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.

What is with the JAQing off in this thread? Why are women being asked to explain what they’d do in entirely hypothetical situations if they were completely different people?

I understand that the JAQoffs are an opportunity to educate the lurkers but it’s unpleasant to read this tedious male being bossy and demanding and so many women accommodating him. Ugh. Why not just stop, take a deep breath, read some of the many resources they’ve been directed to and stop Just Asking Questions for long enough to educate themselves?

I think it can be worthwhile to ask questions or challenge points on which I don't yet have a conclusion.

Yeah. The ‘challenge’ nature of your posts were apparent from the start. If you are seeking information to establish your position, may I suggest asking and not ‘challenging’ will get you better results.

I did ask some questions which I think were interpreted as disagreement. I asked about the scale of these problems, because I think this important for policy advocacy. I think this may be especially important if you are constrained in the amount of time you have to advocate for your desired policies, or if the amount of resources is limited, or if you can only pass part of your platform, or compromise is required with those with opposing views - what to prioritise?

Your reasons for focus on ‘scale’ show you to not have been engaged in the topic of sports or prisons. There have been women fighting these changes and issues at a high level for years since each of these changes came in.

Your number one suggestion for prisons is individual cells. If you had taken some time to actually read about the issue you would have read about the women who had to deal with the fully intact male who got off on timing their showers for maximum exposure time. And what about the communal time?

It seems you are focused on discussing the ‘scale’ of these issues with the intention of ‘challenging’ us from a position where you don’t seem to have a depth of understanding.

Oh I forgot to edit out a “him” there -apologies if it’s wrong, the JAQoffer’s pronouns are not immediately apparent.

Anyone see a common trend here?

Absolutely! The trend of ‘it is good to be nice as long as I am alright Jack’ is quite easy to spot.

I asked about the scale of these problems, because I think this important for policy advocacy.
Making policy based on current scale is pointless because once the policies are in place you have no control over a scale. You base your policy on one person but it opens the door to everyone. Your intention may be to let a 55 year TW play with women because their age means their advantage is negated or your rule is aimed to admit the "shy, quiet" dysmorphic TW who has had surgery and hormones who will avert their eye and hide their body into the changing room but once the rules say women's spaces are open to some men it is nigh on impossible to police which men step in.

@allmywhat

What is with the JAQing off in this thread? Why are women being asked to explain what they’d do in entirely hypothetical situations if they were completely different people?

I understand that the JAQoffs are an opportunity to educate the lurkers but it’s unpleasant to read this tedious male being bossy and demanding and so many women accommodating him. Ugh. Why not just stop, take a deep breath, read some of the many resources they’ve been directed to and stop Just Asking Questions for long enough to educate themselves?

Yeah! As I explained yesterday, I think he thinks he is being all Socratic, stretching us, making us think further than our little lady brains have hitherto been pushed to think.

He is, remember, here to make us stronger.

Or to use up all the oxygen in the room and amuse himself.

You will notice, if you scroll back a little, that he has assiduously ignored any post that asks him anything meaningful. Surface and trite he can do. But ask for depth and you get all the bluster back again.

Still, we do get to repeat lots of detailed information for all the lurkers. And, as many of us are ourselves ex lurkers, we know just how valuable that is.

I am stealing "JAQoff", is that's OK with you. It struck a cord this morning

[quote Georgist]@RedDogsBeg
So all other sports are fair game then? You care naught for fairness?

I don't care naught for fairness, but I don't think it's the most important either.
I'll elaborate, but I'm interested to know what you think fairness requires or implies.

You didn't answer my earlier question - why are you so determined to open up women and girls sports to men and boys, why?

I'm not determined to open them up. What makes you think this?

Another one - why do women and girls have to justify keeping men and boys out of their sports?

I think perhaps the biggest reason is that a significant minority of women are sympathetic or in favour.

e.g. in the UK
yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/16/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights

in the USA:
www.advocate.com/transgender/2021/5/26/new-poll-finds-opposition-trans-athletes-it-outlier
"34 percent said they should be able to compete under their gender identity"

Why do you think they think this?[/quote]
Ok I’ll play. Fairness ensures the best person on the day wins within their sex class or sex / weight class. People with DSD’s ultimately are either male or female. Same rules to apply.

I get that people are genetically more able within their sex class. This is precisely why elite sport exists in the first place. This is a variation of sex and something we cannot mitigate against. For example, even feet size in swimming is important with larger / wider feet acting almost as flippers.

If we were to go down the route of complete parity, elite sport could not exist. However, we can prevent males and transwomen, who have a de facto advantage in almost every sporting event from playing against women.

Your turn. What is more important than fairness?

