Thursday, June 14, 2018

Religion and Deity in Statement Analysis

Religion is classified as ideology in Statement Analysis. It is a dispassionate view that is necessary in criminal analysis. It is not an insult to people of faith. 

Every one has a "religion"; that is, a final arbitration of right and wrong. It is within human nature and is without exception.  

We identify the ideology whether it be a known and recognized religion or a lesser known or classified ideology. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Statism, and so on, are all "religions" for the purpose of analysis. 

There is no such thing as "atheism", for the atheist has a final point of arbitration of what is right and what is wrong. 

In Statement Analysis, it is vital to learn this demarcation origin. 

For some, it points to self, whereas for others, it can point to those they look up to and quote, including actors, actresses or politicians. Still others will look to science as its "god", while many still claim "agnosticism." Here, we still seek motive. 

For those in social sciences, this is inescapable for prognosis moving forward. Does the subject believe he or she is a helpless victim of circumstance?  Or, is there a sense of control over personal behavior?

In some "religious" setting, I noted recently that a change of language is used. First, the lesson, and then the recent "change of language" viewed. 

Principle: In Statement Analysis, a change of language means a change of reality. 

The analyst should now look to see, in the statement, what in reality has changed for the subject's verbalized perception of reality. 

"I saw the jewelry in the case.  The last time I saw the necklace, um, it was when I had my girlfriend try it on. I then I just left the store. I had to go to work."

Change of language: The "jewelry" changed into the "necklace.

The analyst now looks to see what reality changed as reflected in the change of language.  In the case, it was "jewelry" but on his girlfriend  it was a "necklace."  In fact, it was when he "had" his girlfriend try it on, this event had the power to change the language. It is indicative of theft. 

Did you notice "the good guy" principle here?  He "left" and he "left because" he had to go to "work." 

Since he has a job, he could not have stolen the necklace...right?

This is insight into his personality and manipulation.  It is often associated with substance abuse. 

Substance Abuse v Substance Use?

In a non-traditionally recognized "religious" setting, (according to Statement Analysis) I noted that the government instructor had changed "substance abuse" into "substance use" and that he claimed: 

"We are criminalizing the behavior of people with substance use disorder."

The context for this statement in a seminar was drug crimes such as breaking into a home, or violently attacking someone to take their money to pay for drugs. 

The thinking is:  change the language and reality will change. It is similar to putting responsibility of violence on inanimate objects rather than humans. This is their "religious view" and they have their "zealous" or "extremest" who are intent on removing personal responsibility. 

Will the change of language be successful in changing human nature?

Is "theft" no longer "theft" if it involves, not substance "abuse" but substance "use"?

In Employment Analysis, substance abuse is discerned and those in recovery are often plain to spot:  they do not state that they take personal responsibility for their actions; they take responsibility for their actions. 

It is crucial to their ongoing recovery.  They know and live by:  deception destroys. 

To AA and NA, if they are passive victims of circumstance, there is no hope.  If they can take personal responsibility for their own actions, they have hope.  

As illogical the statement shifting responsibility and changing language may appear, it is likely to be defended with religious zealotry including the predictable condemnation of those who refuse to agree.

Did you note who is  being blamed in the sentence?

"We are criminalizing the behavior of people with substance use disorder."

Can you see how this, if accepted,  will lead  politicians to portray police as the "bad guys" for arresting criminals?  Should they arrest the "substance" instead?

This "principle passion" is the "god" for our subject. We sometimes seek the identity of this "god" in the interview process with questions beginning with, "why?"

This is due to learning source and motive in crime and criminal behavior. 

Public Assault Investigation 

Without provocation or even an exchange of words, a man wearing a hood and a black mask assaulted a young woman.  He did not rob her, nor did he attempt to rob her or sexually assault her.  He punched her only. 


This is our first question and we are going to need to identify the ideology behind it: 

Why is it wrong to assault a stranger who has had no interaction with the subject?

Think of the phrase of the fascist organization  ANTIFA:  "punch a Nazi."

