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.

There have certainly been male-bodied, male-muscled Olympic medal winners in the Games well before Semenya and the Botswanans.

Just go searching for Stella Walsh, Tamara and Irina Press.

Georgist

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

Firstly, we don't have an accurate way of knowing that, mostly because men who identify as women will in all likelyhood be described as women in the media, reportings etc. So we are unable to know the full extent of it. Even one male on a female sports team can make a huge impact, depending on his size, speed etc.

Secondly, why are you waiting for the worst to happen? Cheating is cheating, men clearly have an unfair physical advantage to women, which is the whole reason sports are sex segregated in the first place. If TW want to compete, they can compete in their sex category, which is unchanged regardless of hormones or surgery. Women's sports cannot be collateral damage here.

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

Perhaps you could let us know how much harm is too much for you. A broken tooth? A broken nose? A broken leg? A broken neck? A death? Two deaths? 10? How much lack of safety does there need to be?
Is it OK for women to lose in 'fun' events like Parkrun (where men and women can and do run together but some TWs still record their times as female, so not a matter of safety for them), in amateur sport? Semi professional? Fully professional? World records, Olympics games. Where is the line when women have suffered enough harm? Once is enough for me but obviously not for you so where are you saying enough is enough?

"I think we need to remember that TW are not excluded from sport. They would always be able to compete in their sex based category"

100% this.
TW are not excluded from competing - but they should compete in their biological sex category.

TM, on the other hand, WOULD be excluded from competing in their sex-based category because they would be effectively "doping" with testosterone, which is a banned substance. So they would have to compete in the male category, OR there would have to be a 3rd Open category to house them and TW who wish to compete against women rather than men.

I'm all in favour of a 3rd Open category, to be honest. No issue with that at all. TM, TW, plus any men who don't make the cut for the men's category, plus any women who want to try out against them. Why not?

What I am not in favour of is people with male biology playing in women's sports/categories, where there male biology is an advantage to them, which is most sports. Obviously there are some where there is no biological advantage, even in the Olympics - shooting, equestrian etc. - and they already ARE mixed. Why not? No reason. But the minute that male body advantage kicks in, then women need their own category.

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.

You mentioned Oscar Pistorius earlier and how he had been allowed to compete in the Olympics. This was only allowed after extensive research to decide whether his blades gave him an advantage over the other competitors. It was assumed that there might be an advantage, and he wasn't allowed to compete until a decision had been made that there wasn't an advantage (although that decision was still controversial).

This was for one man, and possibly a very limited number of other paralympic athletes. But the research was done first on the assumption that he might have an advantage. When any male can identify as a woman, the number of men who could potentially compete in women's sports is enormous, so why have we not started from the same assumption, that because they might have an advantage (actually a certainty in most sports), males should be excluded from female sports until it can be proved beyond doubt that they have no advantage?

The Pistorious Case was very unwise. If he can wear spring-shoes, why not someone else. There is current debate about springy shoes available only to sponsored athletes and those able to pay thousands for them retail.

@Runningupthecurtains

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

Perhaps you could let us know how much harm is too much for you. A broken tooth? A broken nose? A broken leg? A broken neck? A death? Two deaths? 10? How much lack of safety does there need to be?
Is it OK for women to lose in 'fun' events like Parkrun (where men and women can and do run together but some TWs still record their times as female, so not a matter of safety for them), in amateur sport? Semi professional? Fully professional? World records, Olympics games. Where is the line when women have suffered enough harm? Once is enough for me but obviously not for you so where are you saying enough is enough?

Perhaps you could let us know what steps could be taken. Should all women have to prove they are women in order to compete? Is this feasible for amateur sports?

I point out that people take steroids and people say that's against the rules. OK, so you get injured by a woman on steroids and that's fine because it's against the rules. So if TW are banned, but a TW pretends to be a woman, is that also OK, because it's against the rules? (I assume not, because the harm is the issue, regardless of the rules)

"Where is the line when women have suffered enough harm?"
If they have knowledge of the potential harm, do you think they should be allowed to make a choice?

