Martina Navratilova to front BBC1 transgender athletes doc

[EweSurname]

I knew she was making a documentary but I didn't know it was for the BBC. Bit wary now of what she'll be allowed to say.

www.broadcastnow.co.uk/broadcasting/navratilova-to-front-bbc1-transgender-athletes-doc/5139862.article#.XOav7YCjPkg.twitter

The tennis star and gay rights campaigner is to front Brook Lapping’s 60-minute doc Trans Athletes: A Fair Playing Field?, which will air next month.

In February, Navratilova was roundly criticised by trans and equality activists for stating that allowing transgender women to compete in women’s sporting tournaments was “insane and cheating”. She subsequently said she would do more research on the matter.

For the doc, Navratilova will speak with the athletes, scientists and sporting officials at the forefront of the debate, including former Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies, who said in March that transgender athletes could “ruin women’s sport”.

She will also meet trans medical physicist and former runner Joanna Harper, who will explain how her run times dropped by more than 10% following her transition.

I’m guessing the reason there were no current female athletes speaking out is because they are too scared of the inevitable TRA pile-on and potential loss of sponsors/funding.

I reckon Martina was probably on a short leash as to what she could say and she probably thought it worth doing to give coverage. I thought the golf and football trans women gave useful contributions. I did think that the range of trans women was not represented - apart from a few clips, we didn’t get to see the huge, hefty, people with very Male size and stature. There was no clear indication of the significance of self Id.
Also little focus on the girls in schools and those losing scholarships in US to people who were very mediocre in boys races.
The law expert was thoroughly irritating. The purpose of sport is NOT inclusion to the extent of unfairness. All the “being kind” stuff irritated the hell out of me. If it’s not fair, tough. If you’re a man, transition to a trans woman, then accept the consequences. If it’s unfair to compete against women then you can’t do it. The tenor of the programme was the opposite. They must be included regardless.

For me, the scary thing was that the whole rise in numbers of trans women in sport was entirely accepted.

The other thing. NOTHING about trans men. A comparison here would surely be interesting. If there are no natural advantages for men transitioning to trans women, then how come women transitioning to trans men are not competing in men’s sport?

Aired the week before Wimbledon? Call me cynical but that timing is no coincidence

Women must put aside their desire to take part in sport on equal terms as a respected sex class in order to soothe the feelings of males unhappy with their sense of identity.

This is absolutely the issue.

Go in too hard and you'll never (imho) capture the attention of the woke who could be "woken".

I agree very much with this. Softly, softly, catchee monkey.

I can see why it would seem disappointing to people who already know a lot about this, but I don't think the equivocation will be what strikes the vast majority of people. I think a lot of people are going to be galvanised against the whole idea, maybe especially men.

I'm sure you're right nauticant. But right now I'm wondering what the point of me leaving an extreme patriarchy cult was, when now all the 'progressives' are actually needing to be gently coaxed into not treating women like second class citizens.

I think a lot of people are going to be galvanised against the whole idea, maybe especially men
Most of the men I know think trans ‘women’ playing sport with women is ridiculous.
However, they also see it as not their issue. I think they’re worried about being accused of bullying ‘women’.

Sorry, I don't contribute here much (I read a lot though and quietly talk to my friends about this stuff). Has anyone ever given a convincing explanation as to why sex/gender is up for grabs but not other characteristics? For example if I identified as having cerebral palsy or being one legged, but took no action to achieve that state, no one would accept it, allow me to compete against and beat disabled athletes? If I decided to identify as black no one would elect me BME officer? What is the difference?

alisundercover

Yes, I can see that and it also makes sense that they would tend to let women say if they object. And I also think quite a few haven't paid much attention to the details of the gender debate at all.

I think it's good for men to speak out though. It's funny, most women I know who have a problem with this are in sport, the ones who aren't don't see the issue. But men often do even if they aren't sporty, I think they are just aware that they really are stronger in many ways. If a lot of them start saying, look, it is bollocks that these guys are saying they have no advantage, it might reveal them as just dishonest and taking advantage.

