Article Rise & fall of journals + Is male/female divide a social construct? (Richard Dawkins)

[Syne]

You're cherry-picking cases that are consensual.

But a male exposing themselves to a woman/girl in public is always indecent exposure.

Seems a crucial word to leave out of a law. You should quote supposed laws accurately next time instead of miswording them and now contradicting yourself. It would make you look less stupid if that's even possible. Don't think you'll be consulted for legal advice any time soon.

Sorry, I gave you far too much credit to understand the very basic difference between consensual and illegal activities.
That it wasn't immediately clear to you just makes me further question whether you understand consent or not. I notice you avoided that question. I'm starting to understand why.

[Railko]

---

Irrelevant. Urinating in public (not a restroom) is often considered indecent exposure, without any intent to expose. It happens because the person is in the wrong place. Just like a transwoman in a women's only space. What you consider indecent is irrelevant. What matters is how the actual women involved feel about it. Or do you deny them that?

It does matter, because would a cis woman doing the same thing evoke this level of outrage? If so, then it's valid and the offender should be punished. If not, then they're freaking out because the person is a trans woman, and not because of any genuine threat. Like, if it just slipped out for a second and the women saw it (and the transwoman was embarrassed, made every effort to hide it, etc.) I wouldn't consider it the same as if a transwoman started touching herself and staring at them with a grin. Urinating in public is something that a person for the most part can control (even if they really have to go), whereas a body part slipping out accidentally wouldn't be. 

Only a review article of older studies, put together by a department of Exercise Sciences and Recreation, not anyone in a hard science field. It's conclusions are obviously biased with social science, apparent in phrases like "being their authentic selves."

But many of the studies they're reviewing would not be biased, and since they're linked, you or I or anybody else could analyze them to see if what they're saying is based on sound logic. And they do actually agree with your study in some parts and agree that there are some physical changes due to testosterone that cannot be reversed, so I don't think they're biased one way or another.

Weight classes do not help. A trans woman of the same weight would still have higher muscle mass and bone density (e.g. be able to hit harder and take hits easier) than a cis woman. What you "can't imagine" is an argument from incredulity.

Maybe a standard trans woman vs a standard cis woman, but there will be deviations that will affect that when playing against others, especially among different weight classes as we have now (ex. a 100lb trans woman might hit harder, but a 180lb cis woman might be able to hold her own against them).

World Boxing uses a PCR test. The same nasal or throat swap test used to test for Covid. If that's too invasive, there were billions of people "invaded" during the pandemic.

If they decide to go that way, and limit it to that alone. There are plenty of Olympians who have had the test, and have been subjected to genital tests when results indicated an abnormality.  

It's not a matter of being "really good." It's a matter of significant deviation from statistical likelihood... like winning Olympic boxing gold without losing a single round. It's breaking every record set by cis women, depriving them of titles, awards, and historical records.

But yes, due to the prevalence of trans women, we now have to question whether homely or mannish looking women and statistically unlikely sports performances are due to being male. Just more ways that men invading women's spaces disadvantages actual women.

But these accusations are only lobbed at trans women, or cis women who are really good at the sports. It's the Olympics, where people are already statistical anomalies (like Michael Phelps being good at swimming due to his long wingspan) so I don't see why a woman deviating should draw suspicion. It's been going on even before transwomen were a big thing, and it seems to be based in sexism rather than any concern for women or fairness.

[Syne]

It does matter, because would a cis woman doing the same thing evoke this level of outrage? If so, then it's valid and the offender should be punished. If not, then they're freaking out because the person is a trans woman, and not because of any genuine threat. Like, if it just slipped out for a second and the women saw it (and the transwoman was embarrassed, made every effort to hide it, etc.) I wouldn't consider it the same as if a transwoman started touching herself and staring at them with a grin. Urinating in public is something that a person for the most part can control (even if they really have to go), whereas a body part slipping out accidentally wouldn't be. 

Cis women exposing themselves to other cis women, with all the same body parts, in a women-only space, where that is expected? Now contrast that with being exposed to a strange man's genitals, in what you believe is a safe space, and you have no idea what his intent is (you can't read minds, and men are a much larger potential threat to a woman than another woman). Like I asked MR, do you understand the notion of consent? Without explicit forewarning (clearly posted or warned of trans bathroom/locker room policy), a trans woman in such places is doing so without the consent of the cis women. But I can see you're already dismissing the feelings of women, e.g. just "freaking out because the person is a trans." If you're so willing to dismiss a woman's feelings and privacy, I wonder if you're as dismissive of consent.
All the reports I cited were not "just slipped out for a second."
Many people lack bladder control. Just like a person should have the foresight to find a restroom when necessary, trans should have the foresight not to have anything "just slipped out for a second."

But many of the studies they're reviewing would not be biased, and since they're linked, you or I or anybody else could analyze them to see if what they're saying is based on sound logic. And they do actually agree with your study in some parts and agree that there are some physical changes due to testosterone that cannot be reversed, so I don't think they're biased one way or another.

But you claimed this review was, itself, sound... apparently without bothering to read any of the cited studies. Again, the ones who did this review are not qualified to speak on hard science and obviously mixing dubious social science. And considering it includes 140 citations, this is effectively Gish gallop. Their conclusion is not only transparently biased ("authentic selves"), it's making a special pleading that because they're such a small percent of the population any attention is somehow unwarranted... when women have been permanently injured and deprived of opportunities, records, etc..

Are cis women's experiences completely irrelevant? @_@

Maybe a standard trans woman vs a standard cis woman, but there will be deviations that will affect that when playing against others, especially among different weight classes as we have now (ex. a 100lb trans woman might hit harder, but a 180lb cis woman might be able to hold her own against them).

Rules are designed around the standard, most common situations. We don't base the rules that everyone follows on tiny, unusual minorities. There is no way to compare athletic ability across a variety of weight classes in any kind of fair, objective manner. So this just sounds like wishful thinking.

World Boxing uses a PCR test. The same nasal or throat swap test used to test for Covid. If that's too invasive, there were billions of people "invaded" during the pandemic.

If they decide to go that way, and limit it to that alone. There are plenty of Olympians who have had the test, and have been subjected to genital tests when results indicated an abnormality.  

Not World Boxing and years 1936, 1938, & 1966. And one:

Dora lived as a female until two years after the 1936 Olympics, when police were alerted to a train traveler in women’s clothes who looked suspiciously masculine. With relief so apparent that the police noted it in their report, Ratjen told them that despite his parents’ claims, he had long suspected he was male.

So this would be an irrelevant red herring. Fretting over "if" they'd revert to 1966 is preposterous.

But these accusations are only lobbed at trans women, or cis women who are really good at the sports. It's the Olympics, where people are already statistical anomalies (like Michael Phelps being good at swimming due to his long wingspan) so I don't see why a woman deviating should draw suspicion. It's been going on even before transwomen were a big thing, and it seems to be based in sexism rather than any concern for women or fairness.

No one has questioned whether Caitlin Clark is a cis woman and she is a legit phenom in her sport. So yes, if trans women perform so far outside of female variability, they will be the ones facing scrutiny over fairness, safety, etc.. Olympic athletes still have a range of expected variability, greater than the population average. But when you get the first women's boxer to EVER win gold without losing a single round, not questioning it is a recipe for depriving all future cis women of sports records.

Your apparent dismissal/erasure of cis women seems pretty sexist.

[Railko]

Cis women exposing themselves to other cis women, with all the same body parts, in a women-only space, where that is expected? Now contrast that with being exposed to a strange man's genitals, in what you believe is a safe space, and you have no idea what his intent is (you can't read minds, and men are a much larger potential threat to a woman than another woman). Like I asked MR, do you understand the notion of consent? Without explicit forewarning (clearly posted or warned of trans bathroom/locker room policy), a trans woman in such places is doing so without the consent of the cis women. But I can see you're already dismissing the feelings of women, e.g. just "freaking out because the person is a trans." If you're so willing to dismiss a woman's feelings and privacy, I wonder if you're as dismissive of consent.
All the reports I cited were not "just slipped out for a second."
Many people lack bladder control. Just like a person should have the foresight to find a restroom when necessary, trans should have the foresight not to have anything "just slipped out for a second."

Some of the articles you posted were vague on that: https://www.wpr.org/education/sun-prairie-transgender-locker-room-challenge-schools-parents

https://komonews.com/news/nation-world/l...immer-says
Assuming the transwoman looks like a woman visually (has breasts, stereotypically long hair, feminized facial features, etc.) it would be a surprise, but if she's not doing anything else offensive, then it's just genitalia. The mere presence of the opposite sex's genitalia (without anything else offensive) shouldn't hurt a cis woman, outside of possibly being a surprise. Maybe there should be a warning so cis women can get used to it or choose whether they want to go there, but without further details I can't see some of these cases as being purposeful. (Especially since they're assuming that a cis woman would necessarily be the target of interest for these specific trans women.)

