This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This assumption probably won’t count as anything new, but it seems to me that the overall leftist strategy in the current culture war over (in essence) MtF transsexual boxers in the Olympic games hinges entirely on the following unstated assumptions: a) TV viewers generally aren’t that interested in women’s sports in the first place b) the sort of sports where these particular MtF athletes seem to predominantly want to excel at are generally seen as low-status in the eyes of suburban middle-class Blue Tribe normies c) the relative number of cissexual women genuinely interested in such sports is insignificantly low.
The mainstream media is basically taking the tack of "how dare anyone question these women?". Which, as you say, only works because the percentage of the audience interested in women's boxing is epsilon. If they cared -- especially if they had a favorite who was not in question -- they'd totally understand questioning those women. I think this is mostly for domestic (US) political consumption, to throw shade at people on the right.
And these particular women are not, as far as I know, even suspected of being transsexual. They are suspected of being intersex. Transgender activists often attempt to use intersex disorders and persons to blur the gender binary or support their claims of the possibility of transition, but they're wrong to do so.
In the literal sense of the word, they aren't trans. But that doesn't really matter. In a practical sense, in the context of the culture war, they are.
No, they're not, and whether they are or they're not is in fact a point of contention in the culture war; trans activists try to imply that trans people are much like intersex people. In fact, the terms AFAB and AMAB were appropriated (if you will) from terms used for intersex people.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I feel like I’m seeing a lot of examples of news stories inciting ideological clashes lately where the news story in question is an off-case or even completely irrelevant. A non-trans athlete triggers a big kerfuffle about trans athletes. A spree killing by a Christian (second-generation) British national triggers riots about Muslim immigration.
If we’re speaking of strategy, it seems like a bad one not to pick more central examples to get exercised over.
I don't know/care if anyone made this point already in the media, but it's relevant to mention that Rwanda was never a British colony, so any argument that this is all somehow indirect blowback from British colonialism has no basis.
More options
Context Copy link
People don't trust the media to be honest about certain things, so they jump to what seems like the likeliest reason the media would lie. "Random stabbings of people who couldn't possibly be involved in gang beef was probably done by a Muslim" isn't a bad bet, neither is "person who looks like a man and is accused of being one is trans" (though this one is arguably less excusable because there was information available ahead of time. I think lots of TRA arguments have made it hard, as intended, for normies to separate out intersex and trans)
Not to get all Hananian about it but riots and randos on Twitter are basically uncontrollable phenomena driven by impulsivity anyway, can't expect much strategy in general.
As far as I know, knife crime of any sort in the UK is disproportionately committed by non-Muslim black youths, but that's such a pure hatefact that not even the local "extreme right-wing" wants to mention it.
I ran into the number once and it actually is a bit uncanny how the disproportion almost matches a certain racist hatestat about the US murder rate. I can see why people wouldn't want to bring it up. An absurdity but there you go.
But this was clearly not a "normal" stabbing, nor some sort of casualty of spillover gang violence like a drive-by.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well, at least the anti-media people are finally getting smarter (something that Orwell notably did not predict).
Every lie, including by omission, incurs a debt to the truth, and the media (and by extension the faction the media supports) is very indebted. And now that everyone knows they're unreliable we've gone back to the time-tested heuristic: you believe that which is in your class interest to believe.
It would be justice if those whose shops were looted seized media property in turn (those [likely-to-be] immigrants who just lost their employment along with the owners). I don't think it's come to that yet, though.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Imane Khalid is not trans. There’s a reasonable- but not ironclad- argument that she has an intersex condition which should preclude her from competing in the women’s division, but she just objectively isn’t trans.
The problem is, if your argument starts with "no, she's not a man, although she isn't exactly a woman either", chances are you'll instantly lose the normies.
"A rare birth defect has caused her to have both female genitalia and functional but undescended testicles" should cover it for most people?
It should. But it still leaves you having to explain why you let that individual compete in female boxing, in the Olympics.
"Normies don't think people who have ever had any sort of testicles should be in female events" is indeed something that the IOC ought to explain in light of their policies.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Something just finally clicked for me.
For years, and years and years and years, the bailey of trans was defended with the motte of intersex. Arguments about how it occurs in nature played loose and fast with definitions of trans or intersex. Arguments about how it's genetic or something you were born with involved similar free association between trans or intersex. For 10 years the steelman for trans acceptance and "the science" involved quoting studies about intersex people.
