Current Events > Biden sparks TERF war on twitter with gender discrimination order

(+) Yeah! (+)

InhumaneRaider posted...

They're still dominating running sports and that's basically the argument for trans individuals, is that they'll dominate their respective sport due to "biological differences", which some claim in the reasoning for Black people dominating that specific sport.

Like I said it isnt so great that non-black people won't be able to compete. If transwoman comes in and resets Flo Jo's record (which is plausible) then that would say an unfair advantage

---

what is TERF

---

The Trent posted...

what is TERF

It stands for Trans-Exclusionary Reactionary Fuckwad.

---

sounds complicated

---

Dathrowed1 posted...

Like I said it isnt so great that non-black people won't be able to compete. If transwoman comes in and resets Flo Jo's record (which is plausible) then that would say an unfair advantage

Same goes for Transwomen.

The Trent posted...

what is TERF

Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists.

Cathy Brennan and Arielle Scarcella come to mind:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jbF62sx-Ps

---

InhumaneRaider posted...

Same goes for Transwomen.

Actually there is research that suggests they can have an over 1% advantage, which would be considered cheating (also they always have the option to take androgens to stay ahead)

---

The Trent posted...

what is TERF

Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist

AKA complete douchebag

---

Frolex posted...

Fat percentage, fat distribution, muscle density, muscle mass, bone density and hemoglobin content in transwomen after treatment with HRT are all in line with the typical levels for those seen in cisgender women

I'm not entirely sure your conclusion here meets up with the abstracts of many of these.

To go through them:

https://www.endocrine-abstracts.org/ea/0041/ea0041EP397

" Total body fat increases in male-to-females (MtFs) and decreases in female-to-males (FtMs) during cross-sex hormone therapy (CSHT), approaching body fat amounts of the desired sex. However, changes in android or gynoid fat distribution might be a better measure for masculinization and feminization than changes in amount of body fat per se. As yet, the exact effects of CSHT on fat in the android- and gynoid region are unknown."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27572683

Notes "affects body mass" but doesn't mention in the abstract if it's in line with cisgender women?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28945851

"In FTM individuals, masculinizing hormone therapy was not associated with significant changes in BMD, whereas in MTF individuals feminizing hormone therapy was associated with an increase in BMD at the lumbar spine"

I mean this study is mainly looking at the medical risks...

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cen.13607

Ok, this one does show similar BMD in trans and cis women.

https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(13)00896-6/abstract

"Hemoglobin, hematocrit, and low-density lipoprotein resembled female values ( P < .005), while alkaline phosphatase, potassium, and creatinine resembled male values ( P < .05). Triglycerides were higher ( P < .005) than either the male or female groups. The remainder of the measurands showed no differences."

Age graded race performance statistics among transwomen are equal to those of cis gender women
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1e6a/bd2c1e03ba88e9ac8da94ea1d69ff3f4878a.pdf?_ga=2.254440527.659551599.1550520323-1192624875.1550520323

A meta-analyisis of research into transwomen's performance across a comprehensive range of sports found "Currently, there is no direct or consistent research suggesting transgender female individuals (or male individuals) have an athletic advantage at any stage of their transition (e.g. cross-sex hormones, gender-confirming surgery) and, therefore, competitive sport policies that place restrictions on transgender people need to be considered and potentially revised."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-016-0621-y

If you're interested in Joanna Harper, here is she discussing this issue (and DSD athletes) in a less abstract way.

https://sportsscientists.com/2016/05/hyperandrogenism-women-vs-women-vs-men-sport-qa-joanna-harper/

Perhaps the takeaway here is that if we can control androgenisation using HRT to a point where we can reliably say there is no longer any performance advantage, then I don't see a problem with trans women competing in women's sport. But I just don't think we're there yet, since researchers don't seem to have a clear index for controlling this.

---

so we're talking about a sliver of a sliver of the population overall
like .000 something percent?

---

Dathrowed1 posted...