Many people lack bladder control, but wetting your pants is the result of poor bladder control, and can at least be anticipated. Having genitalia slip is the result of a wardrobe malfunction, and can't be predicted.

But you claimed this review was, itself, sound... apparently without bothering to read any of the cited studies. Again, the ones who did this review are not qualified to speak on hard science and obviously mixing dubious social science. And considering it includes 140 citations, this is effectively Gish gallop. Their conclusion is not only transparently biased ("authentic selves"), it's making a special pleading that because they're such a small percent of the population any attention is somehow unwarranted... when women have been permanently injured and deprived of opportunities, records, etc..

Are cis women's experiences completely irrelevant? @_@

Why does having a lot of citations make it "gish gallop"? Just seems like they're taking all the evidence they can, which is crucial for a topic like this.

Rules are designed around the standard, most common situations. We don't base the rules that everyone follows on tiny, unusual minorities. There is no way to compare athletic ability across a variety of weight classes in any kind of fair, objective manner. So this just sounds like wishful thinking.

No harm in trying, though, or even doing weight classes for the benefit of cis women and seeing if that reduces injuries first. It's not like they aren't getting hurt out there going against other women.

Not World Boxing and years 1936, 1938, & 1966. And one:

Dora lived as a female until two years after the 1936 Olympics, when police were alerted to a train traveler in women’s clothes who looked suspiciously masculine. With relief so apparent that the police noted it in their report, Ratjen told them that despite his parents’ claims, he had long suspected he was male.

So this would be an irrelevant red herring. Fretting over "if" they'd revert to 1966 is preposterous.

It's a valid concern, especially in situations that may be ambiguous and unclear. And athletes have said that just being investigated on the basis of their gender (being suspected of "not being women", especially when they grew up as and have lived as women) is humiliating and degrading. While some investigations will always be like that just by their very nature, I understand that being deemed to be not a woman the second you excel at your sport is upsetting.

No one has questioned whether Caitlin Clark is a cis woman and she is a legit phenom in her sport. So yes, if trans women perform so far outside of female variability, they will be the ones facing scrutiny over fairness, safety, etc.. Olympic athletes still have a range of expected variability, greater than the population average. But when you get the first women's boxer to EVER win gold without losing a single round, not questioning it is a recipe for depriving all future cis women of sports records.

Your apparent dismissal/erasure of cis women seems pretty sexist.

And nobody questioned Imane until she was winning. This wasn't her first time in the Olympics, she's lost to other competitors, notably in 2018. She wasn't initially blowing everyone out of the water. And nobody does this in reverse - why aren't we trying to identify women who may be in men's sports, if the risk of getting hurt and being deprived of sports records is so great? There must be men there that are "underperforming" and would do better in the women's category, why aren't both being tested?

Acknowledging facts (whatever they may be) may appear sexist, but reality is like that sometimes, lol.

[Syne]

Cis women exposing themselves to other cis women, with all the same body parts, in a women-only space, where that is expected? Now contrast that with being exposed to a strange man's genitals, in what you believe is a safe space, and you have no idea what his intent is (you can't read minds, and men are a much larger potential threat to a woman than another woman). Like I asked MR, do you understand the notion of consent? Without explicit forewarning (clearly posted or warned of trans bathroom/locker room policy), a trans woman in such places is doing so without the consent of the cis women. But I can see you're already dismissing the feelings of women, e.g. just "freaking out because the person is a trans." If you're so willing to dismiss a woman's feelings and privacy, I wonder if you're as dismissive of consent.
All the reports I cited were not "just slipped out for a second."
Many people lack bladder control. Just like a person should have the foresight to find a restroom when necessary, trans should have the foresight not to have anything "just slipped out for a second."

Some of the articles you posted were vague on that: https://www.wpr.org/education/sun-prairie-transgender-locker-room-challenge-schools-parents

Wisconsin parents questioned the Sun Prairie School District about reports a transgender senior student exposed male genitalia while showering next to 14-year-old girls. The district admitted school policies were not followed.
...
Inside the girls' locker room at Sun Prairie East High School in March, four girls, all first-year students, swam as part of their gym class, and then showered while wearing their swimming suits, said conservative law firm Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL).

Then, WILL said the girls spotted a senior student inside the locker room. "It is our understanding this male was 18 years old at the time of the incident. According to the girls, this student was not in the first-hour PE class they were participating in. While the girls were surprised to see him in the locker room, they had a general idea that this student identifies as transgender and has used girls’ bathrooms before. While they were uncomfortable, they proceeded to the shower area without interacting with the student," WILL reported in a letter to the school board.

Then, the letter said the senior said, "I'm trans, by the way," stripped and showered, exposing male genitalia.
- https://www.fox6now.com/news/wisconsin-t...un-prairie

https://komonews.com/news/nation-world/l...immer-says
Assuming the transwoman looks like a woman visually (has breasts, stereotypically long hair, feminized facial features, etc.) ...

Really? You think Lia Thomas looks like a woman? @_@
6'1" with very wide shoulders and manly features.

[Image: 220121-lia-thomas-mn-1100-40eb8e.jpg]

...it would be a surprise, but if she's not doing anything else offensive, then it's just genitalia. The mere presence of the opposite sex's genitalia (without anything else offensive) shouldn't hurt a cis woman, outside of possibly being a surprise.

What about minors?
Or consent?
Or privacy in an expected women-only space?

Maybe there should be a warning so cis women can get used to it or choose whether they want to go there, but without further details I can't see some of these cases as being purposeful. (Especially since they're assuming that a cis woman would necessarily be the target of interest for these specific trans women.)

Among transgender women, 28.9% identified as bisexual, 23.3% as straight/heterosexual and 11.3% as lesbian.
- https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.co...%20lesbian.

So 76.7% of trans women are attracted to women. So yes, a very good chance of being the "target of interest" for trans women. Trans women who are generally bigger and stronger.

... 44% of lesbian women surveyed in 2013 reported some type of intimate partner violence (IPV) compared to 35% of straight women.
- https://www.standffov.org/tdvam/abuse-in...tionships/

Again, indecent exposure due to public urination isn't usually intentional either.

Many people lack bladder control, but wetting your pants is the result of poor bladder control, and can at least be anticipated. Having genitalia slip is the result of a wardrobe malfunction, and can't be predicted.

Really? You have trouble controlling your clothing? @_@

But you claimed this review was, itself, sound... apparently without bothering to read any of the cited studies. Again, the ones who did this review are not qualified to speak on hard science and obviously mixing dubious social science. And considering it includes 140 citations, this is effectively Gish gallop. Their conclusion is not only transparently biased ("authentic selves"), it's making a special pleading that because they're such a small percent of the population any attention is somehow unwarranted... when women have been permanently injured and deprived of opportunities, records, etc..

Are cis women's experiences completely irrelevant? @_@

Why does having a lot of citations make it "gish gallop"? Just seems like they're taking all the evidence they can, which is crucial for a topic like this.

Gish gallop, kettle logic... they are obviously taking info from so many unrelated studies to cobble together an argument that none of those studies independently support (especially when so many of the citations are hidden behind paywalls).
But if I've missed something buried in the 140 citations, please point me to specific ones (not paywalled). The point is that this review cannot support its own conclusion, that is obviously biased with social science.

But even within this review alone, there is some very faulty/deceptive reasoning. For example:

The average differences observed between males and females are cited as problems leading to inequality and elevated risk in sports and athletics despite evidence that trans individuals do not match their pre-transition cisgender counterparts (11, 131). However, if these average differences lead to inequity or injury, restricting trans individuals from these sports and athletics may not be the best solution. ... For example, Transgender Guidelines by World Rugby state concern for the larger average mass of males relative to females, and how this influences the force of impact (i.e.,: mass × acceleration) (11). However, when looking at a sample distribution of players, >300 males sampled fall below the 2nd percentile of average male body mass and >300 females sampled are above the 98th percentile of average female body mass (11). If being too large or too small were a critical concern for rugby injuries, more injuries may be prevented by restricting those >600 players who fell far outside the average player mass than banning trans athletes. If average body mass values and their standard deviations for elite rugby players were used to generate a normal distribution of mass, there would still be areas of overlap among females and males.
- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10641525/

This is a red herring, as body mass doesn't differentiate between muscle and fat nor account for differences in bone/muscle density. The later are much better predictors of injury than the simplified body mass. They use a simple force equation for impact without ever addressing the ability to withstand the impact, with higher bone/muscle density.

Rules are designed around the standard, most common situations. We don't base the rules that everyone follows on tiny, unusual minorities. There is no way to compare athletic ability across a variety of weight classes in any kind of fair, objective manner. So this just sounds like wishful thinking.

No harm in trying, though, or even doing weight classes for the benefit of cis women and seeing if that reduces injuries first. It's not like they aren't getting hurt out there going against other women.

So let's just "try and see" if we don't permanently injury more women?
I'm starting to wonder if you're gay, like MR. Both of you have an appalling indifference toward women's safety, privacy, consent, feelings, etc..

