Trans Park Run Deletion

[TheUterati]

Poorly played, MN, very poorly played.

The perspective that when male athletes identify as female athletes and on the basis of that are eligible to compete against women, they are cheating is an absolutely valid one that is deserving of discussion.

Points in its favour are:

1. The context of cheating in sports as a whole - those self-harming activities that athletes willingly participate in to give themselves a competitive edge.
2. The evidence that mediocre male athletes who identify as female manage to then carve out glittering careers where those would not be available to them had they continued to compete as males.

It is an absolutely valid perspective.

Accusations of cheating against specific individuals may well be against talk guidelines, in the absence of supporting evidence, but those individual posts can be deleted and a friendly warning from MNHQ posted on the thread.

Males identifying as females and competing in female sports is a key issue in GRA, whether it occurs at the 'social, fun' end of things or at at Olympic level. To silence this debate is an appallingly heavy-handed.

@ReluctantCamper Anyone signing up to an event with limited places will be taking the place of someone else. But there's no one-in-one-out policy for womanhood. Do you really think there should be a set amount of space that women are allowed to take up, and a new member of the community tips that over the size limit?

*@FloraFox *

If you actually read what I wrote, you will see quite clearly that I have repeatedly asked for either evidence or a reasoned explanation of why it's reasonable to assume the effect on girls will be significant. It seems like you're expecting an army of sporty butch trans kids to come and push your daughters out of the medals and there's simply no reason to believe that will be the case.

My evidence on the other hand quite clearly describes both the extraordinary suffering that this group is already experiencing, and the fact that factors like hope of being happy or accepted as who they are have an effect on limiting self harm and suicide attempts.

Publicly othering them as "not women" reduces that hope of acceptance. Exclusion is not just about not being allowed to physically run, it's also about not being allowed to feel part of the group they want to belong to.

Supporting that exclusion is both callous and transphobic.

@richmarr this x

Exclusion is not just about not being allowed to physically run, it's also about not being allowed to feel part of the group they want to belong to.

No it isn't. They might want to be women, but signing in as a woman when they are men skews all the figures against which all the women are measured.

I do like it that richmarr puts the important words in bold there, it makes the mansplaining so much more, well, more mansplainy.

It seems like you're expecting an army of sporty butch trans kids to come and push your daughters out of the medals and there's simply no reason to believe that will be the case.

Lol. It will obviously NEVER HAPPEN.

Oh.

"Exclusion is not just about not being allowed to physically run, it's also about not being allowed to feel part of the group they want to belong to."

This is nonsense isn't it?

I have a physical disability and am unable to run.

I want not only to join in running events (not walking, running) but to be accepted as a person work no disabilities.

Otherwise, it is exclusionary.

How's that going to work, then...

Use of the word "butch" is very interesting indeed.

Publicly othering them as "not women" reduces that hope of acceptance. Exclusion is not just about not being allowed to physically run, it's also about not being allowed to feel part of the group they want to belong to

Supporting that exclusion is both callous and transphobic

No. It isn't. They aren't part of the group they want to belong to. Sometimes it's ok for them to hang out with that group and approximate belonging, but sometimes it isn't ok because it harms the people who really are part of the group. For very specific reasons for which that group has protections.

Exclusion is not just about not being allowed to physically run, it's also about not being allowed to feel part of the group they want to belong to.

That’s really key phrasing. They want to belong to the group, and I don’t think there is anyone who doesn’t sympathise with that. But the fact is that they don’t belong to this group.

...and furthermore, the incessant aggressive and bullying tactics (like calling "transphobia" at every single turn as a silencing tactic) to become part of the group just puts backs up and makes us want to dig our heels in even more because now the demands are feeling suspiciously male.

Pratchet: The women will start xx leagues and they'll want in on that too. Nothing will ever be enough.

Correct. That is what TRA have done every step of the way, first it is one thing, then all things for women (like DV shelters and DV counsellors), regardless of the impact to females. There is only slim, limited protection in the EA at the moment, they want that gone.

On the same subject, backtracking to an answer Cady gave to:
if women set up a park run just for women, this would be illegal wouldn't it.
And Cady replied: No it wouldn't. People are still free to set up their own parkrun with their own rules and ethos,that's not illegal.

Actually it would under the EA, it does not allow enough provision for a female-only group and to exclude transwomen (particularly those with a GRC). It has been a while since I have read the EA and guidance notes. You could have a disabled group or disabled women's group and exclude the able-bodied. But you cannot have a bulk standard woman's group and exclude transwoman (at that time, with a GRC). You could exclude the male-born on religious grounds (for example, Muslim women). So clearly we need to establish a church of the Holy Uterine Lining or something.

Trousers: I do like it that richmarr puts the important words in bold there, it makes the mansplaining so much more, well, more mansplainy.

