule change. But conflating sex with gender is obviously a reversal of the intent and plain reading of Title IX. Red states that passed laws to prevent male students from participating in female sports and getting into female showers in high schools and colleges simply got federal court injunctions against the Democrats' reversal of Title IX.
If Trump swoops in to save the day with a presidential signing statement banning transgender-identified boys and men in all states from female sports and showers, 25 blue state attorneys general will get their own court injunctions to prevent Trump's “fix” from stopping them from affirming males onto female teams and into female showers in high schools and colleges. That means many more years of blue states screwing girls and women out of our rights. Without a groundswell of support, Dem-led states' injunctions against a simplistic Trump signing statement will stretch out this fight. The Dems will have dishonest gender ideology talking points to retake the House in two years and the presidency in 2028.
We have a better idea than a presidential signing statement. We're building a broad based coalition from the Left and Right for a permanent fix to the mess gender ideology has caused. I'm working with a group that has written a US federal bill to reestablish women's rights that is more comprehensive and definitely more sensible than what is proposed by Republicans. Their idea for fixing the damage caused by gender ideology is to revert to teaching our nation's children to abide by outdated stereotypes like making gender nonconforming girls wear dresses to school again. Both extremes apparently want to reinforce dysfunctional sex stereotypes. We want kids to be accepted for who they are without teachers, friends and idiots on TikTok telling them they are defective and need to destroy their health and sterilize themselves.
Let's fix this problem once and for all with a solid reassertion of sex-based rights (our sons need that too). Trump can still be The Man by signing this bill. He can claim it as his legacy, but he'll have a more permanent solution from Congress that is widely supported across our country.
Please contact me via substack if you want to help.
I agree, simply swinging to the other extreme and mandating sex stereotypes will simply prolong this mess, and give gender ideologues ammunition. A more lasting fix for enshrining women's rights in law is needed
This is intriguing. At the moment, the extremes are dictating the terms of the debate. The Nancy Maces of this world want to kick men who identify as women out of ladies' rooms and make them pee . . . where? Unisex toilets would be the ideal solution, but that's not sufficiently stigmatizing and punitive for MAGA.
At the other end, progressive trans allies just will not let go of the idea that "trans kids" are real and need protection from "trans hatred." They seem never to have heard that most youth with gender dysphoria or who are gender nonconforming will desist and grow up to be gay or lesbian. I have yet to hear a trans ally respond to this point.
On the left, trans allies refuse to even engage in a discussion on the merits about the fairness of allowing men who identify as women to compete against women. They take one of two positions. Trans women are women, so there is no issue because there are no males in female sports. Alternatively, they minimize the problem out of existence by claiming there are so few trans girls and women in sports that it is downright foolish to even discuss the matter. Worse yet, some progressives even turn the table by accusing sex realists of harboring sordid preoccupations with children. It's James Lindsay's groomer calumny come full circle.
Men who identify as women can pee in the men’s room. It is not an impossible conundrum. Direct all thr energy that has been firehosed at women to be “kind” and “inclusive” at men instead. Dear men, some men like to wear wigs and dresses, they will be in the men’s room with you, let them pee in peace.
Where are the 12-year-old trans tween "girls" in this study coming from?
For example, it is possible to make any generalizations about or find any patterns in their histories prior to the study, e.g., are they really trans?
Are they sissy boys who developed a trans identity under the influence of adult trans allies and the lies they were told about gender identity in school and social media? How many of them are having their gay sexual orientation stolen from them?
Or are these "trans kids" actually highly motivated budding autogynephiles who also happen to be jocks? For that matter, how likely is it that male transitioners are not AGP?
What is their history of involvement in competitive athletics? Do they have the sports equivalent of stage moms (and dads)? Who is more invested in the kid's athletic experience and record - the child or the parent?
What evidence, if any, is that these kids are taking part knowingly or unwittingly in experiments to create clandestine trans athletes?
All of the children who identify as the opposite sex are already patients at the gender clinics in the four universities/hospitals where the studies are taking place. Ackerman's study will take baseline measurements of fitness (from presidents' physical fitness-like tests) before the kids start on puberty blockers, and then every six months after they start "treatment" or at least two years.
Even if you give a boy puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones at very young age, his body will never undergo the changes that a female body experiences during puberty, when a girl's pelvis expands to enable the capacity to gestate and birth, when her ovaries and uterus will commence her menstrual cycle (with all its implications for the iron levels in her blood), when her upper torso grows breasts, which changes the kinetic dynamics of her body. It is profoundly disrespectful to ignore the reality of female puberty, which only girls experience. No boy who is blocked from his natural male puberty goes through a female puberty! Female puberty is a complex process of its own.