@Georgist

Have you seen Squid Games?

These conversations remind me so much of Squid Games.

Red light. Green light.

Triangle. Square. Circle.

I get that people are genetically more able within their sex class. This is precisely why elite sport exists in the first place. This is a variation of sex and something we cannot mitigate against. For example, even feet size in swimming is important with larger / wider feet acting almost as flippers.

Well, as Ross Tucker has tried to explain - sport is about trying to find people who are good at physical activities. Excelling in technique, training, and natural advantage.

If you didn't classify by sex, then the main thing elite sport would be doing is identifying male people. All other performance factors are dwarfed by sex.

Every single Olympic competitor in almost every event would be male, and 50% of the population would from birth, be precluded from ever competing.

Human males happen to have no other class of sentient organism around that is bigger and stronger than them, so they would (for now) get to win all the medals.

But if we met a new civilisation, if the Klingons arrived, would men accept that all Earth's Olympic places were now totally filled by Klingons?

Or would they realise that maybe human sports might be a good idea? I don't see men happy handing over all their sports to Klingons for "inclusion" and "diversity".

Women have to share this planet with a bigger, stronger class of lifeform. Men are very privileged in not facing this problem, and hence often blind to women's situation.

You will notice, if you scroll back a little, that he has assiduously ignored any post that asks him anything meaningful.

Including clarification on what points they disagreed with and when that was also ignored, what their intention was behind posting 'whataboutery' that if you looked at in any depth beyond the superficial, was meaningless despite us being told how important it was so that the world can be convinced.

Does the entire population agrees with the concept and the term 'same sex marriage' even now? No. Many disagree on very diverse grounds from definition (while fully supporting the concept of recognising the commitment needs to be included in legislation but not using marriage as the term to do so) to the act itself.

The concept of scale is a distraction to getting the action done whichever application you look at. Even one male can cause harm if included so is Georgist going to look into the eyes of the woman or girl affected and tell them it was for the greater good.

Plus you are not going to get 100% agreement within a nation. And without a massive and years and years long education process to ensure that every single person understands completely what the ramifications are, you are not going to get close to 100%.

It is a nonsense tactic.

Human males happen to have no other class of sentient organism around that is bigger and stronger than them, so they would (for now) get to win all the medals.

Pedantically, sapient. Most animals are sentient.
A while ago there was a YouTube of Dave the Cheetah who identified as a sprinter...

Even one male can cause harm if included so is Georgist going to look into the eyes of the woman or girl affected and tell them it was for the greater good

Yes. A bit like the InsulateBritain protestors who say, quite openly, that anyone whose health is worsened, or someone dying, in an ambulance they have halted, is acceptable collateral damage. That their life has been balanced against the future damage to the earth and been deemed expendable!

The potential damage to women, to any single female, is meaningless to him in his pursuit of summink summink summink

Pedantically, sapient. Most animals are sentient.

Pedantry appreciated :)

But if we met a new civilisation, if the Klingons arrived, would men accept that all Earth's Olympic places were now totally filled by Klingons?

You would certainly hear "Qapla' " ringing out around the sports fields and stadiums around the world.

And probably the clang of battle swords.

But if it was only one bird of prey load of Klingons, apparently we would have to look at 'scale' before working to create fairness and safety.

Or in real life... we've already had the pistorius case of men being very concerned that artificial limbs don't give any advantage. It's nowhere near science fiction to suppose some regimes might indulge in a bit of genetic optimisation...Though I doubt they can readily come up with anything as good as the Y chromosome.

Yes.... and has the loophole been addressed?

After Pistorius’ history-making run, the International Association of Athletics Federations (now known as World Athletics) ruled that, going forward, athletes using such "mechanical aids" must take it upon themselves to prove their blades do not give them a competitive edge.

www.colorado.edu/today/2020/10/28/court-ruling-barring-blade-runner-olympics-scientifically-unfounded-studies-suggest

Now it will remain to be seen what will happen about the burden of proof resting on the individual. Will there be an appeal to sort that out...

But you know, after just one high profile case of Pistorious, World Athletics quickly addressed it. JUST ONE.

How is THAT for scale!

First of all, I would like to thank ErrolTheDragon for the clarification of the difference between sapience and sentience. I love Star Trek, but they did a number on the English language with their carelessness here.

Continuing on our Star Trek theme, I wonder if posters here are familiar with the character Worf, a Klingon brought up on a human planet. In the Deep Space 9 episode Let He Who Is Without Sin, we find out about a pivotal moment that made him the unusually serious Klingon he is today, and what guilt he's carrying.

It's a very moving scene.

