Transgender footy star sues AFL

This is a great thread (if you're quick enough to read it before, you know...)

If it's anything like rugby, having males playing is arguably even more dangerous at lower levels because of less specialist coaching, less experienced referees, etc.

Yes, if you draw the line at a skill level, you're just going to end up with a bunch of aggrieved people like Mouncey unable to move upwards.

So then what? If they don't sue, or fail to win, then do they make do with the current setup? Does the division below end up having loads of Mounceys unable to move up? They make do with being a "big fish" in a small pond? Maybe that's enough for their ego (McKinnon for example seems satisfied winning masters cycling).

Then any female wanting to reach the fabled "female-only" higher divisions first has to run the gauntlet of the mixed-sex lower division, full of bigger, stronger male players who could physically compete at higher "female" level but are prevented.

The "female-only" higher levels become reserved for women prepared to play mixed-sex. Any women who does not want to play with males is excluded.

[quote Providora]@NotBadConsidering there are already transwomen playing in the AFLW at the community club level.[/quote]
And this is the problem isn't it? That this player in particular wants to play one level up at representational level and that is where the sports body has decided arbitrarily the line has been drawn. For 'inclusiveness' (I keep wanting to say that word with heavy immature scorn)

Instead of making it safe for ALL females and ALL levels. Particularly probably because also at lower levels there is less skill involved and even higher risk of accidental injury. Seems barmey.

Sen Claire Chandler has got it right again. This decision needs to be revised and changed to protect ALL women not just block them at the higher elite levels.

Most men I know would be horrified to be put into a position where they could do this to women.

@NotBadConsidering there are already transwomen playing in the AFLW at the community club level.

Ugh, totally agree that abusive types will never understand why their behaviour isn't appreciated, even when directly told of its negative effects.
But when the behaviour is based on an ideological belief, such as TWAW, arguing becomes even more pointless because facts have no power over faith based feelings.

Stop changing rules based on beliefs, and instead make those who want change bring their facts to the table.

There is a very clear difference between HM and the rest of the team mates

Surely, it wouldn’t be safe for them to all play together?

There would be a risk of someone a woman being seriously hurt by a full on charge by HM

I should also say that NAFALT and not being a female with that level of empathy doesn’t make you not female but there seems to be a very common lack of those common behaviours (driven by female socialisation) in the ones that are not born female.

And I'm starting to be aware of my own female socialisation which is always about trying to understand the other person's issue, to assume that they just haven't understood yet but would be reasonable if I could just find the right words.

This is It isn’t it. We are all women and that type of behaviour driven in general by female socialisation and that aspect of our femaleness is very recognisable among us.

Then there are the HMs of this world who demonstrate absolutely not an ounce of that behaviour- in fact they are completely opposite. When I see all rape/death threats on sm and the actual willy waving I do wonder how those individuals think that they are being in any way ‘womanly’.

is the distress of the other person, or being able to continue doing the thing that distresses the other person, what is actually desired?

Yes, indeed. I suppose we can't know for sure what the intent is. In any case I don't know if it matters. What does matter is that women are saying 'no'. What Hannah thinks or wants isn't the deciding factor in whether women are required to give up their privacy, safety or dignity. I also find it very jarring how Hannah's desire to shower with women is supposed to somehow trump women's desire not to shower with Hannah.

In this case, what is wanted is to be present in a room of women undressing even though those women don't consent.

How on earth anyone can miss the blatant sexism and unacceptability of this just defeats me.

agree Michelle - HM does understand their behaviour is distressing and damaging to others, they just dont really care because as far as they are concerned, what they want is more important than women's distress

But HM seems unaware of how HM's actions are likely to impact on female competitors - no concern noted about women's need for safety or desire for privacy.

When you look at advice from specialists who work with supporting people to manage and if need be exit abusive or toxic relationships, or work with abusers, one of the things that comes up is the phrase from the unhappy recipient of the relationship: 'they don't seem to realise'. Or sometimes, 'they say they don't know why we are unhappy although we have repeatedly explained. We don't seem to be able to explain in a way they understand.'

The advice is generally that the person who is unhappy has explained. Usually repeatedly, in a lot of different ways. The person doing the thing that is causing the other party distress has been given the information on this . It is not that they don't 'know', it's that they don't agree. It's that they do not want to change their behaviour, even though knowing it is causing distress.

There is a point at which continuing to do something that causes distress to someone else because it meets own needs, has to be questioned as to what needs exactly are being met? And is the distress of the other person, or being able to continue doing the thing that distresses the other person, what is actually desired?

Where there is no social reciprocation, mutual respect, mutual care, there can't be a repair of this. Reasonable approaches only work with reasonable people. And I'm starting to be aware of my own female socialisation which is always about trying to understand the other person's issue, to assume that they just haven't understood yet but would be reasonable if I could just find the right words.

I'm starting to think no. No one is this obtuse. No one is this blindly self centred. This is intentional, conscious choice to behave this way. And no, that's not sweet at all.

I don't know, dyslek. I think watching the documentary Mouncey comes across as quite sweet, really. I appreciate how Mouncey is down to earth about nothing much being different, post 'transition', other than clothing and hormones.

But HM seems unaware of how HM's actions are likely to impact on female competitors - no concern noted about women's need for safety or desire for privacy. Which is not very sweet.

I would lean towards incredibly solipsistic self centredness, perhaps.

[quote ArabellaScott]Documentary here.

'She's at a physical disadvantage' against men, perhaps - so it's likely to be an absolutely true statement, (except perhaps for one word) but not a complete one.

Hmph. I thought that was quite a good post. Going to try once more with a couple of substitutions to make sure I'm understanding the triggers.

...

It's amazing how much that side thinks that hormones are everything. I think the basic logic is that the only real "sex change" we can perform that isn't just [cosmetic surgery] is changing hormones - so therefore there's necessarily a need to overinflate how important hormones are, to make the "sex change" appear more meaningful. "Sex" ends up being defined as "what we can change", working backwards.

I remember being maybe 10-12 or so (so mid 80s) and reading somewhere about a "sex change operation" and being baffled. It just seemed inconsistent with what I knew about medicine and science. Had I missed something? Since when did we have that sort of technology? How could you possibly trigger that sort of change? Did humans really have the ability to do that? Then I found out that they didn't actually mean "changing sex", they meant they just [did cosmetic work]. What a [...] fraud! Helped make me the cynic I am today... Can't imagine how cynical some of the young ones coming up will be, what with the outright nonsense being spouted now.

Back to the topic - PCOS is a useful counterexample: how many PCOS sufferers end up looking like Hannah Mouncey as a result of that excess testosterone?

Note the doctor in the documentary (from about 10,30) who claims Mouncey is actually at a physical disadvantage.

'Prior to her transitioning, she had a V8 motor powering this big ... muscle frame ... now she's transitioned and her testosterone level has dropped and her muscle mass has decreased and her strength and stamina has decreased she's now got a little four cylinder engine. So she's actually at a physical disadvantage'.

Science.