Not World Boxing and years 1936, 1938, & 1966.
So this would be an irrelevant red herring. Fretting over "if" they'd revert to 1966 is preposterous.

It's a valid concern, especially in situations that may be ambiguous and unclear. And athletes have said that just being investigated on the basis of their gender (being suspected of "not being women", especially when they grew up as and have lived as women) is humiliating and degrading. While some investigations will always be like that just by their very nature, I understand that being deemed to be not a woman the second you excel at your sport is upsetting.

No, assuming 1966 genital inspections would be used today is irrational fear-mongering.
And worrying about "upsetting" someone while ignoring the safety of others seem pretty callous.

No one has questioned whether Caitlin Clark is a cis woman and she is a legit phenom in her sport. So yes, if trans women perform so far outside of female variability, they will be the ones facing scrutiny over fairness, safety, etc.. Olympic athletes still have a range of expected variability, greater than the population average. But when you get the first women's boxer to EVER win gold without losing a single round, not questioning it is a recipe for depriving all future cis women of sports records.

Your apparent dismissal/erasure of cis women seems pretty sexist.

And nobody questioned Imane until she was winning. This wasn't her first time in the Olympics, she's lost to other competitors, notably in 2018. She wasn't initially blowing everyone out of the water. And nobody does this in reverse - why aren't we trying to identify women who may be in men's sports, if the risk of getting hurt and being deprived of sports records is so great? There must be men there that are "underperforming" and would do better in the women's category, why aren't both being tested?

Acknowledging facts (whatever they may be) may appear sexist, but reality is like that sometimes, lol.

Yes, because, again, winning Olympic gold in women's boxing without losing a single round has no precedent. Setting records that marginally improve on the former record are expected, but such a leap in performance is always going to raise questions, whether about transgenderism or performance enhancement.

Trans men do not pose a threat to the safety or fairness in men's sports. The trans men take the risk, of their lower testosterone, muscle, and bone density, on themselves. That pesky thing called consent... which you seem rather allergic to address.

Avoiding facts that compromise the safety, privacy, and consent of women seems pretty sexist.

[Railko]

Wisconsin parents questioned the Sun Prairie School District about reports a transgender senior student exposed male genitalia while showering next to 14-year-old girls. The district admitted school policies were not followed.
...
Inside the girls' locker room at Sun Prairie East High School in March, four girls, all first-year students, swam as part of their gym class, and then showered while wearing their swimming suits, said conservative law firm Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL).

Then, WILL said the girls spotted a senior student inside the locker room. "It is our understanding this male was 18 years old at the time of the incident. According to the girls, this student was not in the first-hour PE class they were participating in. While the girls were surprised to see him in the locker room, they had a general idea that this student identifies as transgender and has used girls’ bathrooms before. While they were uncomfortable, they proceeded to the shower area without interacting with the student," WILL reported in a letter to the school board.

Then, the letter said the senior said, "I'm trans, by the way," stripped and showered, exposing male genitalia.
- https://www.fox6now.com/news/wisconsin-t...un-prairie

The issue seems to be that she was showering at the wrong time, with 14 year olds nearby. They were already uncomfortable when they saw her there, before they even knew she was trans, and stripping was the icing on the cake. Their discomfort is valid, but seems to be a combination of things.

Really? You think Lia Thomas looks like a woman? @_@
6'1" with very wide shoulders and manly features. 

[Image: 220121-lia-thomas-mn-1100-40eb8e.jpg]

Don't women come in a variety of shapes and sizes? Her shoulder size isn't too remarkable, and there are some women who are manly. It'd be strange to see a manlier woman and automatically assume she's trans, and dismiss her femininity. So yeah, she looks like a woman because some cis women look like that.

What about minors?
Or consent?
Or privacy in an expected women-only space?

In the above case they shouldn't have been there, I agree. But among peers, and assuming no clothing mishaps? It shouldn't be an issue. Again, it would be a surprise, but at the age you're changing with peers you should already have a basic understanding of the different anatomy of the sexes, and it shouldn't be that upsetting if the transwoman is behaving herself.

Among transgender women, 28.9% identified as bisexual, 23.3% as straight/heterosexual and 11.3% as lesbian.
- https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.co...%20lesbian.

So 76.7% of trans women are attracted to women. So yes, a very good chance of being the "target of interest" for trans women. Trans women who are generally bigger and stronger.

... 44% of lesbian women surveyed in 2013 reported some type of intimate partner violence (IPV) compared to 35% of straight women.
- https://www.standffov.org/tdvam/abuse-in...tionships/

Again, indecent exposure due to public urination isn't usually intentional either.

76.7% are a sexual minority, but not all are attracted to women - they included asexuals and pansexuals in their stats too, who aren't interested in anybody or are interested in everybody, relatively speaking. But regardless, only 11.3% are lesbian and would be interested in cis women - most are bisexual and could go either way. It's a small amount of transwomen exclusively attracted to women, and who could pose a sexual threat if one would arise.

And many transmen are also attracted to ciswomen and will be in the midst of transitioning when near women, why don't they pose a threat?

Also your second link is talking about lesbians (presumably) in relationships with other cis lesbians. Cis women hurting cis women. They don't have to be trans to hurt each other.

And no, indecent exposure isn't intentional, but the steps to get there are. You have to really want to pee, you have to unzip your pants, and then you have to do it, unless you're wetting yourself. All purposeful actions taken when you have to go. In comparison, nobody decides to have a wardrobe malfunction.

Really? You have trouble controlling your clothing? @_@

Not me, but some people do. After all, "wardrobe malfunction" is a term for a reason. It even happened to Janet Jackson.

Gish gallop, kettle logic... they are obviously taking info from so many unrelated studies to cobble together an argument that none of those studies independently support (especially when so many of the citations are hidden behind paywalls).
But if I've missed something buried in the 140 citations, please point me to specific ones (not paywalled). The point is that this review cannot support its own conclusion, that is obviously biased with social science.

But even within this review alone, there is some very faulty/deceptive reasoning. For example:

The average differences observed between males and females are cited as problems leading to inequality and elevated risk in sports and athletics despite evidence that trans individuals do not match their pre-transition cisgender counterparts (11, 131). However, if these average differences lead to inequity or injury, restricting trans individuals from these sports and athletics may not be the best solution. ... For example, Transgender Guidelines by World Rugby state concern for the larger average mass of males relative to females, and how this influences the force of impact (i.e.,: mass × acceleration) (11). However, when looking at a sample distribution of players, >300 males sampled fall below the 2nd percentile of average male body mass and >300 females sampled are above the 98th percentile of average female body mass (11). If being too large or too small were a critical concern for rugby injuries, more injuries may be prevented by restricting those >600 players who fell far outside the average player mass than banning trans athletes. If average body mass values and their standard deviations for elite rugby players were used to generate a normal distribution of mass, there would still be areas of overlap among females and males.
- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10641525/

This is a red herring, as body mass doesn't differentiate between muscle and fat nor account for differences in bone/muscle density. The later are much better predictors of injury than the simplified body mass. They use a simple force equation for impact without ever addressing the ability to withstand the impact, with higher bone/muscle density.

While I can't do much about the paywall, this is a normal kind of scientific study. They take information from other sources to support their point, and since it wouldn't really be feasible to pit trans women against cis women and have each other try to do as much damage to them, they're using the available research at hand. It wouldn't have gotten approved if it wasn't following a decent scientific standard.

But also it's pretty difficult to predict just how bad an injury will be between cis and trans people. If a cis woman is using all her force to strike someone, and the trans woman isn't using as much, the cis women will naturally have a harder impact even factoring in for bone and muscle density. If the cis woman is moving faster than the trans woman when she collides with a teammate, she'll cause more harm than the transwoman could. They even say as much:

"Injury in sport is a serious problem, however a ban on trans individuals does not solve this problem because there is already normal variation among cisgender individuals."

Like let's say a woman has a greater bone density than her peers and even cis men, due to genetics. Banning transwomen is not going to stop her from accidentally hurting a teammate and causing the same sort of injury a transwoman might.

So let's just "try and see" if we don't permanently injury more women?
I'm starting to wonder if you're gay, like MR. Both of you have an appalling indifference toward women's safety, privacy, consent, feelings, etc..

Lol, I said weight classes also for cis women, too, since they do get hurt by these sports too. We might as well try, and if including transwomen it would be better because they'd still be more evenly matched than a regular transwoman and a lightweight cis woman for example.

No, assuming 1966 genital inspections would be used today is irrational fear-mongering.
And worrying about "upsetting" someone while ignoring the safety of others seem pretty callous.

I don't think so. If a woman got a blood test and it said XX, but everyone was still suspicious about her performance, they could very well demand a genital test, or a scan of some sort.

Yes, because, again, winning Olympic gold in women's boxing without losing a single round has no precedent. Setting records that marginally improve on the former record are expected, but such a leap in performance is always going to raise questions, whether about transgenderism or performance enhancement.

