Times article - Emily Bridges not a threat to women's sport

Apart from the weight, /height/muscle mass/heart size differences TW have over women, one must also consider pelvis width and thigh angle.
I often assumed that male cyclists would find penis and balls uncomfortable perched on a narrow saddle, but I read an in depth interview with Laura Trott Kenny in which she described how a conventional saddle could reduce a female cyclist's vulval area to a mess of bleeding sores until she helped redesign the saddle shape.

So someone won a race a month ago in men's sport and this weekend was scheduled to race in women's sport. Well isn't that dandy?

The equality act explicitly says men can be excluded from women's sport. That's all you need.But this endless dithering in case one man, in one place, for one second, doesn't like it

Exactly this, Datsun. It’s infuriating. I think it would be simplest to go by sex in all circumstances. No T levels, no this or that many weeks on oestrogen blah blah. Simple sex-based categories, or, if deemed more appropriate, Female plus Open.

I’ve really tried to put myself in EB’s place by setting up an analogy and working through it honestly, but I can’t. If there’s an unfair advantage, how could anyone choose to exploit it? Just because the rules currently say it’s possible, I can’t imagine anyone taking advantage of that, even if only for the sake of their own reputation rather than for women’s benefit. I feel sorry for trans people too because none of this is helping them.

Emily Bridges isn't eligible to compete in men's flyweight, featherweight or lightweight boxing because she has a biological advantage. I don't see TRAs complaining.

Has the other long EB thread been disappeared?

Why aren't the people that justify male inclusion in female sports being asked the right questions? If they genuinely believe that the only difference between men and women is current testosterone levels they should be able to answer why female born transitioned (and indeed female born cheats who dope using testosterone) athletes don't perform to male levels.

I agree Plasm it needs to be clear for TW. They shouldn't be led to believe that suppressing testosterone means that they can play in women's sports. They have to decide what they want more. Much like sports women who wish to become mothers have to make that choice.

Should they not just say no and be done with it? All of this faffing about helps nobody.
Emily was under the impression that participation would be possible until a few days before the race because nobody said no earlier.

Emily wasn't able to race this time but it's still not a firm no for the future. If the rules had been clearer from the start Emily might have been more informed about possible choices e.g. not trying to get testosterone under an arbitrary level to meet criteria for women's race, and could have just carried on in the men's category, which seemed to pose no issues a few weeks ago.

Emily is wrong that there is no threat to womens sport.

''Amateur women and girls across Britain are 'quitting sport' after facing male-bodied opponents, claim campaigners''
''Dossier compiled by FPFW includes testimony from female hockey player in an amateur London league who walked off the pitch when given task of marking a transgender opponent''

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10680003/Amateur-women-girls-Britain-quitting-sport-facing-male-bodied-opponents.html

The archived link is archive dot ph/H1DtN

And transmen have exactly the same choice to make - they can either take testosterone to transition or compete (since taking T is effectively doping, and they would never gain a male equivalent advantage anyway).

Transmen can get a TUE for taking testosterone to enable them to compete against men in the male category.

Except we know that increasing female testosterone levels to male levels will never make them competitive against men that have been through male puberty.

I do feel for transwomen, since their testosterone reduction does make them less competitive against men

Doesn't seem to be affecting Emily's ability to beat men last weekend, despite having lowered testosterone.

"Yes, I think they do. But I've noticed that all the pro-TRA articles are shite, and I can't help thinking that's on purpose."

That's an excellent point here. Pro- TRA arguments/articles ARE utter shite, only not on purpose but by default of being nonsense.
Check this from 4th March 22 in the "guardian" by some Australian Karen Price titled: "Courageous feminism means no woman must be left behind - and that means trans women too." In it, she praises the diversity and general rainbow-ness of trans kids and says this: "We have too much to fight for together to waste our energy on division.
TRANS WOMEN ARE WOMEN. STRONG WOMEN. And will do our best
by standing side by side."
You see, "strong women". And ready to "fight" together with us in their
courageous feminism. Side by side. Shoulder to shoulder.

Fuck me. Such drivel is being produced every fucking second of every day by people who otherwise would go completely unnoticed and ignored - as they're simply talentless, ignorant, thick halfwits who have
just found a cause. The righteous one. They will fight for the cause and they will not let it go to waste. It's their claim to fame and their time to rise and shine. They're activists now, for fuck sake.
And how do you deal with those? Well, take a piss for a start, have good old LOL and send them back to school. Or, perhaps, some dark, quiet room with no internet access for a week...I don't know.
As they say in the great, gun-ridden US of A - "Praise the Lord and Reload". Whenever in doubt they do just that. Americans. Simple people. Love simplicity.

This, on steroids (but not obvs as that would be cheating, and we exclude for that also).

Exactly. The podium is the perfect model of exclusion. First we exclude those who aren’t in a certain category (males, or able-bodies people, or people over a certain weight, or people over or under a certain age, or people who don’t have a certain level of technique). Then we exclude those (like me) who aren’t fit enough to be the best, or don’t train hard enough. Then we exclude those who aren’t the best on the day because someone else outperforms them for reasons of natural talent, or going the extra mile in training. Then we recognise the best of the whole category.