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

By the same logic, doping is fine, as long as there aren't too many people doing it.

Yes Oscar Pistorius was furious when another athelete subsequently got longer blades than him using his own argument of no advantage against him. What a Wally!

...And Oscar only murdered one woman.

Scale of the problem is not a good faith argument as it would not be used in any other scenario as a mitigating factor.

This probably deserves its own thread, but have you lot seen what is possibly the most insane sports policy yet?

The Premier Hockey Federation (PHF) - formerly the National Women's Hockey League (NHWL) in US and Canada has just issued new rules. (This means ice hockey, btw).

• Men who say they're women can compete as long as they've identified as women for 2 years.
• Women who say they're men can compete, and can use testosterone as long as they have a "therapeutic use exemption"
• Men who say they're non-binary can compete as long as they've identified as non-binary for 2 years.
• Women who say they're non-binary can compete, and can use testosterone as long as they have a "therapeutic use exemption"

(No need for any medical intervention like lowering testosterone for men).

However, one very strict rule:

The PHF does not permit competition based on a fraudulent assertion of identity under any circumstances. If a player is found to be asserting a fraudulent identity, the PHF reserves the right to immediately remove a player from the league and, if necessary, take legal action.

www.nwhl.zone/news/phf-updates-transgender-and-non-binary-inclusion

That is bonkers Necessary! I hadn’t got around to reading this yet. Thanks for posting.

So if TW are banned, but a TW pretends to be a woman, is that also OK, because it's against the rules? (I assume not, because the harm is the issue, regardless of the rules)

I am sorry but what are you trying to say here?

Does anyone have a feel for whether Professor Sir Robert Winston is experiencing much of a pushback from the general population or the Labour Party?

Should all women have to prove they are women in order to compete? Is this feasible for amateur sports?

It's been working fine so far.

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

Does anyone have a feel for whether Professor Sir Robert Winston is experiencing much of a pushback from the general population or the Labour Party?

Dunno, but he's getting memes made.

If they have knowledge of the potential harm, do you think they should be allowed to make a choice?
In an individual sport against a known male - probably. Billy Jean King did it in 1973. But by consenting to play one man once she wasn't admitting any man unchecked into any sport which is what TRAs want. They don't think women should be told they are playing against a man (because TWAW) so how can anyone make an informed choice. In a team sport do you think it should be a majority vote or would one woman saying no be enough for you in that situation?

Should all women have to prove they are women in order to compete?

Following on the controversy of the Press sisters etc, the IOC brought in medical examinations, which was drop your drawers in front of a man who says he's a doctor. There were complaints. So they tried lollystick which sampled your saliva, which worked until Semenya came along.

So they tried lollystick which sampled your saliva, which worked until Semenya came along.

No, Semenya came along because they had stopped doing that.

There was some previous athlete that had contested that - effectively contesting the purely XX/XY based rule.

Reinstating the mouth swab would be the correct thing to do at this point, as long as it is coupled with the DSD rules to deal with individual types of XY DSD in a more refined fashion.

I don’t think female elite athletes would object. They’d only need to go it once officially and if it protected the integrity of their sport they’d be pleased. Sharron Davies said it was routine back in the 1980’s.
She never minded and I think she advocates for sex testing to return.

Perhaps you could let us know what steps could be taken.
Should all women have to prove they are women in order to compete? Is this feasible for amateur sports?

So this is another version of ‘males will just use the toilet anyway/rape women’.

What used to happen before males felt entitled to compete in female category?

In fact, at certain levels females were actually tested. Athletes such as Sharron Davies have stated that women were asked and agreed that this would be acceptable to deal with. This was decades ago. The sporting bodies decided to ignore these athletes voices even back then.

We’ve all been sticking plastic swabs up our nose for the past 2 years, me weekly, even kids so I don’t think we could describe it as an invasive test anymore
Different reason of course but same thing!