And now, suddenly, when the wrong people are conflating the two in a bad way "Woah woah woah, she's not trans, she's intersex! There is a huge fucking difference, can't you tell? idiot."
And I almost fell for it. It's so easy to get caught up in current year and that tepid thread of logic from all of only a few years ago that brought us to this point get's washed away.
This is silly, it's important to actually get the facts straight and one shouldn't respond as if attacked when corrected on the facts. The question of how to categorize people with rare genetic defects and whether to rule them in or out of sports competitions are entirely different to the same questions applied to natal males or natal females who identify with the opposite sex and undergo treatment to approximate as much as possible the body and experience of the opposite sex. One can come to the same conclusion on both, and I broadly do, but we must actually keep our thinking straight here.
The problem is it's the very same people (broadly) who spent the last 10 years obfuscating and playing loose and fast with the trans/intersex distinction that are now rolling in and yelling at people for not understanding the trans/intersex distinction. There was little to no difference between the two when it suited them, now there is all the difference in the world when it suits them. And there are no "facts" about how we morally or intellectually should distinguish between the two, only social convention. Which the narrative controllers have decided is now turning on a dime so that they can continue their monopoly on deciding right and wrong, unburdened by their previous statements or arguments.
More options
Context Copy link
Who has corrected anyone on the facts here? The actual status of the controversial athletes is being deliberately hidden from the public, and the other side is just assuming that these hidden facts are always on their side.
Also please give me a definition of "trans person" that doesn't cover intersex people, before making fun of my "ignorance".
A trans person is a natal male or female that identifies with the opposite sex and seeks to undergo treatment to approximate the experience of the opposite sex as close as possible. An intersex person is someone who is born with a rare but identifiable physical ailment that complicates the standard XX/XY binary options that naturally describe male and female people. I'm very sympathetic to annoyance that the various authorities haven't clarified the situation but as far as I know no one who has looked into it seriously thinks this is a trans person.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The suspicion is that those facts are being weaponized, and that the same people doing the "correcting" would be soft-pedalling them or even being actively misleading if they didn't fit the narrative they wanted to push (and, in fact, have a history of doing just that). You can't (well, okay, shouldn't) make arguments for years on end that rely on conflating "trans" and "intersex" and then get all huffy and indignant when people confuse the two in a way that you don't find politically convenient.
(Generic "you", not necessarily you personally.)
Fighting the facts is just never a good look. When you start out saying something that isn't true you pretty immediately lose the persuadable audience. It's not good strategically and more importantly to me, it's not good epistemics. Keeping these things straight matters.
They weren't doing this though, or at least not the more serious people. Certainly intersex people come up in discussions of exactly where to draw lines on defining what it is to be a man or a woman because they're exactly the kind of edge case bullet people need to bite if they want to rigorously define "woman" and people arguing for expanding the definition will naturally make you bite those bullets. The claim wasn't that trans women and people who were born with a vagina and womb but have an odd genetic disorder are exactly the same thing, just that they're both category errors(or at least the trans advocate will try to claim that trans identification ought to make them a category error, I find this argument dubious).
They're obviously quite different for many reasons, most important to me because intersex is a very objective kind of thing, we can run tests and know what is going on. For this reason we're not at high risk of mistakenly giving someone, especially a kid, inappropriate life altering treatment. We have no risk of a social contagion of intersex diagnoses. Because of this I think we can and should calmly sit down and determine what should be done about these cases where nature is the only party at fault. I do still think in that calmly sitting down, if we avoid invoking the trans culture war mind killing, the natural outcome would be banning intersex cases that provide advantage from serious competition. And invoking trans people in this discussion is not helping.
More options
Context Copy link
That's exactly the problem though. Recognizing the motte and Bailey doesn't lead naturally to therefore attack the motte harder. Instead you recognize and you keep the fight in the bailey, you endeavor to cut off the motte so they can't support the bailey.
Here, I fear that those concerned about trans participation in women's sport are setting themselves up for a fall. Everyone from JK to DJT have publicly attacked Khelif, who is going to leave Paris with a medal around her neck. Perfectly timed for a TV special on CBS Sunday morning, where the crew takes a look at her life growing up, her training, how she never knew about her DSD diagnosis, talking head from the IOC comes in to say it's fair, the "attacks" she suffered, and then gets some talking head with an MD to come on and say "Intersex disorders are very common and gender is really complicated!"
Conflating rare invisible intersex disorders, or just having (eurocentric) masculine features, with being trans is what the TRAs want. They want terfs to make themselves look bad attacking sympathetic targets.