Like I said it isnt so great that non-black people won't be able to compete. If transwoman comes in and resets Flo Jo's record (which is plausible) then that would say an unfair advantage

This. "Being black" -- that is of West African descent (sprints) or East African descent (distance) -- does appear to be an advantage, statistically speaking, but it's certainly not an insurmountable one. Hicham el Guerrouj is not black and is the fastest miler ever. Sebastian Coe crushed his black competitors. Yuki Kawauchi won the Boston Marathon. And so on.

But there is potential for a "decently trained" male (not elite in the slightest by male standards) to "become female" and rewrite the history books on day one. This is the issue. The gulf between sexes is WAY greater than the one between races.

Dathrowed1 posted...

Actually there is research that suggests they can have an over 1%, which would be considered cheating

That's still not enough to make a definitive conclusion, issues like these are often judged on a case-by-case basis. As I said over and over, this same argument can be made for excluding Black people from running.

---

Here is my question, if we learn that women are at a significant disadvantage after much more research, will the people that are saying trans women should be able to compete with women keep the same opinion?

Im curious because many people have said there isnt enough evidence which is a fair argument.

---

The Trent posted...

so we're talking about a sliver of a sliver of the population overall
like .000 something percent?

Yes , and that small percentage has already rocked biological womens sports records

What does that tell you?

"Look how small the number is" is a really damning argument

---

CyricZ posted...

Quick reminder folks. If you're looking to prove that trans women will always beat cis women, don't use statistics of cis men to try to back that up. Trans women and cis men are not the same thing, and I wish I didn't need to keep reminding people of this.

True but we don't reliably have much data to show how top trans athletes would compete, so we have to fall back on the male category to understand how T affects physiological performance. Like, the science is trying to show how androgenisation affects performance as best it can with the data it has available.

It's very imperfect and not conclusive at all, but it shows the contrast that androgenisation has.

---

DepreceV2 posted...

Here is my question, if we learn that women are at a significant disadvantage after much more research, will the people that are saying trans women should be able to compete with women keep the same opinion?

Only a minority are even arguing that transition is required to play sports. The majority are arguing that there is no biological difference between men and women
The answer is clearly no

Im curious because many people have said there isnt enough evidence which is a fair argument.

No its not

---

InhumaneRaider posted...

That's still not enough to make a definitive conclusion, issues like these are often judged on a case-by-case basis. As I said over and over, this same argument can be made for excluding Black people from running.

Lol the difference of women to men is far greater than the difference between men to men, no matter how you look at it. Shaq is way different from me but he's waaaaayyyy different from a woman.

---

DepreceV2 posted...

Here is my question, if we learn that women are at a significant disadvantage after much more research, will the people that are saying trans women should be able to compete with women keep the same opinion?

Im curious because many people have said there isnt enough evidence which is a fair argument.

I'd argue for a revision of policies surrounding transwomen in sports at that point, yes. But as of right now, nothing definitive can be said.

---

Master Kazuya posted...

Lol the difference of women to men is far greater than the difference between men to men, no matter how you look at it. Shaq is way different from me but he's waaaaayyyy different from a woman.

The basis of the argument being dominance in these sports.

---

ImperialScrolls posted...

This. "Being black" -- that is of West African descent (sprints) or East African descent (distance) -- does appear to be an advantage, statistically speaking, but it's certainly not an insurmountable one. Hicham el Guerrouj is not black and is the fastest miler ever. Sebastian Coe crushed his black competitors. Yuki Kawauchi won the Boston Marathon. And so on.

But there is potential for a "decently trained" male (not elite in the slightest by male standards) to "become female" and rewrite the history books on day one. This is the issue. The gulf between sexes is WAY greater than the one between races.

Right, and although I think @InhumaneRaider is making a good qualitive argument here, the quantity of difference is huge as above.

Sure, black athletes are conceivably better for physiological reasons. But I guess at no point did anyone decide that white athletes need to be a protected class. That's also the issue. Presumably we categorise to allow competition among the less advantaged class, not the more advantaged?

---

InhumaneRaider posted...

That's still not enough to make a definitive conclusion, issues like these are often judged on a case-by-case basis. As I said over and over, this same argument can be made for excluding Black people from running.

Except it is not. If you have a one percent advantage over your highest competition that is cheating. Being a genetically blessed person of Sub-Saharan African doesn't offer this advantage. Taking anabolics does

---

let them play, no one is watching anyway

---

InhumaneRaider posted...

