Multi Sport
DA
This seems like something E would say.. smh.
Trans eligibility rules for girls sports.
- Thread starter dad4
- Start date
Megan was on the Women's National team that lost to a U15 boys team from Dallas a few years back....
Wonder if Megan will be having life altering surgery after she's finished with soccer --- perhaps an addadicktome?
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
Sunlight continues to do its job on the fringe of gender ideology. Becoming informed has never been more difficult with our current state of censorship and the advocacy nature of the legacy media. Without these new sources of news, I have to wonder how much longer it would have taken. Some of these posts are long. But this is information that is vital to forming educated opinions.
------
From "The Free Press"
My Research on Gender Dysphoria Was Censored. But I Won’t Be.
Trans activists forced the retraction of my paper. Their efforts have redoubled my commitment to the truth.
J Michael Bailey
I am a professor of psychology at Northwestern University. I have been a professor for 34 years, and a researcher for 40. Over the decades, I have studied controversial topics—from IQ, to sexual orientation, to transsexualism (what we called transgenderism before 2015), to pedophilia. I have published well over 100 academic articles. I am best known for studying sexual orientation—from genetic influences, to childhood precursors of homosexuality, to laboratory-measured sexual arousal patterns.
My research has been denounced by people of all political stripes because I have never prioritized a favored constituency over the truth.
But I have never had an article retracted. Until now.
On March 29, I published an article in the prestigious academic journal Archives of Sexual Behavior. Less than three months later, on June 14, it was retracted by Springer Nature Group, the giant academic publisher of Archives, for an alleged violation of its editorial policies.
Retraction of scientific articles is associated with well-deserved shame: plagiarism, making up data, or grave concerns about the scientific integrity of a study. But my article was not retracted for any shameful reason. It was retracted because it provided evidence for an idea that activists hate.
The retracted article, “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases,” was coauthored with Suzanna Diaz, who I met in 2018 at a small meeting of scientists, journalists, and parents of children they believed had Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD).
ROGD was first described in the literature in 2018 by the physician and researcher Lisa Littman. It is an explanation of the new phenomenon of adolescents, largely girls, with no history of gender dysphoria, suddenly declaring they want to transition to the opposite sex. It has been a highly contentious diagnosis, with some—and I am one—thinking it’s an important avenue for scientific inquiry, and others declaring it’s a false idea advocated by parents unable to accept they have a transgender child.
I believed that ROGD was a promising explanation of the explosion of gender dysphoria among adolescent girls because these young people do not have gender dysphoria as usually understood. Until recently, females treated for gender dysphoria were masculine-presenting girls who had hated being female since early childhood. By contrast, girls with ROGD are often conventionally feminine, but tend to have other social and emotional issues. The theory behind ROGD is that through social contagion from friends, social media, and even school, vulnerable girls are exposed to the idea that their normal adolescent angst is the result of an underlying transgender identity. These girls then suddenly declare that they are transgender. That is the rapid onset. After the declaration, the girls may desire—and receive—drastic medical interventions including mastectomies and testosterone injections.
There is ample evidence that in progressive communities, multiple girls from the same peer group are announcing they are trans almost simultaneously. There has been a sharp increase in this phenomenon across the industrialized West. A recent review from the UK, which keeps better records than America, showed a greater than tenfold increase in referrals of adolescent girls during just the past decade.
But there have been virtually no scientific data or studies on the subject.
In part that is because researchers who have touched this topic have been punished for their curiosity. Just ask Lisa Littman. Ultimately, her paper on the subject resulted in an unnecessary “correction” by the journal that published it, and the loss of Littman’s academic affiliation with Brown University, which prioritized activist outrage over Littman’s academic freedom.
This explains why my coauthor, “Suzanna Diaz,” doesn’t go by her real name. I don’t even know it, despite having met her in person once and spoken with her many times. She uses a pseudonym to protect her family, especially her daughter, whom Suzanna believes has ROGD. Suzanna isn’t an academic. She is a mother who has become an activist to raise awareness about this phenomenon, including by creating an online survey for parents who believed their children had ROGD. The survey was hosted by the website ParentsOfROGDKids.com. I was impressed with her findings and we decided to collaborate.
