Trans Park Run Deletion

We know that a fully transitioned person with a GRC can do what they want as that is the law but the law doesn’t apply to self identifying.

Actually this is not the case. S. 19 of the Gender Recognition Act allows sports bodies to exclude trans identified males with a GRC for the purpose of fair competition or safety of other competitors.

For me park run is a competition. I compete against myself, my friends, other women in my age group and other women. If I didn’t compete I wouldn’t bother doing Park Run and would just run up and down my street. If park run take the rankings out I bet over 50% of people wouldn’t bother doing it.

“That most of the thread was transphobic”

Absolutely rubbish. I followed that thread as I park run and I’m passionate about women’s sport. There was the odd poster that should have been deleted but most was reasonable debate about whether it is fair that self identifying women can compete in women’s sporting events. We know that a fully transitioned person with a GRC can do what they want as that is the law but the law doesn’t apply to self identifying.

What IS a fully transitioned female?

It appears as a collection of words and people should know what this means. It's the "female" bit I'm curious about.
thanks

I think you hit 12 there.

Oh wait, Trousers, was "Once you've sorted out the rules, let us all know" not an invitation to let you know that the rules are - you know - sorted? But hey, if it was a rhetorical question I'm sorry, I must have missed the punctuation.

but they are competing against themselves,in their own heads.

No - parkrun publish the results and align the results by sex and age categories. We aren't making it up - it is literally what they do.

bobbi

Not a problem

If i had thought that of you I wouldn't have posted it in here

Id have snuck off and posted it somewhere else

Fully transitioned females, in a non competitive setting, why exclude them?

They're not female. As you claim to understand.

That's ok just checking

All this thread is doing is showing that there isn't really a need for the column at all. It'd be a shame if they took it out though.

Wouldn't it just? It means I could no longer wave my 'finished in the Top 100 women!' at DH, who is never going to finish in the Top 100 Men because there tend to be more than 100 men and not so many women at our nearest run

Ahem.

Not that I'd do that anyway.

God i don't remember names and exact posts bobbi

Ive a memory like a sieve

Not you if thats any help

I don't think its cady either...

But Ive definitely seen it

Rat, honestly, the last thing I wanted or needed in response to a rhetorical question, was a beginners guide to equality from you, but your patronising dial is permanently turned up to 11, as we all know.

Of course people can compete if they want to, but they are competing against themselves,in their own heads.
Fully transitioned females, in a non competitive setting, why exclude them?

But in any event, the fact that we are making women's sporting activities inclusive of men for their wellbeing with no apparent regard for women's wellbeing is a contradiction. No matter how many words used to prevaricate around why it is all lovely, it just isn't

This is the absolute heart of the matter.

That's just a results table of who placed where and in order with their details in it. It matters not a jot when running parkrun as you're not put into categories.

There are loads of results categories. Because people see it as a competition. I asked on the other thread why you think you have the authority to tell everyone who runs that it isn't a competition and you didn't answer. Why do you think it is your given right to tell everyone that their results don't matter?

Who are the fuckwits you're referring to rufus?

The deletion was because of the cheating, another runner arrived to challenge the description of the subject cheating and someone had clearly complained about the cheating conversation.

So this is another thing that is now apparently forbidden to be spoken of.

The more human behaviour is placed out out of bounds to accommodate a confused and incoherent version of "inclusion" the more exclusionary and it becomes. A paradox.

But in any event, the fact that we are making women's sporting activities inclusive of men for their wellbeing with no apparent regard for women's wellbeing is a contradiction. No matter how many words used to prevaricate around why it is all lovely, it just isn't

Or at least mark themselves "assisted".

They're summed up in the Equality Act actually; you can be as discriminatory as you need when it is a "proportionate means to a legitimate aim". Otherwise it's simply discrimination.

Yes, and you'd need a court case to tell you which.

That's just a results table of who placed where and in order with their details in it. It matters not a jot when running parkrun as you're not put into categories. You just run.
All this thread is doing is showing that there isn't really a need for the column at all. It'd be a shame if they took it out though.

And for the cheap seats

I do not think that mumsnet should delete threads saying they are transphobic

I do believe that they should delete posts saying that they are transphobic

Otherwise you get what you have now...disingenuous fuckwits inferring that every post in the thread that was deleted was because it was transphobic

Having a T category is now a requirement in equalities monitoring. In one situation it's absolutely mandatory for inclusion and in another you are a nazi.

Well "nazi" is taking what I said a bit far, but... overall, yes! In some situations something's fine, in others it isn't. Absolutely yes.

In the same way that noting someone's race or immigration status or sex is sometimes completely inappropriate - see the call to have companies declare lists of their foreign nationals - didn't go down very well did it. But other times it's completely reasonable to ask.

Them's the rules, and most people have got a fair handle on them. Although they do come up for discussion both in wider society and notably in court.

They're summed up in the Equality Act actually; you can be as discriminatory as you need when it is a "proportionate means to a legitimate aim". Otherwise it's simply discrimination.

Don't worry Lance I can see from a practical perspective why you would suggest it.