Continuation thread re IOC/trans policy and related trans issues

[fidel1ne]

Also a plug for the FB group

www.facebook.com/groups/ATWIWS/

YouAreMyRain

The piece you posted a link to has a wonderful clarity to it.

I have been reading a few threads and can see plenty of discussion and evidence as to why this is unfair. I have only read about this issue here and so have nothing to balance the argument with.

Does anyone know the reasoning behind the Ioc decision? Who was involved in the process and why they think it is a good idea?
In order to effect change we need to deconstruct the reasoning, it would be helpful to understand.

Opposing "transactivist" type view point
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/when-it-comes-to-transgender-rights-there-s-nothing-feminist-about-being-a-bigot-a6843811.html

Article written arguing for the rights of transmen giving birth
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/transphobia-in-the-midwifbb_8131520.html

What's interesting is that a lot of trans people are very upset and offended by the biological fact that men and women are different. If you argue biology (chromosomes etc) you are oppressing them somehow because they seem to believe only in gender and in the individual's right to self define

Also this idea that you can identify as a man while being pregnant and giving birth and demanding that midwifery services are sensitive to your transgender status. It seems to me like cognitive dissonance.

Thankyou to all on here for articulating this so clearly. I feel so frustrated by this

"The thing that really hits home to me with this debate is that male entitlement is just such an incredible force, isn't it?"

Yes. I

As was pointed out on the running trans thread in FWR, that Independent article completely mispresents the thing about women having a shared girlhood as "exclusionary" when actually it started out as a discussion about women's shared experiences on twitter with a hashtag, and a load of transactivists men barged in and made it all about them.

Male privilege and telling to STFU in action.

That piece is infuriating, vacuous and misleading and most of the comments are even worse, except for a few people.

*telling women to STFU

Yes, it seems that male privilege cannot be surgically removed

It's not that I want to say women are lessor because if periods or pregnacy but it is a huge biological difference. Not is it right in my mind to tell women to compete at top level stat they must take hormones to "conceal" a normal biological function in order for it to be fair to compete against men.

Yes, it seems that male privilege cannot be surgically removed

No :)

Most of them don't ever have surgery at all. That's why they have positioned the IOC's former requirements of gender reassignment as "compulsory sterilisation". I suspect that's why the IOC can no longer justify that condition.

so feminists should be supporting trans rights rather than women's rights.

And not talking about biological issues like pregnancy, menstruation at all. The "tampon tax" twitter hashtag is "trans-exclusionary", the term FGM is "cis-sexist", saying "pregnant women" is "literally erasing trans people".

The only time they do want to talk about pregnancy is to "centre trans people in reproductive justice" which is what feminism should totally and exclusively be doing, according to a totally earnest article by a young trans woman posted on another website. IIRC it was from the execrable and sometimes amusing "Everyday Feminism" site (not to be confused with Everyday Sexism). By which this particular trans woman meant that women should uncomplainingly bear their babies for them and be grateful for it, no doubt. Bring on the Handmaid's Tale!

Another transactivist viewpoint
http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/10/trans-women-male-privilege/]]

It is ridiculous as it equates gender identity to hair colour, which is a biological, chemical, measurable thing. And it can also be dyed.

But if raising your level artificially is seen as performance enhancing - ie gives unfair advantage over those with lower levels - how can it be fair that a man who has the same level (whether naturally low for a male or diminished by hormones) is not also seen to be at unfair advantage?
Indeed. Which is why the IOC 'get out clause' is bollocks.

www.olympic.org/Documents/Commissions_PDFfiles/Medical_commission/2015-11_ioc_consensus_meeting_on_sex_reassignment_and_hyperandrogenism-en.pdf

Maybe one of these people can offer an insight, if these are the minutes they stink.

^To require surgical anatomical changes as a pre-condition to participation
is not necessary to preserve fair competition and may be inconsistent with
developing legislation and notions of human rights.^

Yep. Just as I thought, they are balking, as its now been positioned by trans lobbyists as "compulsory sterilisation". Because clearly it's much fairer to open the floodgates to people with a physical advantage over women.

Not sure why the IOC quote isn't in italics there. Anyway thanks for posting those minutes, littledrummergirl.

Your welcome Venus, I'm trying to understand the reasoning but they were no bloody help.
It's not a very logical decision to make.