Quite. I have resisted the urge to throw any herrings that way.

richmarr Yes, in society we make allowances so everyone can rub along together but it really isn't reasonable to expect women to not have women-only sports any more because it would make some TW feel better. Do we have to put on weight to make anorexics feel better or give up running as every time a wheelchair user sees us it's a reminder that they can never run?

Richmarr is happy to give away anything that is a woman's, it's no skin off his nose is it?

He just doesn't realise he should not be giving away things that don't belong to him.

Isn't it obvious from the deletion message that most of the thread was transphobic and that's why it was deleted? Mnhq can't say that though. The best they can do to avoid backlash from the posters on that thread is to say "not in the spirit".

Most of human life is now transphobic bobbibabbler

it's also about not being allowed to feel part of the group they want to belong to.

That happens to non-trans people too, all the time. It's called real life. Not being one of the cool kids at school. Not being one of the hot girls the boys fancy. Or one of the hot boys the girls fancy. Not being a MILF.

Not being chosen for the hockey/ football team. Not singing well enough to join the choir. Not passing the audition for Britain's Got Talent. Not being able to have a child. Not having kind parents. Not having a roof over your head or enough food on the table. Not responding to treatment for a serious disease.

Real life sucks. And in comparison to some of the above, being misgendered seems pretty trivial.

Yes but that thread genuinely was transphobic. I'm one of you. I'm not a man or a tra. But i can still see that that thread was transphobic. When i tried to present an opposite view, i got accused of all sorts. I think some posters need to step back and have a look at their motivations because with some of the posts on that thread it'll give the TRAs plenty of ammo and also undermines the mnhq position of "we are not transphobic".

Publicly othering them as "not women" reduces that hope of acceptance. Exclusion is not just about not being allowed to physically run, it's also about not being allowed to feel part of the group they want to belong to. Supporting that exclusion is both callous and transphobic.

But males are not women, and gutting though that may be, it isn't transphobic to know it. Nor is it somehow women's fault.

I think you are massively trivialising transphobia - actual hate-filled jeering, physical violence, mocking of appearance, exclusion from jobs and housing - by using it to describe ordinary recognition of physical differences between males and females.

@richmarr

If you actually read what I wrote, you will see quite clearly that I have repeatedly asked for either evidence or a reasoned explanation of why it's reasonable to assume the effect on girls will be significant. It seems like you're expecting an army of sporty butch trans kids to come and push your daughters out of the medals and there's simply no reason to believe that will be the case.

And I asked you, as a person proposing a change in the way women's sports are classified, to provide evidence that exclusion is harming trans identified males and that including trans identified males in women's sport won't have a significant impact on girls.

You haven't provided any evidence of either of these points. I know you're not going to because there is none so I'll stop asking for evidence.

What, in your view, is an acceptable number of girls and women that will lose medals, sports scholarships, places on teams or an ability to participate in a limited entry competition to achieve this benefit for trans identified males?

My evidence on the other hand quite clearly describes both the extraordinary suffering that this group is already experiencing, and the fact that factors like hope of being happy or accepted as who they are have an effect on limiting self harm and suicide attempts.

This is false, the reports you have posted do not make the latter claim.

Publicly othering them as "not women" reduces that hope of acceptance. Exclusion is not just about not being allowed to physically run, it's also about not being allowed to feel part of the group they want to belong to.

Supporting that exclusion is both callous and transphobic.

Yes women have long been expected to prioritise the feelings of men over their ability to tell the truth and to expect privacy, dignity, safety and the opportunity to participate in public life. Meet the new boss...

Bobbibabbler - I agree. I've never took this stance on this subject before, but that thread did have a lot of transphobia in it.
It's not transphobic to say not biologically a woman, as that is the truth.
It is transphobic to want to exclude fully transitioned to women from a non competitive, open to everyone event, and say you're not one of us, you're a bloke, mark yourself different with a T or a N."

I think some posters need to step back and have a look at their motivations because with some of the posts on that thread it'll give the TRAs plenty of ammo and also undermines the mnhq position of "we are not transphobic".

Exactly.

hat most of the thread was transphobic

Bollocks

There were definitely some posts that could certainly be considered transphobic but not most

The last few pages were the ones that caused the issue in my opinion

And i domt think the whole thread should have been deleted

@CadyHeron

It feels very odd to be arguing for the other side doesnt it?

But i think its perfectly possible to accept that you can be gender critical whilst still respecting peoples choices where it doesnt actually matter. Nobody would answer me about "what if the transwoman has a GRC" and whether it would be illegal to categorise them as "other"when they're legally a woman. My point is, pick your battles. A transwoman giving her gender as female when asked in a non competitive inclusive setting is not the same as other "what abouts" that were presented.

Posters on here say they have no problem with tw living under the radar getting on with their lives but that thread shows for some people, that is clearly untrue. Is certainly opened my eyes.