Although it is unusual for an academic to collaborate with someone who is anonymous, I decided to do so for two reasons. First, I understood why Suzanna felt she needed to keep her identity private. Second, at all stages of our collaboration, I was able to confirm that the work she had done was well-informed, careful, and reliable.
It’s not entirely unusual that a parent like Suzanna would take on this kind of role. Increasing awareness about ROGD is largely attributable to parents with daughters claiming to be sons. Desperate for sound medical advice, they find themselves confronted with a medical establishment that has come to prioritize surgical and hormonal intervention over traditional psychotherapy that seeks to resolve the feelings of distress.
Our article was based on parent reports of 1,655 adolescent and young adult children. Three-fourths of them were female. Emotional problems were common among this group, especially anxiety and depression, which many parents said preceded gender issues by years. Most of these young people had taken steps to socially transition, including changing their pronouns, dress, and identity to the other sex (or in some cases, to neither sex). Parents observed that after their children socially transitioned, their mental health deteriorated. A small number—seven percent of those whose parents answered Suzanna’s survey—had received medical transition treatment, including drugs to block puberty, or cross-sex hormones.
Disturbingly, those young people with more emotional problems were especially likely to have socially and medically transitioned. The best predictor of both social and medical transition was a referral to a gender specialist. Some 52 percent of parents in our study who had received a referral said they felt pressured by the gender specialist to facilitate some sort of transition for their child.
Our study had two obvious limitations: the way we recruited parents guaranteed that only those who believed their children had ROGD would participate, and we had only the parents’ perspectives. We clearly acknowledged and discussed these in our paper, beginning with the words “At least two related issues potentially limit this research” followed by three paragraphs laying out the limitations.
But when parents are worried about their adolescent children, there is usually a good reason. And these were not parents with a political ax to grind: with few exceptions, all of the parents we surveyed were progressive.
<cont>
------
From "The Free Press"
My Research on Gender Dysphoria Was Censored. But I Won’t Be.
Trans activists forced the retraction of my paper. Their efforts have redoubled my commitment to the truth.
J Michael Bailey
I am a professor of psychology at Northwestern University. I have been a professor for 34 years, and a researcher for 40. Over the decades, I have studied controversial topics—from IQ, to sexual orientation, to transsexualism (what we called transgenderism before 2015), to pedophilia. I have published well over 100 academic articles. I am best known for studying sexual orientation—from genetic influences, to childhood precursors of homosexuality, to laboratory-measured sexual arousal patterns.
My research has been denounced by people of all political stripes because I have never prioritized a favored constituency over the truth.
But I have never had an article retracted. Until now.
On March 29, I published an article in the prestigious academic journal Archives of Sexual Behavior. Less than three months later, on June 14, it was retracted by Springer Nature Group, the giant academic publisher of Archives, for an alleged violation of its editorial policies.
Retraction of scientific articles is associated with well-deserved shame: plagiarism, making up data, or grave concerns about the scientific integrity of a study. But my article was not retracted for any shameful reason. It was retracted because it provided evidence for an idea that activists hate.
The retracted article, “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases,” was coauthored with Suzanna Diaz, who I met in 2018 at a small meeting of scientists, journalists, and parents of children they believed had Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD).
ROGD was first described in the literature in 2018 by the physician and researcher Lisa Littman. It is an explanation of the new phenomenon of adolescents, largely girls, with no history of gender dysphoria, suddenly declaring they want to transition to the opposite sex. It has been a highly contentious diagnosis, with some—and I am one—thinking it’s an important avenue for scientific inquiry, and others declaring it’s a false idea advocated by parents unable to accept they have a transgender child.
I believed that ROGD was a promising explanation of the explosion of gender dysphoria among adolescent girls because these young people do not have gender dysphoria as usually understood. Until recently, females treated for gender dysphoria were masculine-presenting girls who had hated being female since early childhood. By contrast, girls with ROGD are often conventionally feminine, but tend to have other social and emotional issues. The theory behind ROGD is that through social contagion from friends, social media, and even school, vulnerable girls are exposed to the idea that their normal adolescent angst is the result of an underlying transgender identity. These girls then suddenly declare that they are transgender. That is the rapid onset. After the declaration, the girls may desire—and receive—drastic medical interventions including mastectomies and testosterone injections.
