Emily Bridges in the news again

[BatDuck]

There’s a lot to unpack here. The violent abuse Bridges received is utter disgraceful and rightly it should be acknowledged that Bridges should be able to live Bridges life without fear or harassment.

The tenor of the debate is not helped by these woe is me articles that have been dripping into the media since the New Year. Quite frankly, it feels like propaganda as there’s no push back on the issue at play: males do not belong in female sport.

www.itv.com/news/2022-06-07/emily-bridges-had-physical-threats-after-pms-trans-participation-comments

But possibly still in time for the 2024 Olympics?

I never understand why transwomen do audio interviews. They never support their 'I'm just like all the other women' case

If I was being cynical I'd think they've only done this so they've got a year to see which way public opinion tips...

I actually feel quite sorry for Emily Bridges on this one. Do I think Emily should be racing in womens events? 100% no. But the constant change in regulations must be emotionally very difficult to deal with.

I don't agree with Emily. It's not okay to push to race women. But it's being handled poorly by those who should know better.

I don't agree with Emily. It's not okay to push to race women. But it's being handled poorly by those who should know better.

Indeed. What's their plan here? Keep pushing it out 12 months indefinitely?

It's never going to be fair. Female athletes are never going to tolerate this.

The authorities need to say a straightforward "no" now, and stop stringing Bridges along with false hope. Other organisations like World Rugby have managed it.

Sharron Davies was on GB News tonight and said women are not men with low testosterone. I completely agree. Testosterone is a red herring.

The authorities need to say a straightforward "no" now, and stop stringing Bridges along with false hope. Other organisations like World Rugby have managed it.

Exactly that. It's actually kinder in the long-run, not least because Emily can then settle on a testosterone level which is right in the context of the broader medical/transition picture, rather than chasing ever lower levels in order to be able to compete. Emily has already demonstrated that a transwoman can share a male podium, which can only be a positive thing for inclusion.

The authorities need to say a straightforward "no" now, and stop stringing Bridges along with false hope. Other organisations like World Rugby have managed it.

Yes, then maybe Bridge's energy could be more usefully directed into figuring out some appropriate ways for transwomen to participate in sport without ruining sport for women.

I don’t feel sorry for EB, they are using every trick in the book to manipulate public opinion to persuade people that they are just a sweet little person trying to pursue their dreams and overcome the rough hand they have been dealt in life, conveniently forgetting the women they are trampling on to achieve their dreams, who incidentally also have dreams and goals. If they are so immune to public opinion and the bleeding obvious truth that men in womens sports are cheats as much as a woman in womens sports who is prepared to take drugs then frankly EB must be delusional.

Go for the whammy Emily, carry on competing as a man while living as a woman and earn respect and your place in history honestly and deservedly. Do you really want your legacy to be the person who cheated their way to a gold medal by denying a woman her chance of glory? Remember Lance Armstrong, do you want your name to have the same resonance and association.

If anyone is interested here is the document from UCI

assets.ctfassets.net/761l7gh5x5an/4EopPD4g1xjd0aNct2SCPt/8987aec0f5a3bc020411dd2bf8cfea7e/Transgender_athletes_in_cycling_June_2022.pdf

I am going to look through it later and also look at the research they found so compelling.

I suspect it will be less than convincing but from a source who is amplified because of something other than intellectual rigor.

Agree with others this is not fair on anyone. From Emily's POV they keep moving the goalposts but from women's POV it just pushes the issue a year down the road.

This is what happens when people are weak. Much kinder and clearer for the governing body to just say no from the outset. All this wailing and hand wringing and “but but but lower testosterone” muddies the water. There is no middle “be kind” ground as is becoming increasingly apparent. Terrible leadership.

The root of that is that Emily is the one who keeps pushing, is the first transwoman testing the limits. Emily knew that would be the case when Emily started - hence the documentary, the odd research study, all the interviews etc etc. Emily has been documenting Emily's 'brave fight' since before any woman actually knew there was a war on!

