The Guardian covers Hubbard. You'll be surprised

[bellinisurge]

The Guardian says you shouldn't conflate sex and gender and Hubbard's place in the Olympics is unfair. I know, right?

www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2021/jun/22/by-conflating-gender-and-sex-we-undermine-sporting-competition

Agree with pp, the argument being read by the traditional Labour/Green readership is vital. Political allegiances and media choices form a very strong link. Sport, if you are interested in in, is not seen in party political terms, plus it is v visual. You could see the E German athletes who were unknowingly drugged looked different from other competitors in some categories

Yes, they seem completely synonymous when googling.

@Floisme

What's forgiving and forgetting got to do with anything? Point is loads of lefty thinking people - most of my real life friendship circle - read the Guardian and trust me, they take note. Do we want people to change their minds or not?

Your "lefty" (whatever than means) friends can change their minds, and that will be great. It's a shame they can't think for themselves, but only think how the Guardian tells them to. It's a little Pavlovian to be completely unaware of issues and the wider arguments around them (or even that there is a wider argument) unless prompted by the Guardian. I know where you're coming from, most of my friends and family are the same. I find their lack of curiosity and critical thinking a bit pathetic for a lot of highly educated, and in a couple of cases, highly influential people.

What's forgiving and forgetting got to do with anything? The Guardian have done, and continue to do, a huge amount of damage to women's rights, both domestically and in their increasing influence internationally. They have systematically failed to report on the matter of trans rights destroying women's rights, lied about it, or positively promoted it. They continue to provide Owen Jones an unfettered platoform to spew his misogynist bile, while female journalists are shut down, to the point where if one of them, as pp said, dares to "state the bleeding obvious", she is viewed as a modern day Cassandra. And all the time, they are viewed as the newspaper of the good, the compassionate, the inclusive, the liberal. When they have been anything but this on too many occasions for too long. So no, I am not going to believe they are suddenly informed, reformed, regretful or sincere. It's good that they are allowing journalists to speak about Laurel Hubbard, but quite frankly, to ignore the elephant in the room, when every other news source is talking about it, would have made them look very odd and completely out of step. It is a self serving move, not one of journalistic integrity.

@lanadelgrey

Agree with pp, the argument being read by the traditional Labour/Green readership is vital. Political allegiances and media choices form a very strong link. Sport, if you are interested in in, is not seen in party political terms, plus it is v visual. You could see the E German athletes who were unknowingly drugged looked different from other competitors in some categories

I don't think that the majority of people of any political leaning think this is anything but nonsense though.

There may be more on board who are younger. But anyone whose raised this with me has been totally 100% that it's a load of rubbish.

I think the problem is.

It's top down and so many orgs are captured it's the 'right thing' for those who are involved in those circles etc iyswim. To the extent that politicians of all flavours have somehow got to understand that they cannot speak freely on this subject.

So most of society thinks it's nonsense. But.

Some see it as a niche thing. Complicated. Let them sort it out. Nothing to do with me.

Some see it as a woke thing. For young people/ certain 'types'. Disconnected from real life. Leave it to them.

That was a great piece. Well done Tanya for getting that through!

I think a lot of people also don't really believe the stuff about stats and prisons etc even when they read it. Think. That so obviously is wrong it must be a one off mistake, not policy.

And for most people it's things like NHS, housing, inflation, schools and so on that they think about when they vote.

So combine all of that and it just sort of gets put on the, not for me to really think about/ look into. I've got other things to worry about. And anyway, common sense will prevail. Type thing.

Women's rights and LGBT+ groups arguing seems like a side issue.

So no I don't think s piece like this in the guardian will change much, although I'm glad to see it.

What's needed is more of the sort of action the EHRC have taken. That makes front page news.

And for some of the bloody politicians to say what they think.

Why are they all so scared to say the wrong thing? And WHY that's the massive question.

Yup, I think that's completely true. People even who are shown often think the instances of things like transwomen causing problems in prisons are flukes. And to be fair, we know that bad mistakes and flukes do happen in lots of systems and they don't always mean that the underlying way of doing things is the problem.

