Times article - Emily Bridges not a threat to women's sport

[Popuptent]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/63c22896-b27f-11ec-9af1-7ee554784c95?shareToken=3c835bc12e74cd59c49c0f0f3a5abf9b

Never understood this emphasis on “inclusion” which in reality means excluding women! The inclusion only goes one way it seems!

Also maddening when people conflate trans inclusion with gay rights - several misty eyed middle aged female friends have done this. Making out that objecting to men in woman’s sports / private spaces basically makes you Keely Hawes in Its A Sin - equivalent to a homophobic bigot.

And on radio 2 the other day Sharron Davies trying to make her (absolutely correct) points on this issue and India Willougby starts crying and making out Sharron is a meanie attacking the vulnerable. Honestly it’s enraging.

Emily isn’t just reducing testosterone to meet sporting criteria — she’s transitioning to female, which means she’s taking oestrogen, and that adds a further element to how she copes. She has another puberty to go through, mood swings and all. Think of how uncomfortable that was the first time round, and imagine doing that again under the glare of media interest.

good god, oestrogen doesnt cause mood swings, go back to biology class idiot, the menstrual cycle is when its at its lowest and theres multiply other hormones at work that increase at that time, bloody sexist to claim we have mood swings anyway, I dont my mood swings are directly related to how much pain I am in (funny that) I think that would indicate that being in physical pain generally causes you to be a bit disgruntled. funny that.

what a complete pig.

@MsTSwift

And on radio 2 the other day Sharron Davies trying to make her (absolutely correct) points on this issue and India Willougby starts crying and making out Sharron is a meanie attacking the vulnerable. Honestly it’s enraging.

I blame our rubbish mental health system, people like that should have been dealt with by the system years ago not mollycoddled by society so they dont kick off.

thats if its real and not playing victim in the presence of a woman because we are meant to "be kind". do they pull the same crap when faced with a man?

another puberty

York is on glue if Yorkself thinks humans can go through two puberty’s

@dropthevipers

"Eventually it reaches the ridiculous trope of the predatory trans woman lurking in the shadows of changing rooms or bathrooms." That's all you need to know about this mendacious bullshit article. Surprised it was in TheTimes given their GC credentials-perhaps they think they need to provide "balance"?

Yes I think they do. But I've noticed that all the pro TRA articles are shite, and I can't help thinking that's on purpose.

@Crcohetmonster

Maybe the times do it on purpose. They can’t be accused of bias because they are putting up different views, but they are selective about which articles they use. So one side is rational, factual and sensible and the other side waffles and makes shit up.

I agree.

[quote Quadzilla]www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10679985/Female-cyclists-considered-BOYCOTTING-Omnium-Championships-Emily-Bridges-allowed-race.html[/quote]
Well done those three local mothers who went anyway to support the women riders.

Ugg’s I can’t read this. I’ve already had my fill after reading about a 6’4” trans footballer goalkeeper who having competed at a reasonable level as a man, is talking about trialling for the England womens team. Soon our womens teams will be filled with trans athletes and born females will be lucky to make the bench.

It's completely ridiculous. I do feel for transwomen, since their testosterone reduction does make them less competitive against men (but not against women). It is a hard choice for them to make, competitiveness vs gender reassignment. However, "cis" women (and I hate that word) have had to make difficult choices since we were first allowed to play sport! Choosing between competitiveness and carrying children, for example. And transmen have exactly the same choice to make - they can either take testosterone to transition or compete (since taking T is effectively doping, and they would never gain a male equivalent advantage anyway). Maybe competing as a man all her life means Emily is not used to having to make these difficult compromises but that doesn't mean every female athlete needs to dive under the bus for her. Female athletes don't train their whole lives just because qualifying into the women's category makes them feel validated as women, they compete to win.

They speak for all of us frankly. Well anyone that is sane and has actually looked into it properly anyway.

@Rubytoos

Ugg’s I can’t read this. I’ve already had my fill after reading about a 6’4” trans footballer goalkeeper who having competed at a reasonable level as a man, is talking about trialling for the England womens team. Soon our womens teams will be filled with trans athletes and born females will be lucky to make the bench.

Apparently that person is lead investigator on the Tavistock trans athlete study too... quite a conflict of interest.

I suspect that extreme trans activists will find themselves scrabbling to find many, if any, current female champion who will come out and explicitly state they would welcome being beaten by a transitioned male athlete now that these women athletes are all responding to the call for honesty.

That document released by the trans law center was spot on. Activists will always lose the discussion on sports.

I suspect they are now realising that now that crap is out of the bag, the wider population will not be quite as willing to be kind as they were. This will spill over to other discussions as well.

Absolutely tigger. Remember an amazing conversation with lovely 18 year old who played for her country but was regretfully giving up her sport because she wanted to go to university and have a life outside the sport. She had agonised over the decision. That’s life choices have to be made.

Testosterone reduction makes EB less competitive against men, certainly. Not women’s problem. I support EB’s right to transition but not to enter female sports with an artificial performance level, let alone as a biological male. We need to get drugs out of sport, not strategise about how low someone’s testosterone needs to be to allow them to beat most of the women.

I wonder how we could make it really clear for the TRAs.

Every year various organisations run a ‘World’s Strongest Man’ competition. They attach themselves to trucks and life weights, and at the end, someone is labelled the strongest man in the world. Simply, we gain some information: which person is strongest.

Technically, it’s also a ‘World’s Strongest Person’ competition, as no woman is ever going to be stronger than the strongest man in the world.

Knowing this, and knowing that we still want to know, and celebrate, the identity of the world’s strongest woman, we set up another contest, and we only let women enter. At the end of it, we have some information: which female is strongest.

