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?

@2Rebecca

Why do the BBC like Ash Sarkar so much? What has she actually done apart from appear on shows when they want the handmaid view?

Dunno. Ash is stealing a wage from them IMO.

One argument made was that if TW were going to dominate women's sports then we might expect to see 40-50 TW across the female categories and since there is "only one" this is not the case.

I agree with your point. If gender is a matter of self-identity, then we have no way of knowing other than asking someone. Have we asked all athletes? Perhaps we have a high percentage of trans athletes. Are they suggesting that you can look at someone and tell what their 'gender identity' is? Personally I've been hugely offended by the assumption that, as a female, I have a 'woman gender identity' and am 'cis'. I don't subscribe to such sexist bollocks and do not appreciate others forcing a regressive identity on me.

And whoever it was pointing out that transwomen are actually UNDER represented in elite women's sport! Ridiculous and missing the point completely.

Yes!! It’s like saying OAPs are under represented in junior parkrun.

Not had time to listen to all of this, but so far very frustrating as no actual facts or data been brought into the conversation. Plenty of miss information, such as Caster Semenya is a women.

So I would like to complain to the BBC about not having women on the panel, but is Joanne Harper not a biological women? I couldn't tell by a google search.

PearPickingPorky

Forgues competed as a male from the '80's to 2000, transitioned in 2018 and has never competed in the female category.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Forgues

slightlysnippy

No, Harper is a transwoman who was allowed to unduly influence the IOC in 2015 with a now discredited piece of "research".

Why would they invite Ash Sarkar on this programme? She has absolutely no knowledge of the subject.

Why would they invite Ash Sarkar on this programme? She has absolutely no knowledge of the subject.

I think she is a regular panellist like Melanie Phillips.

It's because she's now one of the standard panel line up. I'd imagine the producers know she knows not much about anything but she's a lefty with a profile who can reliably come out with a particular set of views. Also, she's diverse. In a way, she's a mirror image of Melanie Phillips.

It's a really disingenuous programme because they aren't trying to find their way through the moral maze at all. They just want to generate controversy. See also Question Time.

The line about transwomen in women’s sport being equivalent to lesbians in women’s sport was outrageously homophobuic. From Harper.

I don't think you would have 'undercover' transwomen competing - wouldn't they fail a drugs test for having sky-high testosterone levels?

Given how far away from feminine stereotypes weightlifting is, I think you could argue all female weightlifters are non-binary or agender.

@andyoldlabour thanks very much for clarifying.

@Morred

I don't think you would have 'undercover' transwomen competing - wouldn't they fail a drugs test for having sky-high testosterone levels?

Given how far away from feminine stereotypes weightlifting is, I think you could argue all female weightlifters are non-binary or agender.

@Morred

Given how far away from feminine stereotypes weightlifting is, I think you could argue all female weightlifters are non-binary or agender.

WTF?

@TedImgoingmad

Well if being 'cis' means your 'gender identity' matches your biological sex and 'gender identity' is 'feeling like a woman', and there weren't any women Olympic weighlifters until 2000, you can't say that "weightlifting" is "feminine".

Of course almost no women are 'cis' on this explanation but that doesn't seem to bother Stonewall much.

I listened to it but lost interest when they started blahing on about rights in a very philosophical way that seemed to go wildly off topic. But maybe I am not intelligent enough to understand the point. Did they reach a conclusion about the topic of the discussion?

@Whatafool123

I listened to it but lost interest when they started blahing on about rights in a very philosophical way that seemed to go wildly off topic. But maybe I am not intelligent enough to understand the point. Did they reach a conclusion about the topic of the discussion?

I think they did that to avoid having to tell the truth that we all know. That transwomen remain physically men, and that it's cheating and misogynistic for them to compete as 'women.'

I've read that over and over, Morrel, but I don't get it.

"Weightlifting" is a sport, not a gender attribute. Tennis isn't a gender attribute, nor is marathon running nor is Karate nor is anything else that is a sport. It's a neutral concept. Furthermore, many sports existed as sports played by women (and men for that matter) long before they became Olympic events. Marathon running was not an Olympic sport for women until 1984. Karate was not an Olympic sport for either sex until this Games. Women did weightlifting long before it became an Olympic event for women. If they hadn't been doing so, it's unlikely to have become an Olympic event.