There is ample evidence that in progressive communities, multiple girls from the same peer group are announcing they are trans almost simultaneously. There has been a sharp increase in this phenomenon across the industrialized West. A recent review from the UK, which keeps better records than America, showed a greater than tenfold increase in referrals of adolescent girls during just the past decade.
But there have been virtually no scientific data or studies on the subject.
In part that is because researchers who have touched this topic have been punished for their curiosity. Just ask Lisa Littman. Ultimately, her paper on the subject resulted in an unnecessary “correction” by the journal that published it, and the loss of Littman’s academic affiliation with Brown University, which prioritized activist outrage over Littman’s academic freedom.
This explains why my coauthor, “Suzanna Diaz,” doesn’t go by her real name. I don’t even know it, despite having met her in person once and spoken with her many times. She uses a pseudonym to protect her family, especially her daughter, whom Suzanna believes has ROGD. Suzanna isn’t an academic. She is a mother who has become an activist to raise awareness about this phenomenon, including by creating an online survey for parents who believed their children had ROGD. The survey was hosted by the website ParentsOfROGDKids.com. I was impressed with her findings and we decided to collaborate.
Although it is unusual for an academic to collaborate with someone who is anonymous, I decided to do so for two reasons. First, I understood why Suzanna felt she needed to keep her identity private. Second, at all stages of our collaboration, I was able to confirm that the work she had done was well-informed, careful, and reliable.
It’s not entirely unusual that a parent like Suzanna would take on this kind of role. Increasing awareness about ROGD is largely attributable to parents with daughters claiming to be sons. Desperate for sound medical advice, they find themselves confronted with a medical establishment that has come to prioritize surgical and hormonal intervention over traditional psychotherapy that seeks to resolve the feelings of distress.
Our article was based on parent reports of 1,655 adolescent and young adult children. Three-fourths of them were female. Emotional problems were common among this group, especially anxiety and depression, which many parents said preceded gender issues by years. Most of these young people had taken steps to socially transition, including changing their pronouns, dress, and identity to the other sex (or in some cases, to neither sex). Parents observed that after their children socially transitioned, their mental health deteriorated. A small number—seven percent of those whose parents answered Suzanna’s survey—had received medical transition treatment, including drugs to block puberty, or cross-sex hormones.
Disturbingly, those young people with more emotional problems were especially likely to have socially and medically transitioned. The best predictor of both social and medical transition was a referral to a gender specialist. Some 52 percent of parents in our study who had received a referral said they felt pressured by the gender specialist to facilitate some sort of transition for their child.
Our study had two obvious limitations: the way we recruited parents guaranteed that only those who believed their children had ROGD would participate, and we had only the parents’ perspectives. We clearly acknowledged and discussed these in our paper, beginning with the words “At least two related issues potentially limit this research” followed by three paragraphs laying out the limitations.
But when parents are worried about their adolescent children, there is usually a good reason. And these were not parents with a political ax to grind: with few exceptions, all of the parents we surveyed were progressive.
<cont>
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
Our article was published to a fair amount of attention. It was covered positively by the conservative press and also was retweeted widely both by families and others concerned about ROGD. But from the start, it got negative attention from trans activists and their political allies.
Almost immediately these activists began to lobby both the publisher of Archives of Sexual Behavior (Springer Nature Group) and the organization affiliated with the journal (International Academy of Sex Research, or IASR) to retract the article and to punish the editor of Archives, psychologist Kenneth Zucker, because he had published our work.
On May 5, a group of 100 academic activists and gender clinicians published an online Open Letter expressing “ethical” and “editorial concerns” about the journal and “serious concerns over research ethics and intellectual integrity” of our article. This was a pretext for their real complaint: dislike of certain ideas and the people responsible for them. That is clear from the open letter, which focuses less on our article and more on Ken Zucker.
Zucker is a giant figure in academic sex research, and especially the science of gender dysphoria. He helped found the Family Gender Identity Clinic in Toronto, one of the first international centers for the study and treatment of childhood and adolescent gender dysphoria. He was chosen by the American Psychiatric Association to chair the working group on Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders for the 2012 revision of its diagnostic manual, known as the DSM. Since 2002, he has edited Archives of Sexual Behavior, the most important academic journal covering research on sexuality, sex differences, and gender dysphoria.
