Help please on responce from letter sent to governing body of my sport re rules on transwomen playing alongside and in opposition

I’m guessing hockey. (No need for OP to confirm.) Men play much faster and those balls are hard. Injuries are not uncommon and would almost certainly increase if natal men were playing. More to the point, it probably would not be as much fun....especially for the girl sitting on the bench because she could no longer compete for a place in the team.

Can you say what sport it is if it’s not football OP? That might help with some specific arguments on top of what others have already said

I listened to a very robust debate on this issue on bbc radio Kent. To sum up the presenter said something along the lines of "we can be fair, or we can be inclusive"

You can't have competitive sport without fairness. Fairness has to be held up.

standpointmag.co.uk/issues/september-october-2019/trans-trailblazers-leave-women-bruised/ another good article.

Very interesting from barracker too, 15 years to turn the world upside down.

"What is it about the magic words "I identify as a woman" that suddenly makes a biological male safe enough to play against biological females, when, on safety grounds. no other biological males are allowed to do so?"

"Why should the nebulous concept of self-identity be prioritised over and above the physical safety of women and girls? Surely if there is a conflict, physical safety must take precedence, not identity?"

"How confident do you feel about winning a legal case if the parents of a teenage girl bring a law suit against you for allowing a biological male to injure her during the playing of a de facto mixed sex football game?"

Ok if they're adopting the feels approach ask what number would be a tipping point in a female league? So explicitly could a team comprising 11 tw identify as an all female team (assuming 11 team size)?

This link just came up on Spinster, from @FondofBeetles on Twitter

twitter.com/fondofbeetles/status/1167012571024699392?s=21

Why do they limit male numbers in mixed teams?

Why do they have separate men's and women's teams?

Ask them those questions. Their answer will probably be along the lines of "Because of the physical advantage men have over women."

Then ask them why the physical advantage doesn't matter when a man who thinks he's a woman wants to play on the women's team, and see if they can answer without contradicting their answers to the first two questions.

Ask if you can start playing in the junior team because you feel young at heart and want to be included.
[Joke]

You could also scour your Governing Body's widening participation objectives. Or any within the SportEngland Clubmark or equivalent, or set by your Local Authority.

Up until a few years ago they were all very keen on encouraging girls and women into sport, and ethnic minorities. Now it is all "men with feelz". Have they done any impact assessments,. both on safety, but also on stated objectives. Will women and girls feel less likely to participate in team sports if some players are noticeably bigger and stronger. Have they surveyed local minorities with low sports participation rates,about their attitudes. If not why not.

Ask them if the have completed an Equality Impact Assessment on the inclusion of males in women’s sport.

Find out if they are funded by Sports England (or other national body). These bodies are covered by Freedom of Information legislation which can be useful should your sport governing body refuse to answer questions.

If they're clear that it's unfair and TW have an obvious and undisputed sporting advantage but it's still going to happen anyway because 'inclusion' and 'nice', then go into their definition of inclusion.

Why is it important to provide males with validating experiences and a wider choice of options in their sporting life but not important to look at the down sides of doing so for women? What about women's validating experiences, like fairness and female only sport? And important experiences like not being injured or worse because of the need to prioritise male feelings and wants over actual bodily harm to female players?

What are the cons of this for women and girls? Decisions regarding sport for women and girls should be about the needs of women and girls, obviously, otherwise there would just be mixed sex sport all the time. Why are TW's needs important enough to remove these options for women and compel them to be 'kind' over being safe or being allowed to play fairly or to have activities away from males?

Why have they created an enforced priority of women playing sport to provide validation experiences for males at their own risk, instead of being there to play sport? Why are women being forcibly stuffed into the nurture, service and self sacrifice box instead of having their right to be competitive and focus on fair female sport respected?

They can't go into this without explaining that fundamentally this is a highly sexist decision that values male people more highly than female people and prioritises males in all ways. That is not inclusion. It's many other things, but it's not inclusion.

Here's the original response the Football association gave to the proposed gender recognition act in 2004 :

If they say ‘physical ability isn’t important’ then are there some statistics that show the difference between men’s and women’s physical abilities in the game? Why have male and female teams then?

To call women ‘transphobic’ for standing up for their rights is a classic tactic deployed against women for centuries. Women fighting for the vote were ‘not quite nice’, mother’s going back to work ‘bad mothers’, women wanting to have their opinions heard ‘strident’. But you are right, they are wrong. Good luck.

Whatever they ‘identify’ as, they have a male body. And sport is played by bodies not gender identities.

the governing body aren't actually denying TW have a physical advantage. They are saying the physical advantage doesn't matter.

Ask them why there are separate men's and women's teams.

I personally don't agree with any biological males in female sport but you need them to do more than quote TWAW. They need to think about the detail and implication of what they are actually permitting.

This is the Stonewall definition of trans
"Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, gender-queer (GQ), gender-fluid, non-binary, gender-variant, crossdresser, genderless, agender, nongender, third gender, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman,trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois." www.stonewall.org.uk/help-advice/glossary-terms#transgender

I would ask them what specific definition of transwoman they are using or can it just be anybody who says 'today I'm cross-dressing' Pip Bunce style? Also if they make any limitations eg reduced testosterone or not playing for a men's team in the preceding 12 months?

I would speak closely with your team members and coaches. Put up a United front so it's not just you speaking up alone and being put at risk of being called names and possibly being asked to leave.

Go to the governing body with back up, eg a signed letter/email from many signatories.

Sorry,. My mistake.

Insurance is a good line to pursue. I also thought of the situation with rugby referees quitting. In rugby the ref is responsible for ensuring safety on the pitch (insofar as that is possible), and not surprisingly they're not prepared to referee matches with 6'2", 15 stone male bodied individuals in the front row of the scrum against women in the opposing line - because they don't want a woman paralysed from the neck down on their conscience for the rest of their lives.

Males playing any kind of contact sport against females is downright dangerous. Women have already been seriously injured.