Biological males in women's sport

wexie

klaaaz wrote: »

Maybe our homegrown HSE who have their own psychiatrists/endocrinologists specialists? (And that's just here, https:/www.hse.ie/eng/health/az/g/gender-dysphoria/ )

You're going to need to narrow it down a bit, I had a quick browse at that and what I found was this:

Treatment for gender dysphoria aims to help people become content with their gender identity. This can mean different things for different people. For some people it can mean dressing and living as their preferred gender. For others, it can mean taking hormones that change their physical appearance. Some transgender people seek to have surgery to permanently alter their biological sex

Note where it says : change physical appearance. I don't see anything that states they actually become women. As a matter of fact it seems nearly like the medical community don't believe that. Perhaps they believe that they become the closest approximation of women that medical science can currently deliver....

suicide_circus

bodice ripper wrote: »

I just want to jump in here and say that while I have issues with transwomen competing against natal women in sport; I reject wholesale this debate descending into questioning their identities as a whole.

it's not questioning their identity, it's questioning their chromosomes, in particular their Y chromosomes.

Wibbs

Actually in your very quote they do say:

Some transgender people seek to have surgery to permanently alter their biological sex.

IE surgery alters biological sex as far as the HSE goes. I stand by my previous statement that any doctor who claims surgery changes biological sex is at best going along with the philosophy de jour out of hopefully kindness rather than pressure, is deluded, or is a complete charlatan and quack.

Zorya

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually in your very quote they do say:

Some transgender people seek to have surgery to permanently alter their biological sex.

IE surgery alters biological sex as far as the HSE goes. I stand by my previous statement that any doctor who claims surgery changes biological sex is at best going along with the philosophy de jour out of hopefully kindness rather than pressure, is deluded, or is a complete charlatan and quack.

Does seem a peculiar thing to say bcause biology cannot be denied, but then again across the sea women who identify as men are not invited for regular breast checks for fear of offending and men who identify as women are invted for smear tests in spite of not having a cervix.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/14/women-identify-men-not-offered-routine-nhs-breast-cancer-screening/

wexie

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually in your very quote they do say:

Some transgender people seek to have surgery to permanently alter their biological sex.

Fair enough I guess, I doubt it's actually meant in that spirit though.

As far as I'm concerned all permanently altering one biological sex achieves is turning into a permanently altered version of that biological sex and I'd like to think the majority of the medical community see it as just that at a fundamental level

GreeBo

bodice ripper wrote: »

This isn't OK because of an unreasonable advantage, one that can be quantified. Not because the public ought to pile on people about how they see themselves.

And whats the cause of that "unreasonable advantage"?
Oh yes, its because they are biologically men!


They can call themselves whatever they want, just as I can identify as a Schnauzer, but I wont expect to be let compete in Crufts.

klaaaz

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually in your very quote they do say:

Some transgender people seek to have surgery to permanently alter their biological sex.

IE surgery alters biological sex as far as the HSE goes. I stand by my previous statement that any doctor who claims surgery changes biological sex is at best going along with the philosophy de jour out of hopefully kindness rather than pressure, is deluded, or is a complete charlatan and quack.

The Irish medical community who practice under the auspices of the HSE disagree with you and your fellow believers.

They take their lead on this issue from the world organisation (WPath) who are the global experts in gender dysphoria
https://www.wpath.org/newsroom/medical-necessity-statement

From this statement, it states many times the phrase "sex re-assignment" plus this line "Treatment includes legal name and sex or gender change on identity".
There you have it, proof that one can change sex.

italodisco

Unless they are on a testosterone suppressing medication they will always have an advantage in many sports.

jackboy

klaaaz wrote: »

There you have it, proof that one can change sex.

That depends on the definition of sex. Is sex just determined by genetils?

OscarMIlde

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually in your very quote they do say:

Some transgender people seek to have surgery to permanently alter their biological sex.

IE surgery alters biological sex as far as the HSE goes. I stand by my previous statement that any doctor who claims surgery changes biological sex is at best going along with the philosophy de jour out of hopefully kindness rather than pressure, is deluded, or is a complete charlatan and quack.