But Zucker has also become a target of activist ire. That’s because he believes that gender dysphoria is a problem that should be treated, if possible, with psychotherapy to prevent transition rather than drugs and surgery to facilitate transition. Zucker’s most zealous critics accuse him of promoting “conversion therapy,” but this is incorrect. Conversion therapy is a religiously motivated attempt to change sexual orientation; it doesn’t work. Gender dysphoria, unlike sexual orientation, can change.
Zucker—like many others—wants to help youth avoid the psychosocial upheaval associated with gender transition and a lifetime of potentially unnecessary medical treatment. His position was almost universal until the past few years. The fact that it has become verboten is the result of a powerful activist movement that has been astonishing both in its effectiveness and its lack of scientific evidence.
Debate is essential to good science, but that is not what these activists want. They seek surrender. And that is what they got.
On May 23, we received an email from Springer informing us that they were retracting our article. The ostensible reason:
Springer’s reasoning was preposterous and simply an excuse to retract an article they wanted to go away in order to stop the controversy. Springer accused us of not obtaining informed consent from the parents in our study. There are two aspects to informed consent in research: you should understand what you’re being asked to do, including any substantial risks and benefits, and you should be able to opt out. All parents completing Suzanna’s survey knew they were being asked questions about their children’s ROGD, and they decided to answer. Parents were promised privacy of personal information, and they got it.
Springer’s additional complaint was that we did not have consent to publish survey results. This is plain wrong. We did inform participants that we would publish their data. At the end of the survey participants were told: “We will publish our data on our website when we have a large enough sample. . . ”
We are outraged and disappointed that our article was retracted. But the belief that activists have won and science has lost is mostly wrong. Our article’s retraction has inadvertently resulted in a triumph for truth and reason.
Start with the support we’ve received from FAIR, Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine, and others. Unless you have ever been cancelled, you have no idea how important this is.
The campaign against our article, from the open letter to the final retraction, has generated immense publicity by academic standards, so far largely favorable. Our academic article has been viewed online more than 100,000 times in not quite three months, an astonishing number for an article of this nature. This reflects a thirst for knowledge about this important subject.
Speaking for myself, this episode has guaranteed that I will study ROGD until we understand it.
That’s why I am about to launch a large, long-term survey of adolescent gender dysphoria, in collaboration with Lisa Littman and Ken Zucker. We will survey both gender-dysphoric adolescents and their parents, following them for at least five years. Among other things, we’ll have better information about adolescents’ early gender dysphoria, mental health, and sexuality; about parents’ attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs; and about the correspondence between adolescents’ and parents’ accounts of the same phenomena.
I guarantee two things. First, it will be a huge, important study with the potential to establish the validity of ROGD. (And if ROGD is an incorrect idea, we will show and publish this.) Second, between the three of us—Littman, Zucker, and me, three previously cancelled scientists who are among the world’s foremost experts in what we are studying—we don’t have a chance in hell of receiving government funding for this project.
We’ll do it anyway. (You can help if you want.)
Censors have tried to stop scientific progress before. Now, as then, the pursuit of truth requires scientists and researchers who refuse to cow to puritans, ideologues and activists.
If you want to read more about the threat to scientific inquiry, we recommend this important paper by Jerry A. Coyne and Luana S. Maroja.
And if you believe in open inquiry and intellectual freedom, you’ve come to the right place. Become a Free Press subscriber today:
Almost immediately these activists began to lobby both the publisher of Archives of Sexual Behavior (Springer Nature Group) and the organization affiliated with the journal (International Academy of Sex Research, or IASR) to retract the article and to punish the editor of Archives, psychologist Kenneth Zucker, because he had published our work.
On May 5, a group of 100 academic activists and gender clinicians published an online Open Letter expressing “ethical” and “editorial concerns” about the journal and “serious concerns over research ethics and intellectual integrity” of our article. This was a pretext for their real complaint: dislike of certain ideas and the people responsible for them. That is clear from the open letter, which focuses less on our article and more on Ken Zucker.
Zucker is a giant figure in academic sex research, and especially the science of gender dysphoria. He helped found the Family Gender Identity Clinic in Toronto, one of the first international centers for the study and treatment of childhood and adolescent gender dysphoria. He was chosen by the American Psychiatric Association to chair the working group on Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders for the 2012 revision of its diagnostic manual, known as the DSM. Since 2002, he has edited Archives of Sexual Behavior, the most important academic journal covering research on sexuality, sex differences, and gender dysphoria.
