Nic Williams on Woman's Hour (Tuesday) talking about sport and gender identity

[OrchidInTheSun]

twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1069731404488077318?s=21

Nic Williams will be debating with Beth Jones, who is an academic at Nottingham Trent www.ntu.ac.uk/staff-profiles/social-sciences/dr-beth-jones

Oh my, that Alex Sharpe tweet is hilarious. Can we have it on a t-shirt (with AS fully credited of course.)?

Yes Alex. You are not a woman. You can be a transwoman all you like but woman is not your category.

I guess I never before realised that we segregate sport by gender identity rather than sex. All those women tennis players, swimmers, athletes, weight lifters and rugby players compete as women because inside they feel really womanly.

It must be that because we all know that you can't change sex.

If we segregate sport on any other basis then this discussion becomes meaningless.

I have been laughing so hard at that Alex tweet. They are all so stupid, it's cringe worthy.

I know I've argued the opposite on this thread, but actually I think you're right, Pencils and others: The whole 'giving equal weight to both sides' thing is perfect

You're correct that there are benefits. I don't like it because one side brings facts, and the other side brings feelings, and we have to pretend they're equivalent in value and in force, when they're not. It's a shitty way to conduct public debate, as we're all wearingly familiar with. But when it's so glaringly obvious that the ramifications of prioritising the feelings are so utterly unfair and egregious, it kind of works.

And the reaction from the feelings side is also helpful: you can't argue that you weren't allowed to put your side, when everyone with eyes can see that actually you just failed to. Then they ask themselves why you failed to convince them, why the arguments were so thin and why they need to learn a whole new language, and why you're telling them things that you are pretty sure aren't true, and when you tug at that dangling thread, the whole Christmas jumper of genderism tends to unravel pretty quickly

Christmas jumper of genderism

Phrase of the week. Thank you.

I can’t see the Alex tweet! Can someone enlighten me?

It's this one that people are quoting, Fekko:

Stay focused. Behind arguments about fairness in sport, skewing of violent offending stats, unnecessary NHS smear tests ... lies a desire to exclude TW from women-only spaces and, of course, from the category 'woman' altogether. It is all in plain view ppl.

I can't stop laughing at that tweet.

But it's a bitter sort of laugh, because at the same time as I'm laughing, I'm also thinking about how it illustrates that the likes of Alex really don't listen to women. If they were listening, then they wouldn't be surprised. Duh.

Anyway, well done Alex. It took you a while, but you got there in the end. Shame you had to be so snide about it.

Ummmmm.., yes Alex. That’s the point. That’s actually what we are asking for, out loud and in public, with data to back it up. It’s not some kind of conspiracy, that’s actually what we want.

No men in women’s spaces. Or sports. Or the other stuff.

How very bizarre.

That was the tweet? Well duh.

And in other news, the pope is catholic.

Just going back to the argument about segregating sports by height or weight instead of sex, I was thinking that some sports obviously already do this - boxing, weightlifting, wrestling (martial arts?). But those segregations are within a larger sex segregation. They still don't mix the sexes.

I just had a look at the boxing weights. The female heavyweight champion is 12st and 5ft 11in tall. She'd be a middleweight in men's boxing. I still don't fancy her chances.

Behind arguments about fairness in sport, skewing of violent offending stats, unnecessary NHS smear tests ... lies a desire to exclude TW from women-only spaces and, of course, from the category 'woman' altogether. It is all in plain view ppl.

Thick. As. Mince.

Surely it's not possible for a Professor of Law? I'm assuming deliberately disingenuous. Alex can't be this clueless, especially as Alex said recently that Alex prefers to be underestimated...

Sharpe’s tweet is not just laughable but sinister too when you think it’s actually the transactivists who pushed a hidden agenda under the radar for so long, and have been continuing to try to hide it from the light of public knowledge with their #nodebate crap.

Transactivists trying to break down women’s boundaries and erode children’s safeguarding under the pretence of “civil rights” and “equality” for a supposedly dreadfully oppressed minority.

Just more of the usual DARVO with an extra twist of absurd.

And WTF did Sharpe mean by “unnecessary NHS smear tests”? Presumably Sharpe is referring to the male-bodied nurse being sent to do a smear when the woman had specifically requested a female; but what about that choice of vocabulary? “Unnecessary”. Women are only having smears for shits and giggles? Is Sharpe actually trying to imply that women don’t really need smear tests, and are just looking for areas in life to kick up a fuss about so we get to be hateful and exclude those born male?