DAX: Maybe so, but you're not like any other Klingon I've ever met. What happened to you, Worf? You're a paragon of Klingon honour and discipline, but when it comes to the Klingon passion for life, the exuberance, the enjoyment of the moment, you are constantly holding yourself back. Why?
WORF: That's not the issue here.
DAX: I think it is.
WORF: I do not wish to lose you, Jadzia.
DAX: Then talk to me, please.
WORF: You know from the age of seven I was raised by humans on the farmworld of Gault? It was a sparsely populated world, no more than twenty thousand inhabitants. It often seemed as though everyone knew everyone else. But one thing was for certain, everyone knew me. I was the Klingon child, the uncontrollable one. I was the biggest, the strongest, most fearless child on the entire planet. I fought hard, played hard, I did as I pleased.
DAX: What changed?
WORF: When I was thirteen, I was captain of my school soccer team. We had made the championships, and I was determined to win. Near the end of the second half, with the score tied, my team got a corner kick. The ball sailed up high. Both I and one of my opponents, a human boy named Mikel, leaped up to head the ball. He had position, but I was determined to score. I remember laughing with excitement as I threw myself at him.
DAX: Go on.
WORF: The next thing I knew, the ball was sailing into their goal. I roared with triumph and turned around to Mikel to gloat, only to find him lying on the grass bleeding. Our heads had collided when we both went up for the ball. I had not feel the impact, but I had broken his neck, and he died the next day.
DAX: It was an accident.
WORF: Which only makes it worse. Compared to Klingons, humans are fragile creatures. I realised at that moment to live among them I must practice restraint.
DAX: That must have been difficult for you.
WORF: At first. In time it became part of who I was, who I am.
DAX: And you're still afraid that if you lose control
WORF: Someone I care about might get hurt.
DAX: That explains a lot. But you have to realise there are some things in life you can't control, and one of them is me. But what you can do is trust me. I care about you, Worf, and I would never do anything to hurt you.

Child Worf should never have been put in that position.

I don't care naught for fairness, but I don't think it's the most important either.

Fairness underpins the whole concept of competition that's why sports have rules and regulations often lots of regulations. I have a relative who cycles to quite a high (amateur) standard (oops that's outing on MN isn't it 😉) they are subject to a whole host of regulations about the bike they ride and the kit they wear. They can't just pitch up on motorcycle shrug and say well it's a bike isn't it. In fact in the biggest event they ever took part in they got to the starting line and discovered that their bike had obviously been subjected to inspection to ensure that it was legal. Great fairness for all someone is making sure no-one is using unapproved kit. Unfortunately for my relative this meant that many of the setting and adjustments that are made to get the optimum performance from the bike had been undone. Not particularly fair for my poor relative on that day but random checks that are carried out to try an eliminate cheating are part and parcel of rules to try to retain overall fairness.

You will notice, if you scroll back a little, that he has assiduously ignored any post that asks him anything meaningful.

Perhaps it was a way to generate deletions. Which is ironic given that the deletions, mostly, were either a result of quoting that poster, or addressing something that they themselves said using their own wording!

[quote Georgist]@RedDogsBeg
So all other sports are fair game then? You care naught for fairness?

I don't care naught for fairness, but I don't think it's the most important either.
I'll elaborate, but I'm interested to know what you think fairness requires or implies.

You didn't answer my earlier question - why are you so determined to open up women and girls sports to men and boys, why?

I'm not determined to open them up. What makes you think this?

Another one - why do women and girls have to justify keeping men and boys out of their sports?

I think perhaps the biggest reason is that a significant minority of women are sympathetic or in favour.

e.g. in the UK
yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/16/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights

in the USA:
www.advocate.com/transgender/2021/5/26/new-poll-finds-opposition-trans-athletes-it-outlier
"34 percent said they should be able to compete under their gender identity"

Why do you think they think this?[/quote]
Here you go, so you don't have to look for it.

docs.cdn.yougov.com/ai3h3xvf7o/Transgender%20data%202020.pdf

Page 3 you will notice the question.

Some transgender people have gender reassignment surgery. This is surgery by which a transgender person's physical attributes are altered to match the gender they identify with (e.g. breast and genital surgery).

Do you think a transgender woman who has not had gender reassignment surgery should or should not be allowed to...

This is what happens George when you engage only superficially before wading into 'challenging' people.

With just this one piece of extra information, the % changed significantly. Yes, there was still some people who agreed and there always will.

Can you imagine (since you challenged us to imagine upthread), asking this question adding the following information progressively.

• 98% of sex crimes are committed by all males.
• male transition does not decrease the propensity to commit male pattern crime.
• 1 in 20 women have experienced rape and 20% of women in the UK have experienced sex abuse and that only 1 in 6 report a rape. And these victims may be harmed and distressed at sharing spaces where they are expecting and entitled to it being female with any male.