But Zucker has also become a target of activist ire. That’s because he believes that gender dysphoria is a problem that should be treated, if possible, with psychotherapy to prevent transition rather than drugs and surgery to facilitate transition. Zucker’s most zealous critics accuse him of promoting “conversion therapy,” but this is incorrect. Conversion therapy is a religiously motivated attempt to change sexual orientation; it doesn’t work. Gender dysphoria, unlike sexual orientation, can change.
Zucker—like many others—wants to help youth avoid the psychosocial upheaval associated with gender transition and a lifetime of potentially unnecessary medical treatment. His position was almost universal until the past few years. The fact that it has become verboten is the result of a powerful activist movement that has been astonishing both in its effectiveness and its lack of scientific evidence.
Debate is essential to good science, but that is not what these activists want. They seek surrender. And that is what they got.
On May 23, we received an email from Springer informing us that they were retracting our article. The ostensible reason:
We appealed after consulting a lawyer, but Springer retracted our paper on June 14.
Springer’s reasoning was preposterous and simply an excuse to retract an article they wanted to go away in order to stop the controversy. Springer accused us of not obtaining informed consent from the parents in our study. There are two aspects to informed consent in research: you should understand what you’re being asked to do, including any substantial risks and benefits, and you should be able to opt out. All parents completing Suzanna’s survey knew they were being asked questions about their children’s ROGD, and they decided to answer. Parents were promised privacy of personal information, and they got it.
Springer’s additional complaint was that we did not have consent to publish survey results. This is plain wrong. We did inform participants that we would publish their data. At the end of the survey participants were told: “We will publish our data on our website when we have a large enough sample. . . ”
We are outraged and disappointed that our article was retracted. But the belief that activists have won and science has lost is mostly wrong. Our article’s retraction has inadvertently resulted in a triumph for truth and reason.
Start with the support we’ve received from FAIR, Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine, and others. Unless you have ever been cancelled, you have no idea how important this is.
The campaign against our article, from the open letter to the final retraction, has generated immense publicity by academic standards, so far largely favorable. Our academic article has been viewed online more than 100,000 times in not quite three months, an astonishing number for an article of this nature. This reflects a thirst for knowledge about this important subject.
Speaking for myself, this episode has guaranteed that I will study ROGD until we understand it.
That’s why I am about to launch a large, long-term survey of adolescent gender dysphoria, in collaboration with Lisa Littman and Ken Zucker. We will survey both gender-dysphoric adolescents and their parents, following them for at least five years. Among other things, we’ll have better information about adolescents’ early gender dysphoria, mental health, and sexuality; about parents’ attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs; and about the correspondence between adolescents’ and parents’ accounts of the same phenomena.
I guarantee two things. First, it will be a huge, important study with the potential to establish the validity of ROGD. (And if ROGD is an incorrect idea, we will show and publish this.) Second, between the three of us—Littman, Zucker, and me, three previously cancelled scientists who are among the world’s foremost experts in what we are studying—we don’t have a chance in hell of receiving government funding for this project.
We’ll do it anyway. (You can help if you want.)
Censors have tried to stop scientific progress before. Now, as then, the pursuit of truth requires scientists and researchers who refuse to cow to puritans, ideologues and activists.
If you want to read more about the threat to scientific inquiry, we recommend this important paper by Jerry A. Coyne and Luana S. Maroja.
And if you believe in open inquiry and intellectual freedom, you’ve come to the right place. Become a Free Press subscriber today:
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why does the human race insist on making such jackasses out of ourselves? Her? That's a fucking man, people. There is no her; no she.
news.yahoo.com
Why does the human race insist on making such jackasses out of ourselves? Her? That's a fucking man, people. There is no her; no she.
The NFL’s First Openly Transgender Cheerleader, Justine Lindsay, Addresses Negative Comments: ‘At First, It Was Very Hurtful’
After completing her first season as an NFL cheerleader for the Carolina Panther’s Top Cats, Justine Lindsay is proud to be part of the progression for inclusion and diversity in sports.
Desert Hound
DA
It is Orwellian.
And they expect us to play along with the charade.
By their logic I can claim to be African American. Before you say hey you look and are white...I will tell you my inner self says otherwise.
Hmm... I think I know what's behind the slump. People are tired of having personal agendas shoved in their faces.
