Trans people being allowed to compete against women in the Olympics

[OhShutUpThomas]

The Olympics are now allowing men who have taken hormones for 12 months compete against women.

It is NOT transphobic to say that this is grossly unfair and a huge violation of women's rights.

Women who have trained all their lives cannot be expected to compete against people with male bodies and who will be allowed roughly 4 times the normal female testosterone levels.

It's not on. We can't stand for it.

Please get behind this mumsnet. Someone needs to take a stand.

It's NOT transphobic to state that this is unfair. It really isn't.

I'm getting an error message on that link Maryz

Sorr X post.

so s thread with 10 pages in a few hours is less 'trending' than a day old one with 54 post ??? Wow I knew my stats A level was out of date but didnt realise that much had changed !

Mumsnet won't campaign on this. They support campaigns that allow for unimpeachable corporate virtue signalling. To campaign on this topic means coming down for women and against transsexuals, which risks them being disbarred from the Virtue Signallers' Club Of Good People With Good Views. They are also a business and if I were them I'd probably also balk at incurring the wrath of online trans activists. Just not worth it.

The major category error is thinking of MN as primarily a community that supports women even when the going gets tough, rather than primarily a business that, despite a lightly feminist flavour, also has salaries to pay.

For all the posters who have apparently sent pm,s to MNHQ. This is a time to stand up and be counted. If you have no problem with what will be happening for women in the sports world, then at least have the courage of your conviction and be open about it.
Would be interesting to see how many have actually done this, I don't believe there will be many, certainly not compared to those of us who think this is unfair on current sportswomen and the sportswomen of the future. ( will there even be any if this isn't stopped )

Yes, dragonsdaughter, isn't it interesting how this issue somehow never trends? But I'm sure we're all just seeing things, delusional for thinking that maybe we're getting shut down on this issue.

Reading the media coverage of this is so surreal -- not one woman is asked what she thinks of the policy, not one study is cited or shown as evidence that anything but these athletes' hormone levels have changed. I've literally never seen coverage so one-sided in my life.

Even now, I've got people on Facebook saying "it must be that hormones negate performance advantage or the IOC wouldn't allow this!" ... and then being appalled when they find out the IOC based its decisions on the word of a few doctors who are heavily invested in the trans phenomenon. The IOC is a big organization, and transwomen are also using this massive unearned endorsement of gender identity as "evidence" that they're just the same as women. See: www.reddit.com/r/GCdebatesQT/comments/42h7ft/with_transgender_people_being_seen_to_have_no/

Manatee, you're dead right. Corporate virtue signalling is the exact right term for it. But at least if MN won't do the right thing on this, it'll show women exactly how far the organization can be trusted -- which is to say, to trust it only to the limited extent that our interests and its interests may intersect.

There's not usually a lot of money and acclaim in siding with women against men's intrusions. I suppose it is unsurprising that yet another organization simply won't side with women as soon as it's difficult or unpopular. It somehow still disappoints.

Not a clue. Is the aibu thread linked on "in the news" yet?

"Reading the media coverage of this is so surreal"
Actually, there's very little media coverage...

I think Mumsnet should let us know exactly how many PMs / emails they have had and how many are from men and transwomen.

It is entirely MNHQ's choice what they campaign about and I can see in this case they have personal safety as well as the value of their business to consider.

It's just that Justine sometimes does this thing where she is interviewed about something in the press or TV and she says 'well, our members think...' I love that she is able to do this and so far she has always been reflecting what we see on the threads. But what happens when her perception is different from what we are saying on the boards? Do we have a right to know what's going on behind the scenes if she speaks for us?

From Maryz link (The position document of the Women's Sports Federation on the 'Participation of Transgender Athletes in Women's Sport);

^III. DO MALE TO FEMALE TRANSGENDER ATHLETES HAVE
A PHYSICAL ADVANTAGE IN COMPETITION AGAINST
NON-TRANSGENDER FEMALES?^
^No. If a young person transitions from male to female prior to puberty, as in the case of some transgender people, no
accommodation is necessary at all and this student should be treated as any other competitor in girls’ or women’s sports.
Additionally, if a transgender student transitions after puberty, medical experts increasingly agree that the effects of taking
female hormones negate any strength and muscular advantage that testosterone may have provided and places a male-to-female
transgender athlete who has completed her transition in the same general range of strength and performance exhibited by nontransgender
females who are competing. A female-to-male transgender athlete has no physical advantage before, during or after
transition and should be permitted to participate fully on male sports teams.^

Un-bloody-believable. Literally.

From that Women's Sport Foundation pdf:

"DO MALE TO FEMALE TRANSGENDER ATHLETES HAVE
A PHYSICAL ADVANTAGE IN COMPETITION AGAINST
NON-TRANSGENDER FEMALES?

No. If a young person transitions from male to female prior to puberty, as in the case of some transgender people, no accommodation is necessary at all and this student should be treated as any other competitor in girls’ or women’s sports.

Additionally, if a transgender student transitions after puberty, medical experts increasingly agree that the effects of taking female hormones negate any strength and muscular advantage that testosterone may have provided and places a male-to-female transgender athlete who has completed her transition in the same general range of strength and performance exhibited by nontransgender
females who are competing."

Well that's all fine then. What are we bothered about

I have checked "in the news" now and, nope. Seems the IOC decision isnt even news on MN

Sorry fidel1ne - mammoth cross-post!

Not a clue. Is the aibu thread linked on "in the news" yet?

Good question. It does belong there.

Great minds Apples

Re actual news coverage, its not even on the bbc

There's this from the Guardian. This time, read the comments below the line. Very interesting, especially the comment re the record on the mile (from joepomegranate)

www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jan/25/ioc-rules-transgender-athletes-can-take-part-in-olympics-without-surgery

Who wants to bet that the science officer or doctor or whoever that wrote that bullshit was not born a female

Plus this from a transgender mtf

"I seriously doubt that all the muscle mass will be gone. If they had reduced the testosterone level to between 2-3 nmol/l which most natural females have then maybe after time they might. My levels sit at less than 0.1 nmol/l and they came down pretty quickly to that levels once i started hormones, much like many other transsexual friends. One has to be very suspicious as to why these transgender individuals want the levels with such a very high ceiling on 10nmol/l.

If these transgender individuals claim to be female then what is their reluctance to undergo sex reassignment surgery and reduce their testosterone to the same levels as most other post op transsexuals."