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.

As their motivations don't matter, they shouldn't be part of the argument against them in sport.

No-one here has made it part of the argument, have they? I see one observation - "Funny how men weren't clammering to complete" from one poster, but that was not presented as part of the argument. And I've never seen it made part of the argument in any serious discussion.

So why are you just going on and on telling people to not do something they're not doing? Are you trying to be deliberately unhelpful, or do you just enjoy pissing off women? Pissing off women shouldn't be part of your lifestyle. It will serve you badly.

TW are denying sporting opportunities to women. I don't think their desire to compete is necessarily malevolent, but it nevertheless limits women's sporting opportunities" is a position which stands on its own.

No, TW desire to compete as women is malevolent, the very fact they think they should be allowed is malevolent.

If they want to compete, compete with the men or push for an open category that they can compete in. Why do they require spoon feeding and everyone else running around making things happen for them? Are they incapable of recognising the issues surrounding safety and fairness or do they just refuse to accept them? If they want to do sport they need to find a way to do it that does not not negatively impact on any woman, at all.

Trying to get Mumsnet shutdown, sending rape threats, intimidating women all over the place, bomb threats, showing up at meetings in balaclavas, trying to get women sacked, spurious lawsuits? Not to mention the Denton report setting out the decades long campaign to get transgenderism accepted by the public, including no debate, deliberately tacking it onto LGB rights, getting non trans people, especially women, to be your advocates, and attaching yourself to women's issues like period poverty and, of course, not letting the press get hold of it?

None of this is deluded and confused.

I have a sport I very much love. Unfortunately my enthusiasm and passion outpaces my actual skill, compared to my peers.

However, I think I could get the UK a few gold medals if I was allowed to get in touch with my inner child and play for England's under-12 squad, and I could reduce my hormone levels to that of a 12 year old, maybe.

Would I do it, if the rules permitted me? No.

It would be dishonourable theft of a place from a girl who actually deserved it. The places on the children's squads aren't consolation prizes for mediocre adults.

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

My answer to male athletes in women's sports is no.

It's not a thought experiment to enjoy pondering.

Exactly, totally agree.

Likewise males are not to be included in anything specifically set up or set aside for women, no males, none.

It's a no from me.

I don't think their desire to compete is necessarily malevolent, but it nevertheless limits women's sporting opportunities" is a position which stands on its own.

You don't think their desire to compete is malevolent? Then you really have not put much thought or research into this.

And yet, here you are saying this with complete confidence of one who has spent a great deal of time and research on this.

@RedDogsBeg

Georgist you are coming up with a million different excuses and reasons for TW to be included in and compete against females - what about this, how about this, what if - my question to you is why are you so determined to have TW included in any female sport?

Males have no place in female sport, anywhere, anytime, any place. female sport is for females, it is not for males not matter what modifications they do or don't make, females who dope with testosterone, for whatever reason, are also excluded. Both situations are cheating. TW and TM have made choices they need to accept the impact of and responsibility for those choices.

Quite the opposite.

Consider the argument I just made above.

Now imagine you are a TW and you have been immersed in propaganda which says you should be able to compete in women's sport before being confronted with any arguments as to why you shouldn't be allowed to compete.

Then imagine you are confronted with each of these arguments separately:

1. You are only claiming you are TW because you have failed at men's sport. Your decision to claim to be a TW was made in order to achieve fame and fortune.

2. I make no comment on your assertion of your gender identity, but it does not follow that you are entitled to compete with women, as sports are separated by sex.

Don't you think the first position is less likely to be persuasive? (People who aren't as informed - whether women, men, cis, trans - are likely to focus on the claim that TWs are literally motivated by malevolent intentions towards women. Most TWs will think to themselves "Well I know that that doesn't describe me. These women are making false, hateful claims about me" and presumably that is also the response of many woke/SJWs/allies. As far as I can see, the first position adds nothing to the argument and only helps to frame the debate in the favour of the trans lobby, by making their opponents seem hateful.

"Malevolent" means to wish ill on someone.

And that doesn't require motivation. You may not be meaning to wish women ill by wanting to put men in their prisons or sports, but you are wishing them ill.

As far as I can see, the first position adds nothing to the argument

You're adding nothing to the argument, by telling people not to do something they're not doing.

Women are almost unfailingly using argument 2. Maybe you should listen to women, then you'd know what they're saying.

I am having a sense of humour failure at the idea that women should present "persuasive" arguments to keep males out of women's sports to be honest.

If someone isn't known to be a rapist and then they happen to rape someone, it isn't malevolent.

Putting a male prisoner with a penis into a female prison estate where they have access to female prisoners is doing so knowing that there is a chance that this could happen is a malevolent act. It is being done in the full knowledge there is the potential to harm someone.

There is a lot of rape in male prisons as well, but I don't think you can argue the system would designed to facilitate rape.

Another, 'it is going to happen anyway....' argument.

A system that allows a male prisoner to rape a female prisoner HAS been designed to facilitate rape. Because it allowed a female prisoner to be raped by a male prisoner.

