Continuation of Polypostwonder thread

[Imdunfer]

Follow on from this thread

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5532352-the-liminality-of-sex-perception-sex-based-spaces-and-bodily-autonomy?page=39

For argument sake, I understand Blaire White to be a woman. This is independent of the knowledge she chose to only undergo cosmetic facial surgeries and breast augmentation, while retaining everything else.
I think I remember reading that she politically aligns 'right' and is politically vocal about being a male, living as a trans woman. I'm not 100% sure, though. It's not a way that I could understand living, but it is financially lucrative in her case.

There is a person who declares themselves to be male.

That person chooses to live presenting as a female.

In spite of their self declaration as a male, complete with male genitals, you understand that they are a woman.

And you ascribe their understanding of themselves being male, at least partly, to financial motives.

This is either monumentally arrogant or monumentally stupid thinking, or possibly both. Or perhaps you just like playing with a largely female forum and seeing how many feathers you can ruffle.

One thing is for sure, and that is that I don't think anything you write on this subject from now on is going to be of any value to read.

Don't be trivial. You are not a stupid person. You knew what was meant.

Life tip: if you find yourself looking for loopholes so you can be right, you are wrong.

Well, he is validly a woman in his belief, obviously.

Not sure why that belief should override millenia of woman's identity and history as the female half of humanity, but it is his belief that it should.

Two things can be simultaneously true.

My life as a person who transitioned as a teen is very much culturally invalid. It is impossible and invisible.

My life as a woman makes sense culturally and is valid, visible and possible everywhere but gender critical space (and one country's laws so influenced).

You said the above, did you forget?

That shows invalidity both as a child and an adult. So your following post contradicts it. Do try harder....

I'll stand by with what i said.

I genuinely thought people were referencing bone measurement and visual assessment. Why not just say 'dna test your remains' instead of 'dig you up?'

Talking more mince.

"Impossible"? As in because I said it was a scientific impossibility for you to have gone through cross sex hormone induced female puberty?

Where's @murasaki's professor when you need him!

And again you are missing the point.

It is not based on whether an individual can correctly identify a male person's sex. It is whether ONE female person who has need of that female single sex provision can correctly identify a male person's sex.

Again, it is irrelevant if YOU cannot correctly identify a male person's sex. And you can tell us there is no 'sensible way of discussing' the topic all you like, we will keep sensibly discussing the topic regardless.

And disagreement is not attacking you .

Oh yes.

We have discussed this extensively a few months ago if you remember. I think you were part of the discussion.

Apparently, female puberty can be anything a male person wants it to be. Apparently, it is not focused on maturation of female reproductive systems. It is simply developing breasts and something to do with appearing like a woman.

And apparently, it is not misogynistic at all to say that a male can experience female puberty or make reference in any way to a male going through female puberty.

And around and around the discussion goes.....

Fair answer on the violence PPW.

But a girl has definitely been deprived of a place on the team by a genetic boy who will never be a woman because she wasn't born one.

You cannot simply manufacture womanhood, sex differences are present in the brains of newborns.

You cannot philosophise your way into being a woman.

Nor can you continue to make absurd statements about body size to try to convince anyone that you are a female person.

It is irrelevant what your body size is. You are male and you will have experienced partial male puberty despite your assertions otherwise. You also have male genetics which will develop your body as male regardless of the hormones you supplement.

You don't have to post on this forum if you feel you get 'senseless' replies. Many of us will keep replying regardless because this is a public forum and you choose to post misinformation that needs to be countered.

"there is no sensible way of discussing this issue while women (some of whom, not necessarily on this forum, are becoming as verbally aggressive in their stance as many trans activities)"

I skipped over this earlier, but it's been really bugging me and seeing it quoted again made me want to ask @Imdunfer if she's seen the TERF is a slur website?
TERF is a slur | Documenting the abuse, harassment and misogyny of transgender identity politics

Because really? Women are becoming as verbally aggressive as those male TRAs? Really?!

I'm not on twitter, instagram or ticktock but I highly doubt that GC women are threatening to rape anyone, let alone are calling for their decapitation, or hoping for them to die in a grease fire etc.

There is no evidence that a male person with blocked puberty does not still retain genetic male physical advantages. It also requires puberty suppression to work fully which may not be the case.

It is why the IOC made a blanket ban on all male people with transgender identities from entering female sports events. If there was proof that puberty suppression did not allow male advantage to develop, there would have been a clause in the policy to that effect.

A male person with any physical advantage will pose additional risk to female people when they enter a female single sex provision.

HANDELSMAN STUDY ON PRE-PUBERTAL DIFFERENCES

A study pointing out that it could be effects from the mini puberty as an infant and/or muscle memory differences between male and female children.

The ontogeny of sex differences in exercise performance

https://academic.oup.com/jes/article/10/4/bvag042/8500320?login=false#googlevignette

David Handelsman and Grant Tomkinson
April 2026

Abstract

Sex differences in adult athletic performance are driven by the 20-to 30-fold increase in testosterone production of male puberty creating larger and stronger muscle, bone and cardiorespiratory functions, and higher hemoglobin creating male physical advantages in power sports, where strength, speed, or endurance determine success. Before puberty, boys also surpass girls in age-group records despite no difference in circulating testosterone over the decade from minipuberty to puberty. However, the relative magnitude of the prepubertal, relative to pubertal, sex differences in exercise performance remain uncertain.

To investigate the magnitude of these differences in a unitary dataset, this was a secondary analysis of a exercise performance of 85 347 healthy 9- to 17-year-old Australian schoolchildren between 1985 to 2009. Boys surpassed girls in 8 of 9 exercises excepting 1, a stretching exercise, in which girls surpassed boys. For each exercise the magnitude of the pubertal changes were much larger than those of prepubertal differences. These findings in normative tests extend previous studies of competitive age records of prepubertal children and compare the same tests over the pubertal transition.