As a molecular biologist and a woman I can assure you that no amount of surgery can allow someone to change their biological sex. Even if young children were transitioned (which is completely unethical and medically irresponsible) early enough to avoid the development of sexual secondary characteristics of their biological sex, biochemical and molecular differences will remain. No amount of doublethink, finding loopholes or idealogical dogma will alter that reality.

OscarMIlde

OscarMIlde wrote: »

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually in your very quote they do say:

Some transgender people seek to have surgery to permanently alter their biological sex.

IE surgery alters biological sex as far as the HSE goes. I stand by my previous statement that any doctor who claims surgery changes biological sex is at best going along with the philosophy de jour out of hopefully kindness rather than pressure, is deluded, or is a complete charlatan and quack.

As a molecular biologist and a woman I can assure you that no amount of surgery can allow someone to change their biological sex. Even if young children were transitioned (which is completely unethical and medically irresponsible) early enough to avoid the development of sexual secondary characteristics of their biological sex, biochemical and molecular differences will remain. No amount of doublethink, finding loopholes or idealogical dogma will alter that reality.

Sorry Wibbs, meant to reply to klaaaz.

One eyed Jack

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually in your very quote they do say:

Some transgender people seek to have surgery to permanently alter their biological sex.

IE surgery alters biological sex as far as the HSE goes. I stand by my previous statement that any doctor who claims surgery changes biological sex is at best going along with the philosophy de jour out of hopefully kindness rather than pressure, is deluded, or is a complete charlatan and quack.

I actually read that paragraph as a summary of what some people who are transgender hope to achieve with surgery, not what the surgery can actually deliver.

This is why when anyone says “the medical community says this” or “the scientific community says this”, implying that either medicine or science supports their bias, like that particular poster, suggesting that people who are transgender didn’t need to go for medical checkups, or that endocrinologists agree with them, or the medical community agrees with them, that’s just some dangerously deluded ideological nonsense, because anyone listening to that, is going to be putting their lives at risk.


(As an aside, the info on that page is adapted from the NHS site in the UK, it’s not even the HSE’s own content -
Content provided by NHS Choices www.nhs.uk and adapted for Ireland by the Health A-Z.)

One eyed Jack

klaaaz wrote: »

The Irish medical community who practice under the auspices of the HSE disagree with you and your fellow believers.

They take their lead on this issue from the world organisation (WPath) who are the global experts in gender dysphoria
https://www.wpath.org/newsroom/medical-necessity-statement

From this statement, it states many times the phrase "sex re-assignment" plus this line "Treatment includes legal name and sex or gender change on identity".
There you have it, proof that one can change sex.

How is that proof that anyone can change their biological sex?

You’re doing that the whole time, changing people’s arguments ever so subtly, or even wholesale, to fit with your own claims. How about you address what you actually tried to contradict in the first place - no surgery can alter biological sex in humans.


EDIT: After reading your own link (because your out of context quote sounded very unlike anything the WPATH would actually say, I’m familiar with them too), it appears you are indeed misrepresenting their position too to back up your own claims. This is what they actually say, in context -


The current Board of Directors of the WPATH herewith expresses its considered opinion based on clinical and peer reviewed evidence that gender affirming/confirming treatments and surgical procedures, properly indicated and performed as provided by the Standards of Care, have proven to be beneficial and effective in the treatment of individuals with transsexualism or gender dysphoria. Gender affirming/confirming surgery, also known as sex reassignment surgery, plays an undisputed role in contributing toward favorable outcomes. Treatment includes legal name and sex or gender change on identity documents, as well as medically necessary hormone treatment, counseling, psychotherapy, and other medical procedures required to effectively treat an individual’s gender dysphoria. Neither genital appearance nor reconstruction is required for social gender recognition, and so no surgery should be a prerequisite for identity document or record changes; changes to documentation so that identity documents reflect the individual’s current lived expression and experience are crucial aids to social functioning, and can be a necessary component of the social transition and/or pre-surgical process.


They’re referring to a legal process there, not any surgical process which suggests someone may be able to change their sex.

BrokenArrows

They shouldn't be allowed to compete.
Even if they have rules about testosterone levels it doesn't matter. A male to female athletes will always have a much higher default ability.

An athlete should be doing everything they can to win.
A male to female transition athlete needs to hold themselves back in training so they don't exceed testosterone levels.

klaaaz

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How is that proof that anyone can change their biological sex?

