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.

Georgist

Google these names and see what they have done to girls/womens sport. If this is allowd to continue, then there will be no incentive for girls/women to take part, let alone compete.

Maxine Blythin
Rachel McKinnon
Natalie Van Gogh
Kate Weatherly
Tiffany Abreu
June Eastwood
Fallon Fox
Allana McGlaughlin
Michelle Dumaresq
Mianne Bagger
Lauren Jeska
Hanna Mouncey
CeCe Telfer
Andrea Yearwood

@OldCrone

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?

I think the issue was acceptance. Nobody was questioning whether Oscar Pistorius was a man (they could have ruled that he wasn't allowed to compete and that would have been entirely separate from his personal identity). Whereas TW are struggling, rightly or wrongly, to gain acceptance as women. So some trans activists have made a big deal out of gaining acceptance as woman and I think that's why they've been allowed to compete. A significant group of people believe they should be accepted as women, and so it follows in their minds that they can compete with women.

I was trying to make the point previously that one problem for sensible critiques of TW in sport is the entirely separate existence of hate towards trans people. So I think before trans was as much in the public consciousness (perhaps 90s/00s) there wasn't much awareness or acceptance and quite a lot of hate (probably similar to homosexuality in the 70s/80s). The way the discourse and activism has evolved, I think it appears to some people that as explicit transphobia became unacceptable, transphobes changed their rhetoric and concerns. According to this perspective, a lot of right-wingers are disingenuously feigning concern with women's issues as a dog whistle for transphobes.

I don't agree with people who have this view (I think it might be true that a lot of people feign interest about certain issues, but that doesn't mean the issues aren't real). But I think that is why there are students who say they don't feel safe when people dispute trans women are women. In their minds, such statements are linked with transphobia.

@andyoldlabour

Georgist

Google these names and see what they have done to girls/womens sport. If this is allowd to continue, then there will be no incentive for girls/women to take part, let alone compete.

Maxine Blythin
Rachel McKinnon
Natalie Van Gogh
Kate Weatherly
Tiffany Abreu
June Eastwood
Fallon Fox
Allana McGlaughlin
Michelle Dumaresq
Mianne Bagger
Lauren Jeska
Hanna Mouncey
CeCe Telfer
Andrea Yearwood

I'll take a look. Do you have a timeframe for your hypothesis of falling participation? Has it already started?

If there aren't changes I would expect a shift away from contact and team sports.

@Runningupthecurtains

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?

But even in those circumstances I think there is potential for women to be exploited so for me it would still be no in things like boxing and MMA because a huge prize could be used to lure vulnerable women into taking a risk they don't fully understand while men who get off on watching women get hurt pay to watch.

King-Riggs was an exhibition match against a 55 year old bloke.

But what if Andy Murray decides to become Andrea Murray and win Wimbledon again?

@MrsOvertonsWindow

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.

This.

There's a whole lot derailing going in here by someone who isn't engaging at all with the arguments put forward but just keeps on and on about the scale of the problem.. I think one woman raped in prison or denied a medal/record/place on the team is too many. Because men are not women. And this is the feminist section.

So no, I don't think we should give a shit about the scale. We were told when the GRA was introduced it would be a 'tiny number' of people. And look what happened. No more 'this is just about a few women losing out, nothing to see, bo problem'. This is ethically wrong and it shouldn't happen to any of our sisters.

But what if Andy Murray decides to become Andrea Murray and win Wimbledon again?

And that's the point. It would be a decision to win Wimbledon. As simple as that.

If he did it, he would be guaranteed to win, unless another man did it too.

If men are allowed to enter, then a woman can pretty much only win in a sport if no competent males choose to enter. Her success is totally determined by men's choices. She can do nothing to counter that.

Oscar wanted to take part in the Olympics and not the paraOlympics and it was able bodies athletes that complained about his inclusion as his blades gave him an advantage they did not have. It was decided that he DID have an advantage and he was not allowed to compete but could compete in the Paralympics,
So he was excluded from the Olympics in order to be FAIR to the other competitors as fairness matters in sports.
It’s not exactly similar but it is a similar argument that women in sport make. With the added factor of safety that was not the case for Oscar. Inclusion OR fairness and safety.
It’s not for women and girls to make trans women and trans girls feel safe and included. That’s not their role in sport, and certainly not at their own expense.

@CreepingDeath
"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."

That's a good point. But if there are more TW competing without disclosing and being discovered, doesn't that mean it might be difficult to stop, even if it was made illegal? Maybe not, if the punishment was severe enough.

@NecessaryScene

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.

It's not "fine." But people do still compete with the knowledge that there will be cheaters who evade detection.

But people do still compete with the knowledge that there will be cheaters who evade detection.

So?

What has that got to do with the creation of laws to protect women and girls?

Are you actually arguing that that should stop the laws and regulations being formed and enforced?

