All Things LGBTQ+ (2 Viewers)

[Farb]

Didn't really see a place for this so I thought I would start a thread about all things LGBTQ since this is a pretty hot topic in our culture right now

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/sup...y-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.html

• The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a unanimous defeat to LGBT couples in a high-profile case over whether Philadelphia could refuse to contract with a Roman Catholic adoption agency that says its religious beliefs prevent it from working with same-sex foster parents.
• Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion for a majority of the court that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to contract with Catholic Social Services once it learned that the organization would not certify same-sex couples for adoption.

I will admit, I was hopeful for this decision by the SCOTUS but I was surprised by the unanimous decision.

While I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with same sex couples adopting and raising children (I actually think it is a good thing as it not an abortion) but I also did not want to see the state force a religious institution to bend to a societal norm.

 

[MT15]

You are welcome to trust others over me, and I agree that I don't have expertise that they do in medications. But I also do not have the profit motive that they do.

If the pharma companies could have puberty blockers approved as a treatment for Gender Dysphoria, why would they not? Why would you first cite FDA approval as a reason for acceptance of them, and then say FDA lack of approval is irrelevant?

You did not address the lack of studies of long-term effects of removing children's genitals. Have you seen science on that that you trust?

You completely misread my comment on the FDA. You were making the case that there are always regulations on medical care, which is a valid point. My point was that even when the government regulates medical care, such as the FDA approving new drugs, they use panels of medical professionals, and scientists. They don’t ask state or federal legislators what they think, which you seem to think is valid in this case.

I don’t pretend to be an expert evaluating scientific studies. So no. I haven’t seen any studies. I rely on the professionals to make these protocols. The peer review system is set up with checks and balances. I do think there are issues with it, but I don’t think that undisclosed financial relationships are the issue you seem to think. That’s one area they often get right.

Now, we can talk a little about the problems that I think are present in peer review, because I have a brother who runs a research lab and publishes regularly. I would be happy to point out what he has told me is his big complaint. But it wouldn’t really support your position, I suspect.

 

[Lapaz]

Is this really how you want to represent yourself:

Believe people when they show you who and what they're truly all about.

The word "woman," like all of the words we use when referring to objects and concepts, doesn't have any inherent definition. It only has the definition people give it.

Some define being woman as being biologically born with XX chromosomes as opposed to XY. Those same people believe that everyone who belongs to XX or XY should think of themselves and behave in a way which conforms to their demands of how XX or XY people should think about themselves and how they behave themselves.

Some define woman as a gender identity concept that is not dictated or limited by whether or not a person has XX or XY chromosomes. These people believe that only the individual knows and has the right to define their gender and they should be given the freedom and respect to think of themselves and behave in a way that best fits them personally.

So, what is your definition of woman @el caliente?

Your definition makes assumptions about prejudice. I fit into the category of people that think that chromosomes define whether you are a woman or a man, and it affects a person’s development, but I never said that it should define a person’s behavior, nor restrict people from doing things that fit their gender identity, as long as it doesn’t infringe on other people’s rights. Those biological factors affect how a person develops, therefore I think it is fair to use that to develop laws.

 

[Snarky Sack]

You completely misread my comment on the FDA. You were making the case that there are always regulations on medical care, which is a valid point. My point was that even when the government regulates medical care, such as the FDA approving new drugs, they use panels of medical professionals, and scientists. They don’t ask state or federal legislators what they think, which you seem to think is valid in this case.

The FDA only exists because lawmakers created it and continue to fund it. It would certainly be possible to eliminate the FDA and let each doctor decide which medications are well enough researched for the to provide patients. You could make a libertarian or small government argument for that.

If not then the elected politicians have oversight. Not a perfect system but it's what we have.

I don’t pretend to be an expert evaluating scientific studies. So no. I haven’t seen any studies. I rely on the professionals to make these protocols. The peer review system is set up with checks and balances. I do think there are issues with it, but I don’t think that undisclosed financial relationships are the issue you seem to think. That’s one area they often get right.

Agree to disagree.

Now, we can talk a little about the problems that I think are present in peer review, because I have a brother who runs a research lab and publishes regularly. I would be happy to point out what he has told me is his big complaint. But it wouldn’t really support your position, I suspect.

I come here mainly to see information and opinions that don't support my position. So please tell me what your brother has told you.