How many do you think would answer that same question having this information included in it?

Yes, YouGov surveys are useful, however not if you only ever think superficially about them.

If you are saying 'well, we need to get the information out there', of course we know this. There is more discussion about these topics this year than there ever was, because top level support is happening with Ministers and now even the EHRC. If the EHRC publishes very clear guidance next year and guidance that is completely unable to be obfuscated, that is because of the very brave women who have been working tirelessly on this.

Despite there being a small proportion of people who disagree.

And I believe, as we have seen with organisations backtracking from Stonewall, if this guidance is clear enough that with it in place and all the news coverage this will generate, that small number you push forward for whatever your agenda is, will get even smaller. Because they will also realise that they have been pushing someone else's false agenda to make organisations believe that the law said what they wanted it to and not what it actually did. (But I am an optimist and admit that this is what I hope to happen)

That is why I think your method of "whatabout" those who disagree, is complete nonsense and doesn't contribute anything meaningful.

I was a tad put out that I wasn't asked to expand on the sport theme. So I thought I'd go all gratuitous on you!

General male biomechanical advantage in sport. Keeping it REALLY simple

Male athletes gernerally have longer and larger bones. The increased articular surface, basic area of connection, and larger structure of male bones provide males with a greater leverage and a wider frame on which to support muscle.

Even if you found a woman of identical height, limb length etc, female ligaments (they connect muscle to bone, so you don't fall over when you move) are generally more lax, stretchy, more injury prone. So men have an advantage in throwing, hitting, kicking. And women, with those lax ligaments and wider pelvis have better balance... and can birth children!

If you want to stick to 'manly' things like the maths or physics of the human body, OK! I can do Newtonian physics, trigonometry etc. But it isn't all just about lever length and the Q angle.

To be fair I am finding it difficult to translate what is on my head. I am trying to say that the differences in hip flexion, rotation isn't just in the applied pressures, medial deviation, dynamic knee valgus etc. But the restrictions of that knee movement also recruit, or rather fail to recruit, other muscles. In women, in many movements requiring the lower limbs to move under load, there would be no preactivation of the whole of the posterior kinetic chain - the tendons and ligaments surrounding the knee joint wouldn't be adequately recruited leading to mechanical failure of the joint - your female knee would buckle where a male knee would excel.

That's why, when I say "The hips don't lie" I mean more than just the visual observation of the Q angle being an ever present alert to the sex of an individual. Those hips also tell a lot of the story of the biomechanical disadvantage of being female in many sports.

And THAT (and a whole load more) is why I find male posturing about transwomen in sport so fucking ridiculous.

Sport science knows all of this. Undergraduates run dissertations on this year in year out. It's easy stuff because it is easily measured, doesn't deviate, has been consistent despite the developments in training methods, technology etc.

Nobody needs to understand the 'inner essence' of any trans individual to be able to see the physical advantages of a male bodied perosn, not matter how many medical interventions that body has been subject to.

We don't neeed machines, research studies, statistics etc. The difference, the advantage, is clearly visible - to those who would but see!

Just to say to those of you who have quoted the first line of my last post - you may have missed that I used italics on the "are" in that sentence.

That was to reply to RedDogsBeg's question to Georgist about where they are getting their ideas from. But ffs, it is NOT unknown that there are women out there quite happy to let the men and the TRAs have their way - they are the biggest let down of all in this scenario! We expect men to stand up for their own rights, however they present - what we DON'T (or perhaps DIDN'T, given the current state of affairs) expect was how many women would fall under the spell as well!

I kind of resent the first line of my post being used as a trampoline for others on here to bounce off - I am AGREEING with you as regards the TW in sports, they shouldn't be. I am answering points as they come up that seem to have not been discussed - but overall my opinion is that female sports are for females only, and ones that have not been doped. This will not ever change.

I think people with CCSDs should be taken on a case-by-case basis - if they have CAIS then they will develop almost entirely as a female and probably would be fine to compete as a female, despite having XY genes. There are a LOT of different CCSDs - hence why the need for a case by case basis.

The difference, the advantage, is clearly visible - to those who would but see! Which is why I, like many others here, tend to also sing

The King is in the altogether, but all together, the altogether
He's altogether as naked as the day that he was born

Because we do see....

HoardingSamphireSaurus

Brilliant! Thank you.

And this is without even mentioning the influence of menstration!

Thanks, but I made a rooky error, typing too fast. If any of my students had made the same error I would have made a great song and dance about it!

Tendons attach muscle to bone

Ligament connect bone to bone.

So I can but give myself a stern talking to