Trans men do not pose a threat to the safety or fairness in men's sports. The trans men take the risk, of their lower testosterone, muscle, and bone density, on themselves. That pesky thing called consent... which you seem rather allergic to address.

Avoiding facts that compromise the safety, privacy, and consent of women seems pretty sexist.

Can't trans men skew the statistics in the same way? Making men seem as if they tend to do worse in sports than average, for example.

And could she not be the first woman to do so? Isn't it a bit strange to assume any woman performing exceptionally well must be a man in disguise? I guess questioning does occur to everyone who does "too well" (with men people often ask if steroids were used), but only the women are ever accused of being men, not in a tone of curiosity but in a skeptical tone implying deception, and only the women are forced to change themselves to compete if something's amiss.

And does it compromise the safety, privacy, and consent of all women, or just a particular subset that seem uncomfortable? Many women don't mind and aren't bothered by the presence of trans women in bathrooms, and many are hurt by people's efforts to sus out trans women. Why does the fear of the minority outweigh the feelings of the many?

[Syne]

The issue seems to be that she was showering at the wrong time, with 14 year olds nearby. They were already uncomfortable when they saw her there, before they even knew she was trans, and stripping was the icing on the cake. Their discomfort is valid, but seems to be a combination of things.

So the 18 year old adult bears no responsibility for seeing 14 year old girls present and still undressing and showering in front of them?
See how far you're willing to go to dismiss the safety, privacy, and consent of women and girls? @_@

Really? You think Lia Thomas looks like a woman? @_@
6'1" with very wide shoulders and manly features. 

[Image: 220121-lia-thomas-mn-1100-40eb8e.jpg]

Don't women come in a variety of shapes and sizes? Her shoulder size isn't too remarkable, and there are some women who are manly. It'd be strange to see a manlier woman and automatically assume she's trans, and dismiss her femininity. So yeah, she looks like a woman because some cis women look like that.

So you are gay, trans, and/or delusional. Got it.

What about minors?
Or consent?
Or privacy in an expected women-only space?

In the above case they shouldn't have been there, I agree. But among peers, and assuming no clothing mishaps? It shouldn't be an issue. Again, it would be a surprise, but at the age you're changing with peers you should already have a basic understanding of the different anatomy of the sexes, and it shouldn't be that upsetting if the transwoman is behaving herself.

So you're just blithely ignoring the safety, privacy, and consent of women and minors.
Sexist degenerate.

Among transgender women, 28.9% identified as bisexual, 23.3% as straight/heterosexual and 11.3% as lesbian.
- https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.co...%20lesbian.

So 76.7% of trans women are attracted to women. So yes, a very good chance of being the "target of interest" for trans women. Trans women who are generally bigger and stronger.

... 44% of lesbian women surveyed in 2013 reported some type of intimate partner violence (IPV) compared to 35% of straight women.
- https://www.standffov.org/tdvam/abuse-in...tionships/

Again, indecent exposure due to public urination isn't usually intentional either.

76.7% are a sexual minority, but not all are attracted to women - they included asexuals and pansexuals in their stats too, who aren't interested in anybody or are interested in everybody, relatively speaking. But regardless, only 11.3% are lesbian and would be interested in cis women - most are bisexual and could go either way. It's a small amount of transwomen exclusively attracted to women, and who could pose a sexual threat if one would arise.

And many transmen are also attracted to ciswomen and will be in the midst of transitioning when near women, why don't they pose a threat?

Also your second link is talking about lesbians (presumably) in relationships with other cis lesbians. Cis women hurting cis women. They don't have to be trans to hurt each other.

And no, indecent exposure isn't intentional, but the steps to get there are. You have to really want to pee, you have to unzip your pants, and then you have to do it, unless you're wetting yourself. All purposeful actions taken when you have to go. In comparison, nobody decides to have a wardrobe malfunction.

76.7% is a majority. Please learn how to math. Doesn't have to be exclusively attracted to women for women to be a "target of interest." Bisexuals are also attracted to women, so trying to dismiss that fact makes you seem intellectually dishonest.
Trans men do pose a risk to cis women, as the testosterone for transition does give them an outsized force disparity. Whataboutism is also a sign of intellectual dishonesty.

An 18 year old stripping and showering in front of 14 year old girls is intentional and no "wardrobe malfunction." You're being repeatedly disingenuous and obtuse. Is that intellectually dishonest rhetoric or actual ignorance? @_@

Really? You have trouble controlling your clothing? @_@

Not me, but some people do. After all, "wardrobe malfunction" is a term for a reason. It even happened to Janet Jackson.

Ahem, that term was coined to describe this Janet Jackson incident, and it's questionable that it was wholly unintentional.

In April 2021, celebrity stylist Wayne Scot Lukas claimed that the incident was planned by Timberlake, who sought to upstage his ex-girlfriend Britney Spears' MTV Video Music Awards appearance at which she kissed Madonna.[1] This version of events was bolstered by USA Today, which reported in 2018 that Lukas was seen purchasing a sunburst nipple shield the weekend prior to the Super Bowl while allegedly stating to the artist he purchased it from, "OK, watch the halftime show...There's going to be a surprise at the end." In 2015, Lukas had stated that he was not aware of what happened with Timberlake.[2] In the Hulu documentary Malfunction: The Dressing Down of Janet Jackson, released in November 2021, former Superbowl director Beth McCarthy-Miller and producer Salli Frattini confirmed that Timberlake was informed of the new choreography by Jackson's team 20 minutes before show time after flying into Houston.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl...ontroversy

Gish gallop, kettle logic... they are obviously taking info from so many unrelated studies to cobble together an argument that none of those studies independently support (especially when so many of the citations are hidden behind paywalls).
But if I've missed something buried in the 140 citations, please point me to specific ones (not paywalled). The point is that this review cannot support its own conclusion, that is obviously biased with social science.

But even within this review alone, there is some very faulty/deceptive reasoning.
...
This is a red herring, as body mass doesn't differentiate between muscle and fat nor account for differences in bone/muscle density. The later are much better predictors of injury than the simplified body mass. They use a simple force equation for impact without ever addressing the ability to withstand the impact, with higher bone/muscle density.

While I can't do much about the paywall, this is a normal kind of scientific study. They take information from other sources to support their point, and since it wouldn't really be feasible to pit trans women against cis women and have each other try to do as much damage to them, they're using the available research at hand. It wouldn't have gotten approved if it wasn't following a decent scientific standard.

But also it's pretty difficult to predict just how bad an injury will be between cis and trans people. If a cis woman is using all her force to strike someone, and the trans woman isn't using as much, the cis women will naturally have a harder impact even factoring in for bone and muscle density.

No, this is a biased ultracrepidarian review that goes beyond the field of study of the publishing department. Only normal insofar as all social science tainted studies have increasingly proven to be biased and unreliable, evinced by the replication crisis.
And now you're exposing your biased ignorance. You obviously can't point me to any specific citations of the review, so you claiming the review, itself, is sound is obviously arguing from ignorance. You're simply choosing to believe it's sound, without being able to support that claim.

You trying to make a special pleading about "if... a trans woman isn't using as much [force]," again, just demonstrates that you don't take women's safety seriously. Bone/muscle density always plays a role in both potential impact and potential ability to resist/absorb impact. You can't arm-wave this fact away.

Muscle and bone health are closely related, particularly when it comes to impact and impact resistance. High-intensity resistance and impact training can improve bone density and muscle strength, which in turn can enhance the body's ability to withstand impacts and reduce the risk of fractures.
How Muscle and Bone Density Affect Impact Resistance:
Muscle Strength:
. Stronger muscles help absorb impact forces, reducing the stress on bones and joints.
Bone Density:
. Denser bones are stronger and more resistant to fractures. Increased bone density, achieved through exercise, can improve the body's ability to withstand impact.
Muscle Mass:
. Higher muscle mass is associated with greater bone density, particularly in the spine, suggesting a positive relationship between muscle and bone strength.
- Google AI

If the cis woman is moving faster than the trans woman when she collides with a teammate, she'll cause more harm than the transwoman could.

So you're ignorant of basic physics too. The force between to colliding objects is equally felt by both objects. The difference here being that the trans woman could resist the damage better, thus actually imparting more damage to the cis women.

They even say as much:

"Injury in sport is a serious problem, however a ban on trans individuals does not solve this problem because there is already normal variation among cisgender individuals."

Like let's say a woman has a greater bone density than her peers and even cis men, due to genetics. Banning transwomen is not going to stop her from accidentally hurting a teammate and causing the same sort of injury a transwoman might.

Does not follow because, again, they fail to account for bone/muscle density. This review doesn't even touch on bone density, so you making claims about it, supposedly based on this review, would be a lie.

So let's just "try and see" if we don't permanently injury more women?
I'm starting to wonder if you're gay, like MR. Both of you have an appalling indifference toward women's safety, privacy, consent, feelings, etc..