If I decided to identify as black no one would elect me BME officer? What is the difference?
Male sexual entitlement.

@Apollo440 😂 duh! But what's the woke argument?

Women are just supposed to step back, be stepped over and then be understanding of males and their struggles to take everything from us. Not going to happen.

This times 1,000,000

Has anyone ever given a convincing explanation as to why sex/gender is up for grabs but not other characteristics?

As far as I understand it from talking to a medical person involved with kids with gender issues, the most basic idea is that your gender is actually about your sense of yourself as a women or man - not your physiology - and that this is a brain thing we don't quite understand. It seems in some ways to stem from the intersex question - because intersex people are recognised as having a gender identity and we are supposed to make medical decisions based on what they prefer, this "capacity" for gender identity must somehow be separate from biological sex.

Disability is about actual physical stuff, and race doesn't, apparently, have some sort of mental centre in the brain. That's the story I was told anyway though it has more problems than you can shake a stick at.

KatnissMellark well this is from a HuffPost article:

"Racial divisions may ultimately be a construct, Moore notes, but “skin color is hereditary.” And it’s skin color that primarily determines racial privilege, and the way others in the world interact with your racial identity.

Transracial identity is a concept that allows white people to indulge in blackness as a commodity, without having to actually engage with every facet of what being black entails — discrimination, marginalization, oppression, and so on. It plays into racial stereotypes, and perpetuates the false idea that it is possible to “feel” a race."

So, that's why it's wrong when Rachel Dolezal does it, and uh, also why you can't compare it to transgenderism. Please ignore the fact that all those things are equally true of appropriating the identity of women. You can check in your brain at the cloakroom. Welcome to WokeWorld.

Thanks @Goosefoot, doesn't sound much like science. And gender I can let go of, seems to be just a perception of whether you fit the prevailing stereotype, but sex... no.

The other thing. NOTHING about trans men. A comparison here would surely be interesting. If there are no natural advantages for men transitioning to trans women, then how come women transitioning to trans men are not competing in men’s sport?

^^ This.

So many people investing so much time and effort to prove that transwomen don't have any advantage over women in sport.

Is anyone investing any time at all trying to prove that transmen don't have any disadvantage when competing against men?

I doubt it. Whichever way you look at it, women lose.

@Mermoose (great name). Thanks. It does read as the same thing...I thought the answer might be 'no convincing argument' buy interesting to read all the same.

I appreciate the answers to my question. This board is an education.

KatnissMellark Ha, thanks! If you want you can read about the punishment a philosopher received for asking the same question. It's pretty grim. So, the short answer to your question is - You must never ask that question.
nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/05/transracialism-article-controversy.html

Fuck the BBC. We're going to have to protest there.

That sociology fella is mad has he not looked at pretty much every sporting world record ever? Elite women vs elite men is not fair.

Good Lord Mermoose, what a strange article. Horrifying to read about the persecution of the author and the complete lack of editorial courage on the part of the journal. But also bizarre to read the 'Look how much she has regurgitated genderism!!' justification to show why she shouldn't be persecuted. The strength of her argument is barely visible under the piles of repetition that 'she really, really, really does believe transwomen are women and here's all the proof she does, which makes it wrong to persecute her and try to shut down her career'. Presumably if she was a bit more gender sceptical, it would be fine to crush her like a gnat.

Thanks @Goosefoot, doesn't sound much like science. And gender I can let go of, seems to be just a perception of whether you fit the prevailing stereotype, but sex... no.

Yeah, I'm not sure who decided that being a woman was about gender identity rather than sex.

One of the female interviewees (researcher at Loughbrough I think) spoke about 'aggression' (or similar) on both sides.

I'm so sick of this line being used. It comes from one side. Go on Twitter for one day and that much is glaringly obvious.