Guardian article on women in sport - Holy Moley - concludes that there is a debate!

Joss Prior on that Twitter thread describing this incredibly cautious and measured article as ‘right wing trash’

Natacha Kennedy is upset. twitter.com/natachakennedy/status/1153258694056038401?s=19

Hubbard still has reduced performance due to last year's elbow ligament injuries, yet can still be winning golds ffs.

twitter.com/guardian/status/1153247466889895936

Supportive comments on Twitter.

"I've got a novel idea...stop letting men compete in women sporting events?"

"It's like a nuclear meltdown, the best approach isn't contemplating the clean-up, it's avoiding it in the first place".

Some people are giving the writer too much credit and being overly grateful who says the world might be round or maybe is more than 10,000 years old No! They/we are just marvelling (sarcastically) that The Grauniad UK has found it's bollocks and has published this, despite / inspite of the inevitable reaction from the US branch!

No credit for understanding goes to the writer, just credit for being one of the few who will actually put their name to a piece that will, inevitably, attract the wrath of TRAs and The Woke!

The other important point is that this debate must be had. No longer can men tell women, such as Martina Navratilova, that when they stick up for a separate women’s sport category that they are ignorant or prejudiced.

Are you listening, McKinnon?

Some people are giving the writer too much credit and being overly grateful who says the world might be round or maybe is more than 10,000 years old. The statement that how come someone who never made a ripple on the elite scene as a man is suddenly challenging for gold only has one fucking conclusion. How can it be denied they have an advantage in the women’s category? It’s all there. They would be both either Olympic class in one or the other unless shock horror they are a cheating bastard

Fuck the Guardian. As the writer acknowledges the unfairness of it all and that testosterone isn’t the be all and end all why don’t they come to the logical conclusion rather than say there’s a debate to be had? Also ironic that they offer up a ‘debate’ but then don’t allow any comments as they know 95% of them will be akin to you’re having a laugh mate

a guiding principle surely has to be that anyone who transitions does not leap from being bog-average to world beater in a year.

A guiding principle surely has to be that male athletes do not belong in female sport.

Fixed it for him.

Seriously, apart from the fact that Ingle highlights what happened to Feagaiga Stowers in the opening, this is not a good article. He starts from the premise that it's both unreasonable and unrealistic to have a female-only category for sport, falsely claims that the issue is 'complex' when in fact it is very straightforward, and then at the end basically railroads women into believing that we HAVE to make way for testosterone-suppressed men, and that as long as they don't win everything then that somehow works out to a fair solution.

Also I have to take issue with this:

"As one leading expert put it to me last week: “How can you be fair to everyone? It is almost impossible.”

This is so much smoke and mirrors, based on the sexist premise that male wants are the same things as needs or rights. A fair solution is eminently possible and would be very simple to enforce. Just have everyone compete against members of their own sex. Men's sports should include male athletes who identify as trans, and female sports should include female athletes who identify as trans, provided they aren't doping. No one is excluded from competing, and women have fair competition again. Easy. Done.

God, I’m getting sucked into cats can become dogs speak aren’t I?

I meant that even in upside down pomo land, Hubbard is physically a man

Yes, as far as I know, Hubbard has undertaken no modifications to their body or hormone treatment at all. They are physically a man (which is the only thing that matters)

"Hubbard is a transgender athlete, who as a male named Gavin did not make a ripple on the international stage until becoming calling himself a woman in her his mid‑30s. Now, though, Hubbard is a realistic contender for an Olympic medal and creating a tsunami of protests from women who fear she know that he has an unfair advantage because of the residual benefits of being a male."

Enough obfuscating language already!

If they do too much the guardian US is going to tantrum again.

The Guardian /Observer seems to be shifting a bit.

This from yesterday:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/21/snp-failure-to-defend-abused-politicians-belies-its-caring-image

The Guardian/Observer talking about a "The vulnerable will be those who suffer most in the war on women we can see unfolding".

No insight into their own part on this war on women of course.

But a sign of a shift maybe.

I suspect that the more likely explanation is that blue-haired ninnies don't pay for their news and so The Guardian is going cap in hand to the terfs with disposable income instead.

I got the impression that he might have more to say on this topic, but it was the editorial policy rather than the word limit acting as the most significant constraint...

Not bad, but spends a lot of time dancing around the idea that there’s any other sensible way to segregate sport other than male and female

Oh please OldCrone DFOD!

Stop talking common and scientific sense - you know it literally kills people. Why go out of your way to be so cruel?

FFS!

Fnaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!

Oh dear LOJ's head will explode.

There is also no solution that will satisfy those who insist women’s sport needs to be protected, and others who believe gender identification trumps everything.

It's absurd that 'gender identity' has ever come into this issue. Gender identity is about what's going on in your head. We have separate women's sports because women's bodies are different from men's bodies, not because women's brains are different from men's brains.

twitter.com/seaningle/status/1153239189842026498

Sean Ingle
@seaningle
Thanks for yr comments, appreciate it. Hard to fit it all in 900 words and plenty I missed out (should have said Asher-Smith would have not just be beaten by Coleman but thousands of other men, hence emphasising the need for women’s category). On your specific point ...
... I should have made it clear is that is where I suspect we will end up, from speaking to several very senior decision makers in sport, including those on IOC consensus panel. But right now IOC or sports federations playing hot potato with the issue

No longer can men tell women, such as Martina Navratilova, that when they stick up for a separate women’s sport category that they are ignorant or prejudiced.

and yet The Guardian has done precisely that.

www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/feb/17/martina-navratilova-criticised-over-cheating-trans-women-comments

www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/feb/20/lgbt-group-drops-martina-navratilova-over-transgender-comments

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/28/martina-navratilova-trans-athletes-sport-bbc-documentary

In the last one, The Guardian later amended the title "The headline on this article was amended on 29 June 2019 to more accurately represent the article and reflect that Navratilova has since said she did not change her mind".

"But when it comes to the science, a new academics paper in the BMJ Journal of Ethics argues that elite transgender women do maintain an advantage when they transition – and that the current International Olympic Committee policies create what they call an “intolerable unfairness” such as height, weight, or socio-economic advantages, which is less pronounced."

Bravo!!

It still doesn’t take account of the legacy differences from having testosterone through puberty - height, lung capacity, heart capacity, skeletal advantages etc. If they use ALL scienethey wouldn't need to include ANYTHING about the additional differences conferred by puberty. Physical differences, potential adaptations etc are measurable in the womb! Quite generic, but definitely there.

I had a study in mind.. but for the life of me can't remember who or where. And there was a post yesterday that referenced another - I posted wailing on that one too

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3643572-Male-born-athletes-have-genetic-advantage-before-birth?msgid=88708551

Right Owen? Owen?

And Mimmymum/Helen. Where’s the twitter thread and screenshots calling us transphobic for our observations on Hubbard? Or Yaniv? Funny how selective they can be isn’t it...Has LOJ written or tweeted anything about the homophobia at the National Theatre?

No longer can men tell women, such as Martina Navratilova, that when they stick up for a separate women’s sport category that they are ignorant or prejudiced. Such comments carry a pungent whiff of misogyny from the bad old days – when women were told to know their place, and kept on the margins of sport.

Except that we are being told to know our place because men are already pushing women out of the way in certain sports.