 

[Lapaz]

The FDA only exists because lawmakers created it and continue to fund it. It would certainly be possible to eliminate the FDA and let each doctor decide which medications are well enough researched for the to provide patients. You could make a libertarian or small government argument for that.

You could make a small government argument to eliminate the FDA, but you can’t make a reasonable argument to eliminate the functions that they perform. It would be madness to expect doctors to research enough studies to make properly informed decisions about medications. Most drugs undergo multiple studies and there are many drugs that do similar things. Even with all of the studies, and professionals that dedicate their lives to studying the research, there is always incomplete information because human biology is diverse. If we had to rely on doctors, deaths and suffering would skyrocket.

 

[Snarky Sack]

You could make a small government argument to eliminate the FDA, but you can’t make a reasonable argument to eliminate the functions that they perform. It would be madness to expect doctors to research enough studies to make properly informed decisions about medications. Most drugs undergo multiple studies and there are many drugs that do similar things. Even with all of the studies, and professionals that dedicate their lives to studying the research, there is always incomplete information because human biology is diverse. If we had to rely on doctors, deaths and suffering would skyrocket.

Exactly!

I'm sure everyone on this board is aware of that also. So any claims that we just have to let the doctors and parents decide are ad hoc specifically for the transgenderization of kids.

 

[MT15]

Exactly!

I'm sure everyone on this board is aware of that also. So any claims that we just have to let the doctors and parents decide are ad hoc specifically for the transgenderization of kids.

A ridiculous leap there. As far as I know there are zero situations where parents and doctors decide with no input from the patient themselves.

What is truly sick is that people think that legislators, appealing broadly to emotion, should be making these decisions for everyone involved.

 

[MT15]

You could make a small government argument to eliminate the FDA, but you can’t make a reasonable argument to eliminate the functions that they perform. It would be madness to expect doctors to research enough studies to make properly informed decisions about medications. Most drugs undergo multiple studies and there are many drugs that do similar things. Even with all of the studies, and professionals that dedicate their lives to studying the research, there is always incomplete information because human biology is diverse. If we had to rely on doctors, deaths and suffering would skyrocket.

What he said is just a complete pivot from anything we had been discussing. When he doesn’t have a rebuttal to what I actually said, he suddenly shifts to another tangent.

 

[MT15]

The peer review system, in recent years, has suffered from some lapses. The number of professional journals has increased quickly and the pressure to fill their pages, along with the pressure to publish that is sometimes felt by scientists, has led to some studies being published that should have been discarded in the peer review process.

It has nothing to do with financial disclosure rules, which are strict. But it has led to some really spurious studies being published, which then are championed by political activists. And the studies are then withdrawn after the peer review process essentially takes place in public after publication.

Of course this is all opinion, but from someone who has been active and successful in his field for decades.

 

[coldseat]

You are welcome to trust others over me, and I agree that I don't have expertise that they do in medications. But I also do not have the profit motive that they do.

You've already agreed that the trans community here in the US and around the world is a very small percentage of the population. Given that, it would seem logical that "profit motive" isn't the driving force for gender dysphoria treatment. Nobody is getting rich by treating gender dysphoria, and I doubt the profits generated from either medication, surgery or other treatments is significant enough to motivate doctors/pharmaceuticals to do so unethically or illegally. We see this play out in Republican states when anti-trans laws are passed and all of the doctors/hospitals treating trans people change their procedures to comply, even going as far as to violate their patients HIPPA rights in the case of Vanderbilt.

This reasoning doesn't hold water.

 

[Optimus Prime]

really good interview

very interesting point about much of the anti trans talk is in response to the Dobbs decision

and this line was powerful

There are more states with bans than there are openly trans athletes.

===============

.............The Guardian spoke with Branstetter, 34, who works for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project and Women’s Rights Project, about the forces driving these anti-trans bills, the “upside-down” media coverage, and what she thinks it will take to defeat this escalating discrimination.

Can you give an overview of how attacks on trans rights have increased so far this year?