We don’t let people who got too old or fat or deconditioned pretend to be the best by sitting in the wrong group. However stunning or brave they might be.

[quote McDuffy]Sunday times today

Trans cyclist Emily Bridges facing ban from female events

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c8e9de4a-b2a6-11ec-9af1-7ee554784c95?shareToken=a5ae64ea3655fae12144c922f13942a2[/quote]
So they're now looking at the rules to try and ban bridges altogether?

The regulations cite the need to “protect the health and safety of participants” and “guarantee fair and meaningful competition that displays and rewards the fundamental values and meaning of the sport”. They add that the UCI wants “its athletes to be incentivised to make the huge commitments required to excel in the sport”, and “does not want to risk discouraging those aspirations by permitting competition that is not fair and meaningful”.

Yet it turns out the guidance they might use was written to deliberately make it unfair for women.

And while the regulations were introduced to “facilitate the participation of Transgender athletes at the international level”, there are a number of requirements that must be met.

Strewth.

But because the women are threatening to shame them by boycotting, they're having second thoughts.

In reviewing any case, the UCI would seek to appoint an independent expert panel

Jeez.

Panel? Just get on with it!

This entire issue has really made me see many men in a different light. Not just the overwhelming entitlement. But the pontificating, the endless opining, the handwringing over whether to take women into account at all.

If you ever needed proof that the only reason we live in a patriarchy is because they're bigger than us.

The equality act explicitly says men can be excluded from women's sport. That's all you need.

But this endless dithering in case one man, in one place, for one second, doesn't like it.

Really good point. I don’t get why ‘inclusion’ has suddenly become the holy grail. Sport BY ITS NATURE excludes, round by round, until you end up with a winner, whether that’s in football championships, sprinting, or any other sport. We have categories (Ross Tucker’s rooms that you need a ticket to get into) to ensure a level playing field (fairness) and then sport itself finds the best in that category. The idea that sport should include anyone because they feel they deserve to be there is nonsense. (Don’t get me started on how women were excluded from major sports for decades and that was just fine). The only thing that matters is fairness.

Tigger don't use it then use women and TW.

I wonder how we could make it really clear for the TRAs.

Every year various organisations run a ‘World’s Strongest Man’ competition. They attach themselves to trucks and life weights, and at the end, someone is labelled the strongest man in the world. Simply, we gain some information: which person is strongest.

Technically, it’s also a ‘World’s Strongest Person’ competition, as no woman is ever going to be stronger than the strongest man in the world.

Knowing this, and knowing that we still want to know, and celebrate, the identity of the world’s strongest woman, we set up another contest, and we only let women enter. At the end of it, we have some information: which female is strongest.

Now, a TW wants to enter the women’s competition. We already know they are not the world’s strongest male. They are not competitive in that group (ranking somewhere in the middle) and don’t want to enter anyway. They enter the women’s contest. They win. They are stronger than the females.

Did we gain any new information? Do we have a new ‘world’s strongest female’ to celebrate? No. We don’t. We have someone whose strength point lies in the middle of their own category, playing cuckoo at the top of a different category.

I for one don’t see the gain.

Testosterone reduction makes EB less competitive against men, certainly. Not women’s problem. I support EB’s right to transition but not to enter female sports with an artificial performance level, let alone as a biological male. We need to get drugs out of sport, not strategise about how low someone’s testosterone needs to be to allow them to beat most of the women.

Absolutely tigger. Remember an amazing conversation with lovely 18 year old who played for her country but was regretfully giving up her sport because she wanted to go to university and have a life outside the sport. She had agonised over the decision. That’s life choices have to be made.

I suspect that extreme trans activists will find themselves scrabbling to find many, if any, current female champion who will come out and explicitly state they would welcome being beaten by a transitioned male athlete now that these women athletes are all responding to the call for honesty.

That document released by the trans law center was spot on. Activists will always lose the discussion on sports.

I suspect they are now realising that now that crap is out of the bag, the wider population will not be quite as willing to be kind as they were. This will spill over to other discussions as well.

They speak for all of us frankly. Well anyone that is sane and has actually looked into it properly anyway.

It's completely ridiculous. I do feel for transwomen, since their testosterone reduction does make them less competitive against men (but not against women). It is a hard choice for them to make, competitiveness vs gender reassignment. However, "cis" women (and I hate that word) have had to make difficult choices since we were first allowed to play sport! Choosing between competitiveness and carrying children, for example. And transmen have exactly the same choice to make - they can either take testosterone to transition or compete (since taking T is effectively doping, and they would never gain a male equivalent advantage anyway). Maybe competing as a man all her life means Emily is not used to having to make these difficult compromises but that doesn't mean every female athlete needs to dive under the bus for her. Female athletes don't train their whole lives just because qualifying into the women's category makes them feel validated as women, they compete to win.