These findings confirm that the quantitatively dominant sex differences in exercise performance are those of puberty. That at least 1 prepubertal exercise test is dominated by girls indicates that the prepubertal differences are more likely to be biological rather than sociological, related to boy's greater habitual play or exercise. It is postulated that these prepubertal sex differences may arise from the combination of androgen imprinting during minipuberty propagated by muscle memory.

Just to pull this out:

It is postulated that these prepubertal sex differences may arise from the combination of androgen imprinting during minipuberty propagated by muscle memory.

This is just one of the first studies that has started to evaluate non pubertal testosterone advantage.

If a male person has a physical advantage during childhood, without access to pubertal testosterone at all (and remember that a male child will start puberty often before puberty is blocked or cross sex hormones given), why would that advantage be retained even if that male child has an estogren driven puberty that then is emulating female skeletal and musculature development throughout puberty and not one moment of testosterone puberty?

And even a small physical advantage as shown in childhood IS A PHYSICAL ADVANTAGE.

If a male person has a physical advantage during childhood, without access to pubertal testosterone at all (and remember that a male child will start puberty often before puberty is blocked or cross sex hormones given), why would that advantage be retained even if that male child has an estogren driven puberty that then is emulating female skeletal and musculature development throughout puberty and not one moment of testosterone puberty?

Sorry, typing with a bandaged finger.

Why WOULDN'T that advantage be retained? is what was meant.

If a male person enters puberty emulating the hormonal quantities of female people with an advantage, Why WOULDN'T that physical advantage be retained by the end of that puberty?

"Sex differences in adult athletic performance are driven by the 20-to 30-fold increase in testosterone production of male puberty"

Nothing in that study is examining the performance of trans youth who are undergoing (or have undergone) an HRT supported puberty.

The paper addressed "minipuberty" and the average performance of pre-pubertal boys and girls, but did not actually present measurements or the amount of overlap of those two cohorts.

I think I remember someone on FWR accusing me of possessing 162% of the punch power of a woman. That's preposterous.

Cherry picking selected quotations out of context now.

Puberty blockers followed by cross sex hormones do not cause a person of one sex to go through opposite sex puberty, nor do they turn back the clock and reverse the physical advantages male children have during their pre-pubescence.

PPW don't you think it should be the choice of genetic women whether they allow their competitions to take entries from genetic males, and not up to genetic males to force their way into women's sport against the will of women?

I'm pretty pissed off, by the way, that your style of argument forces me to insert "genetic" into that sentence otherwise you will disingenuously respond "they are women".

I don't think anyone knows. No one has studied trans youth involved in sport. Sport wasn't available to me in school, I can't tell you an experience as I was withdrawn before I even started transition.

Having changed sex mid-puberty, from personal experience I can say the assumption that there is any perceivable 'male benefit' of strength from 'minipuberty' when compared to a fully realised normal male puberty or even female puberty is wild.

My strength markedly increased following the administration of oestrogen, as I gained height and weight; beyond my strength from whatever 'minipuberty' provided and whatever influence testosterone provided prior to starting HRT.

I think there is a huge issue with fairness in adult sport. I don't believe anyone who underwent an uninterrupted male puberty should be competing in women's sport.

Having missed out on sport as a child and having had some exposure to it as an adult, I realise how important it is for socialisation and skill development. I believe it should be available to children, regardless of how they are born. I disagree with the assertion that placement of children should always follow gender critical sex beliefs.

YOU claim you went through an estrogen driven puberty ( while rejecting that you experienced any male puberty at all which is extremely doubtful considering you didn't have puberty blocked or testosterone suppressed). The study has looked at the advantages of children who have not gone through testosterone pubertal changes and determined that there are still advantages. There are about 5-10 similar studies all looking at children and the advantages that male children have over female children before the age of puberty.

As it is now quite well established that male children have advantages even before testosterone driven puberty, why would any male person then claim that they have not kept that that advantage when emulating female estrogen quantities during puberty.

Starting those female estrogen quantities while having an advantage already meaning that things such as strength will increase along at least the typical female rate but from a higher start base.

We are looking at averages. Female people never had that testosterone mini puberty effect. It means that on average, male people start from an average performance that is already higher than female people while then taking the same estrogen doses that female people produce.

That doesn't even then cover the early stages of puberty where a male person is experiencing advantages from early pubertal testosterone production. Nor does it cover when testosterone suppression has not be reliable.

People making claims that male people who have been on estrogen or have not gone through full testosterone puberty do not present a risk of physical harm to female people don't seem to have any evidence to back that up.

Do you have any evidence to back up that you have no physical advantage derived because you are male? If so, link it up. If not, please stop spreading misinformation based on your subjective belief.

So you have nothing.

Yet the proof is there that male children have advantages even before puberty. This post is just you telling women what you want to be true.

Again. Male children enter puberty already having physical advantages that have been well documented now.

Any male person who then follows a female hormonal supplementation starts from a higher base of performance on average than female people do. Therefore if those male people follow a female hormonal development trajectory they will end up still having that male advantage.

As I've stated previously, the oestrogen I took until it was withdrawn from the market in all forms but birth control (ethinyl estradiol) almost immediately knocked my testosterone level to almost nothing. Separate testosterone reduction was not required.

We are discussing children who have been or are undergoing puberty. They will be stronger, and faster, and anything-er more than someone of either sex who has not started puberty.

At least you are now honest in saying you started estrogen MID PUBERTY.

Meaning you experienced partial if not full male puberty. Despite telling us months ago you did not have any male puberty at all despite being in your mid teens.