In watching videos of such assaults, a pattern emerged. 

The ANTIFA does not know what "fascism" is. 

They fail to identify or refuse to identify, who is a "Nazi."

They fail to define what a "Nazi" is. 

They classify anyone who does not agree with their unstated demands as a "Nazi."

They do not permit speech, moving the ideological classification to a new level:  anyone who does not join them is a "Nazi" or a national socialist. 

  This is very important to understand. 

Instead, there is a faux moral supremacy that not only justifies anonymous violence; it calls for it. 

Historically, faux moral superiority ends in bloodshed.  It leads extremist personalities to act upon their most base human instincts and gives it a moral justification. 

If you want to know the crime, know the criminal.  The psycho-linguistic profile is essential to the investigator and crucial to the interview. 

Before anyone is labeled an "extremist" we must first identify the ideology. 

We then look at the action and asked,

"Is this action (behavior) in accordance to the expressed ideology or is it in opposition to the ideology?"

We also look at the "peripheral" of religion; that is, how it impacts culture, in specifics:  crime.  Is the criminal behavior a culturally evident consequence?

A positive example:  "Protestant Work Ethic" is an expression from the Reformation that taught "all work that is legal and ethical is holy."  We recognize, historically, the impact upon western civilization and in particular, 19th and early 20th Century immigration to the United States.  Opportunity was taken by work ethic to advanced heights of success. 

We then look at one who refuses to work.  Is he consistent with this ideology or is he opposing it?

A negative example: 

The rape epidemic sweeping multiculturalism:  is this consistent or inconsistent with the Koranic teaching on women and rape? When politicians respond with "sex lessons" and "teaching that rape is wrong", do they understand the religious and generational impact? 

A neutral example: 

An atheist is going to buy a house. He wants to live in a safe neighborhood where he can have his kids educated well. 

This investment is significant and for most, the largest investment of a lifetime. 

In other words:  it matters.  

Playing the odds: should he buy the house next door to the family that believes "thou shalt not steal" because in the afterlife, there will be a reckoning although the purchaser, himself, does not believe in any afterlife?

Or, should he buy the house next door to a family that believes in supremacist ideology:  if 'you have more than me, you must have cheated me because I am your superior and I deserve...'? Would this be a wise investment? 

Still, should he buy the house next door to the Statist family, who believes the government (the "state") is responsible for their survival?  This family lives on government assistance. If he asks himself, "Will they bring down my property value?" he must now question if he is "bad" for thinking this. 

"Statism" is incessantly changing. What is "virtue" yesterday, is "sin" today.  What is "sin" today, may be "virtue" tomorrow.  

We view ideology, not "persons" in this context. For example, studies show that most Muslims do not want Jihad. Anecdotally, I have found this to be so. 

Yet, when you meet the claim that says something like  "Jihad is not holy war it is personal struggle like one who is eating too much chocolate"; twisting of meaning, you are looking at danger due to the inherent deception.  

The betrayal (rather than denunciation) of the ideology focuses the investigation by heightening the concern for terrorism, including the financing or collateral support of it.  

Political Correctness in Language 

Statement Analysis gets to the truth and the truth is not partisan, and sometimes it is directly oppositional to what politicians tell us. 

This is where what many (not all) people say in public differs from what they say in private.  Yet when one impresses upon others, what one, himself, will not submit to, we are seeing active deception. This should always cause investigators to dig deeper. 

Verbalized Deity Witness versus The Psychological Wall of Truth 

"I swear to God, I did not steal from my neighbor."

An intuitive cop will think to himself or herself, "Ok, so who did you actually steal from?" 

Where (context) we see the need to reference Deity, in any form, as a testimony or buttress of words, we are looking at a deceptive person. 

In the above example, what has this subject revealed?

The subject gave an unreliable denial and has revealed he is in need of divine witness because he normally practices deception and contextually, theft must be explored.  

He may or may not have stolen now, but he has likely stolen before (context).  In some cases like this, investigators have found that he did not steal, but has a history of theft. 

