A friend recommended RT to me a few years ago, and at first I found it interesting, but then I started to feel it had a noticeable bias (presumed to be Russian) which made it seem blander and less interesting to me; but that could have been just my imagination. I haven't looked at it for a long time. Is there any particularly good article on it lately that you like?

The English t***slation of Der Spiegel that I found online doesn't update very often.

Trump's already been caught red-handed enough times; that's not the real issue in America, which is that so many people don't care whether he's caught, guilty, or red-handed. For "guilty" to really mean something, you'd have to care about the principle that was violated.

No, not satire at all. It's quite sincere. And, while it's probably close to a lot of "Lefty"-like people, it's really more about my sources of information for me as an individual -- not _all_ my sources, but some of the latest and best ones.

Is there a particular reason why you at first thought it was satire?

Al Jazeera for news. New York Times for news and some entertainment. The Guardian for news and some entertainment. The Washington Post for news but for me this one is half for entertainment (because I just like what it says).

On a typical day I look online at the news in the towns where my family members are. Then I look at the news local to where I am. This is typically just the headlines and a look at one article on each site. Then I've done my duty to be informed of local news, and go to the NY Times for national news, which usually has some entertainment value. Then I go to Al Jazeera as the best source for news in the world (though less entertaining for me than the NY Times). And The Guardian and The Washington Post after that. Meanwhile about once a day I listen to KPFA news live at kpfa.org ; it's quick and professional; if something important were going on, they'd probably have it in their first couple of topics. I spend a couple of minutes there on KPFA news. Aside from news, KPFA also has some other good programming; for example sometimes they have the scientist Michio Kaku explain something, and sometimes they have interesting history lessons.

For a while I liked The Epoch Times, which is a free print newspaper. They have nine "commentaries" about (and very much against) the Chinese C*******t party, which I think are a good critique of it (although I haven't really studied either them or it much). More recently I haven't liked The Epoch Times; it's starting to look more conspir****t, or Trump-supporting, or Republican "Conservative", and I don't even look at it anymore. But I still think its commentaries against the Chinese C*******t party are/were right.

More rarely I try looking further afield, such as English versions of Der Spiegel or mondediplomatique, or Norway or Australia. I've noticed that Nigeria appears very Christian; its online version (of a newspaper) that I've seen has been almost littered with Christian religious items, which I don't like much.

Addendum: I also listen to NPR radio sometimes when I'm in the car. It's blander than KPFA but still somewhat informative and sometimes entertaining.

I think so. Surely she was a great deal more gracious when Donald T***p w*n the e*******l college in 2016, than he was when Joe Biden won both the e*******l college and the popular v**e in 2020.

For anyone who doubts she was a good loser: Hillary gave a public concession speech after the 2016 e******n. Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khK9fIgoNjQ (title: "Hillary Clinton FULL Concession Speech | E******n 2016"). Between 7:06 and 7:19 in that video, she says:

"Last night, I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country. I hope that he will be a successful president for all Americans."

Contrastingly, Donald Trump gave an attempted c**p instead of a concession speech, and would have plunged the U.S. into chaos if his plans had worked. It would have been mob rule.

According to https://www.npr.org/2020/11/02/929085584/how-to-lose-an-e******n-a-brief-history-of-the-p**********l-concession-speech :

"It began as a simple courtesy, with a telegram that William Jennings Bryan sent to his opponent, William McKinley, two days after the e******n of 1896.

"Lincoln, Neb., November 5.

"Hon. Wm. McKinley, Canton, Ohio: Senator Jones has just informed me that the returns indicate your e******n, and I hasten to extend my congratulations. We have submitted the issue to the American people and their will is law.

"W.J. Bryan

"Those two sentences are considered to be the first public concession in U.S. p**********l politics. The tradition has
continued — in some form or another — in every e******n since."[until Trump]

"Ultimately, the concession isn't about the losing candidate accepting the loss, it's about their supporters accepting it." [That's how to support the continuation of a democracy or democratic republic.]

Democratic candidates, such as Al Gore (and probably John Kerry) (and maybe Hillary Clinton, I suppose), had plenty of reasons to be suspicious of their opponents' wins. The investigative journalist Greg Palast gives details. (One can look up the books by that author, or for more recent news see gregpalast.com .). (One of his recent books is titled "How Trump Stole 2020". He's said the title was intended as a warning, not a prediction.). (We see now that Trump may have narrowly missed stealing the 2020 e******n, on J****** 6, 2021.)

