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.

No. What I was disputing was that sport was likely to be overrun by TW.

Give it time.

Even if it isn't overrun (whatever that looks like) it only takes one male in every sport to set records that a woman can never beat.

Every male person who colonises women and girl's sports takes something away from a number of women and girls, whether that's records, medals, scholarships, prize money, sponsorships or a place on the team.

What is even worse, if that's possible, is that it also strips sportswomen and girls of their voice to speak out about it and it sends a reverberating message down through generations of girls coming after that their sport isn't for them or about them and can be taken away in a heartbeat by any man that wants it for themselves.

This is known as the chilling effect and will have terrible consequences for encouraging girls into sport which we already know is an issue due to other barriers faced by women and girls.

If you’re genuinely interested you can find everything you want in the break it down for me thread but somehow I think you’re not remotely interested in anything other than telling us how mean/bigoted/uneducated we all are

Do you think it is ever appropriate to weigh probabilities and costs and benefits?

Please explain what arguments about sports exactly that you find weak?

Why do you think that posters here have not weighed ‘probabilities and costs and outcomes’?

Or do you just think there are certain issues where one factor should outweigh all others?

I am really not sure what your aim is here. Drugs and other forms of cheating are against sporting regulations. Posters on this board are concerned with the regulations that are being formed now, right now, that are being formed by deliberately ignoring science and women’s voices.

What is it that you, personally, are trying to achieve?

@334bu

*Are there any cases involving TW?*

What about the woman who didn't get to play professional football in their top league in Argentina?
What about the woman who didn't get s professional career in volleyball in Brasil?
What about the female cyclist who didn't get a professional contract in Holland?
What about the female athlete who didn't get a professional game with an Italian volleyball club?
What about the American woman who didn't win the monetary first prize and the one who earned nothing at all in a professional golf march?
All of these women lost out financially because a person born male took their place.
How many is enough?

I think there are so many different ways of looking at this and hence so many different arguments.

Are you arguing from the point of view of law? Should it be illegal for sports to allow TW? Should individual sports associations change the rules? Should girls and women boycott sports which allow TW? Do spectators (male or female) tend not to watch sports with TW anyway?

I am not saying it's fair. I am questioning whether TW will dominate, as I don't think that will be sustainable for sports - they will probably lose too many spectators and competitors.

[quote Georgist]@OldCrone
"Obviously just demanding and doing has a greater effect than persuading."

I'm not sure why that's obvious. I would think probably the trans activists have managed to convince a lot of people that they are discriminated against.

But even so, I'm not sure what "just doing" in opposition to the admittance of TW would mean. Would you just forcibly eject them?[/quote]
It's obvious because that is the route they took, very deliberately.

Have a read of this:
www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-document-that-reveals-the-remarkable-tactics-of-trans-lobbyists

It's about this document by the law firm Dentons:
www.iglyo.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/IGLYO_v3-1.pdf

Some extracts:
7. Tie your campaign to more popular reform
In Ireland, Denmark and Norway, changes to the law on legal gender recognition were put through at the same time as other more popular reforms such as marriage equality legislation. This provided a veil of protection, particularly in Ireland, where marriage equality was strongly supported, but gender identity remained a more difficult issue to win public support for.

8. Avoid excessive press coverage and exposure
Another technique which has been used to great effect is the limitation of press coverage and exposure. In certain countries, like the UK, information on legal gender recognition reforms has been misinterpreted in the mainstream media, and opposition has arisen as a result.

More links here:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4059873-Deep-Dive-on-the-Dentons-document

I think there are so many different ways of looking at this and hence so many different arguments.

Only if you think female athletes are not entitled to fair and safe sporting opportunities. Transwomen are male and have no place in female sporting categories.

I am not saying it's fair. I am questioning whether TW will dominate, as I don't think that will be sustainable for sports - they will probably lose too many spectators and competitors.

And in the meantime, while all this is playing out, what effect do you think this will have on female competitors?

@Georgist
I repeat I didn't say women's sport was being overrun I said it was becoming a travesty. A man being awarded New Zealand sportswoman of the year is a travesty. Just one is all it takes to make a mockery of the situation is doesn't need tens or hundreds or thousands one is one too many.

We've already had an answer from the joint sports councils of the UK. They undertook an 18 month investigation and concluded you cannot have both the inclusion of males and fairness and safety for females.

Sporting bodies have to pick one.

Whilst the UK sports councils do not have invested power to compel sports bodies either way it's clear that any sporting body that now chooses inclusion over fairness and safety will leave themselves wide open for legal action.

There are thousands of boys and men who could smash women's records if they identified as women. But they don't.

Just one is enough.

Again, it only takes a few males to make a significant impact though. The impact is not proportionate to the number of competitors, that is the whole point.

One male in each sport to set records that cannot be broken, one male in one team that then has a significant knock on effect on that region’s teams, that women will drop out or be injured. One male to take a girl’s scholarship because no other girl can compete.

@OldCrone

I am not saying it's fair. I am questioning whether TW will dominate, as I don't think that will be sustainable for sports - they will probably lose too many spectators and competitors.

And in the meantime, while all this is playing out, what effect do you think this will have on female competitors?

Does it matter if a few women end up injured? It's only women and it's only a few of them and they might have been hurt by a woman on steroids anyway. We should just cancel the women's category in sport altogether really because if women were serious about sport they would train harder and get better because testosterone doesn't have any impact on bodies (unless it being taken by those pesky drugs cheats of course).

For anyone one struggling to spot it this post is heavy with sarcasm.