You’re doing that the whole time, changing people’s arguments ever so subtly, or even wholesale, to fit with your own claims. How about you address what you actually tried to contradict in the first place - no surgery can alter biological sex in humans.

EDIT: After reading your own link (because your out of context quote sounded very unlike anything the WPATH would actually say, I’m familiar with them too), it appears you are indeed misrepresenting their position too to back up your own claims. This is what they actually say, in context -

The current Board of Directors of the WPATH herewith expresses its considered opinion based on clinical and peer reviewed evidence that gender affirming/confirming treatments and surgical procedures, properly indicated and performed as provided by the Standards of Care, have proven to be beneficial and effective in the treatment of individuals with transsexualism or gender dysphoria. Gender affirming/confirming surgery, also known as sex reassignment surgery, plays an undisputed role in contributing toward favorable outcomes. Treatment includes legal name and sex or gender change on identity documents, as well as medically necessary hormone treatment, counseling, psychotherapy, and other medical procedures required to effectively treat an individual’s gender dysphoria. Neither genital appearance nor reconstruction is required for social gender recognition, and so no surgery should be a prerequisite for identity document or record changes; changes to documentation so that identity documents reflect the individual’s current lived expression and experience are crucial aids to social functioning, and can be a necessary component of the social transition and/or pre-surgical process.

They’re referring to a legal process there, not any surgical process which suggests someone may be able to change their sex.

Open both your eyes Jack, it's all there.

Sex re-assignment is mentioned at least 4 times in that document, that is changing sex. Medical definition - https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sex+change+surgery
https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/gender+reassignment+surgery
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/sex-change

Macmillan dictionary wrote:

Sex change:
a medical operation or series of operations that change a man into a woman or a woman into a man

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/gender-reassignment

Cambridge dictionary wrote:

gender reassignment:​
a process, including medical operations, by which someone's sex is changed from male to female or female to male

I've noticed that yourself and other posters who disagree do not supply facts to back up their arguments, only their opinions and lambast the medical community in this area as "dangerously deluded ideological nonsense" and "deluded, or is a complete charlatan and quack". That's language like what the anti-vaxxers use!

Zorya

klaaaz wrote: »

I've noticed that yourself and other posters who disagree do not supply facts to back up their arguments, only their opinions and lambast the medical community in this area as "dangerously deluded ideological nonsense" and "deluded, or is a complete charlatan and quack". That's language like what the anti-vaxxers use!

Heh, thats actually the ANTI-anti-vaxxers brigade, who use those terms, when they are not calling one fancy names for w*nkers . Throughout the thread people have provided endless links and summaries backing up the fact that biology cannot be physically changed, not at the genetic level - you have even had a molecular biologist on here say so - what more could you want? Sometimes public bodies will follow political guidelines because...well...from where else will they get their cash.

Wibbs

OscarMIlde wrote: »

No amount of doublethink, finding loopholes or idealogical dogma will alter that reality.

+1 and what is troubling is some in the medical field in response to the more vocal Trans activists are going along with this ideological dogma. They surely can't truly believe it's scientifically and medically accurate? Not when this is scarily basic biology here.

Though I suspect at least in places with heavily monetised medical services like the US there are enough ambulance chasing doctors who will happily promote this kinda thing as they stand to financially benefit from the various therapies on order. Therapies that already very vulnerable people are desperately looking for. Consider that in the US Trans surgery alone can cost upwards of 100,000 dollars, never mind all the hormone and other cosmetic therapies that lead up to it and after it. A couple of hundred grand until transition followed by a lifetime of prescriptions and follow ups? Ker--ching! Hell, even changing the previous medical opinion from a mental illness to its own separate label would increase the costs. Follow the money.

