Another day, another complaint to the Guardian

Yeah, the claim the people in question don't have an advantage is pretty suspect, given we know that they are not taking any kinds of hormones or blockers. They literally are males who identify as girls.

So does the Guardian believe that males have no advantage in sport generally? Or only if they are somehow trans identified?

Feel similarly conflicted over the Guardian, and there are enough glimmers of hope to keep me reading. They do print corrections as a pp said, and 'NO evidence' is factually inaccurate but they are covering themselves by having a quote say it, and not balancing the quote with reality.
However, it's so nonsensical to say that we need to separate sports by sex, but quote a source saying males who identify as trans don't have an advantage. Nonsensical to the point I hope that it is intended as more sunlight - surely they know that most readers will fill in the gaps with logic? In the way that referring to a transwoman sex offender as 'she' but then including a photo gets the message across.

Very interested to hear where Glinner is going with this...

But there is no research suggesting that trans girls have an unfair advantage in school sports

Even without knowing the specifics of how much advantage going through a male puberty confers throughout a lifetime, there is a significant difference which is not often talked about.

Elite Sportswomen - like elite sportsmen - have to work so hard to maximise their athletic potential, putting hours into training, diet, psychology, understanding their bodies, menstrual cycle etc to push their female body to the absolute maximum.

On the other hand, elite TW athletes (and those with male DSDs) are being asked to take hormones/drugs to minimise their athletic potential. Be 'less good' than they naturally are.

They can also be significantly older - decades even - than their natal female opponents and still be contenders as they are no longer at their male physical peak.

These male athletes are required to have lower testosterone levels to prove they are now so 'bad' at sports that they can (potentially) be beaten by women.

Having said that, is there any evidence that the male teenage runners in girls' races in America are even using blockers/cross sex hormones or are they just easing off in some races?

It’s the antithesis of all other elite sport where athletes are pushing their physical bodies to the absolute limits - and so very disrespectful to the female athletes - as the message is: 'Be (quite a bit) worse than you have the potential to be - and minimise rather than maximise your performance - and you can still win'.

Grew up with The Guardian and loved and bought for years but felt a sea change after Cologne. So disappointed by Katherine Viner's instincts as editor, I now probably wouldn't bother picking it up for 'free' with a Waitrose shop if it was the last paper left...

If the 'Guardian staff and agencies' had even bothered to look at the responses to the paper the article links to, they'd have seen research that did more than "suggest" an advantage.

But that would not have met ideological requirements.

research.tees.ac.uk/en/publications/comment-on-sport-and-transgender-people-a-systematic-review-of-th

www.usapowerlifting.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/USAPL-TUE-Committee-Powerpoint-Report-2019.pdf

It’s funny how those who throw accusations at people for reading the Daily Mail never ask themselves why the left wing press hates women so much.

In terms of complaints, the Guardian used to be signed up to the Press Complaints Commission, but they now mark their own homework.

A consequence of this is that they don't feel the need to respond to complaints: the editor "reserves the right not to consider complaints from anyone not personally and directly affected by the matter which forms the subject of the complaint".

I've complained a few times to the Guardian about factual inaccuracies, no amount of following up or reminding could elicit a reply.

This stonewalling (!) of complaints has most likely contributed to its solipsistic outlook and ideological drift.

Don't be so rude.

I understand where you're coming from, NotBad but I increasingly look at bylines on articles to see if I trust the journalist. I am immensely sceptical about anything that comes out of the Guardian US or Australia offices, but there are other journalists there who I trust and respect. Similarly in the Mail I wouldn't bother with anything by Amanda Platell or Sarah Vine (who are columnists, in any case, rather than news reporters) but I think Sanchez Manning of the Mail on Sunday is excellent.

It's quite funny that every time I now go to the Guardian site it tells me how many articles I've read that year (350 apparently) before asking me for money. They had my money for years, but now I choose to spend it elsewhere.

Their lies, and the editorial policy of allowing such lies to be published has undermined their whole status even when good people do good things there. Overall I think this is a good thing. I read all news stories - including the Daily Mail - with a critical eye regardless of the masthead and will accept or dismiss accordingly.

But if it came to the crunch, hell will freeze over before I give them any money 😆.

I’m actually cringing for you Skyliner001.

You'd probably feel more at home with the Daily Mail OP

Ooooh what a witty and original comment. Strangely, that no longer has the bite it might once have had. The Daily Mail does not have an active policy of opposing women’s single-sex rights.

Misiecle, I like your willingness to pay for what you use. But I won’t support the travesty that The Guardian has become.

You'd probably feel more at home with the Daily Mail OP 😊

The Guardian isn't a monolith. I despise the way they've covered trans issues (and their US operation is particularly awful) but the expose they did on Noel Clarke was top-notch. They have also done other excellent investigations, such as the ones on Windrush and Sports Direct. I really don't think it's helpful to refer to the paper as "trash".

The piece the OP links to is appalling. But it's from the US site, and you'll find that the coverage of the same issue by their UK sports writer Sean Ingle is far superior.

I have given up complaining to The Guardian because they're not part of IPSO, so you're essentially complaining to the Editor, who signed the articles off in the first place.

I also agree with paying for content. However, I am actively not paying when I go on to The Guardian for two reasons a) They don't deserve it, and b) I am, albeit silently, expressing my disdain for their editorial practices.

Exactly Alias
I would expect a peak fitness female to beat a mediocre male every so often. It doesn't change anything.

Good for her though.

This is the bit that annoys me most:
Some pointed to a Connecticut case in which cisgender girls’ families sued, alleging that two trans female sprinters had an unfair advantage. But two days after that lawsuit was filed, one of the cis girls beat her trans competitor in a state championship race

So fucking what? They still had an unfair advantage - the fact they don't win just shows they're not that good. If you give someone a 20m head start in the 100m and they don't win that doesn't change the fact they had a 20m head start.

And what is 'trans female'? I think it means 'men', but it's hard to be sure.

Yes. All big media organisations want to know about readers and especially paying ones. Rather like Labour working out why voters weren’t interested. SM as ever captured something important about being patronised that could extend to some columnists still writing for the guardian