Those participating in the neutral concept of "sport" are split into 2 categories, male or female. Hubbard participated in weightlifting before transitioning. I don't think they are claiming that, by competing in women's weightlifting, this proves their womanly/feminine qualities. They are saying that they are a woman (because they say they are), and therefore are moving from the male to the female category.

Have I missed someone saying "weightlifting" is "feminine"?

I don't think they are claiming that, by competing in women's weightlifting, this proves their womanly/feminine qualities. They are saying that they are a woman (because they say they are), and therefore are moving from the male to the female category.

I think the arguments are a bit confused, but some people are definitely arguing that sports should be segregated by gender. What is gender if not categorisation according to perception of feminine/womanly qualities?

Arguably any woman involved in elite sport (or being a doctor or voting) is gender non conforming by historical and some current cultural standards.

However given that women’s weightlifting wasn’t an Olympic sport until 2000, it’s particularly odd to insist that the women involved are complying with ‘conventional standards of femininity’.

It was only 2012 when the last two countries in the World decided to finally allow their women to compete. So some women worldwide have only been allowed to participate in the Olympics for 9 years. Who was demanding their inclusion, that's right nobody because oil more important than women.

@Whatafool123

I listened to it but lost interest when they started blahing on about rights in a very philosophical way that seemed to go wildly off topic. But maybe I am not intelligent enough to understand the point. Did they reach a conclusion about the topic of the discussion?

Nah. You sound plenty intelligent!

Does anyone know how many medals trans women have won at the Olympics in the past 40 years since they were first admitted? If they have a big advantage by being trans women, it must be loads.

@DadJoke

Does anyone know how many medals trans women have won at the Olympics in the past 40 years since they were first admitted? If they have a big advantage by being trans women, it must be loads.

I’m not sure why you are posting this because if you had read the thread you would realise that this argument has already been dealt with. But anyway:

1). This is the first year that trans athletes who haven’t had gender reassignment surgery will be able to compete so your point is wrong.
2). Your point is completely irrelevant. Men aren’t expected to tolerate similar rules in the name of inclusivity. Why should women’s categories be blurred?

@DadJoke

40 years? If any trans woman was competing in the Olympics before 2004, they were doing so illegally. Who are you referring to?

From 2004, transwomen who had undergone sex reassignment surgery could have competed. Do you understand what that means? It means the removal of the testes, which means no testosterone, which means the total crash of the metabolic system of a natal male. To compete, a trans woman would have needed to take, amongst other things, testosterone, unless they wanted to keel over and die from exhaustion. Taking artificial testosterone is a doping offence. I imagine trying to practice an elite sport whist managing the discomforts of major surgery and managing a neo vagina are not all that easy either.

In 2015, the IOC changed their rules to get rid of the sex reassignment surgery caveat. The rules for transwomen to compete became:

1. Only that trans woman athletes declare their gender and not change that assertion for four years; as well as

1. Demonstrate a testosterone level of less than 10 nanomoles per liter for at least one year prior to competition and throughout the period of eligibility.

In other words, self ID was introduced by the IOC 1 year prior to the 2016 Olympics. It would take at least 2 years for a trans woman with testes in tact to take enough medication to reduce their testosterone to the required level, never mind fulfil the 4 year self description rule. So, little wonder there were no openly transwomen athletes at Rio 2016.

Please spare us the straw man arguments. Any semi fit man could self ID as a woman and have a decent chance of breaking into an elite female category by dint of their inherent advantages in height, strength, arm reach, skeletal makeup (in particular, pelvic) and endrocrinology. That it hasn't happened yet is because the rules have not been in place for this to happen. They are now. That's why women are protesting.

@merrymouse

I think the arguments are a bit confused, but some people are definitely arguing that sports should be segregated by gender. What is gender if not categorisation according to perception of feminine/womanly qualities?

This is insane.

How are they defining "feminine/womanly" qualities? These things change with convention. They are often in the eye of the beholder. Different cultures may have different conventions. Most of the time it's a matter of cosmetic enhancement and clothing.

I've heard the suggestion that sport should be mixed sex, categorised by height/weight, but "gender" meaning a beauty standard or some such is utterly bonkers, not to mention a breach of the human rights of anyone not pretty enough for the IOC to consider them a woman.