Oh, I agree that Jesus was right to be angry at wrong things going on in the temple. And, you may be right that he couldn't have persuaded them to leave without actually physically attacking them. Anger is not the same as violence. I just consider the violence to be non-ideal behavior for a human, and even more non-ideal for a god. Jesus is so often held up as a perfect example of something good, and I do not think that fits with resorting to violence. A Supreme Being would have other methods at his disposal, such as to persuade them that what they were doing was wrong. It would not have been any disaster if the money-changers didn't leave immediately. After some really smart persuasion or some other non-violent technique, they might have been gone after a day or a week or a month. And we would have been left with an example of how to accomplish such a thing non-violently. It might have looked like some thing that Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. did.

"a problem with spirituality" -- Not exactly. There are different kinds of things, called "spirituality".

One thing I didn't say much about is the good things in religions. There are some good things in religions. There; I said it (very briefly this time). Now on to the discussion:

No, I was not specifically referring to the Crusades.

But if they claimed to be Christians, then I'd probably regard them as some kind of Christian; but there might be widely varying kinds of Christians or people who call themselves Christians.

"studied scripture"..."how to read it": In the sense you mean it, then maybe it is true that I have not "studied scripture". I have read it, and thought about it, and attended many church services and Sunday/Sabbath-school classes, and I felt I got some benefit out of some good sermons, but I did not adopt a believing nor trusting attitude about the Bible, and some people think that such an attitude is some kind of prerequisite.

The Old Testament is easier to criticize because it is older and so it is more prone to be different from what we think is sensible in our lives today. The New Testament is (probably) comparatively more modern and more like how we are today, so that it is more apt to seem sensible to people today.

There are at least three things I encountered in the New Testament that I consider controversial or perhaps unworthy. One is where Jesus drives the money-changers out of the temple. RSV (Revised Standard Version, in case any reader didn't know) John 2:15 says he made a whip and drove them out of the temple. I think that should be controversial because he resorted to violence. A lesser example is where he appears to make a fig tree wither: I see this at Mark 11:12-14 and a possible explanation at 22-26 (but it doesn't seem very clear about the fig tree). The simplest interpretation, to my mind, is that he was hungry and disappointed, and, in a pique, he cursed the tree, but I think the tree was not at fault at all; verse 13 even says "it was not the season for figs".

Later, Paul writes I Corinthians 11:3-16, which I think is unworthy to be in a holy book. In verses 14-15 he says, "Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her p***e? For her hair is given to her for a covering." I think that's just a muddle, and that a Supreme Being (a good God) would not want any such sex-role rule about praying; I think it's just Paul writing from his own human custom about hair and hats, but wrongly exalting it as a rule about how to pray to God as if it were the only right way.

I Corinthians 12:31b through the end of Chapter 13 (the Love Chapter) is stunningly better, though, and perhaps more than makes up for the earlier part which wasn't so good.

When I comment about the Bible, I am not coming from nowhere. Protestant Christianity was one of the traditions in my family; my father's father's father co-founded a church (a Mennonite one) (that is, a local church in his community). My parents gave almost zero explanation about religion, but we often attended church together (Methodist) when I was small, and so Protestant Christianity was the religious tradition that was given me in my formative years, with the anxiety or learning or guilt or inspiration that goes along with it. So I have a right to it, and a right to express what I think about it.

I anticipated your question about the Old and New Testaments, and so I was thinking about the Old and New Testaments last night, and I think that the Old Testament tells about the world, and the people in the world, and God's relationship with the world and with people, probably mostly with the Jewish (Hebrew) (and Israelite) people. There are a few human heroes in the Old Testament (Joseph, and probably Moses and Joshua and others), but it's not primarily about any human hero. But, in comparison, the New Testament focuses a lot more on one main human hero (Jesus) and _exalts_ that person as a god. In _that_ respect I think the New Testament is _not_ reflective of a true Supreme Being (I don't think a true Supreme Being would give us that exaltation of a person as a god). But in some other respects I think the New Testament is a better guide to us than is the Old Testament; like, for example, the parables, and the Sermon on the Mount; those are things that people today could relate to and learn from, so that they could learn to be better people or behave better toward each other, or understand themselves and each other better. Meanwhile when we read the Old Testament we have to wade through seemingly interminable detailed instructions about burnt offerings (such as in Leviticus), and we shouldn't just skip over them, because we have been told over and over again that the Bible is the Word of God, so (I conclude) if that is sensible then we have to read it all straight through in the order given.

