RE: That Trans Thread
September 6, 2025 at 12:33 am
(This post was last modified: September 6, 2025 at 12:34 am by Belacqua.)
(September 5, 2025 at 11:47 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: The frustrating thing is that I can’t find much info about the context behind his previous support or his current rejection. Why did he try to support it (and from reading his books, he tends to go into detail about why he supports a counter-intuitive position)? What info does he have to counter his old claims?
You're right, there's not a lot on the Internet about this. I guess Gladwell isn't so famous that this would make waves.
The only place I know of where he's reported his change of mind is in this podcast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHqJP-Rr...RtYfr2hj9L
Sorry, I don't have time stamps. From looking over its YouTube page, the podcast doesn't seem to advocate one way or the other for trans issues.
Quote:Do the people who sell estrogen and T-blockers have a new formation that doesn’t hobble trans women and render any advantages of going through male puberty moot?
This is something I hadn't thought about before. When a trans woman joins a woman's sporting league, is it expected that she is taking this type of medicine? Surely they don't test for it, do they?
I mean, when a trans woman says she's trans, that means she should be allowed to participate in women's sports. I hadn't heard before that a trans woman would have to prove certain chemical or hormonal levels in order to qualify.
An individual who still had exactly the same physiology as she did the day before she came out as trans is, assuredly, trans, is she not? Or is there a sliding scale on some kind of hormonal measurement?