Nearly 500 pieces of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation were introduced this year. If you didn’t know anything else about the US, you’d presume there is an army of transgender people who are swiftly taking over the country. It’s hard to overstate how grave this is for trans folks. Twenty states have now banned the healthcare that many transgender youth need to live. There are bills restricting trans people’s participation in sports and which bathrooms they can use. There are efforts to restrict trans people from having their stories heard at libraries and in schools. There are restrictions on drag performances, which are a proxy for attacking gender nonconformity and fluidity. There are bills forcing teachers to out students they perceive to be trans. Most alarmingly, we’ve seen efforts in Texas and Florida to empower states to remove trans youth from their parents’ custody........

Why are trans people the target of so much hate right now?

The first sphere fueling this moral panic is ideological. A large section of the American right, in particular white Christian nationalists, have an extremely rigid understanding of not just what makes somebody a man or woman, but what men and women are for. The core of their worldview is complementary gender roles, rooted in male dominance and female subservience. Men are breadwinners and women are caregivers. The ability of trans people to thrive in society is a mortal danger to that ideology. Transphobia occupies so much of the mindset of the right because we defy expectations. When trans people are being attacked, self-determination and freedom of expression are being attacked.

Why have these bills become central to the conservative legal movement and the Republican party?

These bills started to spike in 2020 after a supreme court decision in favor of a trans woman who was fired from her job because she came out as trans. The court determined if you discriminate against somebody on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity, this is sex discrimination. The right greeted this ruling as apocalyptic – the “end of the conservative legal movement”. So lawmakers began introducing legislation to try and set up cases that they believed would bring down that supreme court decision by a thousand cuts and limit its reach.

Additionally, the conservative movement realized they were headed toward a supreme court challenge that would overturn Roe v Wade, which they knew would be disastrously unpopular. They needed to give their elected allies something to talk about that was not abortion, to distract from this grave intrusion into people’s private lives. Now the same politicians getting pummeled over the disastrous harms from the Dobbs decision are running to every microphone to yell about trans athletes, because they believe if they can make you so afraid of trans people’s freedoms, then you won’t mind sacrificing your own.

What do you see as the pitfalls of media coverage of trans rights in this pivotal moment?
..........The media should remind people who the actual victims are. In Connecticut, a cis girl sued after a 2018 high school track meet in which two trans girls beat her. She went on to win scholarships and championships and run NCAA track. The trans girls have been harassed out of sports altogether. One “save women’s sports” group could only name five examples of a trans girl participating in K-12 sports. Twenty states have banned trans athletes. There are more states with bans than there are openly trans athletes. West Virginia appealed to the supreme court to try and kick one 12-year-old girl off her track team. So it’s important to remind folks of the upside-down nature of the actual stakes.
What will it take to defeat these anti-trans campaigns?

The mechanisms being weaponized against trans people are made possible by the weakening of democracy over decades. A healthy functioning democracy does not enable a marginalized group to have their basic human rights subject to the whims of partisan politicians. The tools they’re using to target trans folks are hyper-gerrymandered state legislatures, the institutional capture of our judiciary, the weakening of the power of people’s vote. Politicians are emboldened to run roughshod over people’s rights. When I hear pundits talk about the “threat to our democracy”, especially since January 6, they never seem to note what it is they’re trying to accomplish by weakening our democracy – and that’s banning abortion, draconian restrictions on immigrants, weaponizing a police state to further entrench Black communities into poverty and imprisonment, and certainly policing sexual and gender minorities...........

‘There are more trans bans than trans athletes’: what’s driving anti-LGBTQ+ hate in America?

Advocate Gillian Branstetter sees reasons for hope after four trans youth won a fight for healthcare in an Arkansas court

www.theguardian.com

 

[Snarky Sack]

What he said is just a complete pivot from anything we had been discussing. When he doesn’t have a rebuttal to what I actually said, he suddenly shifts to another tangent.

You can't expect to control the flow of every conversation.

 

[Snarky Sack]

You've already agreed that the trans community here in the US and around the world is a very small percentage of the population. Given that, it would seem logical that "profit motive" isn't the driving force for gender dysphoria treatment. Nobody is getting rich by treating gender dysphoria, and I doubt the profits generated from either medication, surgery or other treatments is significant enough to motivate doctors/pharmaceuticals to do so unethically or illegally. We see this play out in Republican states when anti-trans laws are passed and all of the doctors/hospitals treating trans people change their procedures to comply, even going as far as to violate their patients HIPPA rights in the case of Vanderbilt.

This reasoning doesn't hold water.

