Question Time right now!

[Seeingadistance]

Prof Robert Winston has just stated very clearly that it is not possible to change sex.

In relation to freedom of speech and Kathleen Stock.

@REDHERO

Talking sport ... the trans woman who recently choked out the biological woman during their fight. Why is a man with the massive biological advantage of being a man fighting a woman. It's wrong.

Well... it didn't happen.

Oh. It did happen? It was just the once?

What do you mean it has been two male competitors who have harmed women MMA fighters? You cannot, simply cannot lay the blame at the feet of the whole community, who fought to have these regulations changed to suit their needs and allow the harm of women. No.... away with your hate. It was only TWO competitors. It is just a few.

It is not an issue of any scale to be considered.... at all. All other males who compete in female category of sport are completely ok and there is absolutely no risk and no other female will miss an opportunity because a male chooses to compete as a female whereas no female can compete in the male category due to the risk. These are very special males and the risk they present has been magically removed...

[in the future after another MMA female fighter has been harmed in some way]

What do you mean it is happened again? [and repeat]

@SchadenfreudePersonified
Terrifying isn't it?
"There are no men here you silly old thing, that's a lady penis. Now do take you medication and hush or matron will write bigot on your notes, there's a good girl."

@Helleofabore
"This again misses a couple of points. Why is it ever acceptable that a male takes the opportunity from a female competitor? Ever? Even one?

Would the poster questioning this say the same about an able bodied person entering a Paralympic category? What about an adult competing in the under 12s? Or a 20 year old in a over 60 category?"

Adults competing in junior competitions is thought to be a significant problem, especially in middle and long distance running. There are lots of athletes from East Africa who do not have accurate records of dates of birth.
I don't know about the Paralympics, but Oscar Piscorious was allowed to compete in the Olympics despite the unfair advantage his blades gave him.

I think the biggest example of unfair advantage is drugs. There are lots of people who have had medals upgraded after someone who finished above them was later disqualified. Why is it acceptable that even one drug taker takes an opportunity from a woman? Ever? Even one?

I don't follow a lot of the sports mentioned (I didn't know about TW in county cricket or the Chinese Olympic basketball team). I thought what they had done in athletics was fairly sensible (if I understand correctly the likes of Semanya and Niyonsaba (I think intersex rather TW) couldn't compete because of excessive testosterone).

I don't see why these sorts of rules can't be implemented in other sports.

I thought what they had done in athletics was fairly sensible (if I understand correctly the likes of Semanya and Niyonsaba (I think intersex rather TW) couldn't compete because of excessive testosteron

They shouldn't have competed in female sports because they are male - therefore they should compete in male sports. Testosterone i's not the full story when it comes to male advantage and shouldn't be taken as such.

I know a transman who had to give up the contact sport that, as a female, he had loved and spent many years training for because it wasn't safe for him to continue playing, as he was too slight.

It was one of the prices he was prepared to pay to transition from female to male.

It is - or should be - the same the other "direction". Only in such cases/sports, the danger is for the female (sex) players already in the sport

Oscar Pistorius did not have a competitive advantage in the Olympics. He did in the Paralympics, which is (I believe) one of the reasons he competed in the Olympics (he qualified) but he was beaten comprehensively in the semi final of the 400m, coming 8th out of 8.
I remember watching a documentary on him and his blades, where they talked about the dynamics of the blades, and the materials used, and whether they could "store energy" to give him an advantage over the able-bodied male athletes - there were studies done on it, but they came to no solid conclusion. Some thought that there was an advantage, but others disagreed.

@ChattyLion
"Have you encountered many transwomen in your competitions?

This is a bullshit argument Georgist
Doesn’t matter how many transwomen any individual has encountered or not...

It’s not about how many transwomen an individual female player encounters then, is it? Because at any time that could change. Because the fact that a man could enter spaces in which women are vulnerable and undressed will be enough to deter women who know they are at greater risk if they are physically vulnerable within a mixed sex environment."

It's a question, not an argument.
I think it is important (or at the very least, useful) to have an idea of how risky a situation is, because that can inform your decisions (i.e. completely separate from your view on what should be allowed).

That's why I was trying to get an idea of the scale. Would you honestly not behave differently if there was a TW in every changing room, every sports team to if there was 1 in every 1,000?

Presumably everyone tries to avoid more dangerous situations and accepts some degree of risk.

@ThumbWitchesAbroad

Oscar Pistorius did not have a competitive advantage in the Olympics. He did in the Paralympics, which is (I believe) one of the reasons he competed in the Olympics (he qualified) but he was beaten comprehensively in the semi final of the 400m, coming 8th out of 8. I remember watching a documentary on him and his blades, where they talked about the dynamics of the blades, and the materials used, and whether they could "store energy" to give him an advantage over the able-bodied male athletes - there were studies done on it, but they came to no solid conclusion. Some thought that there was an advantage, but others disagreed.