It bears noting two things-
One, Imane Khelif is an extremely sympathetic target. She collected scrap metal to fund bus fair to her boxing gym she attended over the objections of her strict Islamic father in rural Algeria. She isn't trans, she probably has a rare intersex disorder that nobody in Algeria has ever heard of, and being non-gender conforming in Islamic Arab societies is not fun, especially when it isn't your fault and nobody can figure out why you aren't like the other girls.
Two, a lot of the core population of the west has their well of sympathy completely exhausted. I don't care about the oppressed Arab woman rising above the odds anymore. Trans genocide? Bring it on, and if some unfortunate intersex get caught in the crossfire that's the cost of doing business.
I'll go a bit further. At a certain point, it feels emasculating to have to give all of the caveats about how obviously it's a complicated issue and everyone deserves dignity and so on while your enemies just call you a bigot when they're strong and then putter around pettifogging about hormone classes and doing it by weight when they're weak.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't necessarily agree that the intersex argument for trans acceptance is a motte and bailey, any more than the "dolphins have hairs" argument for dolphins not being fish is a motte and bailey (under a morphology-based taxonomy scheme of animals.) Trans activists who bring up intersex people are using them to point to a weakness in people's unreflective definitions of sex, and then adopting a "lumper" position that trans people should be included under their identified sex because of that ambiguity.
There's a few possible places that argument could go wrong:
For my own part, I do think the existence of intersex people is a good argument for "sex" being messier than commonly believed (the same way that I think ring species and occasionally fertile hybrids point to the concept of "species" being messier than commonly believed), but I don't really use that as my argument for trans people. Instead, I have something closer to a socio-legal "adoptive sex" model, where a society can create fictive "sex" categories the same way that adoption can create fictive "parent-child" relationships. Each society or subculture gets to decide what the package of rights and privileges associated with "adoptive sex" are, and so might chose any variety of constructions surrounding bathroom inclusivity, prison inclusivity, and sports inclusivity. For my own part, I'm really only a partisan for there being some sort of protections for employment, housing and financial services, since I tend to think those are the most impactful domains, and I'm okay with less important private businesses denying services or discriminating in most other domains, since I tend to think the market will work itself out in the long run.
Whatever else you may say about capitalism, it does tend to erode discrimination under certain conditions. Black people needed a Green Book from the 1930's to the 1960's, but today every gas station wants the public's money enough that the the only color they care about is your green cash. I doubt McDonald's will ever start denying service to trans people, gay people, etc.
More options
Context Copy link
We don’t actually know she’s intersex. We know the IBA excluded her on gender grounds on one occasion, they won’t specify why. The IOC claims she isn’t intersex.
No, that's the infuriating part. The IOC never clearly stated that they believe Khelif isn't intersex. (When an official accidentally said “this isn't a case of a DSD” the IOC published a rectification on Twitter stating that the official had meant “transgender” instead, tacitly admitting it might very well be a case of a DSD.)
The IOC intentionally abolished sex tests, because they worked too well: they identified some AFAB XY athletes, and the IOC didn't want to be the bad guy that has to tell male “women” with 5-ARD that their bodies are not female enough to be eligible for women's sports.
If the IOC had any integrity, they would say clearly: “We decided to include intersex males in the women's sports competition, so whether the IBA's assessment that Khelif is an intersex male is correct, is irrelevant.”
But they don't do that. They vaguely imply that the IBA is wrong, refuse to do any testing on their own, and let people take their sides in the culture war. It's infuriating cowardice. The IOC needs to decide whether or not XY-males with 5-ARD are allowed to compete. If so, they should say clearly that they don't care if Khelif is biologically male. If not, they should propose meaningful measures to keep males like Khelif out.
Regardless of how evasive IOC is being, I'm not inclined to assign IBA enough trust to move the needle from the zero hypothesis in this case. Not when their Russian pro-Russian CEO has every reason to be pissed that Russia isn't allowed to compete in the Olympics and every reason to stoke Olympic trans athlete controversies.
You don't find it strange that the IBA would stake its reputation on a claim that, if false, could be easily disproven with a simple cheek swab and PCR test? Don't you find it strange that neither the IOC nor either of the accused athletes have chosen to disclose any details on their medical condition?
And even if you believe that the IBA wanted to throw shade regardless of the truth (which is plausible), don't you agree that they'd be more likely to do that if they had actual proof? (Which is definitely not impossible; intersex athletes have been outed by sex tests many times, that's why the IOC stopped sex testing in the first place.) If so, you should agree that by Bayes theorem, that the fact that they have raised the issue increases the probability that the athletes are male.