IRBs have failed badly around trans stuff. The worst case of which I have heard is Duke allowing a clinician to help a man express chemically induced goop from his nipple and feed it to a baby. Utterly criminal disregard for that baby’s well being in favor of the “affirmation” experienced by that man.
I wrote Duke’s IRB about it but they did not respond.
Even worse is that La Leche League, created in the 1950s to support nursing mothers, has now been captured by trans ideology and is permitting men to join.
Women bring their babies to meetings and may nurse them. It’s not appropriate for men to be present.
Here’s an account of one woman (free to read)
https://millihill.substack.com/p/i-wont-support-breastfeeding-men
Sarah, another great column. We want the women's category to be for those who are female and individuals who have no male androgenization at any time during their development or life. This latter description would cover those very rare DSD (Difference of Sexual Development) athlete who is genetically male but androgen insensitive (so the closest to a physiological female of any DSD person). We do not want to leave a loop hole for DSD athletes who were "assigned" female due to ambiguous genital at birth but are genetic males (e.g., Imane Khelif) or have benefited from any androgenization.
Agreed Mary. I'm not sure, but I thought "born female" would exclude male DSDs who were mistakenly assigned female at birth but later discovered to be male with a DSD. These people, like Khelif, actually were born male, not female. It's just that the error by the birth attendant was not discovered until later in life.
yes, it is all in the wording! "Born female" SHOULD mean genetic female. But others may use "born female" to equate to "assigned female at birth" which would create the loophole for DSD males to compete as women (as I know you are well aware).
Yes. And in any case, the studies are pointless, since athletic advantage in males begins prior to puberty, as any parent who's raised athletic kids of both sexes could tell us, and the statistical evidence confirms:
“Males in the 8 and under and 9–10-year-old age groups typically run faster than females of the same age by 2.9%–6.7%”
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsc.12075
“Males in the 8-and-under and 9–10-year-old age groups typically performed long jump and throw the shot put and javelin farther than females of the same age”
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ejsc.12241
“Males in the 10-and-under age group were 1.16%–2.63% significantly faster than females in the 50 yards (yd; 45.7 M), 100 yd (91.4 m), and 200 yd (182.9 m) freestyle, 100 yd backstroke, 50 yd breaststroke, 100 yd butterfly, and 100 and 200 yd individual medley (IM)."
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ejsc.12237
Studying boys who are being actively chemically emasculated and sterilized seems to be a problem in any medicine. The ethics of it are clear, since parents should not be able to emasculate and castrate a child, and a child cannot give informed consent.
Up through the 70’s forced sterilization was allowable, and was disproportionally applied to women of color - “Mississippi appendectomy”
In 19 states permanent forced sterilization is illegal, 31 states allow it for “unfit” children and 17 states for children with disabilities.
It would be simple to cease all the discussion by making permanent forced sterilization and genital mutilation illegal at the federal level.
Here’s some reading.
https://19thnews.org/2022/02/forced-sterilization-guardianship-reproductive-justice/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
I would alert a new crew that children are being forcibly permanently sterilized, something done in the past done to unruly children and people of color.
Atrocity is still everpresent.
IIRC the ACLU was weirdly concerned with special pleading on behalf of 12-y.o. boys on puberty blockers in their first Hecox v Little filing. They may have amended but the passage stood out when I read it a few years ago. I thought, "What does this have to do with a grown man cheating at cross country?" Now I wonder if Ackerman was part of the discussion, or on the plaintiff's witness list.
I think that there's one important factor, which has global implications, that's being overlooked. As always - follow the money$$. In countries that have socialized medicine they will have years of paying, far into the future, for the damage done by puberty blockers and surgery with little recompense. On the other hand, a country like the USA, with much for-profit medicine, can look forward to hefty profits from drugs and surgery, far into the future. A look at the countries like Norway, France and England that are starting to put on the brakes and proceed with caution the profits from medicalization might not be as lucrative. Would that be a factor? Looking at the opioid bonanza, profit in the medical world seems to have the upper hand over the 80,000 lives that that are lost to that scourge every year. It appears one can never be too cynical.
Canada, which has socialized medicine, is fully on board with trans mania. No backtracking yet.
In August 2024, the Biden/Harris reversed Title IX giving all male students female sex-based rights under threat of loss of academic funding. A reversal is my description; Dems call it a minor rule change. But conflating sex with gender is obviously a reversal of the intent and plain reading of Title IX. Red states that passed laws to prevent male students from participating in female sports and getting into female showers in high schools and colleges simply got federal court injunctions against the Democrats' reversal of Title IX.