Is that what Sharpe is saying? I mean, batshit, but then so is saying women could beat men at sport if we just tried harder, and whatserface was prepared to go on R4 and say that, so...

Or is Sharpe saying that women fear that male-bodied “transwomen” are trying to force “unnecessary” smear tests on us, as a form of assault? Also batshit, and not something I’ve heard any woman claim.

Just a really strange choice of word. Is it another deliberate attempt to muddy the waters? Laziness? A complete ignorance of and lack of interest in women’s health? All of the above?

Maybe in Transworld, women will compelled to give up those unnecessary transphobic and triggering smear tests and have enforced prostate exams instead? You know, in order to show solidarity.

I listened to the interview on the way in. Beth’s cupboard was totally bare of arguments. I wish Nic had referenced more of the obvious stuff like pelvic differences and lung capacity, where listeners could have googled the peak flow ranges etc to see the obvious biological disparity, but otherwise she did a great job.

I think Sharpe is responding to the fact that the NHS will no longer know which people require them and which don’t. So the NHS will have to send requests to everyone, some being unnecessary because not all women need smear tests.

Because some women have penises.

Pencils - thanks for the transcripts

I haven't been able to listen to the programme, and had sort of assumed that pp were slightly exaggerating the "women should just try harder" stuff.... Seeing what was said written down is so insulting, so embarrassing for the good doctor

a desire to exclude TW from women-only spaces and, of course, from the category 'woman' altogether. It is all in plain view ppl.

Of course it is Alex, we've been telling you this for how long?

Some people believe TWAW. MANY women do not. It's completely reasonable to believe that TW are men. A large proportion of the group you are trying to enter the spaces and category of do not agree that men belong in it, and do not want them there. This isn't going to change.

TimeLady

Thanks HumberElla I was genuinely baffled but guess that makes sense, as much as any of this does. So, requests to come for smears that would not be physically possible. Funny that in that context Sharpe doesn’t make any reference to the corresponding possibility of females who identify as men who do need smear tests not being called for them. It’s almost as if those people’s health doesn’t matter to Sharpe. Despite being part of the trans family.

Pencils another huge thank you from me for the transcripts. Amazing work. 💐

I've just listened to it but thought it must be a spoof. Women just need to try harder and they can be as good as men at sport?! Thats just...mental. You don't need a study just eyes and a brain to see that is a daft (and frankly) dangerous idea. The only end result is there will be no womens sport whatsoever.

Sharpe’s tweet is not just laughable but sinister too

The mindset is also very sinister.
Alex is telling people that it's not just about sport, or smear tests, or violent crime, it's about women trying to stop us from doing those things.

Using the issues that women talk about, followed by notion that transwomen shouldn't be excluded, looks to me like an acknowledgement that exclusion addresses the problem, but isn't an acceptable solution.

Such arrogance.

Every time they open their mouths, they are unwittingly holding up a banner that says exclude me, exclude me.

Keep tweeting Alex.

I've linked to Dr Fond of Beetles blog post a few times upthread: - now she has a very useful Twitter thread that discusses Testosterone etc. There's also a discussion of CAIS (Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome) as a notional group in which T might be observed in a relevant manner. I think BowlofBabelfish outlined this yesterday.

What if we could identify a group of people who had no T? Not female typical T, not lowered to below typical female levels, but no T at all. We’d predict, if T is the only factor that confers sporting advantage, such people would be pretty damn poor at running. 6/

This group of people exists. XY genetic males with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS) can produce T, but use not a single molecule of it. They are functionally T-zero. 7/
...
The IOC logic (and that of invested parties) tells us that CAIS females are going to be the least competitive of all females. After all, non-CAIS females have at least some T that they can put to use. 9/

The frequency of CAIS in the general population is 1 in 20,000. The frequency of CAIS in female athlete cohorts is 1 in 420. CAIS is nearly 50 times more prevalent in female athletes than in female couch potatoes. This is a massive overrepresentation. 10/

CAIS females succeed as athletes way more often than non-CAIS females. How puzzling that the only thing the IOC asserts confers sporting advantage is functionally absent in these females with clear sporting advantage. 11/

Whatever underpins CAIS female sporting advantage, it is independent of functional T. Thus, the IOC position that T is the only factor influencing sporting advantage - and - the only action a male must take to “fairly” compete against females is to reduce T, is untenable. End/

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1070097483408248835.html

or the following original if you prefer to see comments and discussion:

twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1070097483408248835