"I swear to God" is to take an oath, where no such oath is required, such as in court or other formal matters. 

It gets a bit trickier with Statism religion because the language is not overtly "religious." Yet, it is evident in the wording and it is to represent principle.  An example of such is the condemnation of sexual assault where the subject is competing with others' language (or even his own) to be "the most outraged" or "the most offended."

This is the same principle:  "I am a good person.  I am a great person.  I have high morals. I have the highest morals..." and at some point, the public recognizes the concealing of guilt. Law Enforcement do very well in this intuitively.  They see the "need to persuade" without overt religious language and recognize it as the "religious person" acting "very religious" in the language. 

Financial Fraud Investigation 

In a recent investigation, an investigator described to me the distinct religious activity this company ownership follows. 

Owners have staff meet for inspiration before each day and has religious slogans on the walls. This is overt and readily spotted. It is neither wrong nor right, good nor bad. It simply is. 

I asked the investigator to identify the ideology for me. 

I next asked the investigator if the company openly violates or has  changed the ideology to suit itself?

This is not doctrinal differences; but an open declaration of deception: representing an ideology while being above or against the ideology. It is not a minor difference or disagreement. 

The investigator affirmed the ideology is opposed in a crucial part of the business.   

I said "you are likely looking at projective guilt which suggests, in this context, financial exploitation.  Keep searching." 

I explained that the subject is deceptive about ideology which means the ideology is subordinated to the owners.  It is not their 'god' to guide them, but a tool of use. 

This is where some may be offended but deception exists for a reason. It is not error, accident or happenstance. 

I often say, "it would be honest to simply abandon the ideology, pick out a new ideology..." but this misses the point. The subject seeks personal advantage by exploiting the ideology.  Criminal investigators in training soon "learn" what they've always thought: 

Those who use deception for personal gain do not have a known stopping point. 

The investigation into financial misconduct is ongoing. Recently, the investigator called to report: 

They have found approximately $250,000 of fraud...thus far. 

This is not error, accounting mistakes, or unintentional failure. It is the deceptive use of ideology which is a psychological mindset of religion: "I serve myself. One for you, one for me.  One for you, two for me..." and it escalates. In the ideological sense, it is a religious "sacrifice" or "offering" to its "god." 

The Good Guy Principle 

The need to portray oneself as "the good guy" suggests a need, which may come from guilt. 

Counseling sessions, criminal statements, screening in methadone clinics, etc,  have indicated women who put their babies through withdrawal at birth, or who have been formally investigated for child abuse, refer to themselves as "a great mother." 

One mother had sold drugs, had child pornography, bestiality, homemade porn, gave an example of being a good mother when she talked about stealing acid from her job and burning a tattoo into her son's shoulder. The context was failing a polygraph over her missing daughter who was later found murdered.

 Regarding her treatment of her teen son she said, "I am a great mother!" 

The owners use deity to cloak the guilt of fraud. Once they were identified as having corrupted their own ideology, it moves to exploitation of ideology:  using it to mask guilt and to exploit others. Here, it is against "thou shalt not steal" which they have projected guilt over. 

Thus far. 

In analysis, always flag any reference to Divinity.  

Next, note its context. 

If the subject has the need to use a reference to Divinity, in any form, the subject practices deception, even if here, in the statement, the subject is telling the truth. The subject is revealing a need for further persuasion, rather than relying upon the truth.

Criminals are drawn to religion and the motive is important. 

Some genuinely seek to change and amend their lives. The challenge for religious people is to use discernment patiently, carefully and mercifully.  It is easy to mistake a hurting person for an exploiter, just as it is to see an exploiter as a genuine soul seeking peace. 

Some consider religious people to be particularly naive and a "soft target" for crime, including pedophilia. 

Analysts sometimes volunteer their skills to religious organizations to help discernment as pedophiles, for example, will use language that reveal their priority.  This advanced form of analysis is used mostly in Employment Analysis and psycho-linguistic profiling. 