The argument that there are not enough trans people to make treating them profitable doesn't make sense. Gender Specialists make good money treating them or they would not do it. They're not family practice doctors who affirm genders as a pro bono sideline.

You could never pay me enough to chemically castrate healthy children but gender specialists have a different set of ethics.

 

[coldseat]

Gender Specialists make good money treating them or they would not do it.

Why wouldn't those doctors threat gender dysphoria to improve their patients lives? You didn't really provide a logical argument here. By your reasoning, nothing would be done without making "good money", whatever that is to you.

You also readily discount the fact that these doctors are treating these patients for a condition they have and that their motivation is to improve their patients lives. What proof do you have that they are making obscene amounts of money? I tend to believe they're just competent doctor's doing the best and following the best medical practices to improve their patients lives. They're also likely making a good living (you know, because they are doctors), but I doubt that profit is particularly strong influence for their treatment courses with their patients.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Why wouldn't those doctors threat gender dysphoria to improve their patients lives? You didn't really provide a logical argument here. By your reasoning, nothing would be done without making "good money", whatever that is to you.

You also readily discount the fact that these doctors are treating these patients for a condition they have and that their motivation is to improve their patients lives. What proof do you have that they are making obscene amounts of money? I tend to believe they're just competent doctor's doing the best and following the best medical practices to improve their patients lives. They're also likely making a good living (you know, because they are doctors), but I doubt that profit is particularly strong influence for their treatment courses with their patients.

Agree to disagree.

 

[Snarky Sack]

A ridiculous leap there. As far as I know there are zero situations where parents and doctors decide with no input from the patient themselves.

What is truly sick is that people think that legislators, appealing broadly to emotion, should be making these decisions for everyone involved.

What about intersex babies? What input can they give?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I appreciate your showing me those, since I asked for them. You realize that those are abstracts and summaries, not the actual studies? I'm no researcher, but I have been trained in how to look at research, and the first step is of course to have the research. What you are showing me is what the researcher purports the research to show, it is up to the reader to analyze the research itself for validity, reliability and robustness, as those terms apply to experimental research.

I tried finding them via Google Scholar, which used to have almost every research article that you would look for, but, but in trying to find your articles, through GS, or through links in your summaries, I ran into a paywall every time. I don't want analyze abstracts and summaries too much, because that is not my training.

I did look at the summaries, while spending a lot of time trying to track down the actual article. As expected, all of the summaries that I saw relied on either self-reports, or a combination of self-reports and parental reporting. From the first summary of an article on your list:

Those are instruments that I'm very familiar with in my work with emotionally disturbed children. Doctors frequently send them to me to fill out on kids I work with. They are very good tool for diagnosis. They are not intended to be used in such experiments. When used that way, they are not much more useful than a poll.

Even at that, they could be useful if the experiment had been double blind, i.e. using an experimental group given the medication and a control group given a placebo with random selection to groups and neither the patient/participant, not the scorer of the instrument knowing whether they had the placebo or the treatment. That is how research to test effectiveness of treatments is done.

I get it, though. If I were not trained in research analysis and there were such summaries that supported a position I agreed with, I would accept them as well.

Thank you for the more in depth reply.

I did know those were abstracts and such b/c many peer reviewed studies are behind paywalls of whatever publication has it. It had enough info for my purposes though -- generally outlining the methodology and the conclusions (since I find in most science reporting that the conclusions are not accurately represented in whatever article that is reporting on the study). And in some of those studies, they aren't grabbing people after the fact, but observational from a current group, and doing check-ins after a year and two years on.

I'm not a medical researcher, but I do have a fair amount of experience statistical analysis, and I did assist with some psychology experiments in college. So I have a very passing familiarity with them, and these seem more or less in line with what I've seen in mental health studies.

The double blind study issue was addressed earlier, but besides having some ethical considerations - there's a big problem with being able to conduct the experiment because in order for it to be effective, no one can know who received treatment and who did not... but HRT produces noticeable physical changes, making it pretty obvious for a number of subjects. So, the subjects and researchers will likely know what's going on early on, skewing the results -- potentially making those who did not receive treatment even more negative than they would have otherwise.

What is noticeably absent are studies that show negative effects (including regret). So we have studies that indicate mostly positive outcomes and none that indicate negative outcomes.