IIRC they also either didn't appeal or withdrew their appeals after the original IBA ruling. Possibly because going further would have made the matter clear, as with Caster Semenya.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The IOC didn't test him. The IBA did. They are trying very hard to not get sued for revealing sensitive medical information.
Neither of the XY competitors even pretend to live as women.
Important if true, but warrants at least a link. (That unambiguously states this, not just kinda-sorta suggests it if you squint right.) As this stands I'm skeptical.
https://twitter.com/Glinner/status/1820585888734203937
This looks like a perfectly reasonable set of PT gear for a woman to wear, though. It's not, by western norms, very feminine, but Imane Khelif is butch and Algeria probably has very different norms compared to the west.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Care to provide evidence they live as men?
More options
Context Copy link
What do you base this on?
More options
Context Copy link
Oh, that changes things. I could have sworn I'd read they live as women.
Edit: do you have a source? I went googling and could not check this (some sources say 'they identify as women' but I guess there's a further question of how they 'live').
https://instagram.com/boxing_ting
https://instagram.com/imane_khelif_10
I mean, what does it mean to „live as a woman“ in current year? Surely there are some butch lesbians having the same style. But this is very male-presenting.
Yeah but that's hardly unusual for womens' sports. The elite female athletes I've met have generally trended towards butchness, and that's been the trend forever. Look at the drama with the WNBA & Caitlin Clark with a tacit theme of 'the traditionally black & lesbian-dominated WNBA don't like that they've suddenly become palatable due to the success of a white woman'.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Left-wing poasters on the Imane Khelif row are well aware that Khelif is not trans, and are pointing and laughing at the ignorance of right-wing poasters who suggest that she is. The left-wing argument against policing female athletes' biology (namely that it is demeaning to the athletes, and that the intersex corner cases that it throws up are hard to adjudicate) long predates trans being a shouting issue.
The simple cheating case which sex testing exists to catch (a non-intersex cis man entering a female event) has never happened in the Olympics - and as far as I am aware it hasn't happened in international-level athletics either. What sex testing throws up is arguments about whether certain AFAB (a rare occasion where "asssigned X at birth" is accurate and useful terminology) intersex people are "real women". And the science to adjudicate those fairly while maintaining competitive balance has only been done for middle-distance running.
I think sport needs to decide what a woman is and enforce it - particularly in a world where there are biologically male people with "woman" on their government ID - but I understand the case for throwing up your hands and saying "can't be done" given how destructive intersex-in-women's-sports rows are.
Trans identified males (non-intersex) taking over female sports has been happening at all levels of competition (including international) for several years now.
https://www.shewon.org/
Documents the phenomenon closely, with citations.
Number of Female Athletes 717 Number of Medals* 1055 Number of Competitions 522 Number of Sports 37
More options
Context Copy link
The question is: how much of that is because sex testing was mandatory? It could be that sex testing never had any useful effect (“my rock keeps tigers away”) or that it was quite effective at dissuading would-be cheaters. The argument “we didn't catch any cheaters, so therefore sex testing was always useless” is not logical.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Strategy?
This is vibes, through and through. If you’re on team A, she’s a persecuted trans icon. Team B, he’s a dirty poser. There, your social media post is ready to go.
Never mind that Khelif never claimed to be trans, because that would take away from how Brave and Oppressed she’s being. Or that the closest thing to medical evidence is a half-assed statement by an org that already resents the IOC, and they won’t even commit. No, the average culture warrior gets to have full confidence that these athletes are woke partisans, for better or worse.
These circumstances aren’t conducive to strategy.
Vibes alone don't explain what's happening. In this case, both sides seem to be willing to turn this into a culture war issue because - for different reasons - they think social circumstances favor them, and their messaging will be well-received as a result. If this condition weren't met, one or both sides would drop the issue, and there'd be no culture war over it.
That sounds like vibes to me. Thinking the social conditions are favorable is like thinking the stars are right.
I wouldn't say sociology and astrology equally count as junk science.
But how many people propagating this issue are either sociologists or astrologers?
I think amateur sociology falls back on a few easy intuitions. Most important is “My team is obviously correct.” When someone says “you’re on the wrong side of history,” that’s rarely the result of a principled analysis. It’s argument by analogy to situations with the preferred emotional valence. Vibes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I haven’t seen anybody notable arguing that Khalif is a trans icon; she’s not trans.