I remember telling SurTranny this bullshit was on its last leg about a month ago. I wish he/she/it was still here to tell me how the egg smells. It's about time common sense returned. I was starting to think we'd have to ban these pesky females demanding equality again.
www.yahoo.com
World cycling governing body bans trans athletes from participating in women’s events
World cycling’s governing body announced Friday that transgender athletes are no longer allowed to participate in women’s events — though the rules, which are set to take effect early next week, “may change in the future as scientific knowledge evolves.” The announcement comes nine days after...
www.yahoo.com
... then there's this. Anybody believe, for even one second, Valentin(a) is actually a woman?
www.telegraph.co.uk
Transgender runner, 49, wins bronze at Para World Championships
The Italian is the first transgender athlete to win a track and field medal on the global stage
www.telegraph.co.uk
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
By definition, if common sense returns, EOTL is gone.I remember telling SurTranny this bullshit was on its last leg about a month ago. I wish he/she/it was still here to tell me how the egg smells. It's about time common sense returned. I was starting to think we'd have to ban these pesky females demanding equality again.
World cycling governing body bans trans athletes from participating in women’s events
World cycling’s governing body announced Friday that transgender athletes are no longer allowed to participate in women’s events — though the rules, which are set to take effect early next week, “may change in the future as scientific knowledge evolves.” The announcement comes nine days after...
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
Trans woman is to woman as oat milk is to milk. Oat milk presents itself in the same carton as milk and ostensibly has the uses as milk.LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why does the human race insist on making such jackasses out of ourselves? Her? That's a fucking man, people. There is no her; no she.
The NFL’s First Openly Transgender Cheerleader, Justine Lindsay, Addresses Negative Comments: ‘At First, It Was Very Hurtful’
After completing her first season as an NFL cheerleader for the Carolina Panther’s Top Cats, Justine Lindsay is proud to be part of the progression for inclusion and diversity in sports.
I have no problem referring to someone dressed as a woman, as her or she. I'm fine calling them trans-women. But for prisons, women's sports, sororities, women's locker rooms, and women's restrooms - no oat milk.
You're kinder, more mature or possibly both, than I. I refuse to call Lia Thomas a woman... he'll always be William Thomas to me. And when people refer to him as "she", I laugh out loud. I refuse to say "trans men can get pregnant". Trans men are women. That's why they can get pregnant. I refuse to say men can have menstruation cycles. This insanity can, in my mind, only be tolerated up to a point. Dress the way you want. Act the way you want. Call yourself Brianne instead of Brian, but you are what you are. Lopping your pecker off doesn't make you a woman or a female. And when women's rights are trampled to accommodate the "what I want to be called" crowd, it's too far.
Megan Rapinoe saying males should be allowed to compete in female sports, because sports is inclusive, is horseshit, and the fact that she says it while walking out the door is complete cowardice.
Happened again
SILVER ELITE
She say's it to get a reaction and to cash in with her sponsors...As a woman, I know she's full of crap and is fully taking advantage of the only way she'll be able to make money once her playing career is done. She's a phenomenal soccer player, and a terrible example for our girl athletes. I'm sure there are different opinions but that's mine. My guess is she will slowly fade away once she's done playing....or maybe she'll have the cojones to start her own inclusive league.
Agreed 101%. She's Kaepernick 2.0 but doesn't have the race card in her wallet. She'll get her 15 minutes at the World Cup and that'll be it. Unfortunate because she was a tremendous player. As I noted before, when she said "I'm sorry but being inclusive is more important than your high school team"... she's the same person that drove 3.5 hours to practice, one way, for however many years. She's a hypocrite and full of shit.
Desert Hound
DA
I remember telling SurTranny this bullshit was on its last leg about a month ago. I wish he/she/it was still here to tell me how the egg smells. It's about time common sense returned. I was starting to think we'd have to ban these pesky females demanding equality again.
World cycling governing body bans trans athletes from participating in women’s events
World cycling’s governing body announced Friday that transgender athletes are no longer allowed to participate in women’s events — though the rules, which are set to take effect early next week, “may change in the future as scientific knowledge evolves.” The announcement comes nine days after...