For the record and my personal opinion; I would consider Trans a multifactorial condition. IE in some a "phase" where particularly young kids play with the idea of gender. A mental illness like body dysmorphia which channels gender as a symptom and because Trans is more in play gets diagnosed as such where it wouldn't have before. Folks who are gay and extrapolate that as being born to the wrong gender. Camille Paglia has noted that if she were a teen today rather than in the 60's she wouldn't be surprised if she felt she was, or would be seen as Trans rather than a lesbian - I can see this too in cases were a strongly conservative religious culture is in play. IE I'm not Gay and "unchristian" or whatever, I was born in the wrong gender and this is a medical condition may seem more palatable to the culture. Local social, cultural and peer pressure another factor. QV the cases where teenage girls in particular were identifying as Trans in groups. And of course folks with actual intersex brains that are far more structured like their opposite gender than the one they were born into.

klaaaz wrote: »

I've noticed that yourself and other posters who disagree do not supply facts to back up their arguments, only their opinions and lambast the medical community in this area as "dangerously deluded ideological nonsense" and "deluded, or is a complete charlatan and quack". That's language like what the anti-vaxxers use!

Your only "facts" orbit around "they just can change gender!" and legal definitions and avoiding uncomfortable questions and points.

One eyed Jack

klaaaz wrote: »

Open both your eyes Jack, it's all there.

Respectfully, even with both eyes open, I’m still blind in one. Uveitis will tend to do that, and some forms of the disease are genetic and hereditary, and more prevalent in males than females. Why is that important? Because it’s just one of a number of conditions which delineate along sex differences in human biology. This is just one of the reasons why biology rather than ideology is as important as it is. While it is important that we recognise human beings as a whole, we don’t have the luxury of ignoring biology unfortunately, and that’s why I took issue with your opinion that people who are transgender didn’t require healthcare that would apply regardless of their gender identity, because what fundamentally underlies their subjective gender identity, is objective human biology.

Sex re-assignment is mentioned at least 4 times in that document, that is changing sex. Medical definition - https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sex+change+surgery
https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/gender+reassignment+surgery
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/sex-change

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/gender-reassignment

No, it’s not changing sex, and no matter how many times you attempt to misrepresent WPATH, or the WHO, or any other organisation you use to argue from authority, you’ll still just be misrepresenting their opinions. You’re perpetuating a falsehood by implying that there is a consensus among the medical and scientific communities with regard to gender dysphoria, transsexualism, or gender identity disorder. I understand why you need to do it, I really do, but honestly you’re doing yourself no favours. I can only be grateful that your opinions aren’t representative of the transgender community, or any community for that matter.

I've noticed that yourself and other posters who disagree do not supply facts to back up their arguments, only their opinions and lambast the medical community in this area as "dangerously deluded ideological nonsense" and "deluded, or is a complete charlatan and quack". That's language like what the anti-vaxxers use!

You’re intelligent enough to be aware that because there is no consensus among the medical and scientific community, all anyone really has is their opinion, supported by evidence they choose, which can easily be contradicted by... contradictory evidence. The standard of evidence you have presented so far has quite frankly been poor, and poorly presented, and in my opinion, what you’re attempting to argue is dangerous ideological nonsense, coming more from an ideological point of view that you’re expecting should be accepted without question. That’s neither how medicine, nor science actually works. It’s certainly how politics works - using weasel wording, obscure language and fallacious arguments to make your points. I respect you as a poster for your participation in the discussion, but I’m under no obligation to respect your opinion, and I don’t, because I see your arguments as fundamentally flawed. If you’re looking for support for your point of view, there is the LGBT forum on here, where you will find many posters who support your ideological position. I myself chose to no longer participate in the forum when it became clear to me that I could no longer support an ideological political perspective which I fundamentally disagreed with. It’s still a good forum and provides excellent support for people who agree with the pervasive politics. I don’t, so I chose to no longer participate in that particular forum.

YFlyer

Danzy wrote: »

As far as I can see Olympic female medal winners would not rank in the top 5000 males in most running events.

The rest of the world, the biological women will be told to **** themselves, dissent and non conformity is seen as Fascism to the modern Priest caste.

5000 be on the extreme low side.

Zorya

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Respectfully, even with both eyes open, I’m still blind in one. Uveitis will tend to do that, and some forms of the disease are genetic and hereditary, and more prevalent in males than females. Why is that important? Because it’s just one of a number of conditions which delineate along sex differences in human biology. This is just one of the reasons why biology rather than ideology is as important as it is. While it is important that we recognise human beings as a whole, we don’t have the luxury of ignoring biology unfortunately, and that’s why I took issue with your opinion that people who are transgender didn’t require healthcare that would apply regardless of their gender identity, because what fundamentally underlies their subjective gender identity, is objective human biology.