Oscar Pistorius had an unfair competitive advantage because he did not have lactic acid building up in his legs, whereas all his competitors did.

He unfairly deprived athletes of a chance to compete and win medals. For example he was part of the 4x400m relay silver medal winning team.

But I would argue it's a not a major issue. It would be if there were many similar cases.

But I would argue it's a not a major issue. It would be if there were many similar cases.

It wouldn’t be a major issue if there were 10,000 such cases. Because two wrongs don’t make a right. And just because something once happened somewhere else or to someone else isn’t a rational argument for saying it should happen everywhere, when we have evidence it’s harmful or detrimental or unfair.

In fact, if we know something’s unfair/dangerous/egregious from other examples that’s MORE of a reason to learn from it and not replicate it.

Pretty much how we tell our kids not to do stupid shit just because one of their mates did it.

Hoping you're not an umpire for any sports @Georgist ?

He only fouled once so that's OK.......

I think the biggest example of unfair advantage is drugs. There are lots of people who have had medals upgraded after someone who finished above them was later disqualified. Why is it acceptable that even one drug taker takes an opportunity from a woman? Ever? Even one?

It is not.

But your comparator of African national adults competing as children should also not be acceptable? Not sure why you mention it to counter allowing any male who has benefited from male puberty into female sports, or were you agreeing with me?

I don't follow a lot of the sports mentioned (I didn't know about TW in county cricket or the Chinese Olympic basketball team). I thought what they had done in athletics was fairly sensible (if I understand correctly the likes of Semanya and Niyonsaba (I think intersex rather TW) couldn't compete because of excessive testosterone).

It was not sensible at all. It is clear by now that these athletes have benefited from a male puberty where testosterone viralised their bodies. The fact that some events allowed them and not others was due to the OIC demanding direct evidence of advantage and being pedantic about only setting the guidelines for those events they saw as having had problems in the past. It left the other events open.

Do you really think that an 18 year old athlete would be able to change events within WEEKS of that event running, have a very dodgy start and still win a silver medal if that 18 year old athlete was a female?

It is the viralisation that occurs due to that body having testes (undescended or otherwise) that provides advantage. I am very happy to link up studies if you would like.

In fact, it has been observed that even 6 year old boys have advantage of 6 year old girls so it is not just puberty, but puberty is the driver for fairness in adult competitions.

So, I disagree, they were not sensible at all in the face of the science that was known even at the time of these decisions.

That an athlete can still win a silver medal despite not having trained in that particular event is not that that athlete is a superstar, it is that they have an unfair advantage over the rest of the field.

I don't see why these sorts of rules can't be implemented in other sports.

Maybe read the science that has been published over the past couple of years.

There is a reason that the Sports Council recently published guidance that there was no way to include males who have been through male puberty in female categories if that sport was choosing 'fairness to women' over 'inclusion for male athletes' and that the ONLY way to include males fairly was to have mixed sex category.

World Rugby made the same statement last year too.

You've got to admire the balls of people coming on these boards and mouthing off about subjects they haven't bothered to do the slightest research into. I'd suggest doing some preliminary reading. There's a lot of very knowledgeable women on this board. I've learnt an awful lot lurking on these boards the past couple of years.

I don't know about the Paralympics, but Oscar Piscorious was allowed to compete in the Olympics despite the unfair advantage his blades gave him.

He wasn't simply 'allowed to compete in the Olympics'. The default position here was that he might have an advantage, so studies were carried out to check whether he had an advantage before he was allowed to compete. It was obviously a complex problem and there was a lot of controversy about the decision.

This is very different from males being allowed to compete in women's sports without proper analysis of any advantages they might have.

It would be if there were many similar cases.

Is this what you really think? That there is 'only one so not an issue worth addressing' despite the fact that there evidence from studies now and that there are indeed a quickly growing based of examples that it is actually an issue and girls and women are experiencing harm?

Is the answer the usual 'n+1'?

@Helleofabore
"But your comparator of African national adults competing as children should also not be acceptable? Not sure why you mention it to counter allowing any male who has benefited from male puberty into female sports, or were you agreeing with me?"

I'm saying they are both unfair. But cheating by age and cheating by drug taking seems to have been much more prevalent!

There have been dozens of athletes who had medals at major championships stripped after positive drug tests. How many intersex/TW athletes have there been? I would have thought female athletes would be far more concerned about drugs.

"The fact that some events allowed them and not others was due to the OIC demanding direct evidence of advantage and being pedantic about only setting the guidelines for those events they saw as having had problems in the past."

This is true. I think they should have applied the ban to all events. But surely they will apply it to others after the athletes switch?

@Helleofabore

I don't see why these sorts of rules can't be implemented in other sports.

Maybe read the science that has been published over the past couple of years.