Motorcyclist Who Identifies As Bicyclist Sets Cycling World Record
NEW YORK, NY—In an inspiring story from the world of professional cycling, a motorcyclist who identifies as a bicyclist has crushed all the regular bicyclists, setting an unbelievable world record.
babylonbee.com
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
An interview regarding the pending closing of Tavistock, Britain and Wales' only treatment center for children with gender dysphoria. We are behind the UK, which was behind Sweden and Norway in determining the misuse of puberty blockers. How many more children will be mutilated and sterilized in the US before we stop the madness of this "bad science"?
Highlights:
- Tavistock operated for over three decades without oversight or regulation.
The worst part is, there was a "thorough" report made in 2005 that:
"went unseen until 2020 when I filed a Freedom of Information Act and received it from Tavistock".
- Hannah Barnes
It's so terribly sad. All these years of inappropriate care with the proof for anyone in authority at Tavistock who truly cared about the welfare of these children.
---
Intro:
When Ideology Corrupts Medicine - and How One Reporter Exposed it
A conversation with Hannah Barnes about the medical scandal at Tavistock, the UK’s only youth gender clinic
- Bari Weiss
— July 15
In her book Time to Think, Hannah Barnes follows the story of the Gender and Identity Development Service at Tavistock, where bad science put British youth at risk. (David Sandison via eyevine/Redux)
Last month, Britain’s National Health Service made major news when they announced that they were banning the use of puberty blockers for children, except for those enrolled in a tightly regulated clinical trial. The decision was made after an independent review found there were “significant uncertainties” surrounding the long-term effects of these drugs, which had previously been touted as totally reversible.
The announcement followed another major decision the NHS made last year on the same subject, which was to close Britain and Wales’ only treatment center for children with gender dysphoria: the Gender and Identity Development Service (GIDS) at Tavistock. The NHS found that the care provided at GIDS, which has operated for nearly 35 years, was “not safe or viable as a long-term option for the care of young people with gender related distress.”
These decisions bring the UK in sync with countries like Sweden and Norway, which have made similar policy decisions about gender care for children. But all of those countries are light-years away from how the United States approaches these issues.
My guest today, Hannah Barnes, has reported on this topic for years. Indeed, her reporting was the catalyst for many of these new changes. She’s here to explain what happened in the UK, and why the U.S. is so out of step with one of our strongest allies.
Hannah is an award-winning investigations producer at Newsnight, one of the BBC’s flagship news programs. Her important new book, Time To Think, follows the story from Tavistock’s inception to its imminent closure. It investigates how a clinic can open its doors to thousands of young patients at their most vulnerable, how it can operate for more than three decades without oversight or regulation, and how—in the words of some of the clinic’s own staff—this “medical scandal” unfolded.
It's a subscription to get access to the Podcast
open.spotify.com
----
Part of the interview referenced in the Highlights
<Bari Weiss>
... the vast majority of the clinic’s patients were dealing with lots of other issues on top of gender dysphoria, whether that was anxiety or depression, abuse in the home, or an eating disorder. There was this additional internal report done in 2005 by the medical director of Tavistock, and what it found was pretty alarming. It found that no one was collecting data on the patients and that there was a lot of internal confusion and conflict within the clinic about the very treatments they were providing. In short, providers at Tavistock could not agree on whether they were treating children distressed because they were trans or children who identified as trans because they were distressed? Or was it a combination of both? The medical director also said this of puberty blockers in 2005: “They are relatively untested and unresearched.” Tell me about both of these findings of the audit and the report, and what changes were made at the gender clinic following these things coming to light.
<Hannah Barnes>
The audit was meant to be the start of a more rigorous, scientific approach to helping this group of vulnerable young people. The better you know your patients and what’s going on with them, the more you can cater their care. So David Freedman, a social sciences researcher, undertook this audit with a couple of other people, and the idea was that they would use the findings to improve, and then continue. But they didn’t do that. Even in 2005, Sue Evans, who was the first whistleblower, felt that young people were being referred too quickly for physical interventions for puberty blockers, and there really wasn’t adequate exploration in some of these cases. So, the report, which was very thorough, went unseen until 2020 when I filed a Freedom of Information Act and received it from Tavistock.
Highlights:
- Tavistock operated for over three decades without oversight or regulation.
The worst part is, there was a "thorough" report made in 2005 that:
"went unseen until 2020 when I filed a Freedom of Information Act and received it from Tavistock".