Lol, I said weight classes also for cis women, too, since they do get hurt by these sports too. We might as well try, and if including transwomen it would be better because they'd still be more evenly matched than a regular transwoman and a lightweight cis woman for example.

Again, weight class doesn't solve the disparity in bone/muscle density.
Why not simply have trans women compete solely against other trans women? Oh wait, that wouldn't give them an unfair advantage. 9_9

No, assuming 1966 genital inspections would be used today is irrational fear-mongering.
And worrying about "upsetting" someone while ignoring the safety of others seem pretty callous.

I don't think so. If a woman got a blood test and it said XX, but everyone was still suspicious about her performance, they could very well demand a genital test, or a scan of some sort.

Now you're just making shit up.

Yes, because, again, winning Olympic gold in women's boxing without losing a single round has no precedent. Setting records that marginally improve on the former record are expected, but such a leap in performance is always going to raise questions, whether about transgenderism or performance enhancement.

Trans men do not pose a threat to the safety or fairness in men's sports. The trans men take the risk, of their lower testosterone, muscle, and bone density, on themselves. That pesky thing called consent... which you seem rather allergic to address.

Avoiding facts that compromise the safety, privacy, and consent of women seems pretty sexist.

Can't trans men skew the statistics in the same way? Making men seem as if they tend to do worse in sports than average, for example.

And could she not be the first woman to do so? Isn't it a bit strange to assume any woman performing exceptionally well must be a man in disguise? I guess questioning does occur to everyone who does "too well" (with men people often ask if steroids were used), but only the women are ever accused of being men, not in a tone of curiosity but in a skeptical tone implying deception, and only the women are forced to change themselves to compete if something's amiss.

And does it compromise the safety, privacy, and consent of all women, or just a particular subset that seem uncomfortable? Many women don't mind and aren't bothered by the presence of trans women in bathrooms, ...

Skew the statistics? Sports stats don't work that way. If you do worse, you don't make the team or qualify to compete. There are always a limited number of spots and only the best make it. Sports are meritocratic.

Your incredulity is not an argument. The fact is, that if it fell within expected improvement of performance, no one would question it. That means it must be so far beyond the trend that it draws special attention. Just like performance enhancing drugs. Illegal performance enhancement is done deceptively too, and responded to as deception, including calls for testing.
Trans women have already "changed themselves" as a means of performance enhancement. Not to make themselves better, but to allow themselves to compete in a relatively less competitive field.

If no one is notified of trans bathroom policies, it violates every woman's consent, because the opportunity to consent does not exist. Even if a woman does not object to trans bathroom policies, she doesn't have the opportunity to consent unless informed. Presuming that "many" won't mind doesn't provide consent either.

Many women don't mind and aren't bothered by the presence of trans women in bathrooms, and many are hurt by people's efforts to sus out trans women. Why does the fear of the minority outweigh the feelings of the many?

These are just more examples of how trying to unilaterally change the culture, itself, endangers women. 5 or 10 years ago these weren't an issue. But now, with the prevalence of pro-trans policies, the odds of a manly looking women being trans have increased, even if just due to increased awareness.

So these are just more ways trans women demanding to invade women's spaces and be accepted publicly have made women more unsafe.
You calling these few cases "the many" is intellectually dishonest. The vast majority of women are having their safety, privacy, and consent violated. And no amount of hurt "feelings" can excuse that fact.

[Railko]

So the 18 year old adult bears no responsibility for seeing 14 year old girls present and still undressing and showering in front of them?
See how far you're willing to go to dismiss the safety, privacy, and consent of women and girls? @_@

Of course they bear responsibility, but it's not because they're trans that this is an issue. It'd still be an issue if a woman did the same.

So you are gay, trans, and/or delusional. Got it.

You do know it's not really normal for anybody to see a person and immediately go, "trans", right? Especially if they aren't sexist, traumatized or obsessive. 

So you're just blithely ignoring the safety, privacy, and consent of women and minors.
Sexist degenerate.

What is the trans woman doing in this scenario that's a problem, if they're following all the rules?

76.7% is a majority. Please learn how to math. Doesn't have to be exclusively attracted to women for women to be a "target of interest." Bisexuals are also attracted to women, so trying to dismiss that fact makes you seem intellectually dishonest.
Trans men do pose a risk to cis women, as the testosterone for transition does give them an outsized force disparity. Whataboutism is also a sign of intellectual dishonesty.

An 18 year old stripping and showering in front of 14 year old girls is intentional and no "wardrobe malfunction." You're being repeatedly disingenuous and obtuse. Is that intellectually dishonest rhetoric or actual ignorance? @_@

From your own study:

"...76.7% of transgender women, and 99.4% of nonbinary individuals identified as a sexual minority." They're not common to begin with. Bisexuals are attracted to women, but how much varies between bisexuals - it's not always a 50/50 split, and some bisexuals experience very minor attraction to the opposite gender. So it really can go either way.

And no, I only ask because you (and many others who pose this argument) seem especially concerned about trans women invading women's spaces, but not really concerned with trans men, who could pose just as much of a threat, and arguably moreso as they'd identify with men and actively be taking testosterone (a drug that can promote aggression, instead of reducing it). If the stats on lesbian domestic abuse included closeted or transitioning trans men, and if women's safety is the goal, it would make sense to worry about all kinds of men, not just genetic men. 

Ahem, that term was coined to describe this Janet Jackson incident, and it's questionable that it was wholly unintentional.

In April 2021, celebrity stylist Wayne Scot Lukas claimed that the incident was planned by Timberlake, who sought to upstage his ex-girlfriend Britney Spears' MTV Video Music Awards appearance at which she kissed Madonna.[1] This version of events was bolstered by USA Today, which reported in 2018 that Lukas was seen purchasing a sunburst nipple shield the weekend prior to the Super Bowl while allegedly stating to the artist he purchased it from, "OK, watch the halftime show...There's going to be a surprise at the end." In 2015, Lukas had stated that he was not aware of what happened with Timberlake.[2] In the Hulu documentary Malfunction: The Dressing Down of Janet Jackson, released in November 2021, former Superbowl director Beth McCarthy-Miller and producer Salli Frattini confirmed that Timberlake was informed of the new choreography by Jackson's team 20 minutes before show time after flying into Houston.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl...ontroversy

Maybe Timberlake planned it, but Jackson felt humiliated by it, and didn't expect it to go as far as it did. Timberlake was supposed to reveal a red-laced bra, not a nipple. 

No, this is a biased ultracrepidarian review that goes beyond the field of study of the publishing department. Only normal insofar as all social science tainted studies have increasingly proven to be biased and unreliable, evinced by the replication crisis.
And now you're exposing your biased ignorance. You obviously can't point me to any specific citations of the review, so you claiming the review, itself, is sound is obviously arguing from ignorance. You're simply choosing to believe it's sound, without being able to support that claim.

You trying to make a special pleading about "if... a trans woman isn't using as much [force]," again, just demonstrates that you don't take women's safety seriously. Bone/muscle density always plays a role in both potential impact and potential ability to resist/absorb impact. You can't arm-wave this fact away.

Muscle and bone health are closely related, particularly when it comes to impact and impact resistance. High-intensity resistance and impact training can improve bone density and muscle strength, which in turn can enhance the body's ability to withstand impacts and reduce the risk of fractures.
How Muscle and Bone Density Affect Impact Resistance:
Muscle Strength:
    . Stronger muscles help absorb impact forces, reducing the stress on bones and joints.
Bone Density:
    . Denser bones are stronger and more resistant to fractures. Increased bone density, achieved through exercise, can improve the body's ability to withstand impact.
Muscle Mass:
    . Higher muscle mass is associated with greater bone density, particularly in the spine, suggesting a positive relationship between muscle and bone strength.
- Google AI

If the cis woman is moving faster than the trans woman when she collides with a teammate, she'll cause more harm than the transwoman could.

So you're ignorant of basic physics too. The force between to colliding objects is equally felt by both objects. The difference here being that the trans woman could resist the damage better, thus actually imparting more damage to the cis women.

They even say as much:

"Injury in sport is a serious problem, however a ban on trans individuals does not solve this problem because there is already normal variation among cisgender individuals."

Like let's say a woman has a greater bone density than her peers and even cis men, due to genetics. Banning transwomen is not going to stop her from accidentally hurting a teammate and causing the same sort of injury a transwoman might.

Does not follow because, again, they fail to account for bone/muscle density. This review doesn't even touch on bone density, so you making claims about it, supposedly based on this review, would be a lie.

No, I can't point you to specifics because I'd have to read every article, which would take a while, and as you've said many are paywalled. But that's why they're peer reviewed, so I can at least be sure the scientists are following some sort of standards. It's a meta-analysis, a valid method of research. But if all the studies are being "tainted" as you say, who do you trust?