Some consider religious people to be the most easy to exploit. The Facebook posts of this Go Fund Me thief were filled with religious references as she was exploiting people of good will. 

What were the references of Deity used for?  "Ingratiation Principle" readily highlighted and applied: 

a.  "I am a good person.  It is okay to give me money."
b.  "if you give money to me, you are a good person."
c.  "If you are against racism, you should give me money."
d.  "if you do not give me money, you are a racist."

Comments were thus used, there and in news articles to do the one thing deception must have to exist:  

Silence scrutiny. "The issue is "settled", therefore, there will be no more questions.  Move on." 

People laugh today that the teen of this home wrote, "we gon be rich!" on Facebook, just as people laughed at Charlie Rogers' "Watch me as I set the world on fire!" post.  Rogers set her home on fire and claimed 3 men brutalized her as "homophobic sadists." 

Yet in many cases, analysts find that the guilty person will telegraph his own intention of criminal behavior including when seeking employment. 

Some seek cover for their own guilt.  Some will become harsh in judgment of others, due to their own internal guilt. Often in the name of "I refuse to compromise", they use a license to hurt others in order to maintain a false facade about them. 

Analysts have become adept at predicting scandal by following Twitter accounts of celebrities and politicians. The more unnecessary condemnation they address, the more scrutiny they invite due to the possibility of projective guilt.  Many of them do not disappoint. 

There are elements within a statement that may have appropriate references to Deity.  

The analyst should, by routine, flag every one for examination. 

When the reference is used to persuade or even to testify, deception is likely present. It is to indicate a habitually deceptive person in particular and current need of credibility. 

For training in Deception Detection visit

The Complete Statement Analysis Course is done in your home. 

Ongoing Monthly Training 

We hold live "invitation only" trainings on the last full week of each month. 

These are trainings in which those enrolled or who have successfully finished the Complete Statement Analysis Course.

Here, we work in team analysis on live cases, putting our training to consequential results. It is to obtain justice while analysts learn from each other. 

The CEUs are approved for license renewals for professionals in the Seminar setting as well. 

Due to demand, we will be offering new dates for this additional and ongoing live training. 

Please note: currently only law enforcement, military intelligence, and licensed professionals are eligible for the Tuesday confidential  live monthly trainings. Continuing Educational Units (CEUs) for professional licenses is approved by the University of Maine. 


Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

FBI agent Peter Strzok texted a fellow bureau official in August 2016 that “we’ll stop” Donald Trump from becoming president, the Justice Department inspector general reportedly reveals in his highly anticipated report on the Hillary Clinton email case.

The Washington Post reported that Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report includes an August 2016 text message exchange between Strzok and then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page about Trump’s chance of being elected president.

“[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Page texted Strzok.

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok responded.

Horowitz's review months ago revealed other anti-Trump texts between the two officials, who were romantically involved. The "stop" Trump text goes further, and is likely to fuel claims from the White House that the bureau was working against him.

Republican lawmakers pounced on the new text.

“In Louisiana, we call that bias, we don't call that objective,” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said on Fox News’ “Outnumbered Overtime” on Thursday.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said in a statement the report shows “an alarming and destructive level of animus displayed by top officials at the FBI.”

“Peter Strzok's manifest bias trending toward animus casts a pall on this investigation…His bias impacted his decision making and he assigned to himself the role of stopping the Trump campaign or ending a Trump Presidency,” Gowdy said. “This is not the FBI I know.”

But Bloomberg News, which also reported the new Strzok message, said Horowitz’s report says investigators “did not find documentary or testimonial evidence [in the Clinton case] that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed.”

For more than a year, Horowitz has been reviewing the FBI and DOJ’s actions related to its investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

The report is not expected to address the DOJ and FBI’s actions taken in the Trump-Russia investigation, or relitigate the Clinton case itself. But it will mark the most definitive accounting of the email probe to date, looking at -- among other things -- whether “certain underlying investigative decisions were based on improper considerations.”