- Hannah Barnes
It's so terribly sad. All these years of inappropriate care with the proof for anyone in authority at Tavistock who truly cared about the welfare of these children.
---
Intro:
When Ideology Corrupts Medicine - and How One Reporter Exposed it
A conversation with Hannah Barnes about the medical scandal at Tavistock, the UK’s only youth gender clinic
- Bari Weiss
— July 15
In her book Time to Think, Hannah Barnes follows the story of the Gender and Identity Development Service at Tavistock, where bad science put British youth at risk. (David Sandison via eyevine/Redux)
Last month, Britain’s National Health Service made major news when they announced that they were banning the use of puberty blockers for children, except for those enrolled in a tightly regulated clinical trial. The decision was made after an independent review found there were “significant uncertainties” surrounding the long-term effects of these drugs, which had previously been touted as totally reversible.
The announcement followed another major decision the NHS made last year on the same subject, which was to close Britain and Wales’ only treatment center for children with gender dysphoria: the Gender and Identity Development Service (GIDS) at Tavistock. The NHS found that the care provided at GIDS, which has operated for nearly 35 years, was “not safe or viable as a long-term option for the care of young people with gender related distress.”
These decisions bring the UK in sync with countries like Sweden and Norway, which have made similar policy decisions about gender care for children. But all of those countries are light-years away from how the United States approaches these issues.
My guest today, Hannah Barnes, has reported on this topic for years. Indeed, her reporting was the catalyst for many of these new changes. She’s here to explain what happened in the UK, and why the U.S. is so out of step with one of our strongest allies.
Hannah is an award-winning investigations producer at Newsnight, one of the BBC’s flagship news programs. Her important new book, Time To Think, follows the story from Tavistock’s inception to its imminent closure. It investigates how a clinic can open its doors to thousands of young patients at their most vulnerable, how it can operate for more than three decades without oversight or regulation, and how—in the words of some of the clinic’s own staff—this “medical scandal” unfolded.
It's a subscription to get access to the Podcast
When Ideology Corrupts Medicine—and How One Reporter Exposed It
Episode · Honestly with Bari Weiss · Last month, Britain’s National Health Service made major news when they announced that they were banning the use of puberty blockers for children, except for those enrolled in a tightly regulated clinical trial. The decision was made after an independent...
open.spotify.com
----
Part of the interview referenced in the Highlights
<Bari Weiss>
... the vast majority of the clinic’s patients were dealing with lots of other issues on top of gender dysphoria, whether that was anxiety or depression, abuse in the home, or an eating disorder. There was this additional internal report done in 2005 by the medical director of Tavistock, and what it found was pretty alarming. It found that no one was collecting data on the patients and that there was a lot of internal confusion and conflict within the clinic about the very treatments they were providing. In short, providers at Tavistock could not agree on whether they were treating children distressed because they were trans or children who identified as trans because they were distressed? Or was it a combination of both? The medical director also said this of puberty blockers in 2005: “They are relatively untested and unresearched.” Tell me about both of these findings of the audit and the report, and what changes were made at the gender clinic following these things coming to light.
<Hannah Barnes>
The audit was meant to be the start of a more rigorous, scientific approach to helping this group of vulnerable young people. The better you know your patients and what’s going on with them, the more you can cater their care. So David Freedman, a social sciences researcher, undertook this audit with a couple of other people, and the idea was that they would use the findings to improve, and then continue. But they didn’t do that. Even in 2005, Sue Evans, who was the first whistleblower, felt that young people were being referred too quickly for physical interventions for puberty blockers, and there really wasn’t adequate exploration in some of these cases. So, the report, which was very thorough, went unseen until 2020 when I filed a Freedom of Information Act and received it from Tavistock.
Just LMAO! That's it... nothing further... just one big fucking LMAO!
www.yahoo.com
I'm transgender and my twin is not. After my transition, we still feel like identical twins.
Growing up religious, Jubilee and her twin were told to be masculine. In her 20s, she came out as trans, but she and her twin still feel identical.
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
It appears we are turning the corner on the idea of gender by proclamation and/or operation. This clip brings up a potential challenge as we attempt to move forward. I hope we can offer these parents compassion and focus appropriate action on not only doctors who produced this catastrophe of "gender affirming care" but also those who promoted and enabled it. Sadly, it's not a small group and many are in positions of power.