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

[Popuptent]

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

Emily is wrong that there is no threat to womens sport.

''Amateur women and girls across Britain are 'quitting sport' after facing male-bodied opponents, claim campaigners''
''Dossier compiled by FPFW includes testimony from female hockey player in an amateur London league who walked off the pitch when given task of marking a transgender opponent''

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10680003/Amateur-women-girls-Britain-quitting-sport-facing-male-bodied-opponents.html

The archived link is archive dot ph/H1DtN

Should they not just say no and be done with it? All of this faffing about helps nobody.
Emily was under the impression that participation would be possible until a few days before the race because nobody said no earlier.

Emily wasn't able to race this time but it's still not a firm no for the future. If the rules had been clearer from the start Emily might have been more informed about possible choices e.g. not trying to get testosterone under an arbitrary level to meet criteria for women's race, and could have just carried on in the men's category, which seemed to pose no issues a few weeks ago.

I agree Plasm it needs to be clear for TW. They shouldn't be led to believe that suppressing testosterone means that they can play in women's sports. They have to decide what they want more. Much like sports women who wish to become mothers have to make that choice.

Why aren't the people that justify male inclusion in female sports being asked the right questions? If they genuinely believe that the only difference between men and women is current testosterone levels they should be able to answer why female born transitioned (and indeed female born cheats who dope using testosterone) athletes don't perform to male levels.

Has the other long EB thread been disappeared?

Emily Bridges isn't eligible to compete in men's flyweight, featherweight or lightweight boxing because she has a biological advantage. I don't see TRAs complaining.

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 this, Datsun. It’s infuriating. I think it would be simplest to go by sex in all circumstances. No T levels, no this or that many weeks on oestrogen blah blah. Simple sex-based categories, or, if deemed more appropriate, Female plus Open.

I’ve really tried to put myself in EB’s place by setting up an analogy and working through it honestly, but I can’t. If there’s an unfair advantage, how could anyone choose to exploit it? Just because the rules currently say it’s possible, I can’t imagine anyone taking advantage of that, even if only for the sake of their own reputation rather than for women’s benefit. I feel sorry for trans people too because none of this is helping them.

So someone won a race a month ago in men's sport and this weekend was scheduled to race in women's sport. Well isn't that dandy?

Apart from the weight, /height/muscle mass/heart size differences TW have over women, one must also consider pelvis width and thigh angle.
I often assumed that male cyclists would find penis and balls uncomfortable perched on a narrow saddle, but I read an in depth interview with Laura Trott Kenny in which she described how a conventional saddle could reduce a female cyclist's vulval area to a mess of bleeding sores until she helped redesign the saddle shape.