For the overwhelming majority, the process should be the process that is already being followed. Medical boards set standards for best practices, and doctors stay informed on them and treat each patient as they see fit, so long as the patient provides informed consent. For most medical procedures, that is more than sufficient and politicians need not really even take notice.

However . . . that is not an absolute, and hasn't been in the U.S. for a long time. Medical practice is regulated, that is nothing new. Doctors are licensed by the state or it is a crime for them to practice medicine. Doctors are limited in the drugs that they can prescribe; they must wait for government approval. No one ever says, "using heroin to treat pain should be between the patient and doctor!" Before you say "yeah, but that is just for prescriptions," medication is the bulk of most doctors' practices, so they must follow regulations for most of their treatments.

I wish that politicians would never need to regulate how doctors treat patients. But when it comes to kids, the state has always exercised its powers to protect them. I hope that we're not debating that, but rather how the state should use that power in this specific instance.

Yes, we agree that the state has the right and duty to regulate medical care. You initially indicated that this was something that could be compromised on though, which indicates you think of it as a political issue and not a medical issue. Which seems weird to me... either it's a valid treatment or it isn't. And a valid treatment doesn't mean it's good every time for everyone, but that it is something that helps people or it doesn't. There seems to be no moral room for compromise on that -- if it is a valid treatment it should be allowed and if it isn't then obviously it shouldn't be.

So to me, the only discussion is around what is the process for determining valid medical treatments. Determining medical treatment based on popular vote seems like a terrible process. People are not trained to read medical journals and so on (which I think we all agree on), so why should Bob from accounting have a say on whether Mary gets her kidney removed laparoscopically or openly.

If they really wanted to, Republican states could put a stop to childhood medical transitioning by banning off-label use of medications for children under a certain age. They could made exceptions for well-established off label uses, but not for puberty blockers for Gender Dysphoria.

That would force the pharma companies who profit from such treatments to submit their drugs to the FDA for approval for that purpose.

As to surgeries, they have not been regulated much as far as I know. But if there had been stories of kiddie pageant parents getting their daughters lip injections, surgery to keep their faces looking like pre-teens, and mastectomies so they could look like children longer, I would hope that such procedures would be banned, and that no one would object on parental rights grounds. If parents castrated their boys so they could sing soprano as adults, I would say the same.

Honestly, other than cancer, I have a hard time imagining any legitimate reason to remove genitals of any healthy child. I'd love to read a rational explanation for that rather emotional appeals and name calling. There is no way that a child can give informed consent for that.

I'm not sure... there were only 56 genital alterations performed over a 3 year period, so it's obviously not something people do lightly. Off the top of my head, I'd imagine if a child was performing self mutilations, and committed serious suicide attempts due to severe dysphoria and other treatments have failed, I can imagine that would become a viable treatment.

And the kid can't give informed consent, but the parent/guardian can. Same for any other surgery.

I don't believe that I said that. My intention was to point out that cross-sex hormones are often successfully used to treat depression. Let me see if I can find what I said . . . here it is:

Post 4,497 of this thread:

The poster I showed that to flew off the handle about "psycho trans professor," when I was only referring to the title of the video. Or maybe he or she was only pretending to be outraged by that to avoid responding to the substance of of what I said.

Which was that doctors should try treating the depression first, rather attempting to transition a child from one biological sex to the other, if that is really what they think they are doing. They seem pretty vague about that.

If they give a kid cross-sex hormones, but to treat the depression, not to make them look more like the gender they aspire to, I'd be fine with that. Several months of that might well stabilize the depression so that they kid is not miserable all the time and would be less likely to make poor decisions, like having body parts removed.

Thank you for clarifying. Interestingly enough this is actually what we decided for my own kid (the doctors, therapists, my wife and I, and my kid). We had been doing therapy and anti-depressants for about 3 years with only sporadic and temporary success, but inevitably led back to suicide attempts and hospitalizations. So we started testosterone at a quarter dose, and after 6 months to a half dose. And at the moment we're staying there... things have seem to stabilized, no suicide attempts in 6 months, general happiness and increased socialization. This is an n=1 scenario of course, and we also switched therapists to one that seems better suited for my kid.

I'm glad you're "fine" with that approach, but with all due respect, I don't see why you should have a say at all in it. You aren't our doctor, you aren't a part of any medical review board, and you aren't our insurance company. Ie, you have no standing in this decision.

