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.

"are we expecting a huge hoard of hormonised men taking over women's olimpic events now then? maybe I'm wrong .. but I do feel this is being blown out of proportion."

It only takes one per discipline to set the new world record.

How will you feel when a male Kenyan runner takes hormones for a year and then easily breaks Paula Radcliffe's marathon record? Her 2:15:25 record remains unbroken since 2003, because other women have not been able to break it. Men's record stands at 2:02:57 and has been under Radcliffe's time since 1964.

How will you feel when a male Kenyan runner takes hormones for a year and then easily breaks Paula Radcliffe's marathon record?

furthermore our putative transwoman athlete could later decide that it was all a mistake and, with hindsight, he prefers being a bloke.
Stop taking the hormones, maybe take some extra testosterone for a bit of oomph
et voila!
he's all manly again.....and he's got that prize money
nice job eh

Thanks Cote - better exanple than mine.

Though if PP believes Flo Jo set her record on drugs and that a trans woman could still beat it even though a born woman hasn't for 30 years, that says something as well...

icebeing clearly this is a very difficult concept to understand, but lesbians are attracted to women. I doubt many lesbians would be happy to lie there and have a man 'do stuff' to her as long as he doesn't fuck her with his dick. A lesbian, for example, might want to explore their partner's body, enjoy getting her off etc.

Do you expect straight men to be OK with sex with TW as long as they don't get fucked by them?

"presumably lesbians wouldn't mind having sex with a transwoman if it didn't involve the penis in any way? Not all sex is PIV...."

To me, it is. According transwomen fewer rights because they weren't born women feels similar to penalising people, or forever defining them, by other details of birth, over which individuals have no control.

Ridiculous sophistry.

Which are the "fewer rights" that this self-defined minority group of males are accorded, that other males have? Which fundamental human right is anyone suggesting that they be denied?

Another relevance of the analogy is the perception by some that people who join a group they weren't born into, erode the position of those whose rights were conferred at birth. I believe it is possible to co-exist in a broadened group without anybody's rights being diminished.

OK, let's break this apparently highly unreasonable "perception" down a bit.

You have a male bodied person who demands access to female sex segregated intimate space, such as a changing room in a school, like 17 year old pre-op trans girl Lila Perry in the US. The school asked Lila to change behind a curtain in the girl's room as a compromise but Lila refused, citing her "rights". The girls (some much younger) were unhappy and deeply uncomfortable with this, they felt their boundaries were being violated to have to get changed with a male in the room and it wasn't right for their feelings to be dismissed and minimised, but Lila didn't give a fuck. Lila, and all Lila's lovely pals in the trans lobby, along with many so-called "progressive" media organisations, thought the girls were stupid unthinking transphobic bigots. The high court ruled that it was discrimination and Lila didn't have to use the curtain if she wished. It's still being disputed as far as I know.

So how can they all "co-exist in a broadened group without anybody's rights being diminished"? They clearly can't. So ask yourself this - whose rights are more important?

Yes, which are these "fewer rights" of which you speak?

I'm still baulking at the broadened group. The group under discussion is 51% of the human race: females; women.

The proposal is to broaden the definition of "females; women" to include males who match all the biological of men.

I'm unable to see how this doesn't render the female sex invisible. How can we even speak about women, if 'women' has been broadened to include men?

How can women protect their employment rights if employers can hire women who don't get pregnant or even have periods? How can women call for action on male violence, if women can be violent males? ... and it goes on You're not broadening a group. You're re-defining 'woman'.

Why?

• males who match all the biological definitions of men.

What next? Are we going to see a bunch of men identifying as women who don't need maternity wards or San pro.

That is an excellent (and bloody terrifying) point, Garlic. Jesus

You're not broadening a group. You're re-defining 'woman'.Why?

could be a response to increased female freedoms and rights, men feel threatened because an increase in female empowerment can result in a corresponding loss of male power.

Not suggesting it's a conscious and co ordinated strategy, just a sort of gut response, the change in women's position knocks things off balance and things shift until a new equilibrium is reached.

Women, us 'bleeders and breeders' that is, wont put up with this shit

That is an excellent (and bloody terrifying) point, Garlic. Jesus

It is an excellent point. It is right at the heart of feminist objections to this. Women and all their biological issues which contribute directly to their oppression will be erased. It's not a trivial thing that is happening.

No, it isn't an excellent point, Garlic. It is pure scaremongering about a situation you know full well will not happen.