You asked some more questions:

Who God was talking to in the Old Testament: Some of the time, he talked to Noah, and Abram/Abraham, and Moses, and I think a few others (in the books of Joshua and Judges, etc.). And we might say God was talking to the Hebrews and Israelites. I don't find that fact particularly interesting nor worthy, but it does seem how the story goes.

Why He gave those instructions -- I'm not sure, but possibly to glorify Himself, or possibly to impart some wisdom to those people. The God of the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, seems to be a human creation: a god made in Mankind's image. The god has human attributes like jealousy or anger and is interested in conquest by power; and to me those appear as a reflection of human attributes more than a reflection of some Supreme Being's attributes.

I know there are various covenants in the Bible but I could not reliably tell you exactly what they all are. (I did read it all at least once, but I don't remember all of those parts in detail.) I think one of them was God saying that he'll never destroy the world by Flood again. Well, if so, what are we to do with that knowledge? Maybe God will destroy the world by some other method sometime.

People have said that God is about love. As for me I've understood more about love from experiencing it in my parents and later between myself and my children.

Concordances: At one time I really wanted one, and one of these several old Bibles in the house may even have one, but by now I just look up things online. It's really easy to look up Bible things online, so that I don't feel the need for a printed Concordance anymore. I think maybe my kids took my NIV's (New International Version), so now when the Bible comes up in discussion I often look in an RSV; I have 2 copies of that, one from my father's father and the other from my mother's brother who wrote notes in it, including a complaint about Ecclesiastes 5:9 which apparently didn't survive intact from a t***slation from the King James Version, or something like that. (He tended to write notes in many of his books.)

You even say, "Can you even answer my questions??" (which is phrased as yet another question). It looks to me like I've answered two of them well enough, and I've made an honest attempt to answer the other three also.

I agree.

RSV (Revised Standard Version):

H**e speech or incitement to violence:

In Judges 2:2 "and you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall break down their altars."

Unfairness to innocent people:

Deut 23:1 "He whose testicles are crushed or whose male member is cut off shall not enter the assembly of the Lord. 2 No bastard shall enter the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the Lord. 3 No Ammonite ... [etc.]

Taking other people's land, and taking other people:

Deut 20:10 "When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. 11 And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. 12 But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; 13 and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand you shall put all its males to the sword, 14 but the home and the little ones, the cattle, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourselves... 15 Thus you shall do to all the cities which are very far from you ... 16 But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, 17 but you shall utterly destroy them... as the Lord your God has commanded;"

Refusal to forgive, refusal to dwell in peace, refusal to acquire land by fair trade:

Gen 34:8 "...'The soul of my son Shechem longs for your daughter; I pray you, give her to him in marriage. ... 10 You shall dwell with us; and the land shall be open to you; ... get property in it.' 11 Shechem [the son] also said to her father and to her brothers, ' Let me find favor in your eyes, and wh**ever you say to me I will give. ... only give me the maiden to be my wife.'

13 "The sons of Jacob answered Chechen and his father Hamor deceitfully, because he had defiled their sister Dinah. ... '... every male of you be circumcised. ...'

20 "So Hamor and his son Shechem came to the gate of their city and spoke to the men of their city, saying, 21 'These men are friendly with us; let them dwell in the land and trade in it ... to become one people ... 24... and every male was circumcised ...

25 "On the third day, when they were sore, two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brothers, took their swords and came upon the city unawares, and k**led all the males. 26 They slew Hamor and his son Shechem with the sword ... and plundered the city, because their sister had been defiled ... 28 they took ..all their little ones and their wives ... they captured and made [them] their prey."

What did they do to those wives? What sort of "prey" were they, to these brothers? Were these wives innocent?

Joshua 6:17 "And the city and all that is within it shall be dev**ed to the Lord for destruction; only Rahab the harlot [harlot!? Oh, but this one's on _our_ side, _this_ time] and all who are with her in her house shall live... 21 Then they utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, ... with the edge of the sword." [Still celebrated today in Christian Sunday schools.]

