this troll here is the one who is focused on kids’ crotches being examined. I’m here saying they don’t need to be, they shouldn’t be, and that genital exams aren’t even mentioned in the initiative 😂 please look up an anatomy diagram

re-read from the top

This is easy to look up for yourself. The ovaries/internal testes(if present) are in the lower abdomen area, not the “crotch”. Right below the belly button. This thread has me cracking up

This is a sexist and unaware take. Women and girls deserve a distinct sports category for our safety and to ensure our opportunities aren’t taken by a male (which is currently happening). Kids have to meet all kinds of requirements to play sports already for other good reasons. Please speak about it directly if you don’t think women’s rights are a good reason.

I don’t want to drag kids to hospitals as I said above, cheek swabs are a better method.

✅ Got called a right-wing nazi on Lemmy today

Genuinely hope their day/life gets better

OHHHHHH okay 👍

What would you have to see to convince you that there are immutable biological differences between males and females? would an example change your mind?

Please don’t assume what I think, where I live, or my education level. (??? why ??)

And please don’t be rude. I’ve been on lemmy for years, and Feminism did not start on reddit and 4chan, LOL.

• there are some immutable biological differences between males and females. weight/height classes and hormones/blockers don’t make these differences go away.
• women and girls get fewer opportunities to succeed in sports, and letting a male take a spot from a female athlete is a form of bigotry and male supremacy.
• just let women and girls have something for ourselves for once? males want to get in all our spaces and don’t know how to take “no” for an answer

“reproductive anatomy” refers to the whole system: internal (ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus, cervix, vagina), and external (vulva)… though the internal anatomy is what is strictly required for reproduction. and for that reason, the gametes produced by either ovaries or testes are what determines what sex someone is. so if they’re trying to categorize sports based on sex and not gender, then an ultrasound to check for ovaries or testes (possibly internal testes), would make sense, as it is possible to have an external vulva but internal testes. so checking external genitals would be pretty unscientific, sometimes inaccurate, and privacy-invasive.

as I was saying above, an ultrasound would be just one possible method for testing that the initiative mentions, but more likely the testing would be a cheek swab.

“reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels.”

• reproductive anatomy - (ovaries or testes), can be checked via ultrasound.

• genetic makeup - (chromosomes, presence of the SR-Y gene), can be checked via cheek swab. (easiest, least invasive, and the cheapest- so the most likely to be used.)

• normal endogenously produced testosterone levels - can be checked via blood draw.

where are you getting genital inspection from? likely the whole girls team will be lined up and cheek swabbed (like a covid test) and then they will recieve the results later privately. this doesn’t require a doctor’s appointment for each player, and is the easiest option.

so genital inspections are not required and they are not mentioned in the initiative.

no one is seriously doing genital inspections. it is not mentioned in the initiative

thanks for the graphics, I wasn’t accessing the study. i’m familiar with confidence intervals and p values but this is great for anyone who isn’t.

the first year’s plot looks within range, but the 72% point is a major change! something definitely happened with 13-24 year olds that year, but especially 13-17 year olds.

I see a definite occurrence that the suicide rates increased after those laws. and i’m wondering how we can be sure that it was because of the laws and not something else that happened around the same time?

i think that a reliable study reasonably isolates out other possible factors.

good for them for having such a large sample size. i admit i’m confused though, the results are an increase “by 7–72%.”? i wonder what is up with this huge range. how can we have confidence in this?

i wish the abstract explained what types of anti-trans laws were passed, cause of course different laws end up having different effects. that could explain the uncertainty in the results range. in this case we’re concerned with how a lack of gender affirming care would directly influence systematic suicide rates, so I’m still looking out for more evidence on that topic.

thanks, i’m reading this link and looking for data about suicide rates. this report is talking about a collection of self-reported data about suicidal thoughts, which many people can have and fortunately not go through with it.

I also see a statistically significant correlation, and i’m still looking for a reliable causation and data on suicide rates. how do we know if the lack of gender affirming care directly leads to increased suicides in a systemic pattern? perhaps the same people who cannot access it also are likely to have other things in life that could cause terrible suicidal thoughts or actions. i’m wondering how we can rule this out.

so different people have different “explanations” for the suicide rates. has there been any unbiased evidence to explain it?

the suicide numbers go up?