The report is set to be released later Thursday. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was seen arriving at the White House, where he was expected to brief Trump on its findings.

The inspector general’s review months ago uncovered a trove of anti-Trump texts from Strzok, who famously called Trump an “idiot” and texted about an “insurance policy” against a Trump presidency.

Strzok was reassigned to the FBI's human resources division. Page has since left the bureau.

A congressional source told Fox News that Page’s text about Trump “not ever going to become president” was produced to Congress, but Strzok’s response that “we’ll stop it” was not.

According to the Associated Press, the Justice Department's watchdog also faults former FBI Director James Comey for breaking with established protocol in his handling of the Clinton email investigation, but it says his decisions before the 2016 elections were not driven by political bias, according to a person familiar with the findings.

The report from the inspector general also criticizes Comey for not keeping his superiors at the Justice Department, including former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, properly informed about his handling of the investigation, said the person, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the report is not yet public.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

LuciaD said...

I know a middle aged man who has used marijuana, heavily and daily since he was a teenager. He thinks it’s the best thing that ever happened to him, when arguably, it is the worst. He told me recently his religion is “Rastafarian “. I almost choked, I wanted to laugh so hard. How self serving is that to justify illegal substance abuse? But that is indeed his “religion”.

Mike Dammann said...

"Can you see how this, if accepted, will lead politicians to portray police as the "bad guys" for arresting criminals? Should they arrest the "substance" instead?"

This brings me to yet another point: Labeling alcoholism or drug abuse as a disease.
It leads to linguistically hiding behind the severity of own actions behind the mask of victim-hood. It can turn
"I stole from my friend after spending my family's budget to go on a 3 day binge" into
"I fell off the wagon".
Or "I have sold some of my work equipment and reported it stolen to do a few lines" into
"I relapsed".
It allows the victimizer an artificial defense clouding actual actions.
In many cases, those not agreeing with the label of disease can also be attacked is ignorant and uncaring.

Anonymous said...

"The thinking is: change the language and reality will change."

I think this is one of the most harmful things to society. It doesn't take long to find an example, especially from a politician. We might as well throw our dictionaries away.

When lesbians get married they often refer to each other as "my wife". "Wife" is a dependent word. It depends on there being a husband. I don't care if women marry each other, that much. I do care how people are so willing to give up meaning in life.

How do we stop the rampant misappropriation of new definitions? Absolutes have vanished, unless it is convenient for them to exist.

Hey Jude said...

Cancer Research UK now advertises for 'anyone with a cervix' to go for a cervical smear test, because to use the word 'woman' might offend transgender men. The majority of female to male transgenders don't go through hysterectomy and reassignment surgery, so still have a cervix. It's wearying that women are now referred to as "anyone with a cervix" rather than as women. It would be more clear If the ads were for 'women and transgender men who have not undergone hysterectomy' - maybe it would be too conflicting for the transgender man for it to be put in such a way as to draw attention to the fact they are biologically women.

And so the diminishing of women as women continues - expectant mothers are to be termed 'pregnant people' and women within the age range for the cervical smear test as 'anyone with a cervix'....logically, where does it all lead? Perhaps they worry that if the ad addresses 'women' that there will be a crush of transgender women queuing for the right to have a test because they feel like they do or should have a cervix... but no-one's that confused.

Maybe it's only to satisfy "inclusiveness" or "non-exclusion", or maybe they think everyone is ignorant of their own anatomy - I don't like that women in general are edited out on account of a tiny minority of people who don't identify with their own biological sex.

The story is here:

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Dependent word lesson:

The word "husband" is a most specific word, of which we have a verb at its root.

A man cannot "husband" apart from physiology.

To do so is either impossible or it is simply to change language to change reality.

When a man says, "I feel like a woman" he must used distancing language to avoid direct deception.

The neuroscience is fascinating, but should be unnecessary in its popular application. We use its basics in Anonymous Author Identification which presupposes that men and women use different language.