8:24 ... Israel ... slaughter[ed] all the inhabitants of Ai ...

Gen 12:7 "Then the Lord appeared to Abram, and said, 'To your descendants I will give this land.'..." [How? What would be the method of a Supreme Being?]

Here's some more deceit:

Gen 13:13 [Aptly numbered, _I_ think] "Say you are my sister ..."

18 "... 'Why did you not tell me that she was your wife? 19 Why did you say, "She is my sister," so that I took her for my wife? ..."

Many centuries later a Jewish person suggested to me that maybe the Israelites should have k**led off _all_ those other people when they had the chance. Where would he get an idea like that, or an attitude like that about those other people? It probably derived from that part of the Bible that Christians call the Old Testament. Christians include it in their holy book which they insist is "the Word of God". And now the same idea plays out in Israel today; they pretend that the people who were already living there (before 1948) either didn't exist or didn't count as people the way Jewish people count as people. And a significant portion of the Jewish people (with the aid of a significant portion of the Christian people) still, millennia after the time of the Book of Genesis and the time of Joshua, acquire land by force and trickery, although they could have instead lived in peace among their neighbors and bought land like most people do.

And the Christians themselves, upon entering into the Americas a few hundred years ago, could have lived in peace among their neighbors, but instead, when they had the chance, treated the natives badly and arrogantly assumed all for themselves. The Bible doesn't tell them not to. The Bible gives them the example of Abraham's deceit toward the Egyptians and the Book of Joshua as an example of how to acquire land.

Gen 26:7 "When the men of the place asked him [Isaac, this time] about his wife, he said, 'She is my sister';... 9 [after a long time] ... Abimelech [king of the Philistines] called Isaac, and said, 'Behold, she is your wife; how then could you say, "She is my sister"?' ... [and] Abimilech [also] said, 'What is this you have done to us? One of the people might easily have lain with your wife, and you would have brought guilt upon us.'"

That was Isaac doing the same thing his father Abraham had done. Examples matter! Like father, like son. And history matters, too.

Here is one of the sources of the violence that Christians have done in the world: it is that their holy book gives them some bad examples to follow. (And taking the Bible literally doesn't alleviate the problem, either; rather, one has to use quite a stretch of the imagination, in interpretation, to make all of the Bible into a _good_ Word of God.)

Thanks.

No apology needed. I may have been a little too obnoxious in my analysis anyway.

Thank you for the article. From it, I count one or two alleged rapes by one minor against one or two minors, where the alleged perpetrator has been described as "g****r fluid", male, and wearing a skirt.

Most sexual violence happens even when there aren't any t***ssexuals involved. So it may still be true that t***ssexuals commit less sexual violence than do people who are not t***ssexuals.

Maybe there will be a conviction, and we'll be allowed to see it (though we probably won't be, as they're minors), and maybe we'll all accept the conviction as valid.

The boy _could_ have done the same thing, masquerading as a female, even if he weren't "g****r fluid". Some people (like, maybe, that boy) are willing to use anything, such as a t*********r bathroom policy, as an excuse to do wh**ever they want to do anyway.

For me the bottom line about it, at this point, is that sexual violence allegedly occurred (and I suppose it probably really did occur as alleged). I don't much care whether it was a t*********r person who did (or allegedly did) it. The act would be significant regardless of who did it or what kind of person did it.

As for bathrooms, I've noticed some new signs on some bathroom doors, depicting that anyone, even "g****r fluid" or "wh**ever g****r" people are allowed to use those bathrooms. So basically _anyone_ is allowed to use those bathrooms; they are not segregated by sex; but inside of them, maybe there are stalls that give privacy. I like the bathrooms that are just single-occupancy; but I realize it might be expensive to have a lot of those. The least expensive would be communal bathrooms that are not segregated at all. Does going into a public bathroom heighten the risk of sexual violence, beyond what risk there is in other normal settings? Maybe, because what happens inside is typically more concealed from public view, depending on the architecture. Should we _not_ have areas which are concealed from public view?

