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.

Vazder yes there's a good chance your DD is the top scorer because the opposition boys are too inhibited to tackle her.

what, every single defender in about 20 teams? unlikely.

And if that is the case (it isn't, its silly touchline gossip from parents of boys who don't like girls in the team) then good! More goals for her team!

Certainly every boy in our team. Not every boy in every team maybe, but a very high proportion I would imagine. Certainly enough to give her an advantage.

And if you think more goals for your kids team is more important than all the kids having an enjoyable and fair game of football then there's not much I can say.

I have a daughter who does boxing training by the way (just training, not fighting). If she has to pair up with a lad everyone is unhappy. Because the lad has to hold back. Football is no different.

Fascicle, there are atleast 3 threads on this issue on MN. I am sure I'm not the only person who really can't understand the justification for this move by the IOC.

I have seen arguments that this isn't a cause relevant to MN, that a random straw poll is not representative and that there should be no segregation between the sexes in sport. I might not agree with these points of view but I can understand the logic of these argument.

However, I have not seen anybody attempt to explain why the IOC's decision makes sense - on a forum where it would take me seconds to find posters arguing for days about step parenting, vaccines, earrings for babies, parent and child parking and how often you should change your sheets.

Please, if you have an alternative point of view on this, something that would give us a different perspective, please could you share it.

So what do you suggest she does? Just not play football so she doesn't upset the boys?

In four years of her playing not one coach or parent has ever suggested that boys don't want to tackle her. She doesn't usually run unhindered down the wing straight to the goal someone always has a go. I think what you are suggesting is rubbish.

I'd respectfully suggest boxing is rather fucking different to football

Sorry I haven't rtwt yet, but I was reading a bit more around the issue and came across this very interesting blogpost

gendertrender.wordpress.com/2014/09/18/fallon-fox-why-hormones-dont-make-a-woman/

Coming late to this debate so sorry if I'm repeating points already made!

I find that reducing my sex to 'hormone levels' to be offensive.

My sex is more than a variable hormone in my blood.

And what's even more infuriating is that the ioc or whoever has made this decision is undoubtedly all/mostly male I've unaffected by this.

F* it's like living in the dark ages.

Good luck with the campaign and poor show mn for not having the guts to stand up to these bullies.

^ yy. Just one little argument for.

No Vazder I imagine she plays football with the boys for the same reason that my DD trains in a mixed gym. Because there is no alternative. But I still think mixed teams are a bad idea for everyone.

I thought this post was very clear. And helped me make my mind up
to support the change.

Add message | Report | Message poster purplebynature Tue 26-Jan-16 21:59:34
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.

The problem with that argument is that if male physiognomy doesn't give an advantage in a particular sport (no idea if that would apply to archery), there isn't really any argument for having single sex events anyway.

(Referring to the point posted by FrankNstein)

NotTooBothered vote here

Yes I too would like to see any argument other than "transwomen are women and therefore should be allowed to compete in women's sport".

Any argument at all.

We've had 'you're all transphobes!'

And 'we darent say on the thread for fear of repercussions' which is quite frankly laughable considering how vociferous the trans activists usually are, and what happens to the women who dare to disagree with them.

okay, so let us imagine a trans woman who has since childhood felt she was female, who has undergone surgery and hormone treatments and has been living as female for many years. She would also like to compete at elite level in the canoe slalom.

She is still (XY), has exceptional musculature for a woman and a much higher testosterone level than average for a woman (though far lower than the male elite athletes). She cannot compete fairly against the elite male athletes so if she is not allowed to compete against the women then her dream of life as an elite sportsperson is over.

If she does compete against the women then the woman she replaces in the competition is being denied her dream of a life as an elite sportsperson.

It is not immediately obvious to me in this case that the woman has the superior right to fulfil her dream over the transwoman. Clearly I would not say it is obvious that the transwoman has a superior right to her dream either.

The fact that the potentially displaced woman also must have exceptional musculature for a woman and a high testosterone level in order to be competing at elite level seems important also. When you only have the shot at elite sport that you have just because you are a genetic outlier it seems mean spirited to say 'well I know I am unusual and hence have an advantage over the vast majority of people who might have wanted a gold medal...but obviously I should be allowed to compete...but that person is more unusual than me...and that just isn't fair'.

It isn't an argument for the ruling...but I think it is an argument for actually thinking about the issue rather than blanket declaring XX as line which shall not be crossed and not allowing any debate of it.

Interesting that in a piece of news this week, a white man was asked to play Michael Jackson and it's making all the radio talk shows...

But that's a male/black/white issue, so of course deserves all the debate and outrage and interest.

Women's issues, not so much, it would appear.