No, it’s not changing sex, and no matter how many times you attempt to misrepresent WPATH, or the WHO, or any other organisation you use to argue from authority, you’ll still just be misrepresenting their opinions. You’re perpetuating a falsehood by implying that there is a consensus among the medical and scientific communities with regard to gender dysphoria, transsexualism, or gender identity disorder. I understand why you need to do it, I really do, but honestly you’re doing yourself no favours. I can only be grateful that your opinions aren’t representative of the transgender community, or any community for that matter.





You’re intelligent enough to be aware that because there is no consensus among the medical and scientific community, all anyone really has is their opinion, supported by evidence they choose, which can easily be contradicted by... contradictory evidence. The standard of evidence you have presented so far has quite frankly been poor, and poorly presented, and in my opinion, what you’re attempting to argue is dangerous ideological nonsense, coming more from an ideological point of view that you’re expecting should be accepted without question. That’s neither how medicine, nor science actually works. It’s certainly how politics works - using weasel wording, obscure language and fallacious arguments to make your points. I respect you as a poster for your participation in the discussion, but I’m under no obligation to respect your opinion, and I don’t, because I see your arguments as fundamentally flawed. If you’re looking for support for your point of view, there is the LGBT forum on here, where you will find many posters who support your ideological position. I myself chose to no longer participate in the forum when it became clear to me that I could no longer support an ideological political perspective which I fundamentally disagreed with. It’s still a good forum and provides excellent support for people who agree with the pervasive politics. I don’t, so I chose to no longer participate in that particular forum.

Bravo, One Eyed Jack

ceadaoin.

klaaaz wrote: »

Open both your eyes Jack, it's all there.

Sex re-assignment is mentioned at least 4 times in that document, that is changing sex. Medical definition - https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sex+change+surgery
https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/gender+reassignment+surgery
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/sex-change


https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/gender-reassignment


I've noticed that yourself and other posters who disagree do not supply facts to back up their arguments, only their opinions and lambast the medical community in this area as "dangerously deluded ideological nonsense" and "deluded, or is a complete charlatan and quack". That's language like what the anti-vaxxers use!

Have a Google yourself there. Something like "can you actually change your sex". It's all there. You can't.

I think it's very irresponsible for the HSE to say you can "permanently alter" sex. Clearly there are people such as yourself who actually believe it. Firstly, yes while the physical changes are permanent, the person will require a lifetime of hormone therapy in order to present as much as possible as the opposite sex. If this medication is stopped, the the body will go back to it's natural state, which is determined by your chromosomes and which was never changed.


Is that not proof enough that you can't change sex, let alone "permanently"?

Zorya

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I think it's very irresponsible for the HSE to say you can "permanently alter" sex. Clearly there are people such as yourself who actually believe it. Firstly, yes while the physical changes are permanent, the person will require a lifetime of hormone therapy in order to present as much as possible as the opposite sex. If this medication is stopped, the the body will go back to it's natural state, which is determined by your chromosomes and which was never changed. So a trans woman would start producing testosterone again if she stopped taking hormones. Regardless of if she had surgery or not, she would appear as a male to the casual observer.


Is that not proof enough that you can't change sex, let alone "permanently"?

I'm going to do a wexie on it and say what one is not supposed to think - the HSE is one of the largest public service organisations in the country with a HUGE administrative staff. People who leave college with somewhat indefinable arts and humanities degrees, gained in faculties where even here progressive liberal thinking is fashionable, are well suited to middle and upper management roles in large public bodies, especially in roles that include instigation of public policy. I know some of these people - they are good people, but highly ideologically motivated. It is no surprise to me that ideological policies are being astroturfed onto society from places like the HSE.

klaaaz

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Have a Google yourself there. Something like "can you actually change your sex". It's all there. You can't.

I think it's very irresponsible for the HSE to say you can "permanently alter" sex. Clearly there are people such as yourself who actually believe it. Firstly, yes while the physical changes are permanent, the person will require a lifetime of hormone therapy in order to present as much as possible as the opposite sex. If this medication is stopped, the the body will go back to it's natural state, which is determined by your chromosomes and which was never changed.

Is that not proof enough that you can't change sex, let alone "permanently"?

