Opponents say [Washington state] voters were persuaded at least partly because the initiative and its boosters exploited deep-seated prejudices and misunderstandings about transgender people to erode their rights.
Opponents say [Washington state] voters were persuaded at least partly because the initiative and its boosters exploited deep-seated prejudices and misunderstandings about transgender people to erode their rights.
The bigot says what? ‘Hate Speech’ isn’t speech that you hate.
And nothing that has been said here is “transphobia”.
Insisting, against all scientific evidence, that trans women have some undefinable unfair advantage because testosterone from years ago supposedly can magically stick around to give better physical results is indeed transphobia.
It is an unreasonable, unsupported fear of an aspect of trans women. By definition that is transphobia, in the truest possible sense.
I’m sorry that you are wrong. I’m sorry that science fully disagrees with your take. I’m sorry you guessed wrong on this subject. But I have provided you the tools to educate yourself. It is up to you to actually do so, instead of continuing to be bigoted.
Not the testosterone, but the physiological changes do.
Exogenous testosterone leads to more muscle mass, there’s no debating that.
More muscle mass = more muscle nuclei
And as we know from studies, muscle nuclei never go away. So someone with more nuclei will have a permanent advantage in building muscle.
To test this hypothesis, animals were pre-treated with either steroid or placebo for 2 weeks, deprived of hormone for an additional 3 weeks, and then the muscles were forced to work. Prior steroid exposure conferred a distinct advantage to the muscles, with a 44% increase in CSA rather than the 17% increase observed in controls. These benefits were not transient. When the muscles were induced to hypertrophy 3 months after steroid treatments had ended (the mouse equivalent of 10 years of human lifespan), the steroid-treated group displayed a 31% increase in CSA compared to a modest 6% in placebo controls.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3892465/
At least this is somewhat scientific transphobia this time!
Weird how this doesn’t affect athletes who transition then. [1] But specifically to this unique claim, this largely either does not matter, or cannot be determined given the limited data of there just not being enough trans athletes, period. [2] Given the results, the fact most trans women athletes fall within a median distribution of cis women athletes, it is much more likely than not this simply does not have an effect versus cis women athletes, given oestrogen actually protections myonuclei and other satellite cells, encouraging its growth versus just testosterone. [3] So really, this was a good attempt little buddy. I appreciate it, genuinely, that you are willing to try to justify the bigotry you displayed, but currently this just isn’t supported by the data.
Maybe next century!
Your own study…
You’re a terrible troll.