@Helleofabore

Do you think it is ever appropriate to weigh probabilities and costs and benefits?

Please explain what arguments about sports exactly that you find weak?

Why do you think that posters here have not weighed ‘probabilities and costs and outcomes’?

Or do you just think there are certain issues where one factor should outweigh all others?

I am really not sure what your aim is here. Drugs and other forms of cheating are against sporting regulations. Posters on this board are concerned with the regulations that are being formed now, right now, that are being formed by deliberately ignoring science and women’s voices.

What is it that you, personally, are trying to achieve?

I have repeatedly said that the scale is important. I am interested in the amount of harm caused.

I asked if people had encountered any TW in sport and they said it didn't matter. I am a bit surprised at this response. I think many concerns are based on the frequency and severity of harm. For example, abuse of women is usually considered to be a bigger problem because it is more common and the injuries are usually more severe and deaths more common.

You rightly dismiss the trans activists (e.g. the students on Question Time) for saying scientists shouldn't investigate pertinent points which cause them offence. But I am also asking about the impacts of the measures we are discussing (i.e. what is actually happening? What might actually happen?) are people are telling me I shouldn't ask these questions.

A man being awarded New Zealand sportswoman of the year is a travesty.

Not exactly NZ SPOTY, but the award of one university near where Hubbard's very rich parents live.

Which is probably just a coincidence.

....isn't it?

Are you arguing from the point of view of law? I am.

Should it be illegal for sports to allow TW?

To compete in the female category if they have gone through a male puberty? Yes.

To compete in the male category? They should be absolutely be welcome and encouraged to do so!

Should individual sports associations change the rules?

It should be a government ruling to protect female sports.

Should girls and women boycott sports which allow TW? And further deny and restrict their opportunities? When the science is there already?

Do spectators (male or female) tend not to watch sports with TW anyway? if people are not allowed to discuss, how are spectators to know which sports they should and should not be watching?

Why not just make sure that people don’t have do extensive research on the sports they are supporting and watching to choose to support female only sport?

Why not make sure that males are excluded from female sports until some miraculous solution has been found to make it fair in some way?

@334bu

*I think there are so many different ways of looking at this and hence so many different arguments.*

Only if you think female athletes are not entitled to fair and safe sporting opportunities. Transwomen are male and have no place in female sporting categories.

So what I meant was most people can approach from different perspectives (as player, spectator, voter/activist, parent or friend of player, official)

Say a woman plays football at a local amateur level and never encounters TW. She thinks TW shouldn't be allowed in football. Should she stop playing to boycott this? Should she carry on playing, but boycott professional football?

What are you doing? What do you suggest others do? Are you boycotting some or all sports? Are there some which are taking the right steps? Are you encouraging people to take up these sports?
Do you think it's feasible to set up alternative sports organisations which do exclude TW?

Re sport a good podcast to listen to is Ross Tucker science of Sport. He is an expert and has a good analysis of the issues and the recent reports on transgender inclusion by Sport England, Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland.
It’s worth a listen for a clear explanation as to why sport is segregated by sex. It helped me anyway.
His main point is that you can either go for Inclusion and allow trans women to compete in the female category OR fairness and safety to prioritise a closed female category BUT you can’t have both.
Sports have to choose and be accountable to their players as to which they prioritise and why and be clear on the consequences in either direction.
His solution is an open category that anyone can compete in and a closed female category which sounds a sensible compromise.
Google “Ross Tucker science of sport” and his podcast will come up. This particular podcast was about a month ago. He usually seems to talk about rugby.

I have repeatedly said that the scale is important. I am interested in the amount of harm caused.

Did you read any of those links I posted earlier about the effects on women and girls? They spell out what harm is caused. Any harm which is preventable is too much. Why do you think the 'scale' is important?

But I am also asking about the impacts of the measures we are discussing (i.e. what is actually happening? What might actually happen?) are people are telling me I shouldn't ask these questions.

Please tell us clearly what arguments you find weak? You have studiously avoided this request.

And while you are answering it, please also tell us what part of males who can still compete against other males and therefore are NOT actually excluded from playing sport at all, just excluded from the female category, is proportional to females reality of danger and other harms that will occur due to their inclusion?

And that it doesn’t take many males being included to significantly impact the sport?

You are not being told to not ask questions. You are being asked very clear questions and dodging them or focusing on ‘scale’ while not once acknowledging that scale is a false premise to allow males to access female sports categories.

podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/bonus-episode-it-is-time-to-choose-how-a-new/id1461719225?i=1000537218496

Here it is. Only 30 mins and worth the listen

@JurassicCoastJay

A man being awarded New Zealand sportswoman of the year is a travesty.

Not exactly NZ SPOTY, but the award of one university near where Hubbard's very rich parents live.

Which is probably just a coincidence.

....isn't it?

Yes sorry I should have been clearer a sportswoman of the year award. But hey it's only one so.....

Georgist,
Have you actually read or listened to any of the links people are posting? The litany of questions you're asking suggest that perhaps you haven't? Why not start by "educating yourself" (as the young are fond of saying) and then come back with some specific questions relating to the specialist insights that people have posted?

It makes the discussions so much more interesting and focused.

@Georgist

Why do you think scale is important? Surely one female losing out to a male is one too many.

If you had a daughter that was good enough at a sport to get through to the Olympics but then lost her place to a male, do you think you'd still be saying that scale matters? That it's only your daughter that's affected so never mind.
I highly doubt that your opinion would be the same if you were being directly affected by it. It's easy to handwave it away when it's theoretical.