You're a bit wrong there. For trans women, once surgery is done, there is no other source of testosterone in the body other than the miniscule amount generated naturally. They also generate a small amount of estrogen naturally too.
If medication(the estrogen HRT) is stopped, the body will only have those miniscule amounts of naturally producing testosterone and estrogen to rely on, the person will not revert back to their previous male state as the testes were removed, it's a permanent change of sex. They might have bone density problems though.

Perhaps yourself, Wibbs, Zorya and One Eyed Jack amongst others should protest to the HSE about that statement ye are offended and upset with. While ye are protesting, please state that yer opinions supercede those endocrinologists and psychiatrists that are employed by the HSE for trans issues.

YFlyer

klaaaz wrote: »

You're a bit wrong there. For trans women, once surgery is done, there is no other source of testosterone in the body other than the miniscule amount generated naturally. They also generate a small amount of estrogen naturally too.
If medication(the estrogen HRT) is stopped, the body will only have those miniscule amounts of naturally producing testosterone and estrogen to rely on, the person will not revert back to their previous male state as the testes were removed, it's a permanent change of sex. They might have bone density problems though.

Perhaps yourself, Wibbs, Zorya and One Eyed Jack amongst others should protest to the HSE about that statement ye are offended and upset with. While ye are protesting, please state that yer opinions supercede those endocrinologists and psychiatrists that are employed by the HSE for trans issues.

Male bone and muscle mass is still there.

Wibbs

klaaaz wrote: »

the person will not revert back to their previous male state as the testes were removed, it's a permanent change of sex.

Yet when earlier I put it to you that if my testes were removed because of an accident, you said I'd not be trans, I'd be a "castrated male". No change of sex/gender. You can't have it both ways. Again what you're implying is the personal feeling of the individual is the defining factor, not surgery, not hormones, not chromosomes, not reproduction systems. Ergo Feelings change gender.

Cuddlesworth

I was on the fence, until it turned out that McKinnon doesn't believe in taking hormone blockers or being tested(it violates your rights). Or that testosterone gives competitive gains(besides the obvious logic of it literally being the primary drug tested for in most sports). And was kicked from the cycling team of a person who is part of a scientific study showing clearly the difference hormone blockers have on cycling performance. I'm now pretty sure that there is a good chance that this is a full unencumbered biological male who only identifies as a women, because the IOC guidelines state that they only have to present a doctors note saying they are usually under a certain amount of natural testosterone generally.

Also turns out there are successful female to male athletes who get to take hormone therapy.

klaaaz

YFlyer wrote: »

Male bone and muscle mass is still there.

Think you have it mixed up. Hrt is taken a long time before their actual surgery, with its affects on bones and reduced muscle mass, the poster was discussing what happens post op once hrt is stopped.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Zorya wrote: »

I'm going to do a wexie on it and say what one is not supposed to think - the HSE is one of the largest public service organisations in the country with a HUGE administrative staff. People who leave college with somewhat indefinable arts and humanities degrees, gained in faculties where even here progressive liberal thinking is fashionable, are well suited to middle and upper management roles in large public bodies, especially in roles that include instigation of public policy. I know some of these people - they are good people, but highly ideologically motivated. It is no surprise to me that ideological policies are being astroturfed onto society from places like the HSE.

It’s a pity these “good people” don’t actually do their jobs and make the HSE fit for purpose. If they are coming in from politically correct courses though, it’s not that surprising.

Franz Von Peppercorn

The discussion on whether sex surgery changes sex isn’t, as it happens, relevant to the general discussion on trans gender, sport and self identification since that’s about gender changes not sex changes. No sex change is necessary in many jurisdictions nor in the IOC rules. In the IOC the only barrier is testosterone levels.

klaaaz

Wibbs wrote: »

Yet when earlier I put it to you that if my testes were removed because of an accident, you said I'd not be trans, I'd be a "castrated male". No change of sex/gender. You can't have it both ways. Again what you're implying is the personal feeling of the individual is the defining factor, not surgery, not hormones, not chromosomes, not reproduction systems. Ergo Feelings change gender.

You have taken it out of context for your own agenda. Your drone accident does not make you female, you got an involuntary orchidectomy which is a castrated male. You have not had gender dysphoria nor had mtf surgery nor have taken hrt which all can take years to accomplish.