Times Law Section Article About Transgender Athletes

[Igneococcus]

Here:
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/88954ee6-f542-11eb-8f01-2c678acbb979?shareToken=47bb7425b875c475f392729596af6268

Interesting article. Thanks for share token.

“ Sports administrators will “need to ensure that they are not vulnerable to charges from litigants that they have relied on poor or inappropriate science or that the policies are blatantly unfair”, Bailey adds.

Campbell agrees, pointing out that legal arguments “are likely to focus on whether the rules are discriminatory, whether they are drawn up in a rational way, and whether they are proportionate to their objective”.

… “In each of these debates,” Campbell says, “the scientific basis for the rules will come under very close scrutiny.”

A ray of hope. Here’s to lawyers, who will likely insist on it being actual science, from the likes of Emma Hilton, rather than clownfish science, or sketchy samples of 18.

Sports bodies will have to prove they have not “relied on poor or inappropriate science”. Well that’s every sports body except world rugby fucked then isn’t it??

Also whether policies were “drawn up in a rational way” excuse me while I laugh hysterically

I don’t have time to quote the whole thing but I believe “well!!” Sums it up along with more hysterical laughter. I really hope sports governing bodies are reading this & having an “oh fuuuucckk” moment!!

This from the Times comments says it for me:

"One can certainly hope that proponents of this nonsense are sued back to sanity."

Annoying the author says CS is female when the DSD are only applied to biological males

In all seriousness though, when are sports governing bodies going to cop on onto the fact that stonewall has sold them a sick of shit?

They’re not idiots! They know what a man is and what a woman is and that men have considerable physical advantages over women. How have they allowed themselves to get into this ludicrous situation?

Maybe Rosie has a point when she says that as soon as you start referring to a male athlete as " she" it changes people's ways of thinking about them. If a male athlete is a " woman" how can you not include " her" in the women's category

"Rosie"???? It's Posie of course

From lawyer Darren Bailey quoted in the article - “Should a policy apply to the whole of a sport from top to bottom — in other words, from the grassroots to the highest levels — or should it apply just at the elite end?”

This question seems to keep being raised. I don't understand why you'd want a different policy for lower-down. The competition is still unfair with people who have been through male puberty included, regardless of whether it's at elite level or not. If it's a couple of rungs below elite level, it would be very odd to let someone compete there but not at the top level. And if it's at local amateur level, it's still basically unfair to the person's fellow competitors.

The article made my day. When legal beagles get into the mix, you know it's getting serious. I think the IOC has had a lot of flack and not just with Hubbard, but with the 200m runners and I assume they had a lot regarding Semenya. If you do not have women (and I assume scientists) on your top table, you do not have the full picture (a transwoman was apparently on the top table).

I don't think you can exclude from all levels. What about school sports. Up to a certain age and in some sports, girls and boys competing can be good. Needs careful consideration because there are benefits up to a point

Maybe Posie has a point when she says that as soon as you start referring to a male athlete as " she" it changes people's ways of thinking about them. If a male athlete is a " woman" how can you not include "her" in the women's category

Good point about pronouns. It’s not trivial, or just a simple kindness. As Fair Play for Women says, pronouns are rohypnol:
fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns

I don't think you can exclude from all levels. What about school sports. Up to a certain age and in some sports, girls and boys competing can be good. Needs careful consideration because there are benefits up to a point

That's why all sports already have age limits for the separation of the sexes.

@Theeyeballsinthesky

In all seriousness though, when are sports governing bodies going to cop on onto the fact that stonewall has sold them a sick of shit?

They’re not idiots! They know what a man is and what a woman is and that men have considerable physical advantages over women. How have they allowed themselves to get into this ludicrous situation?

I think many sporting bodies are dominated by people who like to wear blazers, aren’t immune to the odd bribe, and fundamentally think women’s sport is an annoying distraction.

They’re not idiots! They know what a man is and what a woman is and that men have considerable physical advantages over women. How have they allowed themselves to get into this ludicrous situation?

For a start they never consulted the women and as most of these organisations are male dominated, I don't think we should underestimate the disdain many men feel for the non gender conforming male. Easier to ship them off to another category for which you have no respect than welcome them into the male category.

Easier to ship them off to another category for which you have no respect than welcome them into the male category.

Agree. The taboos around discussion of DSD and transgender rules seem to be rooted in utter horror of men who don’t conform to a very narrow idea of masculinity.

Describing Semenya as having "high natural testosterone" is pathetic. Semenya has testes and the level of testosterone you would expect for anyone (ie a male) with testes. Coming from The Times I think this is pretty poor. It's a legal article, so why no mention of SEX discrim law, and what it interacts with gender reassignment law (particularly in light of how this is interpreted in Maya's case).

But Bailey warns that they will have to keep those policies under almost constant review “because the science changes and progresses”.

