New guidelines for transgender participation unveiled by UK sports councils

Good to see the NGB of my own sport has finally acknowledged the existence of this report.
Doesn't say what it's going to do about it.
The current situation is that except at national representation level (where the IOC testosterone requirements prevail) any transgender person can self ID into whichever category they prefer.

Minister engaging in a bit of shuffling responsibility for it all onto individual sports.

There’s some cracking questions from the Lords. Nice to have more sunshine on this topic.

Lord Farmer example of MOD using Stonewall verbatim.

good by Noakes - uh oh Cashman up next

Thank you for link.

Just seen link. I blame brain fog. Ignore me

Thanks for the heads up. Is there a link to watch it, do you know?

Today at 2:30pm

Lords 9th November 2:30pm
www.parliamentlive.tv/Lords

Lord Triesman Oral questions; 2:30 pm
Sports Councils Equalities Group’s Guidance for Transgender Inclusion in Domestic Sport, and the conclusion that “the inclusion of transgender people into female sport cannot be balanced regarding transgender inclusion, fairness and safety in gender-affected sport where there is meaningful competition” –

This may have been mentioned before, but I've just seen this
"Female entries would be required to declare themselves as recorded female at birth"
Doesn't that mean that a TW with a GRC would still be allowed to compete in the woman's category , since (somebody corrects me if I'm wrong?) a GRC allows you to change the marker on your birth certificate?

To repeat what Ross Tucker said on his podcast, if you’re the person saying inclusion and safety/fairness CAN be balanced, then tell us how! What did everyone miss in this extensive review? Don’t just say it can be done, tell us HOW it can be done.

Ereshkigalangcleg

I have also come across them on twitter. They can only argue on an emotional/personal level, to the point that it is obvious that they lack any empathy for women and women's sport. They want to move the argument away from science/biology/reality to a place where "feelings" trump everything else.

Thanks for the Guardian article. Good that they are putting both sides, can only hope some people read it and it plants a seed in their minds.

I've come across Washington on Twitter and they are a typical TRA, so not much hope that they have any regard for women's rights in sport.

What these advocates of inclusion never seem to say is that currently trans people have the privilege of choosing which sex category they compete in, subject to some restrictions. Nobody else gets to choose their category like this. All these guidelines are doing is saying everyone should be treated the same by ensuring everyone competes in the category for their sex. They aren’t even mandatory, allowing sports organisations to continue to discriminate against women and allow male athletes to choose to compete in the female category subject to restrictions which we know don’t produce fairness or safety.

Natalie Washington is being disingenuous at best here, if not deliberately misleading. They aren't insisting on "transwomen teams", they're suggesting alternative formats that are suitable for mixed sex competition. In terms of football there are already LGBT friendly teams that transwomen and transmen play in alongside natal male (and the occasional natal female, although this is rarer) teammates. They don't play under the auspices of the FA as I understand it, so I'm not sure if there are any specific rule changes to account for the mixed sex nature of the teams. If I remember correctly from the World Rugby report, they recommended trans inclusion could be achieved in touch rugby as removing the tackling element reduces the risks involved. Washington's focus on inclusion, while handwaving the fairness issues and not even mentioning the safety aspects is unsurprising I suppose, but still disappointing.

That if there's a max height weight lung capacity etc. Surely it would logically mean any females who didn't meet it would have to play.. elsewhere? With the men?

And so on.

None of any of it- not just sport. Pronouns, opening single sex things up etc.

None of the arguments relate to actual real life situations, or practical considerations at all.

And it's all totally illogical. Inconsistent.

That's why it's an ideology, a belief system.

Other things pointing to that are. Using the same words to mean different things depending on context.
Not every engaging in good faith discussion or debate.
Any points raised are met with slogans rather than answers.
Any justification given for why the things wanted are fine. Changes and moves over time depending on alterations to their definitions and parameters and things that happen that reveal the current justification as the drivel everyone knew it was.

Eg

TW are very shy and anxious about bodies. They wouldn't use a communal changing room. Would use a different facility or find somewhere private to change.
The idea of being in communal and getting undressed so penis exposed is impossible. It's the part of their body they hate most.

Next up. If a TW does undress in communal changing. I mean why is anyone looking anyway? Anyone who notices is a perve. If anyone uncomfortable they should go somewhere else.

And then variously around WiSpa.
It's a hoax.
Can't be true because woman complaining has certain religious views.
No one should have been looking it's rude. Teach girls to ignore and accept.
What's the problem a penis isn't inherently dangerous it's just s bit of skin.
Person has every right to be there/ women out of line bigots body shaming other woman/ they would all have filmed the person (??!!!), They should have called the police etc etc.
Person arrested with other charges of sexual indecency, if you look at previous crimes. All look like police persecution of trans people trumped up charges.

I mean for god's sake.

And every shift is met with total refusal to acknowledge they have changed the narrative.

It is belief system. Nothing more. And adherents are unshakable in their faith no matter what.

Those who are sex matters talk at group level. Which is how when it's something for large numbers of people across large areas it's done. And standard- LGBT+ is an example. When talking about events etc.

I think that's very common across many issues. A lot of people struggle to think about things in terms of groups, they can really only relate to individuals.

The interesting contrast in those two pieces is one that is present across this whole topic.

Those who are sex matters talk at group level. Which is how when it's something for large numbers of people across large areas it's done.

And standard- LGBT+ is an example. When talking about events etc. In fact T do this all the time. Eg trans people are the most oppressed group in the UK. No footnote saying this is not to say that every trans person is oppressed more than anyone else except other trans people. The group is referenced, not about actual individual circumstances.

Those who think gender identity is what matters and sex is largely irrelevant.

When it's an argument for something that is wanted - generally to alter anything sex based to gender ID.

It's all about individual stories. It's wrong to see all transpeople (invariably TW) as a group.
Example. Prisons. It is bigotry to say males in women's prisons are a risk. Yes Karen white was bad but that was one person. What needs to be done is assess their risk as they do all the other women.

Here there say that males in women's sports should be individually assessed. That there is no reason to do anything at group level. Some TW are not as good at sport as some vagina people. Why should they not join? Individual assessment is the best way.

They (deliberately) don't think about obvious issues.
Like-
Different rules for different sports being created. Maybe different categories within different levels of sport.

The fact those rules will definitely be open to challenge, argument, accused of being unfair, probably open to interpretation.
Time and money to thrash it all through for each sport and category of sport.

An onus on local clubs etc to make decisions that are likely to be contraversial etc however hard that try.

The additional paperwork time stress for cubs run often by volunteers.

That whatever the rules are they cannot cover every single factor that could or would confer advantage.

Thanks for posting Guardian piece.

Article in today's guardian including a piece by Nicola Williams.

www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/oct/05/who-is-included-views-report-on-transgender-participation-in-sport

[quote CatsOperatingInGangs]People who want to make women and girls sport mixed sex are organising to fight the science! There’s a link if anyone would like to attend.

www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/lgbtqia-sport-network-emergency-meeting-tickets-185560926727[/quote]
'Emboldened action through strength in numbers'

Sounds... Well par for the course.

The constant hints at aggression, and forcing what they want is so central that things like that are written on an event summary and they don't even think twice about wording like that.

Yes it would. And maybe discuss with the TW currently competing in the men’s how welcoming the men have been post/transition.