To think that this is the end of women's athletics?

[fidel1ne]

And women's international sport generally?

Transgender competitors will be allowed to compete as the gender of their choosing pre-operatively and after just one year of hormone treatment.

^
I always liked "I disagree with what you're saying, but will defend to the death your right to say it". But then I never stood up for the (frankly repugnant) people who wanted the right to say horribly racist and homophobic things. So now the powers that be have come for me and my terf ways. I wonder who's next.^

Yup. Exactly this.

Plenty of feminists have been all about the silencing, as long as it's silencing misogynists. Attacks on free speech 'hate speech' were absolutely fine because of the lie that all the Good People With Progressive Views automatically agree about everything and the are no conflicts between the wishes of different minorities.

This needs to be tackled at root with a campaign to decriminalise 'hate speech' and roll back our increasingly oppressive speech codes. Otherwise you can guarantee they will be used to put women back in their boxes at every opportunity. You only have to look at the way Islamist misogynists use accusations of racism and hate speech to try and silence feminist criticism of militant Islam. Google Maryam Namazie at Goldsmiths College and watch the video - it's chilling.

The common thread here is using PC speech codes to disguise and silence criticism of misogyny. We can only fight it by standing for free speech. And that includes the Jeremy Clarksons, the Nigel Farages, the Dapper Laughses and the Milo Yiannopouloses, ie speech we dislike as well as speech we like.

Words are not the same as violence; saying trans women are not women is not the same as actually attacking trans women; hate speech should not be a crime. We are sleepwalking into a regime more morally oppressive than the Victorian age and so many people seem strangely blind or to feel just totally helpless to prevent it.

I know that the conversation has moved on, but Fide, just in response to your post at 08.26, yes, I was talking about the FB group. I've now joined it, and am reading the comments with great interest.

What Puntastic said was 'I'm staring at the fb group now (ok, ok, in my other window) wanting to join it, but afraid to. How shit is that sad

As it's a closed group, would my friends get something on their feed as usual to tell them I've joined, does anyone know?'

Apologies for speaking about you Puntastic, I just wanted to answer Fide's question. I hate not responding to posters on here!

Okay, am catching up on this thread over dinner and a glass of wine, so will be back soon.

Anyone who works in the public sector has to be very careful about saying anything, even on their personal social media accounts, which goes against current orthodoxy. It's no coincidence that this conversation is happening on MN and not openly on FB. Expressing a 'wrong' opinion can lose you a job.

Nothing appeared on my facebook feed. I think if you post about in your own facebook keep it factual (I just posted the link from the independent) and focused on the one issue of sport, still not without risk though. Not going near twitter!

Agreed mud
I work in the civil service but have removed all mention of that from Facebook and made sure my settings are as tight as possible. I've stuck to factual statements as much as possible and am considering removing everyone connected to my employment from my friends list. There are a couple I will keep but most will have to go

still not without risk though. Not going near twitter!
Why are trans activists allowed to get away with threatening people online? How long has this shit been going on?

Why are trans activists allowed to get away with threatening people online? How long has this shit been going on?

Given they're mostly men, threatening women, I'd say SINCE THE DAWN OF TIME.

SurferJet A long time. Any deviation from the 'men can declare themselves women end of' is transphobic. I have to be careful about what I say around several subjects due to my job but try to stick to non-arguable facts to protect myself. This still isn't good enough and no counter argument goes further than accusations of being phobic

www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/24/safe-spaces-universities-no-platform-free-speech-rhodes

Someone mentioned Maryam Namazie at Goldsmiths, it's linked in this rather decent piece from the Guardian a few days ago.

Yy Egg

Jesus - what a pisstake. When "she" is not choosing to live as a paraplegic, he enjoys mountain climbing and hiking. Probably takes his fake boobs off then so he doesn't get backache. What a slap in the face to people who don't have the luxury of 'choosing' to live that way. Paraplegia as a lifestyle choice, it's revolting.

This whole thing reeks of male privilege. Over-privilege. It looks like a systemic method to muscle in on the few things left that they don't have access to. Like the misogynist answer to 'But why can't I say the N word? I should be allowed to say and do anything I want!'

It's 'But why can't I have access to lesbian's vaginas?' 'But why can't I watch women changing at the gym?' 'But why can't I follow a woman into the ladies toilets when she's trying to get away from me?' 'But why can't I get into a cushy women's refuge/prison?' 'But why can't I show women that they have no place in sport?'