There is a reason that the Sports Council recently published guidance that there was no way to include males who have been through male puberty in female categories if that sport was choosing 'fairness to women' over 'inclusion for male athletes' and that the ONLY way to include males fairly was to have mixed sex category.

World Rugby made the same statement last year too.

I already said that clearly TW should be banned from contact sports.

People keep saying that more and more TW will enter women's sports. But if some sports become less popular with women as TW enter, and others remain popular as TW aren't allowed, won't the other sports eventually have to ban TW?

This is true. I think they should have applied the ban to all events. But surely they will apply it to others after the athletes switch?

You would hope. But unfortunately the OIC has been signaling that they are going for inclusion over fairness to women. Which is why female athletes are so angry.

It also became apparent in the Sports council fact finding attempts how far female athletes and sports services are coerced to remain quiet or lose their jobs, spots on teams etc.

@CharlieParley

As I said, it matters because you have to persuade people if you want to change things. You may have to persuade people to change some of their political priorities.

I didn't mean to imply the burden of proof was on women to show they were harmed. I was simply saying you have to persuade people to achieve the change you want in a democracy.

Well, the success of pro-self-ID campaigners proves you wrong. They didn't persuade people in a manner befitting a democratic state (i.e. by seeking public debate, law reform or employing democratic means like referenda or consulting customers before removing facilities they relied on). They did it by stealth, outright lies and manipulation. By guilt-tripping and indoctrination. They are still doing it now.

And we are not seeking change. We are pointing out that the law has been misrepresented and asking for it to be upheld and to preserve the provisions we have for women and girls in our society.

I notice you didn't respond to this post @Georgist.

Obviously just demanding and doing has a greater effect than persuading. Otherwise why didn't the trans lobby go for persuading rather than invasion and takeover? If they had done we might not be where we are now, having to fight to get back what we had before.

They didn't persuade anyone that they were right before invading women's single-sex spaces and women's sports. But you seem to think we have to persuade people to change things back to how they were before. Why? Why can't we just undo what they have done and take back what they took by force without persuading anyone? We don't want change, we want to undo the changes which were forced on us without our consent.

This is moving the discussion beyond Winston's contribution to QT, but why are there not many transmen competing in male sports? Or even a debate about whether they should be allowed to?

Maybe, just maybe it's because they're at a significant disadvantage when competing with (natal) men - because of their physiology, even if taking hormones.

The logical corollary of that is that transwomen are at a significant advantage when competing with (natal) women - because of their physiology, even if taking hormones.

Georgist

"I thought what they had done in athletics was fairly sensible (if I understand correctly the likes of Semanya and Niyonsaba (I think intersex rather TW) couldn't compete because of excessive testosterone)."

It wasn't fair or sensible, Semenya, Niyonsaba and Wambui, the three medallists in the women's 800m at Rio, all had the same 46 XY DSD, they had all been through a male puberty.
Francine Niyonsaba now holds every Burundi women's track record from 400m to 10,000m. Niyonsaba holds the women's World record at 2,000.
I have been watching athletics since the 1968 Mexico Olympics and I have never known any other athlete with that range of distances.

[quote Runningupthecurtains]@SchadenfreudePersonified
Terrifying isn't it?
"There are no men here you silly old thing, that's a lady penis. Now do take you medication and hush or matron will write bigot on your notes, there's a good girl."[/quote]
It is terrifying - and bliddy cruel to people who are already worried or even frightened when in hospital.

@andyoldlabour

Georgist

"I thought what they had done in athletics was fairly sensible (if I understand correctly the likes of Semanya and Niyonsaba (I think intersex rather TW) couldn't compete because of excessive testosterone)."

It wasn't fair or sensible, Semenya, Niyonsaba and Wambui, the three medallists in the women's 800m at Rio, all had the same 46 XY DSD, they had all been through a male puberty.
Francine Niyonsaba now holds every Burundi women's track record from 400m to 10,000m. Niyonsaba holds the women's World record at 2,000.
I have been watching athletics since the 1968 Mexico Olympics and I have never known any other athlete with that range of distances.

Sorry, you're quite right - I missed some important details there.

I think the changes they made for some events (did it apply only to the 800 and 1500?) several years after Rio were sensible. But they should have been implemented for all events.

A lot of people will probably disregard these records. Similarly a lot of people disregard the world records set in the 80s by Eastern bloc drug cheats and Flo-Jo (drug cheat and suspicious wind reading).

DSD and trans are separate issues and need separate solutions. People with DSDs have repeatedly asked not to be used in the argument.

The difference with drugs and with overage competitors in youth is that they are not allowed. Yes some athletes take drugs or lie about their age but they aren't supposed to - in short they cheat. Where as currently TW are allowed to compete as women so can do so without breaking the rules. That's why there are drugs tests and people lose medals and serve bans if they are caught. I can't think of a single sport that says 'well people take performance enhancing drugs anyway so we'll stop making them illegal'.