I don't really have a solid opinion about the t*********r bathroom policies. I can see that a weaker sex ("female") might deserve a special bathroom where a stronger sex (male or "not female") aren't allowed to go (but how does one ensure they don't go in there anyway?) I notice that females aren't all weaker and males aren't all stronger. The most solid solution to prevent bathroom violence, it seems to me, is to have single-occupancy bathrooms with locks and architecture sufficient to keep any extra comers out. Another possibility would be to have communal bathrooms where _everybody_ is allowed in, but having some kind of monitoring system, either a person or cameras, in there, monitoring what goes on inside.

What I think is that violence of any kind can be done by anyone with the strength and will to do it, and that t***ssexuals probably do less violence (including less sexual violence) than other people do, and that all people deserve accommodation such as to be able to relieve themselves in some bathroom accommodation, and t***ssexuals are no less deserving than others, of that. And when violence _does_ occur, it should be prosecuted according to the act itself, not according to who did it to whom or wh**ever kind of people they are.

I found the meanings in your opening line somehow difficult to parse (although with repeated reading it has begun to seem more clear), such that, at first, I was not sure what your opening line meant. It was: "I think if more t***s thought as you point out here they wouldn’t be so discouraged on their “ thoughts “ of what they are or not..". I think you are saying:

that some (or did you mean "all"?) t***ssexuals _are_ discouraged about their own thought processes about what they are,

but

that, contrastingly, t***ssexuals as _I_ describe them are not necessarily much discouraged about their own thought processes about what they are.

There's another interesting thing about t***ssexuals in society: We've lately (here in this thread) been talking about whether, or how much, t***ssexuals harm other people. But, lately (here in this thread) we haven't been talking about whether, or how much, other people harm t***ssexuals.

And yet, it seems to me quite likely that other people do harm t***ssexuals much more than t***ssexuals harm other people. That's because those other people are intolerant about t***ssexuality and about whomever they think represents it.

Lately such intolerance (about t***ssexuality or any relatively nontraditional g****rs, and about black people, and about Asian people, and about women, and about pretty much anybody who might be seen as "different" from one's own group) has increasingly led to violence, in this country, particularly, I think, since about five years ago.

I say, "violence" is "a problem".

If we want less violence, then, on just what should we be focussing?

"...(CKD)...at my age it's expected." You might agree with some of what Barbara Ehrenreich has written about illness. When she was 73 she wrote that she could die and no excuse was needed, because she was of an age where it was respectable to die (I'm paraphrasing very freely.). (I saw that in an article about her a few years ago.) In her book "Brightsided" she appears skeptical of the medical profession or skeptical of how it gets discussed (or not) with patients with very serious diseases. From my reading, I like Barbara Ehrenreich a lot.

I'm not in a position to discuss your specific illness, or wh**ever to do or not do about it, on which I defer to yourself as an authority. About illnesses and cures more generally, though, I say (in my usual philosophical way, without specific authority) that one of the natural remedies might be an application of brains to figure out cures using technology which was also thought up by brains. And if God creates natural cures, maybe he created our brains as a tool that could devise cures, and that's natural and part of nature.

In other words, in my view, there are no sharp dividing lines among nature, God, and science, and I might even go so far as to say they're all the same thing.

But how people _talk_ about them varies a lot, and is not all the same thing at all.

lindajoy wrote to DASHY: "Try again, it’ll come to ya… "

Upon reading this exchange between DASHY and lindajoy which doesn't seem to be going anywhere, I went back to parse the "opening paragraph" or "sentence":

I think it's this one:

"Political ideology been thinking about that after reading this and wanted to ask if any validity to it from your perspective..??.."

I interpret it as:

{ [Consider] [the] political ideolog[y][ies]. [I have] been thinking about that after reading this and wanted to ask [whether there's] any validity to it [that political ideology], [as considered] from your [Canuckus's] perspective? }

I think lindajoy is referring to a political ideology of the ruling group in mainland China, as it relates to v******tion or to C***d precautions generally.

It's just a question (I mean, it was obviously intended as a question), but it probably serves to help link an earlier antecedent to what follows the question.

A political ideology could have some "validity".

I think it's an intelligible opening line as she wrote it, although maybe a bit annoying because she's aiming for clarity with just Canuckus rather than more generally with the rest of us including DASHY, and she seems to be refusing to be more clear in response to DASHY's request for more clarity.

T***ssexuals may be sane and sensible.