It really goes to show how passive actual women are conditioned to be. A man starts hormone treatment and immediately starts throwing his demands around. As a woman I deserve this, and this, and this. Look at the strides they're making, because they are actually men. They don't have to pacify anyone, or ask anyone's permission. They're not only leapfrogging over all the positive small changes being made by women, they're pushing back against many of them with very little resistance on the other side, because as women we must be nice and welcoming to our fellow women. Even if they look, act and sound exactly like men.

In fact t's not even 'But why can't I?' It's 'I can and I will. And if you don't want to get targeted with violent rape threats online you'll keep your mouths shut.'

I am a female olympic athlete and also am part of a womens sport organisation. Okay going back to the original debate a few key points have been missed.
The politics of the IOC are very convoluted. The IOC don't make the rules for who is eligible. Each sport does that for itself. What has been published is a change in guidelines not a rule.
The guideline used to be that a m to f trans athlete has to have had surgery and 2 yrs of hormone treatment as a minimum. Then they must also satisfy the condition of it being fair competition and this is decided on a case by case basis. Obviously this is near impossible to do because it would almost never be fair competition. But maybe there could be an exception, archery perhaps?
The new guideline means that surgery is not a prerequisite and only 1 yr of hormones is a prerequisite. But all the other stuff about fair competition still applies. So in reality no sports governing body has to approve an athlete that they think would mean unfair competition.
The new guidelines don't change anything except that your extremely rare archery athlete wouldn't have to be forced to have surgery if the circumstances were that everybody agreed that they didn't have an advantage anyway.
It is simply like having a super PC company line but there are many other layers between these guidelines and how athletes are actually approved to compete.
Its not about whether m to f trans can actually compete, it is about removing a guideline that could require surgery that people may not want.

Well frankly I don't think male born people should compete in women's sports whether they have had surgery/hormones/whatever.

Thats very interesting purple

Ugh, I'm sorry. I forgot this was primarily about sports. Sorry for the O/T rant!

But if I can just add one more thing - I think it's very interesting how lesbians are being told that they need to accept partners with penises or they're transphobic, but straight men apparently are not being told that... According to stats far more transwomen are attracted to men than to women. So why is it only women who are being asked to set their own preferences aside and see beyond genital arrangements?

That's very interesting purple. But why is such a crucial issue, that has repercussions far wider than sport, been clouded in such complex management?

The vital part of your post is Obviously this is near impossible to do because it would almost never be fair competition. So why is it even being considered?

purple That would be reassuring except that there are already examples (granted in non-Olympic sports) of mtf competitors who are clearly unfairly advantaged being allowed to compete against women. It's also a misreading of the guidelines to say that 1 year of hormone treatment is required. Since 10mmol/L represents the bottom of the normal male range, there will be very many males who naturally have testosterone of around 9.8mmol/L (about 3 x the top of the normal female range) without any hormone at all. What is required is just lower than normal range testosterone for a year.

There is some reassurance that this is a guideline, with individual sporting organisations free to set their own rules, but I think we can also anticipate that - guidelines in hand - lobbyists will commence a series of campaigns to admit mtf competitors without 'discrimination' in each sport. Otherwise, what is the purpose of the guideline change?

That should read "without any exogenous hormones at all"

Welcome to the breeding class.

I say it all the time on these threads, but the breeders (I prefer fannies) will still be the people who end up doing all the caring work that keeps society going. Can't imagine the penised women being keener on doing it than the penised men are.

The FA also have a policy of SRS and a 2 year wait for MtT to play on women's teams but admit that their policy is 'out of date'.
This is all only headed in one direction

Plonit and Sallying they are excellent questions, what is the purpose of this/why is it even being considered?
And I don't really know except that I do know a couple of the authors of the guidelines and they are not idiots and have been athletes themselves. They would not want to undermine womens sport at all. Honestly? I think this is an ass covering exercise. Ie. The IOC now has modern non discriminatory guidelines but contrived in such a way that everyone can carry on as before.
I am not going to lose any sleep over it and I am not sure that the oxygen of publicity would be a good idea because everyone will get the wrong end of the stick and form a worse impression of what womens sport is really like.

oops, just realised nmol/L not mmol/L too. mistakes all over today. As you were....

I do know a couple of the authors of the guidelines and they are not idiots and have been athletes themselves

Of course they're not. Any sane person would piss penised women off before pissing off non penised women off in a heartbeat. You'd have to be crazy to consider women first. The penised women are not messing around with this stuff.

Stunned by that link Basil - so now these people are taking accessible parking spaces, medical appointments and essential equipment from people with genuine disabilities in order to indulge their delusions?

I guess the next step is that they can declare themselves disabled and trample all over the hard-won (and frankly still less than adequate) rights to accessibility that campaigners have fought for?