Moral maze on trans athletes and sport tonight

[WobblyLondoner]

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000x4x2 - tonight and then catch up.

Programme blurb below. Not sure who the witnesses are.

Rights and Rules
Moral Maze
Combative, provocative and engaging live debate chaired by Michael Buerk. With Melanie Phillips, Ash Sarkar, Tim Stanley and Matthew Taylor. #moralmaze
Show more
The New Zealand weightlifter Laurel Hubbard looks set to make history after being confirmed as the first transgender athlete to compete at an Olympic Games. Hubbard previously competed in men’s events before transitioning in 2013. She is eligible due to a change in International Olympic Committee guidelines on testosterone levels in 2015, and after qualifying requirements were modified by the International Weightlifting Federation. For many campaigners this is a landmark moment for trans people, whose participation at grassroots level sport is shamefully low. Moreover, while there are many different male and female body types, they see elite sport as reflecting society’s obsession with gender stereotypes and worry about the implications for anyone who does not meet ‘conventional standards’ of femininity. Opponents think that allowing transgirls, who were assigned male at birth, to compete with cis girls is unfair. They argue that, in the vast majority of cases, males are stronger, faster and more powerful than females – if that were not the case we would not have had to segregate sport in the first place. The New Zealand Olympic Committee chief executive, Kereyn Smith, said this complex issue required, “a balance between human rights and fairness on the field of play”. This raises a deeper philosophical question: what is the relationship between rights and rules? And which of these is best placed to achieve fairness – not just in sporting competition but between competing demands? When should rules and laws be challenged and when does a person’s sense of their natural rights go too far?

Absolutely ridiculous. No matter how you alter your body, or how many drugs you take, you cannot change sex. You have no choice. You are what you are.

I really hope they don't use the offensive term "cis".

New Zealand know that transwomen have a biological advantage. That's the whole point so they can win medals. They don't care about fair play, or ethics just a winner takes all mentality. Similar to the approach in the para Olympics where there is a lot on controversy over categories. It's wrong, they know it's wrong but they want a medal at any cost.

I will bet actual money that Ash Sarkar uses the c word.

Moreover, while there are many different male and female body types, they see elite sport as reflecting society’s obsession with gender stereotypes and worry about the implications for anyone who does not meet ‘conventional standards’ of femininity.

What utter bullshit.

Laurel Hubbard doesn’t fail to meet “conventional standards of femininity”. Laurel Hubbard fails to meet the requirements of being an adult human female in order to compete in women’s sport.

The lack of intellectual rigour in these discussions is terrifying.

☀️
When Ash blares on about “cis”, and reveals that the whole premise is precariously based on the tenet of faith that TW actually are W, tens of thousands of thinking, questioning Moral Maze listeners will simultaneously be mouthing “wtf?” at their radio (or “really?” at the wireless in the case of my parents’ generation)
☀️ ☀️ ☀️

I have high hopes of this. Agree I'm not impressed by the blurb, but the Moral Maze is usually pretty good at tackling subjects, asking challenging questions and coming to reasonable conclusions. This is just the sort of topic they should be debating. Fingers crossed

Ash bloody Sarkar again.

The same Ash Sarkar who accused Julie Bindel - who has worked tirelessly for women in prison - of not caring about women in prison.

FFS.

The thing is, due to the format, she's going to be forced to ask questions of witnesses. An interesting position to be in for someone so impervious to knowledge.

What jumps out from that is the captured/biased language, from the outset - "cis girls" and "assigned at birth"? How can you have a moral debate if your starting point is misrepresenting the facts?

I don't believe for a second that trans activists give a monkeys about women and girls who don't meet "‘conventional standards’ of femininity". It's being used as reasonable sounding smoke screen.

Eligibility for womens sport has never had anything to do with whether or not you meet conventional standards of femininity. It's entirely down to whether you are female, obviously.

And I can't help thinking anyone claiming to worry about "the implications for anyone who does not meet ‘conventional standards’ of femininity" in sports has never actually watched much women's sport, I'd say the Olympics for example have a pretty diverse mix of women already without having to add males!

Anyway I hope it will be a good debate and shed some more ☀️☀️☀️ (and that Sarkar gets put on the spot nicely 😁)!

