forreal, people have such low opinion of what kids can understand (because they think kids have all their own same biases automatically)

My partner teaches preschool, sometimes the kids ask her if she's a boy. She says she used to be but she's a girl now, the kids say "ohhh" and immediately move on. It only ever gets weird and confusing for the kids when the parents feel the need to argue that point.

Oh hey, it's my area of expertise and I've got some strong feelings so pardon the wall of text! This discussion tends to immediately focus on professional athletes and I think that's doing everyone a disservice. Exceedingly few people are professional athletes, especially trans folk. Elite athletes have fundamentally different reasons to pursue their sport, and are closer to the genetic limits of their performance. I can see some value in accounting for broad genetic differences at that level of competition, but sex is far from the only genetic factor and in many sports it isn't the most relevant. It's not even like men are favored over women in every sport. Muscle mass and cardiovascular capacity advantages tend to favor men in most sports, but women can be favored over men in ultra-endurance sports due to advantages in fat metabolism and pain tolerance.

In fencing, for instance, men and women tend to be pretty equally matched. Broad average differences in explosive acceleration, balance, etc exist between the sexes, but it's possible to account for these things through bladework and strategy in all but the highest elite levels. Know what you can't really do jack-shit about? Reach! If someone's a head taller than you, has a lankier build, and longer arms, it is incredibly difficult to get in range before they can hit you. Practice tends to be co-ed, with men and women performing equally, but for some reason fencing tournaments are split between men and women. It's clear in both divisions that the lankier, taller people have an inherent genetic advantage. Why is sex considered the "more important" primary category? Why is this assumed to be the case in every sport? The science really does not back this up.

But again, that's all just about high-level competitive athletes, a tiny tiny tiny fraction of a fraction of people. What's the real value of sports for the rest of us, especially kids? Community, recreation, exercise, developing motor skills. Among the general population, the variation in skill level far exceeds genetic differences to the point that gendered divisions outside the most elite level just doesn't make much sense to begin with. With this in mind, and considering how seldom few of us are athletes in the first place, does it not make sense for trans women to just be able to play in the division we socially fit in better with?

I haven't even gotten into the long-term outlook for trans athletes on HRT, that's a much longer discussion. But do consider that sports science (and human movement more broadly) isn't a solved field. We're just now getting over the "functional training" craze, itself a reaction to origin-insertion anatomy which did not properly model how multi-joint movements work. We're just now coming to a better understanding of fascia, which plays a much more important role in motion than we understood and is very responsive to sex hormones. A majority of the systems involved in motion are ones where trans women are more alike to cis women than cis men. I won't say there's no differences at all, but it's more nuanced than you'd think.

The number of cis women athletes (Imane Khelif being a notable example) harassed because people suspect them of being transgender goes to show how insane this is getting. Cis bodies are incredibly varied, in that context trans bodies are really not that different.

It appears this was done on intake, so the control group started receiving standard-of-care and the other group received standard-of-care + LAC + PEA. Since both groups were starting treatment, it seems to me a placebo would be less necessary, especially considering the control group is likely starting other supplements. (e.g. vitamin d, magnesium, iron)

Hi, this sentiment from non-americans pisses me off and it's okay, but I feel it's important to explain why so I'm copying another comment I made today.

Goodness knows some of us are trying our best. I mean keep in mind our country is a democracy in name but systemically props up white supremacists in excess of the real popular opinion. And a media disinformation machine keeps the working class divided against itself, with open support from the wealthiest and owners of the most popular social media platforms. Social media platforms that, let's be honest, are super recent inventions we are not yet capable of engaging with safely. It makes it an uphill battle to try to reach out to people whose necks aren't on the line. And the responsibility to do so falls upon the disenfranchised themselves, who are increasingly saddled with economic and health burdens that might just kill us someday.

I get the potshots at Americans, but frankly I don't plan on taking the blame if this goes tits up - many of us did a hell of a lot more than vote to resist fascism. Nothing happened here that isn't happening elsewhere. And I'll fight the notion that citizens at large are the problem. It's a cynical outlook that serves to individualize the responsibility for a systematic disaster. Our country was built to make this possible after all. And I sure as hell know I don't plan on giving up. Kind of morbidly curious about how much of an incompetent clusterfuck Project 2025's implementation will be.

Victory or no, fascists are paper tigers and I plan on sticking around to remind them of that fact however I can.

test failed I think

I like the word "burgerpunk" to describe our dystopia not as neon lights and cool sexy cyborgs but more the aesthetic of a DoorDash ad.

that's definitely part of it, but sex hormones interact with* neurotransmitters and the mental/emotional stuff tends to hit first, before any physical effects take place.

I fight people and have opinions!

Really depends on the sport. In non-professional fencing and HEMA, practice tends to be coed. Men and women tend to perform equivalently - really height is the biggest "biological advantage". More reach means more ability to hit an opponent before they hit you, and this goes the same for men and women. Sure, men can accelerate a bit faster and tend to be taller, women can plant their feet a little wider and tend to be more balanced and flexible - but these are just averages. Individual people vary wildly because biology doesn't give a shit about the categories we create to describe it. And strategy can make up for a lot of those things in ways that you really just can't with height discrepancies. We had to give our club's tallest member a shorter axe just to make up for the reach advantage when she fought people she stood a head above.

Dividing strictly based on AGAB is not an even playing field and I feel trans athletes only draw attention to what's already a significant problem in competitive sports. And once you get to a professional level, I understand there's more nuance, but a vast, vast majority of athletes are not professional and the issue is blown far out of proportion for them. Anyone pushing to enforce divisions in kids' sports via genital inspections has lost their goddamn minds.

me n the trans catgirl polycule reading lambda calculus whitepapers like :3

She'll probably be a regular 42 year old woman?

On top of what the others have said: at 11 years old, a trans kid is very unlikely to be medically transitioning, and so their transition is entirely social. With that in mind, what is the actual harm to a kid socially exploring trans identity and then later changing their mind? Why would that percentage need to be 100%?