How can women protect their employment rights if employers can hire women who don't get pregnant or even have periods?

How many transwomen are there competing no equal terms for jobs against biological women? Why do you not raise these fears about employers deliberately hiring women who are infertile or post-menopausal or who have undergone hysterectomy or ovarectomy?

How can women call for action on male violence, if women can be violent males?

They can do it in exactly the same way they do now, given that violent women aren't exactly an unknown phenomenon. What the hell does the label matter?

How do you know it won't happen, Veritat?

You're wrong to say I know it won't! When I look at how laws & language are being reframed, as well as the definition of 'woman' for sporting competitions, it doesn't look too unlikely to me.

I'd rather it didn't happen, so am looking forward to your assurances.

Look at my second post, Garlic; and if you contend it will happen, give me some statistics for when it actually has happened - bearing in mind that it is unlawful for any employer to discriminate against women except in very limited circumstances.

Veritat

Let me explain how I think that women could hypothetically lose key rights, the way the law is going. Just as a thought experiment.

In the UK, as per the Equality Act 2010, we protect against discrimination on the grounds of certain characteristics. Being transsexual (NOT transgender, currently) is a protected characteristic, no argument with that. And sex is a protected characteristic, so refusing to give a job to a woman just because she is a woman is sex discrimination. Being pregnant also falls under sex discrimination so it is not lawful to dismiss a woman because she is pregnant.

Erasing biological women as a group (which is what is being discussed) takes away the protections women need (and which we fought for, we weren't handed them) due to our biological issues and the traditional attitudes to women that have grown up around these issues. If an employer chooses not to give a job to a woman because she might at some future time get pregnant, that is a clear-cut case of sex discrimination. Pregnancy is something which simply does not apply to a man.

If we then expand the definition of "woman" in law to cover biological men and vice versa, depending on the legal safeguards added or otherwise the employer could potentially legitimately refuse to give a job to a woman because she might get pregnant at some time in the future as they can say that pregnancy is a condition which affects both women and (trans) men, so there is no sex discrimination. Which is clearly not the case, except in an overzealous application of trans ideology. You are not protected on account of pregnancy until you actually get pregnant, and even then, it falls under the umbrella of sex discrimination and this could potentially be challenged for the same reason. But much discrimination against women happens purely because we are the reproductive class and we can't escape being perceived as people who are much more likely to have caring responsibilities, need to take a lot of time off, not stay late etc.

Those "labels" really are more important than you think.

The argument just doesn't work, venus, because you are assuming the Equality Act is set in stone and can never be changed to adapt to changes in society. There's a clue in the full name, i.e. the Equality Act 2010. There's another clue in the fact that it introduced, for instance, discrimination on the grounds of age which was not previously a protected characteristic.

LOL @ Veritat 'a situation you know full well will not happen'

Of course it will happen, just as girls (now known as transphobic bigots) in Lila Perry's school are now required to engage cognitive dissonance to the max and disrobe in front of a male. What student or parent or school administrator would have ever suspected any of that would have happened, but lo...

LOL at the idea that employers do not find ways to discriminate against women. What planet are you living on?

Gender pay gap: women effectively working for free until end of year from November 8, 2015.

Women have it so good.

Well we could debate the hypotheticals of hypotheticals all night, couldn't we? The plain fact of the matter is that some "rights" that trans women might wish to have are not compatible with women's established rights to protected treatment and spaces due to their sex (not "gender") and the important biological ramifications of it that men don't share.

I'm interested, you seem invested. Why exactly do you think trans women's (i.e. a subset of biological men) feelings should be privileged over those of women? Why should biological women be erased as a group because of said biological men's feelings, and not allowed to discuss pregnancy, abortion, FGM for fear of offending them? What does it say about power and privilege in society that this is happening?

To Veritat.

Also what math said.

Garlic and math and venus
Thank you so much for patiently explaining this issue, the real heart of it, in such eloquent ways.
It is so frustrating to see "woman" redefined by transactivists. I feel like I'm in the twilight zone lately.

Yes, thanks from me too!

Veritat - bearing in mind that it is unlawful for any employer to discriminate against women except in very limited circumstances.

Define women.

Here's one article, Veritat:

www.theguardian.com/money/2015/jun/12/discrimination-work-pregnant-new-mothers-forced-out-jobs

"last detailed work on this problem in 2005, by the Equal Opportunities Commission, found that 30,000 new mothers were forced out of jobs each year, but the charity Maternity Action estimates the number is twice as high"