It's not special pleading, it's just a fact that when injuries happen in sports, it's not something that is easily calculated, and will impact every player differently. You're trying to make the trans woman inherently stronger, when on the field with a mix of people she may not be. And I wonder why you're ignoring that a stronger cis woman against a stronger cis woman would cause similar damages, that we could also prevent with weight classes. From experience, having a stronger person of your gender hit you (especially when you're the smaller person) is just as bad as if the opposite gender hit you. 

If it's really about the safety of women, nobody should oppose a simple change to make the sports safer. 

Again, weight class doesn't solve the disparity in bone/muscle density.
Why not simply have trans women compete solely against other trans women? Oh wait, that wouldn't give them an unfair advantage. 9_9

I mean, that's possible, but there's not enough trans women in sports to make that feasible. 

Now you're just making shit up. 

So do you think they'd just stop there if there was a manly woman, with large height and superior performance, who tested as genetically XX? 

Skew the statistics? Sports stats don't work that way. If you do worse, you don't make the team or qualify to compete. There are always a limited number of spots and only the best make it. Sports are meritocratic.

Your incredulity is not an argument. The fact is, that if it fell within expected improvement of performance, no one would question it. That means it must be so far beyond the trend that it draws special attention. Just like performance enhancing drugs. Illegal performance enhancement is done deceptively too, and responded to as deception, including calls for testing.
Trans women have already "changed themselves" as a means of performance enhancement. Not to make themselves better, but to allow themselves to compete in a relatively less competitive field.

If no one is notified of trans bathroom policies, it violates every woman's consent, because the opportunity to consent does not exist. Even if a woman does not object to trans bathroom policies, she doesn't have the opportunity to consent unless informed. Presuming that "many" won't mind doesn't provide consent either.

Yes, but overall the averages (such as average time for track runners) will be changed by their inclusion, no?

No, they changed themselves to better fit with their gender identity. They're not changing solely to join the sports field, they're trans off the field too. If that's the person's default state, it's not a performance enhancement. I believe this is the same reasoning behind other "modified" athletes playing, like Oscar Pistorius. 

Why does anybody need consent for what another person does in the bathroom? Does everyone need to consent before I walk into a bathroom with a horse head mask or a tattoo (since they're probably not expecting to see someone wearing a mask or with a temporary tattoo there)? Some people have disabilities or disfiguring injuries, do they need the consent of the bathroom goers because they don't look like everyone else there? If a trans woman is using the bathroom nobody will know about it, and nobody will care. I wouldn't care if a trans person used the bathroom next to me, and I probably wouldn't know either. 

These are just more examples of how trying to unilaterally change the culture, itself, endangers women. 5 or 10 years ago these weren't an issue. But now, with the prevalence of pro-trans policies, the odds of a manly looking women being trans have increased, even if just due to increased awareness.

So these are just more ways trans women demanding to invade women's spaces and be accepted publicly have made women more unsafe.
You calling these few cases "the many" is intellectually dishonest. The vast majority of women are having their safety, privacy, and consent violated. And no amount of hurt "feelings" can excuse that fact.

No, the trans women have not made cis women unsafe - it's transphobic (and potentially perverted) men and women making cis women unsafe. Nobody is making these people investigate women, they're doing it themselves. Trans people aren't even being identified in these situations, only manly women, showing that trans women don't even typically look like men, and transphobes are going off of stereotypes and not the reality (which of course would be important if you want to actually keep women safe). It's happened more than once, and to little kids as well as adults.  

Is that really a way to keep women and little girls safe? Harass them for their identification, or for them to show their breasts to complete strangers? Remember, if a trans woman goes in and out without bothering anybody/following bathroom etiquette, nobody will notice or even care she's there. Most women don't care about the genitals of the person in the stall next to them, but they definitely do care about being accused of being men, and being treated as a creep for using the bathroom.

[Syne]

So the 18 year old adult bears no responsibility for seeing 14 year old girls present and still undressing and showering in front of them?
See how far you're willing to go to dismiss the safety, privacy, and consent of women and girls? @_@

Of course they bear responsibility, but it's not because they're trans that this is an issue. It'd still be an issue if a woman did the same.

Okay, I'll bite. Show me an example of an 18 year old female student showering with 14 year old girls being an issue.
You know, news coverage. If you can't, you're just making shit up.

So you are gay, trans, and/or delusional. Got it.

You do know it's not really normal for anybody to see a person and immediately go, "trans", right? Especially if they aren't sexist, traumatized or obsessive. 

Since you're dodging the question, I can only assume one of those is true.
As a heterosexual male, I can identify trans women at least 90% of the time, just from a picture of their face. I assume instinct plays some role in this, as I can't always pick out a specific reason why. This correlates to studies done that show people, in general, can often identify gay men from pictures, due to subtleties in how they hold their facial muscles.

These studies have focused on very different types of sexuality cues, too. For example, people seem to be able to detect sexual orientation while listening to short audio recordings, but also while watching silent videos. In addition, they can detect sexual orientation from still images of faces that appear on a computer screen for just a fraction of a second. These wide-ranging findings suggest that gaydar can potentially pick up on everything from one’s looks to movements to speech patterns.
- https://kinseyinstitute.org/news-events/...gaydar.php

AI can now even determine this with 91% accuracy.

So you're just blithely ignoring the safety, privacy, and consent of women and minors.
Sexist degenerate.

What is the trans woman doing in this scenario that's a problem, if they're following all the rules?

Indecent exposure, violating privacy, violating consent. How many times do I have to say it?
Are these really that difficult of concepts for you? @_@

76.7% is a majority. Please learn how to math. Doesn't have to be exclusively attracted to women for women to be a "target of interest." Bisexuals are also attracted to women, so trying to dismiss that fact makes you seem intellectually dishonest.
Trans men do pose a risk to cis women, as the testosterone for transition does give them an outsized force disparity. Whataboutism is also a sign of intellectual dishonesty.

An 18 year old stripping and showering in front of 14 year old girls is intentional and no "wardrobe malfunction." You're being repeatedly disingenuous and obtuse. Is that intellectually dishonest rhetoric or actual ignorance? @_@

From your own study:

"...76.7% of transgender women, and 99.4% of nonbinary individuals identified as a sexual minority." They're not common to begin with. Bisexuals are attracted to women, but how much varies between bisexuals - it's not always a 50/50 split, and some bisexuals experience very minor attraction to the opposite gender. So it really can go either way.

And no, I only ask because you (and many others who pose this argument) seem especially concerned about trans women invading women's spaces, but not really concerned with trans men, who could pose just as much of a threat, and arguably moreso as they'd identify with men and actively be taking testosterone (a drug that can promote aggression, instead of reducing it). If the stats on lesbian domestic abuse included closeted or transitioning trans men, and if women's safety is the goal, it would make sense to worry about all kinds of men, not just genetic men. 

Please learn to read. 76.7% of transgender women is a majority. Yes, lesbian and bisexual are sexual minorities among the entire populace. You're conflating that with it being a sexual minority among trans women, but it's not.
Doesn't matter how much or how often a bisexual is attracted to women. That there is any attraction means women are a "target of interest." Quit trying to weasel out of the fact.
I just said: "Trans men do pose a risk to cis women, as the testosterone for transition does give them an outsized force disparity." But trans men are not allowed in women-only spaces, even by the most leftist companies and municipalities. In light of that, trans men pose no greater risk to women than any rapist, abuser, or pervert. That have no special access to women in vulnerable places... unless they still try to pass as women too (gender fluid).

Ahem, that term was coined to describe this Janet Jackson incident, and it's questionable that it was wholly unintentional.

Maybe Timberlake planned it, but Jackson felt humiliated by it, and didn't expect it to go as far as it did. Timberlake was supposed to reveal a red-laced bra, not a nipple. 

Either way, it doesn't support your inane argument that indecent exposure is somehow excusable because trans women "accidentally" expose male genitals to women and young girls. Again, most public urination indecent exposure is not intentional.

No, this is a biased ultracrepidarian review that goes beyond the field of study of the publishing department. Only normal insofar as all social science tainted studies have increasingly proven to be biased and unreliable, evinced by the replication crisis.
And now you're exposing your biased ignorance. You obviously can't point me to any specific citations of the review, so you claiming the review, itself, is sound is obviously arguing from ignorance. You're simply choosing to believe it's sound, without being able to support that claim.

You trying to make a special pleading about "if... a trans woman isn't using as much [force]," again, just demonstrates that you don't take women's safety seriously. Bone/muscle density always plays a role in both potential impact and potential ability to resist/absorb impact. You can't arm-wave this fact away.

Muscle and bone health are closely related, particularly when it comes to impact and impact resistance. High-intensity resistance and impact training can improve bone density and muscle strength, which in turn can enhance the body's ability to withstand impacts and reduce the risk of fractures.
How Muscle and Bone Density Affect Impact Resistance:
Muscle Strength:
    . Stronger muscles help absorb impact forces, reducing the stress on bones and joints.
Bone Density:
    . Denser bones are stronger and more resistant to fractures. Increased bone density, achieved through exercise, can improve the body's ability to withstand impact.
Muscle Mass:
    . Higher muscle mass is associated with greater bone density, particularly in the spine, suggesting a positive relationship between muscle and bone strength.
- Google AI

If the cis woman is moving faster than the trans woman when she collides with a teammate, she'll cause more harm than the transwoman could.