That's still not enough to make a definitive conclusion, issues like these are often judged on a case-by-case basis. As I said over and over, this same argument can be made for excluding Black people from running.

1. No it can't. that comparison is so stupid you insult the intelligence of everyone who reads it. Stop saying that utter bullshit

2. No one is banning anyone from competing. Transgender athletes male or female can still run.

Just not in the womens league.

Again I have to repeat, why are you and your kin ignoring that no one has issues with transgender men competing?

By your logic we should be horrified since it's the same as race somehow and we want to segregate?


---

hey didn't south park do an episode on this that had some funny moments

---

Master Kazuya posted...

Lol the difference of women to men is far greater than the difference between men to men, no matter how you look at it. Shaq is way different from me but he's waaaaayyyy different from a woman.

It's like he's intentionally trying to promote TERFs by arguing the absolute silliest arguments he can think of to make SJWs look bad...

I just don't get it

---

Dathrowed1 posted...

Except it is not. If you have a one percent advantage over your highest competition that is cheating. Being a genetically blessed person of Sub-Saharan African doesn't offer this advantage. Taking anabolics does

Right and these studies, are they on a general, consistent basis or...is it case-by-case?

---

BreezyExcursion posted...

let them play, no one is watching anyway

I watch womens MMA.

It's good. Womens soccer or baseball is just the same sport at lower level but combat sports? Women beating the shit out of each other is just as intense as men

I'd argue the entertainment value is equal, even if the skill level isn't?

Who seriously didn't enjoy seeing Ronda Rousey get slapped down by Holm and Nunes?

I wouldn't want to see a 135 pound post transition Frank Mir fight Nunes. Thats not a fair fight

no one can honestly claim that it would be

---

InhumaneRaider posted...

Right and these studies, are they on a general, consistent basis or...is it case-by-case?

Consistent basis

I mean do we need to do a meta analysis to compare being black to being on anabolics?

---

Dathrowed1 posted...

Consistent basis

I mean do we need to do a meta analysis to compare being black to being on anabolics?

I'm speaking exclusively on these individuals being on anabolic/androgen steroids, not the comparison.

And what is the argument anyway?

---

InhumaneRaider posted...

I'm speaking exclusively on these individuals being on anabolic/androgen steroids, not the comparison.

Being androgens it is pretty consistent. Like you can muscle mass easier just from being on them compared to someone who trains

You'd actually probably get laughed out the fitness industry if you suggested androgens don't help (though you'd be a good ally to get politicians to deschedule them)

---

Dathrowed1 posted...

Being androgens it is pretty consistent. Like you can muscle mass easier just from being on them compared to someone who trains

Except HRT has been shown to decrease muscle mass. Which is what a considerable number of transwomen take.

---

InhumaneRaider posted...

Except HRT has been shown to decrease muscle mass.

This assumes a transwoman would never dope, which is a naive take

Also the question is does HRT put a transwomen at the level of other women. UR showed one who after a year still benched 233 at 180, that is a super good bench for a woman (especially if her proportions are closer to a males)

---

Dathrowed1 posted...

This assumes a transwoman would never dope, which is a naive take

Who said this though...

---

InhumaneRaider posted...

Except HRT has been shown to decrease muscle mass. Which is what a considerable number of transwomen take.

Androgens are the stuff you take to become more "male". Literally means "male-making". Or in other words, testesterone. Absolutely increases muscle mass.

transwomen taking HRT are using estrogen, specifically.

---

InhumaneRaider posted...

I'd argue for a revision of policies surrounding transwomen in sports at that point, yes. But as of right now, nothing definitive can be said.

Here is my next question then. If that stance is what many people will take, would it be wise to integrate before we learn all the facts? What if we do that, then research discovers without a doubt that women are at a significant disadvantage? Now we have a new issue. The integration process is now complete. Reversing that would be very difficult and people will argue its discrimination.

I think it would be more wise to research FIRST then make that kind of move once we know with a very high certainty with plenty of studies backing it

---

InhumaneRaider posted...

Who said this though...

It is an issue that would arise and need to be addressed. Most likely it would be a ban on transwomen from women's sports

---

pinky0926 posted...