People are also aware that things they are told through the media may be factually incorrect or slanted. So when they hear something that seems just unlikely or crazy, they assume it's biased or bad reporting or some such.

In terms of the science of gender, or the psychological medical element, they don't feel expert enough to debate what seems to them to be a consensus.

With sports, many people know enough to be a least suspicious of the idea of transwomen competing on women's sports - they've been involved in sports themselves for example. And they also know that the whole concept of sports competition is based on the physical body. So they question.

And then if they see it, they are hit in the face with it.

I think what's being pushed is so obviously off the wall that people think they must be missing something, as well.

Yes, for sure. Or that it's just the usual crazies being amplified.

Well quite.

The reporting is it's Feminists Vs Trans people.

Feminists have always generally been given bad press, presented as extreme, and have been highly unpopular forever.

Trans people haven't been widely visible for long and their situation and what they want would be seen as very niche.

So in general it sounds like two groups most people aren't that interested in and probably see as pretty extreme, disagreeing.

It's instructive to note that the new language- menstruators, vagina havers etc. Is only used for things that are not front page.

Front page news even for the super woke media always uses woman, girl to mean sex. Moving to the new language would get a massive negative reaction. They keep it hidden away in less read sections.

@toffeebutterpopcorn

I see Jacinda Ardern has waded in... such a fighter for women’s rights... on the side of Hubbard. Sports minister too. And leader of the opposition...

Boo NZ boo...

AND Jan Tinetti, Minister for Women.

So disappointing and embarrassing.

With Hubbard, the optics of the situation are enabling people to see the reality of TW in women’s sport. The pictures show Laurel, who has clearly gone through a male puberty and this has a male body with male-pattern baldness looking very male, irrespective of their TW gender identity.

Without the pictures there’s a lot of obfuscation, much of it deliberate, which has resulted in people thinking the issue is a grey area, or complicated. Lots of discussion from the TRA side about performance declining after testosterone blockage, effects of oestrogen etc. It’s true that studies have countered that, showing persistence of male advantage conferred at puberty but for the uninitiated, the issue of residual advantages may have seemed murky.

But then - there is Laurel. Making it suddenly, visually, very clear why males - however they identify - don’t belong in female sport. Laurel’s inclusion doesn’t look fair.

Jacinda and Grant Robertson (Sports Minister, LGBTQ himself) are very, very tight. No surprises that they’re very much aligned.

I am really interested to see how this will play out down here over the coming months and years. It feels like the tide might be turning. Kiwi love their sports and ‘fair play’ is part of our culture.

I wonder, too, if it’s just that many people have gotten so used to women being in danger if they walk alone at night, accept a lift home with a friend of a friend, turn their back on a drink in a club, etc that being potentially in danger in a change room, a shelter, a prison ... it’s sadly the cost of being a woman and so why are women fussing when they should be used to it and shush?

I take it that Laurel will be sharing showers/changing rooms with the other women as well as competing against them.It will hopefully make some advocates of the pro gender neutral facilities have a rethink.

It's not s team sport so different I would imagine.

I strongly suspect that there may be a concession on sports, but sports will be a special case.

I know Tanya' husband IRL and he works in sport.

I looked up tanya aldred because someone mentioned on twitter that she writes for wisden.

This is an archiver version of an article from 2020 about the trans woman cricketer. It is thoughtful and covers all the issues fairly, and she does ultimately come down on the side of fairness, but the guardian piece is more unequivocal. Maybe it's a combination of time and the weightlifting factor.

www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/1235843.html

@CroydianSlip

Why is Rachel McKinnon now known as Veronica Ivy?

I recall reading somewhere that the cyclist was frustrated at being called by their surname only - so chose 2 feminine names to ensure all are explicitly aware of their chosen categorisation.

I just keep thinking of the song Poison Ivy-eeee

Veronica Ivy does sound like a 1950s move pin-up or a modern day pornstar.

It’s quite a move to prioritise having a name that’s feminine over a name that’s recognised for its sporting achievements.