Emily has always been a step or three ahead of anyone else in this. Emily has manufactured this, is still constructing Emily's own narrative. I can't feel sorry for Emily.

I’ve only read the couple of pages of that UCI document and already the muddling of sex and gender is infuriating, eg:

In summary, a performance gap exists on the basis of gender, with men performing better than women, which can be estimated to approximately 9-16% in track cycling and 13- 14% in road cycling.

It’s a sex based performance gap though?

Unless blokes Lycra gear is really that much better than womens. Or the drag of long hair. Or....nah. It's sex, not 'gender'.

And why is women’s competition now reduced from being “fair” to being “meaningful”?

And neatly summed up at the end:

The intention for separating athletes into male and female categories is to provide women athletes with meaningful competition. It would be reasonable therefore to allow transgender to compete with other female athletes if their inclusion guarantees fair and meaningful competitions. It may not be necessary, or even possible, to eliminate all individual advantages held by a transgender. It is paramount, however, that all athletes competing have a chance to succeed, albeit not necessarily an equal chance and in line with the true essence of sport.

So it’s fine to allow some people to take part for “inclusion” even though it means that not everyone has “an equal chance”.

Even the title of this UCI document is nonsense:

The current knowledge on the effects of gender-affirming treatment on markers of performance in transgender female cyclists.

Transwomen are not female, FFS.

That last sentence is rather wonky. Did they really mean to say "not necessarily in line with the true essence of sport"? Because that's the only way I can parse it, given the "and" in front.

The whole thing is decidedly wonky.

I think they’re trying to say that because some females have advantages over other females, it’s OK to allow males with advantages to take part in the female class too.

www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2022/06/16/cycling-becomes-first-sport-impose-stricter-rules-trans-athletes/

The article reports that swimming is expected to introduce new rules that could ban Lea Thomas from competing in the Olympics.

The tide is turning but the sporting bodies are still chickening out of making the only fair, scientific, evidence based decision - female sport is for biological females and male sport is for biological males. End of.

Emily has a chance to succeed in mens racing, albeit not necessarily an equal chance to win.

Why does it always have to be the women who give way.....

I'm sure we could breed a type of dog that was the same average speed as a human woman. Would it be meaningful competition for women to race them?

You can do all sorts of dumb Top Gear-style challenges to see if your bobsleigh is faster than your rally car, or whatever.

All good fun occasionally, but I think most people are more interested in seeing competition among members of the same class. To find elite women, (or elite dogs), not some sort of novelty spectacle that is mainly determined by the arbitrary rules invented for it.

Has this been posted on this thread yet?

academic.oup.com/jcem/advance-article/doi/10.1210/clinem/dgac349/6603101

Trans girls grow tall: adult height is unaffected by GnRH analogue and estradiol treatment

Lidewij Sophia Boogers,
Chantal Maria Wiepjes, Daniel Tatting Klink,
Ilse Hellinga, Adrianus Sarinus Paulus van Trotsenburg, Martin den Heijer,
Sabine Elisabeth Hannema

published: 06 June 2022

Also this. I am stowing it here to read later too.

philpapers.org/archive/BOGWTT.pdf

Why the Trans Inclusion Problem cannot be Solved

by Tomas Bogardus

extract from abstract

What is a woman? The definition of this central concept of feminism has lately become especially controversial and politically charged. “Ameliorative Inquirists” have rolled up their sleeves to reengineer our ordinary concept of womanhood, with a goal of including in the definition all and only those who identify as women, both “cis” and “trans.” This has proven to be a formidable challenge.

Every proposal so far has failed to draw the boundaries of womanhood in a way acceptable to the Ameliorative Inquirists, since not all those who identify as women count as women on these proposals, and some who count as women on these proposals don’t identify as women.

Is recent but not sure release date.

The final sentence of the abstract makes an important distinction.

‘That’s primarily because, no matter what it means to be a woman, it’s one thing to be a woman, and another thing to identify as a woman.‘