Androgens are the stuff you take to become more "male". Literally means "male-making". Or in other words, testesterone. Absolutely increases muscle mass.

transwomen take EHT specifically.

But where are Transwomen more specifically transwomen athletes taking this?

---

InhumaneRaider posted...

But where are Transwomen more specifically transwomen athletes taking this?

I don't know about that, although since they can be looked at as a performance enhancing drug in a certain light and since we know athletes will do just about anything to their health in order to win it's not inconceivable to think that a transwomen would take androgens like any other athlete to improve performance.

Anyway like I said, I don't know. But androgens make you more male, and as a consequence are good for packing on lean mass.

---

Dathrowed1 posted...

It is an issue that would arise and need to be addressed. Most likely it would be a ban on transwomen from women's sports

...
Says who? What are you basing this on?

DepreceV2 posted...

Here is my next question then. If that stance is what many people will take, would it be wise to integrate before we learn all the facts? What if we do that, then research discovers without a doubt that women are at a significant disadvantage? Now we have a new issue. The integration process is now complete. Reversing that would be very difficult and people will argue its discrimination.

I think it would be more wise to research FIRST then make that kind of move once we know with a very high certainty with plenty of studies backing it

I can't speak for others, but we need empirical evidence of these claims before anything and the only way to do that is essentially allow them in to these respective sports.

---

pinky0926 posted...

I'm not entirely sure your conclusion here meets up with the abstracts of many of these.

To go through them:

" Total body fat increases in male-to-females (MtFs) and decreases in female-to-males (FtMs) during cross-sex hormone therapy (CSHT), approaching body fat amounts of the desired sex. However, changes in android or gynoid fat distribution might be a better measure for masculinization and feminization than changes in amount of body fat per se. As yet, the exact effects of CSHT on fat in the android- and gynoid region are unknown."

Notes "affects body mass" but doesn't mention in the abstract if it's in line with cisgender women?

"In FTM individuals, masculinizing hormone therapy was not associated with significant changes in BMD, whereas in MTF individuals feminizing hormone therapy was associated with an increase in BMD at the lumbar spine"

I mean this study is mainly looking at the medical risks...

Ok, this one does show similar BMD in trans and cis women.

"Hemoglobin, hematocrit, and low-density lipoprotein resembled female values ( P < .005), while alkaline phosphatase, potassium, and creatinine resembled male values ( P < .05). Triglycerides were higher ( P < .005) than either the male or female groups. The remainder of the measurands showed no differences."

If you're interested in Joanna Harper, here is she discussing this issue (and DSD athletes) in a less abstract way.

https://sportsscientists.com/2016/05/hyperandrogenism-women-vs-women-vs-men-sport-qa-joanna-harper/

Perhaps the takeaway here is that if we can control androgenisation using HRT to a point where we can reliably say there is no longer any performance advantage, then I don't see a problem with trans women competing in women's sport. But I just don't think we're there yet, since researchers don't seem to have a clear index for controlling this.

I don't think it's a problem to have questions about the integration of transwomen into women's sports, or specific policies about requirements hormone or testosterone levels. But the question is over whether there is enough evidence of transwomen outperforming ciswomen on average to justify policies entirely excluding transwomen's existence from one area of society. And that evidence does not exist.

---

pinky0926 posted...

I don't know about that, although since they can be looked at as a performance enhancing drug in a certain light and since we know athletes will do just about anything to their health in order to win it's not inconceivable to think that a transwomen would take androgens like any other athlete to improve performance.

Anyway like I said, I don't know. But androgens make you more male, and as a consequence are good for packing on lean mass.

Right but as I said, most transwomen are on HRT which leads to a decrease in muscle mass, so the argument just seemed weird initially.

---

Frolex posted...

I don't think it's a problem to have questions about the integration of transwomen into women's sports, or specific policies about requirements hormone or testosterone levels. But the question is over whether there is enough evidence of transwomen outperforming ciswomen on average to justify policies entirely excluding transwomen's existence from one area of society. And that evidence does not exist.

Yep that's a completely true point.