Yes, in 10 years time science will say women are stronger than men?

I hope the IOC has the arse sued off it.

Yeah I'm a bit tired of the wooliness of language that occurs around DSD athletes. They're separate issues but I think the "oooo but there are women with naturally high testosterone though" means the door gets opened into female sport for the transwomen who are fully developed males.

Good point about pronouns. It’s not trivial, or just a simple kindness. As Fair Play for Women says, pronouns are rohypnol:
fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns

The article is by our very own Barrackerbama of course.

And it's true. If we were allowed to refer to Veronica Ivy, Laurel Hubbard et al as "he" it would immediately puncture the illusion.

Good to see that the Times comments are all sensible.

The Olympics, like most global sports, gives the role of supreme arbiter in all cases of sports law to CAS, with the priviso that further appeal is possible to the Swiss Supreme Court but only on grounds of competence and process.

Semenya has lost at CAS and at the SSC, and is challenging the very basis of this entire global settlement seeking other courts to bust it open.

The danger in this course of action is that other tribunals will approach elite sports participation as a right of access issue, rather like the US Supreme Court case where a disabled golfer was allowed to use a golf-buggy on professional tour events. (He was, in the end, bought off by the PGA with a settlement.)

I can’t help but feeling that this article is designed to begin the process of laying out how to challenge sporting bodies! Like a roadmap for us

@334bu

Maybe Rosie has a point when she says that as soon as you start referring to a male athlete as " she" it changes people's ways of thinking about them. If a male athlete is a " woman" how can you not include " her" in the women's category

This is a very good point!

The world has stood up and declared in a loud and confident voice "Transwomen are women!" Everyone clapped, cheered, nodded enthusiastically, waved rainbow flags and congratulated each other on being inclusive.

"So... now you officially see us as women, can we have a chat about prisons, sports, changing rooms, scholarships, girl guides sleeping arrangements, showers, who does smear tests, business awards..."

Oh, erm...

[quote Igneococcus]Here:
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/88954ee6-f542-11eb-8f01-2c678acbb979?shareToken=47bb7425b875c475f392729596af6268[/quote]
archive of the article in case it's useful in the future: archive.is/t3dWk

people who like to wear blazers…and fundamentally think women’s sport is an annoying distraction.

Agreed. As various commenters have pointed out, it's taken >100 years to achieve parity of provision for some events (it's only here that there is a specific women's class for a particular kayaking competition) and yet some special demographics have had changes introduced in a relative blink of an eye. I don't think we need to speculate about the sex class whose privilege is asserted by those rapid changes.

@transdimensional

From lawyer Darren Bailey quoted in the article - “Should a policy apply to the whole of a sport from top to bottom — in other words, from the grassroots to the highest levels — or should it apply just at the elite end?”

This question seems to keep being raised. I don't understand why you'd want a different policy for lower-down. The competition is still unfair with people who have been through male puberty included, regardless of whether it's at elite level or not. If it's a couple of rungs below elite level, it would be very odd to let someone compete there but not at the top level. And if it's at local amateur level, it's still basically unfair to the person's fellow competitors.

Not all levels of sport exist with only competition as the main purpose. Especially when you get into teens and children's sport, development of athletes may be a significant goal. And arguably recreation and inclusion and other things - it's not all there to produce elite athletes.

In undeveloped and young players it's not alway going to be the case that the same factors lead to unfairness either. Lots of boys hockey teams take girls, for example. Which isn't to say there is no difference but that may be less important than other goals.

@Theeyeballsinthesky

In all seriousness though, when are sports governing bodies going to cop on onto the fact that stonewall has sold them a sick of shit?

They’re not idiots! They know what a man is and what a woman is and that men have considerable physical advantages over women. How have they allowed themselves to get into this ludicrous situation?

You say they’re not idiots in my experience, these people in charge of this seem quite happy to make themselves look like idiots. In my sport the governing body has an Inclusion Director and underneath them, various other employees whose job it is to look after Inclusion and Diversity. These peoples jobs are dependent on making themselves look busy and making sure the organisation is as inclusive as possible. As we know, signing up to Stonewall and their courses is an easy way to fulfil your job description. I’ve yet to see any sport put the same amount of time and energy into, for example, increasing access for people with disabilities or people from low socio-economic parts of the country. So it all become a self-serving industry, and no-one will point out the emperor had no clothes because they’ve a mortgage to pay.

I’ve yet to see any sport put the same amount of time and energy into, for example, increasing access for people with disabilities or people from low socio-economic parts of the country.

Exactly. Everybody is convinced that inclusion of people with disabilities in sport is a splendid idea. Except not in [X] sport. It's definitely not practical for [X] sport and they have no interest in exploring whether their opinion on the matter has any basis in fact. Even when they're declining to do something at a grassroots level that is already available at elite levels because [X] sport has a paralympics team.