I think ‘Team A’ broadly assumes she has a DSD, but is considering social identity over genetics. And it’s mostly speculation from both sides since nothing is confirmed about her genetics or hormones.
More options
Context Copy link
The is a bad look for both sides, not just the one you seem to malign. I doubt the only available gender test is looking at the passport as the IOC appears to imply.
Yeah, I don’t disagree.
Both athletes got disqualified from a recent event, and they did fail some sort of test. Odds are good it was chromosomal. The IBA has been vague, though, so the IOC has jumped on that vagueness to suggest whatever the test was, it doesn’t supersede the other evidence. Mainly that Khelif has always had the legal status of a woman, both in a country which doesn’t give a damn about trans politics and in the previous Olympics.
Which…it’s reasonable, no? The burden of proof should be on the accuser who wants to supersede the passport and birth certificate. The IBA should be able to provide their testosterone or chromosome or whatever test.
To be clear, I think there’s a good chance that she is XY, and that this gets confirmed in the next week or three. I don’t think that has to be a disqualifier. She was clearly womanly enough to get approval for the past however many years, lose to Broadstreet, etc. So I’m inclined to argue with people who act like she’s Randy Savage.
The claim from the other side is that they are not legally allowed to do so due to health privacy laws, which also makes sense to me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The mtf transgender part has no basis in fact, the whole reason people have felt able to defend the Algerian boxer is that she is as she is through accident of birth (though it's unclear what condition, if any, she has).
Many people feel very sympathetic to someone born and raised as a woman suddenly being told by some (probably corrupt) governing body: "you're a man". All the rest of the discourse about this issue, on this occasion, follows from that feeling. There could be a proper discussion about whether the ioc should have specific gender criteria and how to enforce them but not in the heat of this rather triggering edge case.
Nobody has to tell her "you're a man". They can just tell her (assuming she fails these tests) "You have an intersex condition which disqualifies you from participating in women's events".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
there are many other possibilities there:
and so on
These are just beliefs, and beliefs alone do not guide the culture war. Those who wage it take other considerations into account as well.
I am confused how it changes things. You listed bunch of possible beliefs and implied that there are no other options. I mentioned some other possibilities.
I think it makes sense to differentiate between personal beliefs that are held as self-evident for whatever emotional inclination, and deductions/assumptions made about the outside world that encourage you to engage in culture-warring.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In this case it's true that there are women as strong as Imane Khelif (though to me that's more evidence that she's not a man). She's got 9 losses on her record, if it weren't for a difference in weight classes she would be facing one of the Irish boxers who beat her handily in the 2020 Olympics again.
I'm not sure "cuts weight and loses, puts on a bunch of muscle and starts kicking ass" is exactly an argument in favour of 'khelif is not that great anyways' or whatever people are trying to argue here. I did watch part of the Broadhurst fight now, and Khelif is certainly visibly more muscled now.
'Khelif is not that great anyways' is a hard argument to make given that she's now fighting for a silver medal. 'Khelif handily beats everyone except for other medal winning boxers' just means she's a top contender.
I was talking about Kellie Harrington who once had a 32 fight winning streak and is fighting for gold tomorrow. Women's boxing isn't that big of a sport, you are going to have lots of skewed bouts until you get near the end of the tournament because the best fighters severely outmatch the rest.
More options
Context Copy link
A man is going to have an easier time cutting weight, less of the female bodyfat that is more or less uncuttable.
Sure -- but he will be weaker. Khelif is 6'1", and fought Broadhurst at 62.5 kilos, which is what, 135lbs? I'm 5'10", and I don't think I've ever been 5'10" and 135 lbs; by the time I got to my full height in high school I weighed like 145 and was weak as fuck.
So "loses to Broadhurst, eats some cheeseburgers and puts on ten pounds of muscle" (also much easier if you have some testosterone in the mix) explains quite well (to me) why Khelif is more dominant now than before?
I'm not gonna look for vintage photos, but this looks pretty different to me than the Broadhurst video.
Male pro at 5'10 135
Extra test gets you extra muscle. A male minimum health body fat is 8-10%, while for women it's closer to 16-20%.
Also, on wikipedia she's listed at 5'10". Assuming she cuts some weight, probably walking around at 150-160. Which is roughly the height and weight I was when I started rowing in college.
It's 183 cm from the tape on the match you linked -- this is quite a big difference as to how much weight one should be carrying. (not to mention pretty far out on the bellcurve itself for non-testosterone-puberty enjoyers.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link