I read an interesting article about this exact problem by Ross Tucker. He was in the unique position where he strongly held that there is a performance advantage and he personally held that exclusion was viable, but he still got up in front of the CAS to defend Caster Semenya's right to compete in women's sport. In a nutshell, "you guys have good rationale but your actual evidence sucks, and you can't discriminate against a person with an evidence based argument with crappy evidence like this". His other point was that the political narrative around trans athletes unnecessarily coloured the discussion on intersex (or DSD) athletes.

https://sportsscientists.com/2019/05/on-dsds-the-theory-of-testosterone-performance-the-cas-ruling-on-caster-semenya/

---

InhumaneRaider posted...

I can't speak for others, but we need empirical evidence of these claims before anything and the only way to do that is essentially allow them in to these respective sports.

I would argue that it isnt necessary to integrate them into the respective sports to learn what me need. In fact, it might be a detriment to the data. The real issue is the pure athleticism. Strength, speed, agility, etc. Sports are more than just athleticism. There is technique, the mental aspect, etc.

I would argue that we if just go off of the data we receive after integration then the data would likely be incomplete and bias based on each sport. We would likely see a variety of differences between each sport which will cause more issues in determining if the decision was correct.

We need to isolate the issue at hand and research that specifically.

---

InhumaneRaider posted...

The basis of the argument being dominance in these sports.

There's no black vs white division in running. There aren't separate records. There's not a situation that exists where a black person can feel white internally, bleach their skin, and go compete and utterly dominate the white runner category.

There's a weight division in fighting. A heavyweight cannot identify as a featherweight, get in the ring, and decimate people half their weight.

We have a lot of data across lots of sports that show that, while yes black people do statistically better some sports, it is certainly not every sport or super widespread of a difference.

Guess what that same data shows. There is a TON of difference between male and female sports, across the board.

With transgender people being in sports, this situation can exist in real life and when there's huge monetary gain from being a top competitor, as well as changing other competitors legacies, you have to look at all the factors.

There's a cool story where, in 1998, Venus and Serena Williams (ranked 5th and 20th in women's) said they could beat any man in the top 200. Karsten Braasch, ranked 203rd in men's, took up the challenge and beat them BOTH, back to back, 6-2 and 6-1. Allegedly hungover. Also this player was known for smoking a lot. Not that this should be conclusive evidence, but it's still telling

---

Frolex posted...

e to justify policies entirely excluding transwomen's existence from one area of society.

No one is doing that.

For starters, grandiose wording makes your point weaker, not stronger.
For 2, no one is saying transgender women cannot do sports or athletics. Just that they can't be in the league specifically created for biological women.

No one is saying Mary Gregory cannot lift weights, she should not be banned from gyms or erased from history. Her "existence" is not being excluded from society. But her records will not be recongized in the womens leagues because she has a gigantic advantage over biological women making it totally unfair to compare them in the same sporting event.

You're being ridiculous.

Do you consider yourself "Excluded from society" because you can't play in the WNBA?

These are not pleasant or ideal facts. But they are still facts.

Wanting them not to be true has absolutely zero bearing on the fact they are true.

I'd really like if it at least 1 single user in this topic other than me had the balls to stand up and say "What I would like to be true has no effect on what is true whatsoever. "

This isn't a thing you can defeat with hope or goodwill. It's a cold hard fact of biology. An unpleasant one, but a cold hard fact of biology.

---

Master Kazuya posted...

There's no black vs white division in running. There aren't separate records. There's not a situation that exists where a black person can feel white internally, bleach their skin, and go compete and utterly dominate the white runner category. This situation can exist in real life and when there's huge monetary gain from being a top competitor, as well as changing other competitors legacies, you have to look at all the factors.

There's a weight division in fighting. A heavyweight cannot identify as a featherweight, get in the ring, and decimate people half their weight.

We have a lot of data across lots of sports that show that, while yes black people do statistically better some sports, it is certainly not every sport or super widespread of a difference.

Guess what that same data shows. There is a TON of difference between male and female sports, across the board.