Now, a TW wants to enter the women’s competition. We already know they are not the world’s strongest male. They are not competitive in that group (ranking somewhere in the middle) and don’t want to enter anyway. They enter the women’s contest. They win. They are stronger than the females.

Did we gain any new information? Do we have a new ‘world’s strongest female’ to celebrate? No. We don’t. We have someone whose strength point lies in the middle of their own category, playing cuckoo at the top of a different category.

I for one don’t see the gain.

Tigger don't use it then use women and TW.

Really good point. I don’t get why ‘inclusion’ has suddenly become the holy grail. Sport BY ITS NATURE excludes, round by round, until you end up with a winner, whether that’s in football championships, sprinting, or any other sport. We have categories (Ross Tucker’s rooms that you need a ticket to get into) to ensure a level playing field (fairness) and then sport itself finds the best in that category. The idea that sport should include anyone because they feel they deserve to be there is nonsense. (Don’t get me started on how women were excluded from major sports for decades and that was just fine). The only thing that matters is fairness.

[quote McDuffy]Sunday times today

Trans cyclist Emily Bridges facing ban from female events

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c8e9de4a-b2a6-11ec-9af1-7ee554784c95?shareToken=a5ae64ea3655fae12144c922f13942a2[/quote]
So they're now looking at the rules to try and ban bridges altogether?

The regulations cite the need to “protect the health and safety of participants” and “guarantee fair and meaningful competition that displays and rewards the fundamental values and meaning of the sport”. They add that the UCI wants “its athletes to be incentivised to make the huge commitments required to excel in the sport”, and “does not want to risk discouraging those aspirations by permitting competition that is not fair and meaningful”.

Yet it turns out the guidance they might use was written to deliberately make it unfair for women.

And while the regulations were introduced to “facilitate the participation of Transgender athletes at the international level”, there are a number of requirements that must be met.

Strewth.

But because the women are threatening to shame them by boycotting, they're having second thoughts.

In reviewing any case, the UCI would seek to appoint an independent expert panel

Jeez.

Panel? Just get on with it!

This entire issue has really made me see many men in a different light. Not just the overwhelming entitlement. But the pontificating, the endless opining, the handwringing over whether to take women into account at all.

If you ever needed proof that the only reason we live in a patriarchy is because they're bigger than us.

The equality act explicitly says men can be excluded from women's sport. That's all you need.

But this endless dithering in case one man, in one place, for one second, doesn't like it.

Exactly. The podium is the perfect model of exclusion. First we exclude those who aren’t in a certain category (males, or able-bodies people, or people over a certain weight, or people over or under a certain age, or people who don’t have a certain level of technique). Then we exclude those (like me) who aren’t fit enough to be the best, or don’t train hard enough. Then we exclude those who aren’t the best on the day because someone else outperforms them for reasons of natural talent, or going the extra mile in training. Then we recognise the best of the whole category.

We don’t let people who got too old or fat or deconditioned pretend to be the best by sitting in the wrong group. However stunning or brave they might be.

This, on steroids (but not obvs as that would be cheating, and we exclude for that also).

@tabbycatstripy

Exactly. The podium is the perfect model of exclusion. First we exclude those who aren’t in a certain category (males, or able-bodies people, or people over a certain weight, or people over or under a certain age, or people who don’t have a certain level of technique). Then we exclude those (like me) who aren’t fit enough to be the best, or don’t train hard enough. Then we exclude those who aren’t the best on the day because someone else outperforms them for reasons of natural talent, or going the extra mile in training. Then we recognise the best of the whole category.

We don’t let people who got too old or fat or deconditioned pretend to be the best by sitting in the wrong group. However stunning or brave they might be.

Exactly. Women should just hand all their sport over to men cos otherwise it snot fair.

"Yes, I think they do. But I've noticed that all the pro-TRA articles are shite, and I can't help thinking that's on purpose."

That's an excellent point here. Pro- TRA arguments/articles ARE utter shite, only not on purpose but by default of being nonsense.
Check this from 4th March 22 in the "guardian" by some Australian Karen Price titled: "Courageous feminism means no woman must be left behind - and that means trans women too." In it, she praises the diversity and general rainbow-ness of trans kids and says this: "We have too much to fight for together to waste our energy on division.
TRANS WOMEN ARE WOMEN. STRONG WOMEN. And will do our best
by standing side by side."
You see, "strong women". And ready to "fight" together with us in their
courageous feminism. Side by side. Shoulder to shoulder.

Fuck me. Such drivel is being produced every fucking second of every day by people who otherwise would go completely unnoticed and ignored - as they're simply talentless, ignorant, thick halfwits who have
just found a cause. The righteous one. They will fight for the cause and they will not let it go to waste. It's their claim to fame and their time to rise and shine. They're activists now, for fuck sake.
And how do you deal with those? Well, take a piss for a start, have good old LOL and send them back to school. Or, perhaps, some dark, quiet room with no internet access for a week...I don't know.
As they say in the great, gun-ridden US of A - "Praise the Lord and Reload". Whenever in doubt they do just that. Americans. Simple people. Love simplicity.

I do feel for transwomen, since their testosterone reduction does make them less competitive against men

Doesn't seem to be affecting Emily's ability to beat men last weekend, despite having lowered testosterone.

And transmen have exactly the same choice to make - they can either take testosterone to transition or compete (since taking T is effectively doping, and they would never gain a male equivalent advantage anyway).

Transmen can get a TUE for taking testosterone to enable them to compete against men in the male category.

Except we know that increasing female testosterone levels to male levels will never make them competitive against men that have been through male puberty.