So you're ignorant of basic physics too. The force between to colliding objects is equally felt by both objects. The difference here being that the trans woman could resist the damage better, thus actually imparting more damage to the cis women.

They even say as much:

"Injury in sport is a serious problem, however a ban on trans individuals does not solve this problem because there is already normal variation among cisgender individuals."

Like let's say a woman has a greater bone density than her peers and even cis men, due to genetics. Banning transwomen is not going to stop her from accidentally hurting a teammate and causing the same sort of injury a transwoman might.

Does not follow because, again, they fail to account for bone/muscle density. This review doesn't even touch on bone density, so you making claims about it, supposedly based on this review, would be a lie.

No, I can't point you to specifics because I'd have to read every article, which would take a while, and as you've said many are paywalled. But that's why they're peer reviewed, so I can at least be sure the scientists are following some sort of standards. It's a meta-analysis, a valid method of research. But if all the studies are being "tainted" as you say, who do you trust?

Peer review is meaningless in the current replication crisis, predatory journals, etc., especially in anything related to the social sciences.
And since you obviously haven't checked the citations, your claim that this review is sound is nothing but an appeal to authority (e.g. they're peer reviewed").

It's not special pleading, it's just a fact that when injuries happen in sports, it's not something that is easily calculated, and will impact every player differently.

Hence bone/muscle density, which does directly address both the potential impact and potential to resist impact... and not mentioned anywhere in this review.
It is literally a special pleading to say a "trans woman isn't using as much" force while a cis woman does. It's also a speculative/counter-factual fallacy to play "what if" without any supporting evidence or argument.

You're trying to make the trans woman inherently stronger, when on the field with a mix of people she may not be.

Still a what-if fallacy. "May not be" is the same vacuous argument as "what if."

And I wonder why you're ignoring that a stronger cis woman against a stronger cis woman would cause similar damages, that we could also prevent with weight classes. From experience, having a stronger person of your gender hit you (especially when you're the smaller person) is just as bad as if the opposite gender hit you. 

If it's really about the safety of women, nobody should oppose a simple change to make the sports safer. 

The "simple change" is to ban trans women from women's sports. Making weight classes that ignore bone/muscle density disparities will not improve safety in women-only sports.
Stronger cis women are still within the natural variability of women, where trans women can be, and very often are, beyond the natural variability of women, as developmental exposure to testosterone cannot be completely erased.

You'd have to support your claim that "stronger cis woman against a stronger cis woman would cause similar damages." As far as I can tell, this is just another thing you're making up.
And there are already weight classes in every contact sport. So adding trans women only increases the risk to women.

Again, weight class doesn't solve the disparity in bone/muscle density.
Why not simply have trans women compete solely against other trans women? Oh wait, that wouldn't give them an unfair advantage. 9_9

I mean, that's possible, but there's not enough trans women in sports to make that feasible. 

Is that women's fault, that they should have to face the increased risks and loss of opportunities?

Now you're just making shit up. 

So do you think they'd just stop there if there was a manly woman, with large height and superior performance, who tested as genetically XX? 

There are certainly less invasive ways to verify further. But you made the argument, so it's on you to support your claim.
You obviously can't.

Skew the statistics? Sports stats don't work that way. If you do worse, you don't make the team or qualify to compete. There are always a limited number of spots and only the best make it. Sports are meritocratic.

Your incredulity is not an argument. The fact is, that if it fell within expected improvement of performance, no one would question it. That means it must be so far beyond the trend that it draws special attention. Just like performance enhancing drugs. Illegal performance enhancement is done deceptively too, and responded to as deception, including calls for testing.
Trans women have already "changed themselves" as a means of performance enhancement. Not to make themselves better, but to allow themselves to compete in a relatively less competitive field.

If no one is notified of trans bathroom policies, it violates every woman's consent, because the opportunity to consent does not exist. Even if a woman does not object to trans bathroom policies, she doesn't have the opportunity to consent unless informed. Presuming that "many" won't mind doesn't provide consent either.

Yes, but overall the averages (such as average time for track runners) will be changed by their inclusion, no?

No, because it's the average time for those who qualify to compete.
But please, show me trans men competing in men's sports. There's a reason we only hear about the trans women, who can gain an advantage by competing against women.

No, they changed themselves to better fit with their gender identity. They're not changing solely to join the sports field, they're trans off the field too. If that's the person's default state, it's not a performance enhancement. I believe this is the same reasoning behind other "modified" athletes playing, like Oscar Pistorius. 

Two things can be true at the same time. And since many of these trans women used to compete in men's sport, where they did abysmally, it clearly is a competitive advantage.
No physical state that requires hormone therapy or surgery to remove healthy tissue/organs is "default." Please learn what that word means.

Why does anybody need consent for what another person does in the bathroom? Does everyone need to consent before I walk into a bathroom with a horse head mask or a tattoo (since they're probably not expecting to see someone wearing a mask or with a temporary tattoo there)? Some people have disabilities or disfiguring injuries, do they need the consent of the bathroom goers because they don't look like everyone else there? If a trans woman is using the bathroom nobody will know about it, and nobody will care. I wouldn't care if a trans person used the bathroom next to me, and I probably wouldn't know either. 

Because there's a legal expectation of privacy in public restrooms and locker rooms. This is why it's illegal to take pictures or film in these places, at least when others are present. Because you do not have their consent to photograph or film them in a private space. Compare that to being out in public, where you have no expectation of privacy and have no legal recourse to keep someone from photographing/filming you.

These are very simple laws that you'd likely understand if you weren't trying so hard to make up circumstances to fit your agenda. Masks, tattoos, disabilities, disfigurements, etc. do not fall under indecent exposure laws nor do they violate the expectation of privacy in women-only spaces. Such arguments are very intellectually dishonest... of extremely ignorant,

Once upon a time, trans women only tried to use women's restrooms if they could "pass for" women at a casual glance. And if they could pass, no one would know any better.
But now, men with beards claim to be women. If you expect that to "pass" you're delusional. Trans bathroom policies open the door to men claiming to be women, whether they actually believe it or not. And these policies have repeatedly led to indecent exposure in women's locker rooms.

These are just more examples of how trying to unilaterally change the culture, itself, endangers women. 5 or 10 years ago these weren't an issue. But now, with the prevalence of pro-trans policies, the odds of a manly looking women being trans have increased, even if just due to increased awareness.

So these are just more ways trans women demanding to invade women's spaces and be accepted publicly have made women more unsafe.
You calling these few cases "the many" is intellectually dishonest. The vast majority of women are having their safety, privacy, and consent violated. And no amount of hurt "feelings" can excuse that fact.

No, the trans women have not made cis women unsafe - it's transphobic (and potentially perverted) men and women making cis women unsafe. Nobody is making these people investigate women, they're doing it themselves. Trans people aren't even being identified in these situations, only manly women, showing that trans women don't even typically look like men, and transphobes are going off of stereotypes and not the reality (which of course would be important if you want to actually keep women safe). It's happened more than once, and to little kids as well as adults.  

Is that really a way to keep women and little girls safe? Harass them for their identification, or for them to show their breasts to complete strangers? Remember, if a trans woman goes in and out without bothering anybody/following bathroom etiquette, nobody will notice or even care she's there. Most women don't care about the genitals of the person in the stall next to them, but they definitely do care about being accused of being men, and being treated as a creep for using the bathroom.

You're making up shit again. You cannot show me that a person who claims to be transgender is not actually transgender, because the only criteria for the identity is the simple claim. So you playing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is not going to fly here.

The simple fact is the strength disparity between the average woman and the average trans women (many having not begun transition at all) is enough to establish the potential danger in spaces where men, who could defend against such danger, are prohibited. It's similar to "gun free zones," where it's a space criminals know they can victimize people with little threat a response of equal force.

Again, stories about being falsely accused of being trans wouldn't happen if trans weren't so visible in society. Again, if they could "pass" no one would be any the wiser. And if you try to claim the vast majority of trans can "pass," you're either lying or delusional.

All of this is due to transgenders, and their allies, demanding access and acknowledgement. It was once silent and invisible. So they brought this on themselves and inflicted it one society... including the further threatening women falsely accused. All the doing of transgenderism.

[Railko]

Okay, I'll bite. Show me an example of an 18 year old female student showering with 14 year old girls being an issue.
You know, news coverage. If you can't, you're just making shit up.

Well, I can't get that specific, but similar cases do exist: 
Woman records 2 children in shower arrested
Woman exposes herself to girls
Woman flashes boys while in a pool
Female teacher sexually abuses student
Woman allegedly exposes herself to teens

And this article explaining that most students don't even want to shower amongst their peers. It's old, but shows how even then nobody wanted to shower next to each other, and that getting nude was especially violating for both parties. So yes, an 18 year old female student showering with 14 year olds would still be a problem. 