Yes, government in general sucks, and I don't recommend giving government more powers than they already claim without lots of thoughtful consideration.

The evolution taking place in some European countries amounts to reducing the number of child transgender medical treatments sharply. Whole clinics have been closed, and in others the procedures banned.

A Teen Gender-Care Debate Is Spreading Across Europe

Doubts have now come to the Netherlands, where the most-contested interventions for children and adolescents were developed.

www.theatlantic.com

This has been done in Europe for very good reasons having nothing to do with fear and loathing by populist Republicans, though journalists find themselves unable to report on this European news without mentioning Republicans.

As Republicans across the U.S. intensify their efforts to legislate against transgender rights, they are finding aid and comfort in an unlikely place: Western Europe, where governments and medical authorities in at least five countries that once led the way on gender-affirming treatments for children and adolescents are now reversing course, arguing that the science undergirding these treatments is unproven, and their benefits unclear.

The about-face by these countries concerns the so-called Dutch protocol, which has for at least a decade been viewed by many clinicians as the gold-standard approach to care for children and teenagers with gender dysphoria. Kids on the protocol are given medical and mental-health assessments; some go on to take medicines that block their natural puberty and, when they’re older, receive cross-sex hormones and eventually surgery. But in Finland, Sweden, France, Norway, and the U.K., scientists and public-health officials are warning that, for some young people, these interventions may do more harm than good.

The Atlantic

The Atlantic covers news, politics, culture, technology, health, and more, through its articles, podcasts, videos, and flagship magazine.

www.theatlantic.com

If our own medical community would take counsel from that and also sharply reduce those numbers, there would be less call for government intervention.

Here, the profit motive holds sway, unfortunately. Medical boards take guidance on transgender treatment from gender specialists, who of course make money through medical and surgical treatment, not by recommending therapy aimed at helping kids accept their bodies as they are.

Hey, I'd love to look at ways to get rid of or reduce the profit motive in medicine and insurance. Can we say it together? Socialized medicine!!!

A fifteen year old cannot give informed consent, as I hope the jury will understand. Why do you think she changed her mind when she grew up? Like suicide, surgical alteration of the body is a permanent solution to what is most often a temporary problem.

Yes, of course. But I think you intend a larger point. I don't want to guess at it.

Read my post above. It expands on my reply to the research you provided, which I didn't give a full enough answer to earlier.

I do believe in the process of lawmaking through our elected representatives under the constitution. I am not a big, small, or medium sized believer in mob rule.

I'll counter that rather extreme question with one just as extreme: Do you favor zero regulation of any medical treatment by any provider, so long as the patient chooses them? No licensing, no education lawfully required, no government approval for medications, any procedure can be done for any reason?

Absolutely not. I'm a strong believer in government regulation in a number of industries, medicine being one of them. I'd actually favor strengthening the regulations we have in place.

I consider myself to be a process conservative. Humans are fickle, emotional and prone to bias. The best way to arrive at optimal solutions is to develop a process and then continuously improve those processes. Direct approval of medical procedures by politicians or the electorate seems to be a terrible process. That would open things to be run by the mob, it's idiocy imo.

The best process is to have a medical review board that governs what procedures are valid and the general conditions and scenarios they are valid for. That medical review board should be made up of medical professionals with specialties in the fields being examined - they should not be appointed based on their political leanings. The medical review board should have their own process for determining what is approved and what isn't. Their decisions and reasoning should be public.

If a poor decision is made, then the process should be reviewed for flaws. But you don't ignore the results from a process if you don't like it... you can examine the process itself, but in the meantime you abide by the result of the process you set up.

 

[SystemShock]

What is your definition of a woman? You told me how some people define a woman, but not how LA -LA defines a woman. So, what is a woman?

In this type of conversations, I avoid the use of "woman" or "man", instead I use female/male of the species.

 

[SystemShock]

It does get tiring and those who don't accept transgenders, always complain about transgender woman. They never have any issues with transgender men. All the wailing against transgender women has The Crying Game vibe to it.

You want to hear a complain about transmen? Sure... still, in the realm of athletic competition, transmen are allowed to use PEDs, while males of the species aren't. Testosterone is a PED, after all. If you are a male of the species and have low testosterone levels, as long as you don't drop past 400, you are SOL, no prescription testosterone for you.