I haven't really talked much with any t***ssexuals. There was one in an adjoining cubicle where I worked and there was one in a high-ranking position where I worked. I did talk and exchange emails very briefly with the latter person. I knew a little _of_ these two people but was not really acquainted with them. The latter one was more highly visible because of his/her position in the organization. I had had a brief conversation with the same person years earlier before the s*x c****e. Some time after the s*x c****e, in the brief email she (previously having been a man) mentioned to me that it's a lot harder to be a woman than it is to be a man. (By the way, I would take that with a grain of salt. I'm not surprised it would be harder for _her_; but I would not generalize that about all men and all women, nor even about most men and most women.)

I would be slow to pass judgment on her sanity (slower than you, I'm pretty sure). (For one thing, she's probably smarter than I am, maybe a _lot_ smarter; and for another thing, "sanity" isn't all it's cracked up to be; and for a third thing, I reserve the right to be non-standard sane: what some other people would call insane.) Anyway, so far as I know she didn't have any sanity problems but just worked the same as anybody else would've in the same position, and this s*x c****e was mainly just something in the non-work, non-job part of her life, of course, since work isn't normally about sex anyway.

Presumably sometimes psychiatrists know things about a person that the person doesn't know about himself/herself. But in my experience (having had some experience of a psychiatrist, and hearing and reading of others' experiences with them), I find that, often, the person who really knows the most, and is the greatest authority, is the self examining the self (and this is sometimes true even when they _do_ have a mental illness).

So, if you claim that another person has a mental illness, or a psychiatrist diagnoses a mental illness, either of you _might_ be right, but if it's only about t***ssexuality, then I think it's more likely that either of you'd be wrong. As for what I think about the matter, I would have to meet the person and form my own opinion; and if they appear functional and not very erratic, then I'd guess that they know more about themselves and their own state of sanity than you or any psychiatrist knows about them. The self has the most first-hand knowledge about what's going on inside the self.

The sex a person is born with is usually taken for granted and most of us don't go so far as to dispute which sex we plan to be. It seems that for most of us, it's not something we'd try to change. But we don't know so much about it that we can automatically judge the matter for others. There might be a lot of important stuff about sex in the mind and the brain. What looks normal to us might be a******l to the person we're looking at. We cannot really know for sure what another person is. We do know that there's a lot more to a person than just what we can see on the outside.

Addendae:

You said "...men using girl's bathrooms; men participating in women's sports, etc.). That is causing harm". Oh that's what you think. As for the bathrooms, I've never heard of even one single incident of a t***ssexual person harming another person in a bathroom; have you? It makes sense that they wouldn't. A t***ssexual wouldn't go through all that trouble to _become_ a t***ssexual just to waste it all on some molestation charge in a public bathroom. And there's plenty of dumb stuff going on in bathrooms that doesn't require t***ssexuality to do it. Maybe t***ssexuals are _less_ likely to harm anyone, especially in a public bathroom when what they _really_ want to do is relieve themselves without being subject to bigotry about being a t***ssexual.

Sports, maybe. Sports are so ****** important, we have to keep all the competition just right -- steroids, maybe, harassing, maybe, age bracketing, maybe, scholastic eligibility for participation in college sports, maybe, t***ssexuality, maybe not. The whole team sports thing was bad enough for me, and that didn't have anything to do with any t***ssexuals being in it, I was just small and not good at those sk**ls. I'd be happy to chuck the whole thing, but I dutifully participated because I was trying to be a worthy "boy" and grow into a worthy "man". I should have had better things to do, like carry water for horses or play in an orchestra if the small school even had one of _those_. T***ssexuality isn't going to spoil much in sports, because it's all pretty messy already. The sports authorities will find a way to regularize participation if the talent is there to bring in money or prestige. Participants could be measured and categorized by size, strength, or even hormone levels.

About that orchestra -- did you know that t***ssexuals in orchestras ... oh, never mind, I'm just kidding about that.

The reason I didn't name Freud is that I regarded him as a psychologist rather than a psychiatrist. But maybe he was both. I've been told, years ago, that psychiatrists can prescribe drugs and psychologists cannot. But that was after the time of Freud. As for me, I'm mostly skeptical of psychiatry as drug treatments, but I'm optimistic about at least one kind of cognitive behavioral therapy (described earlier in this thread) which does not use drugs.