Since you're dodging the question, I can only assume one of those is true.
As a heterosexual male, I can identify trans women at least 90% of the time, just from a picture of their face. I assume instinct plays some role in this, as I can't always pick out a specific reason why. This correlates to studies done that show people, in general, can often identify gay men from pictures, due to subtleties in how they hold their facial muscles.

These studies have focused on very different types of sexuality cues, too. For example, people seem to be able to detect sexual orientation while listening to short audio recordings, but also while watching silent videos. In addition, they can detect sexual orientation from still images of faces that appear on a computer screen for just a fraction of a second. These wide-ranging findings suggest that gaydar can potentially pick up on everything from one’s looks to movements to speech patterns.
- https://kinseyinstitute.org/news-events/...gaydar.php

AI can now even determine this with 91% accuracy.

I gave you the answer in the previous reply, no? But if you, like the rest of the odd men and women in the transvestigation cases I listed before really feel the need to (through text) know what's in my pants specifically, that's a little strange but just say the word.

And I'm skeptical you can, as that's what every straight male thinks when they're scouting for trans people (but even a 90% rate means that there's 10% that are cis women that you're misidentifying). Does this happen in real life, or just online? Do you ask them afterwards to make sure? 

Indecent exposure, violating privacy, violating consent. How many times do I have to say it?
Are these really that difficult of concepts for you? @_@

Not in the scenario I gave you:

But among peers, and assuming no clothing mishaps? It shouldn't be an issue. Again, it would be a surprise, but at the age you're changing with peers you should already have a basic understanding of the different anatomy of the sexes, and it shouldn't be that upsetting if the transwoman is behaving herself.

No indecent exposure there, no violation of consent or privacy either. 

Please learn to read. 76.7% of transgender women is a majority. Yes, lesbian and bisexual are sexual minorities among the entire populace. You're conflating that with it being a sexual minority among trans women, but it's not.
Doesn't matter how much or how often a bisexual is attracted to women. That there is any attraction means women are a "target of interest." Quit trying to weasel out of the fact.
I just said: "Trans men do pose a risk to cis women, as the testosterone for transition does give them an outsized force disparity." But trans men are not allowed in women-only spaces, even by the most leftist companies and municipalities. In light of that, trans men pose no greater risk to women than any rapist, abuser, or pervert. That have no special access to women in vulnerable places... unless they still try to pass as women too (gender fluid).

It does matter, because if she's only attracted to 1% of women, it's less likely she does anything at all in a room full of women.

But also, attraction doesn't equal an action anyway, and even if the trans woman was lusting after women, she should have that under control. Cis lesbians manage to keep it under control, trans women should be the same.

And trans men are in women's spaces for a time while they're transitioning, though, plus with any bathroom law forbidding trans people from using their gender's restroom or forcing trans men to go by their birth sex, trans men are forced into women's spaces.

Either way, it doesn't support your inane argument that indecent exposure is somehow excusable because trans women "accidentally" expose male genitals to women and young girls. Again, most public urination indecent exposure is not intentional.

Most public urination is a purposeful act, as I said again. There's an alternative (wetting your pants) and in order to be seen you have to actually make an effort to remove your belt and unzip your pants. A trans woman accidentally exposing their genitalia, while still indecent, is not purposeful.

The "simple change" is to ban trans women from women's sports. Making weight classes that ignore bone/muscle density disparities will not improve safety in women-only sports.
Stronger cis women are still within the natural variability of women, where trans women can be, and very often are, beyond the natural variability of women, as developmental exposure to testosterone cannot be completely erased.

You'd have to support your claim that "stronger cis woman against a stronger cis woman would cause similar damages." As far as I can tell, this is just another thing you're making up.
And there are already weight classes in every contact sport. So adding trans women only increases the risk to women.

Female athletes are more prone to a variety of injuries, even amongst themselves. Part of that is biology, part of that is environment, but women are getting hurt more than men even without the inclusion of transwomen. And not all contact sports have weight classes, which is part of the reason why women get hurt. 

Is that women's fault, that they should have to face the increased risks and loss of opportunities?

Nope, but there's no other place to really have transwomen compete at the moment. 

There are certainly less invasive ways to verify further. But you made the argument, so it's on you to support your claim.
You obviously can't.

If there are, then enlighten me. Most women understand that it can very easily lead to genital exams, and as you've seen they have happened in the past. 

No, because it's the average time for those who qualify to compete.
But please, show me trans men competing in men's sports. There's a reason we only hear about the trans women, who can gain an advantage by competing against women.

Chris Mosier. Won second place in his age group too, he did pretty well for someone who's supposed to be at a disadvantage.

Two things can be true at the same time. And since many of these trans women used to compete in men's sport, where they did abysmally, it clearly is a competitive advantage.
No physical state that requires hormone therapy or surgery to remove healthy tissue/organs is "default." Please learn what that word means.

May not be default in that you're born with it, but if you're undergoing hormone therapy for years and years on end, and have had SRS, it's your new normal, and thus the default. And if they're getting an advantage in women's sports, why are transwomen like Lia Thomas losing to cisgender women and even transmen who haven't transitioned?

Because there's a legal expectation of privacy in public restrooms and locker rooms. This is why it's illegal to take pictures or film in these places, at least when others are present. Because you do not have their consent to photograph or film them in a private space. Compare that to being out in public, where you have no expectation of privacy and have no legal recourse to keep someone from photographing/filming you.

These are very simple laws that you'd likely understand if you weren't trying so hard to make up circumstances to fit your agenda. Masks, tattoos, disabilities, disfigurements, etc. do not fall under indecent exposure laws nor do they violate the expectation of privacy in women-only spaces. Such arguments are very intellectually dishonest... of extremely ignorant,

Once upon a time, trans women only tried to use women's restrooms if they could "pass for" women at a casual glance. And if they could pass, no one would know any better.
But now, men with beards claim to be women. If you expect that to "pass" you're delusional. Trans bathroom policies open the door to men claiming to be women, whether they actually believe it or not. And these policies have repeatedly led to indecent exposure in women's locker rooms.

Yes, but a trans woman doesn't infringe on any of that in the bathroom when she's using it. She's not filming people there, nor is she exposing her genitalia to women there in her own stall. (And if she was, the law penalizes that.)

Disabilities have fallen under a kind of indecent exposure law in the past, and I don't see how a trans woman using the bathroom would be different than say, a man with a catheter or a person with a genital injury and facial disfigurement. I'm not going to see the genitals of the person using the bathroom, and how they look cannot be controlled. 

And I wouldn't care about a person with a beard walking in, as long as they didn't bother me and acted appropriately. There are cis women with beards, it's not something I'm going to care about unless the person is behaving inappropriately.

You're making up shit again. You cannot show me that a person who claims to be transgender is not actually transgender, because the only criteria for the identity is the simple claim. So you playing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is not going to fly here.

We are talking about people investigating trans (and cis) women, not what trans people are valid or not.

No, the trans women have not made cis women unsafe - it's transphobic (and potentially perverted) men and women making cis women unsafe. Nobody is making these people investigate women, they're doing it themselves.

Transphobic men and women are the ones breaking into the bathrooms to demand gender verification from cis women. Not trans women. The small amount of trans women who do harm in those places are being dealt with (they don't seem to get a free pass) but transphobes and/or perverts seem to feel it's appropriate to accost women and little girls for proof of their gender. They're doing more harm than the trans women, especially as this keeps on happening over and over again.

The simple fact is the strength disparity between the average woman and the average trans women (many having not begun transition at all) is enough to establish the potential danger in spaces where men, who could defend against such danger, are prohibited. It's similar to "gun free zones," where it's a space criminals know they can victimize people with little threat a response of equal force.

Again, stories about being falsely accused of being trans wouldn't happen if trans weren't so visible in society. Again, if they could "pass" no one would be any the wiser. And if you try to claim the vast majority of trans can "pass," you're either lying or delusional.

All of this is due to transgenders, and their allies, demanding access and acknowledgement. It was once silent and invisible. So they brought this on themselves and inflicted it one society... including the further threatening women falsely accused. All the doing of transgenderism.

You act as if every encounter with a trans woman is going to end up in a PvP match. Most trans women aren't going to do anything to a regular cis woman (and again, if that does happen the authorities would be called to intervene). Plus, if trans women are such a threat on a hormone therapy that should reduce testosterone (and thus aggression), that implies that every cis man is necessarily a danger to women, automatically by being a genetic man. That being alone in a room with a man will necessarily end in violence or something bad, and that men as a class should never be trusted. Is that something you believe?

What is "passing" when it seems these cis women don't even "pass" to transphobes? Should women look a certain way to be treated as their gender, or be treated with respect? Why enforce a standard of femininity upon women?

Trans people have always existed, and they have every right to be out and proud about who they are, just the same as anybody else doing so. Don't blame trans people for the actions of sinister people.