When someone wants training, but is subject to political correctness, they are not capable of doing this work. I refer them elsewhere for training.


Anonymous said...

Hyatt refuses to explain his own statements?

Playing the odds: should he buy the house next door to the family that believes "thou shalt not steal" because in the afterlife, there will be a reckoning although the purchaser, himself, does not believe in any afterlife?

Or, should he buy the house next door to a family that believes in supremacist ideology: if 'you have more than me, you must have cheated me because I am your superior and I deserve...'? Would this be a wise investment?


Bill said...

Peter did you hear about Netflix' new sexual harrassment policy? Noone is allowed to look at anyone else for more than 5 seconds! What a crazy snowflake world!!!


LuciaD said...

Political correctness can make even very intelligent people sound like fools.

Hey Jude said...

I find it a psychological assault on women, that a man can call himself a woman, and insist upon such, without finding any need to seek all the surgery relevant to his claim. It's not a full commitment to his belief that he is a she, so it should not be acceptable that he be recognised, or able to self-define as a woman rather than as a transgender woman. It's undermining of the natural dignity and status of women that language should be misapplied or changed on account of a minority, the majority of whom might only be engaged in an extreme role-playing game, as so many choose to retain their 'wrong' anatomy.

I sympathise with the genuinely troubled youngsters who are convinced from earliest years they are in the wrong body, but not with the aggressive non-transitioning men in dresses who don't have much respect for women, whilst claiming themselves to be such. That's real "appropriation" - meanwhile kids are prettily accused of 'cultural appropriation' and find themselves restricted in what style of hair or clothes they can wear, the wrong choice being deemed racist. Probably the same people accusing the kids see no contradiction in slating anyone who doesn't acknowledge the right of a man to be recognised as a woman, whilst remaining a physically intact man, or of a woman to be recognised as a man, while she opts to keep her female anatomy and to bear children. It's so messed up....sorry to rant... I think I might be sermonising by now. :)

I looked up the etymology of 'woman' which is 'wife-man' - I had previously thought it was 'womb' - and I found this article interesting:


You are good teacher, Peter - this blog has saved me from some PC tendencies, for which I am thankful - it is all too easy to be drawn down that road.

LuciaD said...

Hey Jude, do you have an opinion on transgendered youth in athletic competition? I.E. Trans high school "girls" competing against biological girls in track or whatever sports?

Statement Analysis Blog said...

There is no such ability to cross from one gender to the other.

This is (now) an essential assertion in analysis.

Mutialtion, surgery, aesthetics, psychology etc, mask, but do not cause nor create.


Statement Analysis Blog said...

1. It is a hypothetical. That’s what hypotheticals do: presume to know.

“If Bob has two apples and gives Sally one” is not met with “HOW DO WE KNOW BOB DIDN’T STEAL THEM APPLES FROM UNDOCUMENTED ALIEN CHILDREN?”

2. The all caps indicates increase of emotion or “yelling” at someone. This increase is marveleiusly highlighted by VDH in his “angry letters” scoring.

3. If you have a genuine question to help learn Statement Analysis, you can email me rather than post anonymously.

4. I’m sorry the 2016 election upsets you still. Many who don’t like Trump are celebrating low black unemployment, robust economic growth, strong military, renewed support for rule of law, Iran Deal, North Korea first steps, respect for law enforcement and a president staying out of our private lives.


Statement Analysis Blog said...

Besides the absurdity, it’ll make people stare.


Statement Analysis Blog said...

Thank you but it is not so much me but your desire for truth.

Neuroscience 101: at 7 weeks the unborn look identical
1 week later, the oxytocin makes the woman. She is marvelously and breathtakingly unique.

We discern her from her words.

If something believes otherwise, they can’t do this work.

Confused children most always reconcile naturally IF nothing is done.

Today, confusion can’t be treated lest the professional wants to lose his or her license.

They now “treat” by taking confused boys clothes shopping in girls’ departments.