X-post!

The topic is also on Woman's Hour today ...

'worry about the implications for anyone who does not meet ‘conventional standards’ of femininity' what a bizarre statement, who are they quoting. Isn't the entirety of women's sport a challenge to conventional standards of femininity. It's only yesterday we were considered to frail to run a marathon let alone take up weight lifting.
I'm not sure I can bear to listen to Ash.

Some awesome, factual and refreshing responses on this thread. You all rock! Can't we be on the panel!!

The New Zealand Olympic Committee chief executive, Kereyn Smith, said this complex issue required, “a balance between human rights and fairness on the field of play”.

There are no human rights involved here. There's no human right to force your belief that you're really a woman onto other people.

Moreover, while there are many different male and female body types, they see elite sport as reflecting society’s obsession with gender stereotypes and worry about the implications for anyone who does not meet ‘conventional standards’ of femininity.

This discussion is about a male entering women's weightlifting, for goodness' sake. Since when has being muscled and strong been a 'conventional standard' of femininity? Weightlifting women should be applauded for both athletic ability and destroying gender with every lift.

Fairplay for women have pointed out that there only men and trans women on the panel for this - no women!

twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1407624488796184580

I have put in a complaint to the BBC.

I remember Mathew Taylor on MM a few years ago, was reassured by Jane Fae and Stephen Whittle, and thought the GCs had overstated the risks and threats. Found Heather Brunskell Evans and James Caspian unconvincing. It might be interesting to see how his view has developed.

@WobblyLondoner

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000x4x2 - tonight and then catch up.

Programme blurb below. Not sure who the witnesses are.

Rights and Rules
Moral Maze
Combative, provocative and engaging live debate chaired by Michael Buerk. With Melanie Phillips, Ash Sarkar, Tim Stanley and Matthew Taylor. #moralmaze
Show more
The New Zealand weightlifter Laurel Hubbard looks set to make history after being confirmed as the first transgender athlete to compete at an Olympic Games. Hubbard previously competed in men’s events before transitioning in 2013. She is eligible due to a change in International Olympic Committee guidelines on testosterone levels in 2015, and after qualifying requirements were modified by the International Weightlifting Federation. For many campaigners this is a landmark moment for trans people, whose participation at grassroots level sport is shamefully low. Moreover, while there are many different male and female body types, they see elite sport as reflecting society’s obsession with gender stereotypes and worry about the implications for anyone who does not meet ‘conventional standards’ of femininity. Opponents think that allowing transgirls, who were assigned male at birth, to compete with cis girls is unfair. They argue that, in the vast majority of cases, males are stronger, faster and more powerful than females – if that were not the case we would not have had to segregate sport in the first place. The New Zealand Olympic Committee chief executive, Kereyn Smith, said this complex issue required, “a balance between human rights and fairness on the field of play”. This raises a deeper philosophical question: what is the relationship between rights and rules? And which of these is best placed to achieve fairness – not just in sporting competition but between competing demands? When should rules and laws be challenged and when does a person’s sense of their natural rights go too far?

Who is Melanie? Is she the only woman on the panel?

Just saw your post CormorantStrike this absolutely terrible and needs to be complained about. Am I surprised? Males talking about women's rights don't matter? Again?

“Opponents think that allowing transgirls, who were assigned male at birth, to compete with cis girls is unfair.”

Are they talking about adults participating in the Olympics or children in school sports?

What is with the infantilisation? Extra added sexism?

It's appalling. Think of all the sports women who are now speaking out about this - Sharron Davies, Tanni Grey-Thompson, Tessa Sanderson and many others - and they haven't invited one of them onto the programme. Neither have they invited Dr Emma Hilton who has loads of expertise in this area and researched it for World Rugby when they produced their guidelines on trans women competing. Neither have they interviewed Nic Williams of Fair Play for Women, one of the few organisations actually campaigning on this issue. The contempt for women is just extraordinary.

Complain

www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints/make-a-complaint/#/Complaint

Utterly ridiculous!

@CormorantStrike

Fairplay for women have pointed out that there only men and trans women on the panel for this - no women!

twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1407624488796184580

I have put in a complaint to the BBC.

That's outrageous. Where is the impartiality in that?