This is not complex stuff really.

Ffs. No one just “happens to rape” it is always with intent and always malevolent.

Oh, I don't think it's 'malevolence'. It's just sheer bloody not giving a damn about women either way. In some ways that's much more pernicious - it doesn't require 'bad' people to be making the decisions.

(Obviously rape itself is malevolent.)

@Helleofabore

I don't think their desire to compete is necessarily malevolent, but it nevertheless limits women's sporting opportunities" is a position which stands on its own.

You don't think their desire to compete is malevolent? Then you really have not put much thought or research into this.

And yet, here you are saying this with complete confidence of one who has spent a great deal of time and research on this.

I think the thing is that there are people who are involved in this who aren't necessarily the clearest thinkers themselves. It sounds kind of rude but I don't think we can underestimate the number of people who are not all that bright and just tend to go along with the crowd.

If a sector of society is telling someone this is right, this is what society should do or else they are bigoted, etc, some people just accept that, in all kinds of areas. Someone like Rachael McKinnon seems to me to be malevolent. Someone like Hubbard, I'm not so sure that's what's going on, my impression is more of someone damaged and easily led.

I really think this is why there needs to be strong leadership on stuff like this - some people need that to help them know what it is ok to do. Their own judgement is poor.

Women are almost unfailingly using argument 2

Mind you, when women do use argument 2, they're accused of being "hateful".

Like Chelsea Mitchell, who did get to write a piece for USA Today.

After it was published, they edited the online version with the statement

Editor's note: This column has been updated to reflect USA TODAY’s standards and style guidelines. We regret that hurtful language was used.

What was the hurtful language? Talking about having to compete against male athletes.

They changed all uses of "male" to "transgender" and made other edits, to make out she was complaining about having to compete against transgender athletes.

Edited article:
eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/05/22/transgender-athletes-girls-women-sports-track-connecticut-column/5149532001/

Republished original text:
adflegal.org/blog/i-was-fastest-girl-connecticut-transgender-athletes-made-it-unfair-fight

takes a breath

Right. So. The extraordinary position in this discussion is the idea that males should be in female sport. It is the responsibility of people who hold that position to justify it. They have monumentally failed to do so. Yet- there have been two time-consuming and costly no doubt reviews that I know of that have categorically reached the conclusion that it is unfair and unsafe for males to compete as women.

But still you, George, deem it appropriate to tell women off for casting aspersions that some males might be using false testimony to get into women's sports. Fact is they might be. But it makes no odds to the argument either way. The fact it might upset some males to contemplate it as a possibility makes no odds. The facts are utterly clear.

Their motives only matter because you are making that part of your argument! You are saying that men starting competing in women's sports BECAUSE women's sports began to provide opportunities for fame and fortune.

Go back and read the thread again. This is not what we're saying.

"TW are denying sporting opportunities to women. I don't think their desire to compete is necessarily malevolent, but it nevertheless limits women's sporting opportunities" is a position which stands on its own.

So what is your argument against this position? Do you have one?

@Helleofabore

Georgist

Is there an actual point you are trying to express here?

Otherwise, this seems like an ongoing whataboutery exercise. So, you don't support transitioned males playing in the female category of sport, but keep bringing up 'what about'?

You still have not addressed your point ’I think it's fair enough to say that this TW can't compete in either male or female contact sports ‘.

Or are we just going to ignore the fact that males who transition can actually compete and play with, you know, other males?

And why are we being asked for evidence to answer 'your scale argument' again? You have not once posted any evidence to support any of your theories, or arguments.

How about you answer why any woman or girl should be harmed in any possible way to accommodate males in the female sporting category?

As well as why any transitioned males cannot compete with other males.

The problems with transitioned athletes competing are similar whether it is for competing with women or with men. Male bodies have an advantage over female. Female athletes have an advantage from hormone supplements. There may be arguments about how these offset, but they different effects. So there could be instances where it is unfair both ways. For example in combat sports a female body is vulnerable, because of bone structure etc., so that is unfair on her. But she may be stronger due to higher testosterone, which is unfair against her opponent.

The question of scale (how important is it versus every other issue which affects women and competes for attention) is only important insofar as you actually hope to prevent the erosion of women's rights. If you are content with simply knowing that your arguments are correct, then neither rhetoric nor political strategy matter.

But if you want to achieve change you have to persuade a lot of people that this issue is more seriously than they currently think it is.

This is an absolute bait and switch.

We’re told that it is unkind to have a blanket policy that male bodied transgender athletes are male and thus not eligible for women’s sports, which are for females.

Ok, so women then try to figure out what the motivation could be for male born people to suppose that they’re entitled to compete in women’s sports, that isn’t just based on their bodies, but that’s not right either because we look like we’re obsessed and now we’re manufacturing reasons, and we should only assume positive intent.

Women say, ok, fine, actually I just don’t much care what the motivation is, because it’s really not my problem.

But that’s back to being unkind.

🙄

So to cut to the chase: no, thank you.