BBC: 'Gender identity differs from a person's sex - their physical biology'

[Horizons83]

From an interview with Quinn - the Canadian women's football player:

'The 25-year-old remains eligible to compete in women's sport despite identifying as transgender because gender identity differs from a person's sex - their physical biology.'

So please explain everything else that is going on in the world BBC? Or is it double standards for transmen?

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54233946

Someone's been at the Kool-Aid.

It's so self-indulgent.

I think for women who do this they just don't see how harmful it is to their biological sex when you scale it up and it undermines the basis for rights and protections that apply to half the population.

it is a difficult read grammatically. I'm guessing that the IOC rules on doping will cover any issue with whether Quinn is taking testosterone as part of their transition.

"Once I started living more authentically in my life, whether that's just how I present myself or coming out to them as trans, I think they've all said to me it's really incredible to see me just live my authentic self and how I've exuded a different level of confidence, and how it just fits with who I am as a person."

This does sound like Quinn is feeling more comfortable behaving with a more masculine frame of reference which would make them appear to be more confident - it is a shame that that level of confidence is so discouraged in women and I wonder if that has anything to do with the transition?

Will more people listen to what Quinn has to say now? A male sounding voice will presumably help.

It’s so annoying to read articles like this. In reality everyone Involved knows the score. There’s no issue for Quinn provided Quinn stays off testosterone or other banned drugs because Quinn is biologically female. Trans women are biologically male so are subject to restrictions from the protected female sport category for reasons of fairness and safety.

Somehow due to the obfuscation of language this obvious reality morphs into “sports shouldn’t discriminate against people due to their gender ID! See there’s no problem with Quinn!” But it’s literally the reverse situation!! Argh.

We live in a world that is so binary and I have been receiving messages ever since I was a young child about how I should act, how I should portray myself and how I should be and anything that deviated from that was essentially wrong

And yet people still think the progressive answer to this is to medically and surgically alter healthy bodies, rather than actually address sexism.

So Quinn isn't fighting the IOC to get on the men's team?

(Although I suspect that is actually an option, not taken for some reason)

Good for Quinn. So long as the banned drugs rules stay exactly as they are, it's great for women and girls to see that adult human females come in all shapes, sizes, gender expressions and freedom of choices, and that's a great thing.

Younger people seem to have accepted the idea of "gender identity" as a thing. I understand why it seems to feel right to some - it's a name for feeling more feminine or more masculine. But the idea that a feeling like that is somehow essential to who you are, that you need to identify or name it to be authentic (along with a host of other identity characteristics,) even that it's in any way stable, just seems so non-helpful or even damaging to me.

So transmen aren't men?

Doesn't Quinn want to compete on the men's team as a man?

I guess it's not as advantageous to be born a female and try and compete against born males.

Much easier the other way round.....

I've just been reading the article. Hard to believe in 2020, people are saying that identifying as transgender means they can "dress the way they want". Seriously? More trans putting forward a problem that doesn't actually exist.

Reading another (bbc) article where "assigned at birth" is used. Makes me wonder whether the use of that term registers as odd with the majority of Joe public? Or has it used so often now it no longer leaps out as odd?

Reading another (bbc) article where "assigned at birth" is used. Makes me wonder whether the use of that term registers as odd with the majority of Joe public? Or has it used so often now it no longer leaps out as odd?

I've seen "registered at birth" once or twice now. I am happier with that wording.

What baffled me about the article was the quite clear statement that gender identity is not sex, but then going on later about the poor transwomen who don't know if they can compete in sport, isn't it terrible that rugby might change the rules etc.

It's quite clear. Transwomen can compete in the male category. Just as Quinn recognises that they (preferred pronoun, not 'they' transwomen) can continue to compete in the female category.

I also felt very sad for Quinn.. all this stress and unhappiness purely because of gender-based societal stereotypes and expectations. I'm so glad I'm a child of the 80s and not the 00s.