There's a cool story where, in 1998, Venus and Serena Williams (ranked 5th and 20th in women's) said they could beat any man in the top 200. Karsten Braasch, ranked 203rd in men's, took up the challenge and beat them BOTH, back to back, 6-2 and 6-1. Allegedly hungover. Also this player was known for smoking a lot. Not that this should be conclusive evidence, but it's still telling

A better example is the best women in history in any event would place around rank 3000 or more in the mens division. As in the fastest woman ever would be beaten by local state high school boys championships every year, even though no woman has managed to top her time in 30 years. That's the 10% difference in men/women in track and field.

In strength sports the difference is about 50%. So...I don't even know what rank that would be. Immaterial though.

These events are useful because they're more linear and track a very specific kind of performance (compared to say tennis, which has so many different kinds of skills and physical requirements thrown in at once).

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

For 2, no one is saying transgender women cannot do sports or athletics. Just that they can't be in the league specifically created for biological women.

We separate sports leagues by gender, not sex, otherwise we would be calling them "female's sports". So yes, you are telling one group of women they cannot exist women's sports.

UnfairRepresent posted...

Do you consider yourself "Excluded from society" because you can't play in the WNBA?

Interesting you put scare quotes around a phase i never said. wonder who you thought you were quoting.
and i'm only in the sense that any other man is excluded from women's sports. No one here (at least not me) is advocating allowing men to compete in women's sports

UnfairRepresent posted...

These are not pleasant or ideal facts. But they are still facts.

Prove that transwomen on average are outperforming ciswomen in sports. Otherwise, you're not actually disproving my post with "facts".

---

pinky0926 posted...

These events are useful because they're more linear and track a very specific kind of performance (compared to say tennis, which has so many different kinds of skills and physical requirements thrown in at once).

Even in a skill sport athleticism plays a huge role as well. Baseball is thought of as a skill sport but MLB players are the best all around athletes of any league

I think people also don't acknowledge that top tier athletes can get away with a lot

---

Dathrowed1 posted...

Even in a skill sport athleticism plays a huge role as well. Baseball is thought of as a skill sport but MLB players are the best all around athletes of any league

I think people also don't acknowledge that top tier athletes can get away with a lot

Yes but I just mean for the purpose of trying to measure performance the linearity of track and field is more useful for comparison


---

CyricZ posted...

Honestly how am I supposed to figure which is the trolling you and which is the serious you. You can't have it both ways, chief.

I doubt the videos are hard to distinguish which is sarcasm and which is not.

its not healthy to be serious all the time

---

Frolex posted...

We separate sports leagues by gender, not sex

No... no we don't.

"male" sports aren't seperated. They are only male because women are not skilled enough to compete in them. There is nothing in the NFL. NBA etc that says women can't compete. Many have tried. They are just physically inferior.

There is nothing that said women can't be Navy Seals, just no girl could do it.

The womens leagues were created so women could still play sports.

Putting biological male bodies in those sports because they identify as a female gender, destroys the sport.

Frolex posted...

Interesting you put scare quotes around a phase i never said. wonder who you thought you were quoting.

excluding transwomen's existence from one area of society.

and i'm only in the sense that any other man is excluded from women's sports. No one here (at least not me) is advocating allowing men to compete in women's sports

You're advocating allowing biological male bodies to compete in womens sports because of what gender they identify as socially.

The same problem still arises.

Frolex posted...

Prove that transwomen on average are outperforming ciswomen in sports. Otherwise, you're not actually disproving my post with "facts".

Several people have done so over and over in this topic. You ignore them all.
you literally ignored the part of my post about Mary Gregory just to go "Prove it!"

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3

We have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 1050% performance advantage, is lacking.

Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant.

These data significantly undermine the delivery of fairness and safety presumed by the criteria set out in transgender inclusion policies, particularly given the stated prioritization of fairness as an overriding objective (for the IOC).

If those policies are intended to preserve fairness, inclusion and the safety of biologically female athletes, sporting organizations may need to reassess their policies regarding inclusion of transgender women.

Why do you think not 1 female athlete can make it in the NFL , MLB, NBA etc?

Also as I said niether you nor anyone else on your "side" has the balls to say that whatever you want to be true has no effect on what the truth is.

I'm the only honest person in this topic. My attitude is based on the evidence and facts, not on posturing and finger wagging.

---