EmbarrassingHadrosaurus Sat 16-Oct-21 17:58:30

"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?"

This is quite hopeful. I don't think the prof uses his twitter feed very often, but the replies on this feed are very supportive and in agreement.

twitter.com/genderisharmful/status/1448783390589825025

@sashagabadon

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

I think this depends a bit on whether we are talking about sports competitions or admittance to female only spaces.

Consider the example of a TW who takes hormones and is now closer in appearance to female than male. I think it's fair enough to say that this TW can't compete in either male or female contact sports.

But if the TW can't use either toilet/changing facilities (men object because she looks like a woman and women object because she isn't a woman) then what options does she/he have?

Do you agree that this is a harm to this TW? (even if you think it pales in comparison to the harms inflicted on women)

Georgist

"Do you have a timeframe for your hypothesis of falling participation?
Has it already started?"

It has already started in New Zealand, where Kate Weatherly is totally dominating downhill mountain biking, winning most events and two national championships after competing as an average male.
Michelle Blythin, the Kent cricketer, won the player of the year award in their first season and set a ridiculous batting average.
Natalie Van Gogh is competing in road cycling for a European professional squad at the age of 46.

@334bu

*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?

I am arguing that the problem is the actual harm caused. It doesn't matter whether there was a rule in place to prevent harm, which failed. Or if the rules facilitate the harm.

So I am suggesting the harm is the same in all three cases:

1. Women suffers severe injury by another woman who was on steroids (against the rules)
2. Women suffers severe injury by a TW (when rules allow TW)
3. Women suffers severe injury by a TW (when rules disallow TW, but TW manages to evade the rules)

I've only just watched QT, so I'm late to the party and things have obviously moved on. I wanted somebody to ask the two children in the audience why biology made them feel "unsafe". What did they think would happen?
Incidentally, Georgist, third spaces...

@Helleofabore

But people do still compete with the knowledge that there will be cheaters who evade detection.

So?

What has that got to do with the creation of laws to protect women and girls?

Are you actually arguing that that should stop the laws and regulations being formed and enforced?

No, that's not what I'm arguing.

I observe that clean women continue to compete despite the existence of drug cheat. I observe that women continue to compete despite the participation of TW.
There have always been a lot of complaints about drugs (I remember Paula Radcliffe making a big deal about this, for instance). I haven't noticed a similar amount of complaints from women about TW. I realise you could say this is because they are scared (maybe if they appear "transphobic" they will lose sponsorship). But my default position is the inference that they speak less about TW than drugs because they perceive drugs to be a bigger issue.

So if neither the Labour Party nor the Liberal Democrats understand what a woman or a man actually are, and think those of us who support the rights of both women and transgender people to live unmolested are somehow bigoted or just plain wrong, who in heaven's name are we supposed to vote for???
Sorry, bloody long sentence 🙃

I think it's fair enough to say that this TW can't compete in either male or female contact sports.

Why?

It is very clear you have read none of the studies.

If you did you would know that on average males who transition lose about 5% of their advantage. And that there is evidence that with a change in training, they can not only recover that but improve on their previous performance.

Are you actually going to go and read the links, read the studies?

But my default position is the inference that they speak less about TW than drugs because they perceive drugs to be a bigger issue.

And as I, and I am sure others, have pointed out, in the last month the Sports Council reported that there is an overriding effort to silence female athletes and people in sports services (managers, coaches etc).

What part of our posts saying this are your missing or are you just disagreeing?

I have just realised that Robert Winston is a Labour Party peer, this could get very interesting.

@Theeyeballsinthesky

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

No, I don't think any of those things! I think you and others have made good comments, so thanks. Is there a specific thread in that section?

@sashagabadon - thanks for the podcast suggestion

I posted a survey (yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/16/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights)
Someone said they thought it was biased and they had a MN one. I asked for a link but didn't see a reply. I've gone back to have a look, but could see the original comment. Does anyone have a link? Or any links to any other surveys on this topic.

@Helleofabore

I think it's fair enough to say that this TW can't compete in either male or female contact sports.

Why?

It is very clear you have read none of the studies.

If you did you would know that on average males who transition lose about 5% of their advantage. And that there is evidence that with a change in training, they can not only recover that but improve on their previous performance.

Are you actually going to go and read the links, read the studies?

Are you saying that is an argument for allowing them to compete in contact sports?! (I assume that's not what your saying, but I don't see how your response is relevant to the sentence you quoted)

@andyoldlabour

I have just realised that Robert Winston is a Labour Party peer, this could get very interesting.

He can’t be sacked, deselected or lose his seat though. Labour won’t remove the whip or expel him from the party for saying sex is real and immutable. Would they?

[quote ShrillSiren]@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.[/quote]
I don't think this is a good argument.

What do you think the parents of TW think about TW competing against females? If they are in favour, would that change your mind at all?

I don't think it should.