They get paid for it.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Interesting quote:

You may “identify” as a bird, eat bird food, and wear feathers. But if you jump off a cliff chirping and flopping those feathers, Mother Nature’s laws regarding mass and motion will punish you. Nor will she let you make salt out of two sodium atoms, regardless of your commitment.

Elaina said...

I believe a lot of gendered confused were sexually abused & that is why they dont feel comfortable in their bodies. It is probably a phenomenon loosely related to eating disorder where the person feels "fat" even though they are emaciated. Trauma could cause gender dysmorphia.

Elaina said...

Its the same as telling an anorexic person "Thats right you are fat, bc you feel fat (while the anorexic is actually emaciated).

Hey Jude said...

I know why my second comment was deleted, I think. It was because my proposed solution -which was to drop the addition of ‘woman’ or ‘man’ and just say ‘transgender’ - is a cop-out, and a concession to the lie of transgenderism as an achievable process. Also, I think previously here, I have used the term, ‘gender-confused’, which would have been the less idle one to propose, seeing that I am aware of it as a truthful alternative.

To say ‘transgender’ is as if to concur that it is a recognised and achievable status, and therefore to say it is to be part of the problem.

Great quote, very droll: - "Nor will she let you make salt out of two sodium atoms, regardless of your commitment."

Statement Analysis Blog said...

I don’t think you were deleted but I’ll check. The anonymous poster who changed to ID was spammed so if yours or anyone posted a response it would have been deleted.

The new ID didn’t have entire success as it caught some of hers but not all

Also for all: she’s used your IDs to bait you which can sometimes lead to accidental deletion of yours.

Hang in there.

She’s almost done. I know some are kind hearted and well meaning in response but it makes deletion more challenging.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

In the name of compassion we have become cruel.

Hey Jude said...

Peter - no need, it didn't add anything - it would be fair enough if it was deleted.

Hey Jude said...

Lucia - yes, I think it has potential to spoil it for everyone - hollow victories for those who might have an unfair advantage, and upset for those who believe they should and could have won if they didn't have someone on the team who has an unfair advantage - whether that is actually so or not. I don't think it's clearly established if there is always a competitive advantage, but we know gender specific teams exist because girls and boys compete at different levels - generally boys are stronger, and have longer limbs than girls. When you have a young teenager who lives as, appears of, and believes themselves to be the opposite sex, it must be terribly hard to say no, as they won't fit socially into the team they should according to their actual gender. I don't know what I would do, if I had to make such a decision - I maybe would think to find a place in a team which rarely won, anyway, or in a year or two lower age group to set off any advantage, just to keep the peace...though it probably wouldn't; the parents would complain and claim discrimination, the local press would be involved, and I would ponder on the absurdities of life. I'd maybe ask if they thought to take up cheerleading, dancing, or ice-skating, where it may not be such a problem - but I don't know, or why that should be of interest to him or her just because it would be more convenient to me.


"...some think the simplest way to deal with the complexities of gender in sport is to eradicate male and female divisions altogether in athletics."


^. That would be a sad turn out.

Hey Jude said...

Having read the article I posted, I see that biologically male athletes competing in some women's competitions no longer need to have undergone genital surgery in order to be eligible to compete. Women don't have penises. Those rules are not very sporting, or mindful towards women.

LuciaD said...

I agree with you. A biological male will have more muscle than a biological female. An inherent advantage in most sports. Not fair competition.

Anonymous said...

Is there a difference between identifying "as" someone or something and identifying "with" someone or something? I think "as" means a new creation and "with" means to empathize. Please set me straight, if there is even a difference.

Mike Dammann said...

My second post has been deleted as well.

As for the "transgender" arguments:
"Transgender" is not a gender. Or even a condition. It is the symptom of a choice made. We are not responsible for other people's choices. But medical professionals are responsible in terms of aiding someone's choice whether or not their own contribution will be helpful or harmful towards the individual.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Apologizes for deleted posts: A number were likely caught in the spamming out process.

If you hit "reply" to a comment marked as "spam" it will be caught in the layer.