If Trump swoops in to save the day with a presidential signing statement banning transgender-identified boys and men in all states from female sports and showers, 25 blue state attorneys general will get their own court injunctions to prevent Trump's “fix” from stopping them from affirming males onto female teams and into female showers in high schools and colleges. That means many more years of blue states screwing girls and women out of our rights. Without a groundswell of support, Dem-led states' injunctions against a simplistic Trump signing statement will stretch out this fight. The Dems will have dishonest gender ideology talking points to retake the House in two years and the presidency in 2028.
We have a better idea than a presidential signing statement. We're building a broad based coalition from the Left and Right for a permanent fix to the mess gender ideology has caused. I'm working with a group that has written a US federal bill to reestablish women's rights that is more comprehensive and definitely more sensible than what is proposed by Republicans. Their idea for fixing the damage caused by gender ideology is to revert to teaching our nation's children to abide by outdated stereotypes like making gender nonconforming girls wear dresses to school again. Both extremes apparently want to reinforce dysfunctional sex stereotypes. We want kids to be accepted for who they are without teachers, friends and idiots on TikTok telling them they are defective and need to destroy their health and sterilize themselves.
Let's fix this problem once and for all with a solid reassertion of sex-based rights (our sons need that too). Trump can still be The Man by signing this bill. He can claim it as his legacy, but he'll have a more permanent solution from Congress that is widely supported across our country.
Please contact me via substack if you want to help.
I agree, simply swinging to the other extreme and mandating sex stereotypes will simply prolong this mess, and give gender ideologues ammunition. A more lasting fix for enshrining women's rights in law is needed
This is intriguing. At the moment, the extremes are dictating the terms of the debate. The Nancy Maces of this world want to kick men who identify as women out of ladies' rooms and make them pee . . . where? Unisex toilets would be the ideal solution, but that's not sufficiently stigmatizing and punitive for MAGA.
At the other end, progressive trans allies just will not let go of the idea that "trans kids" are real and need protection from "trans hatred." They seem never to have heard that most youth with gender dysphoria or who are gender nonconforming will desist and grow up to be gay or lesbian. I have yet to hear a trans ally respond to this point.
On the left, trans allies refuse to even engage in a discussion on the merits about the fairness of allowing men who identify as women to compete against women. They take one of two positions. Trans women are women, so there is no issue because there are no males in female sports. Alternatively, they minimize the problem out of existence by claiming there are so few trans girls and women in sports that it is downright foolish to even discuss the matter. Worse yet, some progressives even turn the table by accusing sex realists of harboring sordid preoccupations with children. It's James Lindsay's groomer calumny come full circle.
I may get in touch.
Men who identify as women can pee in the men’s room. It is not an impossible conundrum. Direct all thr energy that has been firehosed at women to be “kind” and “inclusive” at men instead. Dear men, some men like to wear wigs and dresses, they will be in the men’s room with you, let them pee in peace.
AGPs can be right bastards when it comes to doing what real women want them to do, and that includes peeing in men's rooms.
What benefit could any of this actually have for humanity?
None
Where are the 12-year-old trans tween "girls" in this study coming from?
For example, it is possible to make any generalizations about or find any patterns in their histories prior to the study, e.g., are they really trans?
Are they sissy boys who developed a trans identity under the influence of adult trans allies and the lies they were told about gender identity in school and social media? How many of them are having their gay sexual orientation stolen from them?
Or are these "trans kids" actually highly motivated budding autogynephiles who also happen to be jocks? For that matter, how likely is it that male transitioners are not AGP?
What is their history of involvement in competitive athletics? Do they have the sports equivalent of stage moms (and dads)? Who is more invested in the kid's athletic experience and record - the child or the parent?
What evidence, if any, is that these kids are taking part knowingly or unwittingly in experiments to create clandestine trans athletes?
All of the children who identify as the opposite sex are already patients at the gender clinics in the four universities/hospitals where the studies are taking place. Ackerman's study will take baseline measurements of fitness (from presidents' physical fitness-like tests) before the kids start on puberty blockers, and then every six months after they start "treatment" or at least two years.
It’s all a medical scandal! The biggest lies are swallowed because the. Profits are huge! There are no redeeming values for any of this!
All these doctors who profit from the trans ideology are unethical! They have left their morals at the throne of the golden calf… money! They are all
Corrupt and despicable !