Sean Ingle Guardian article on FINA decision / trans women in female sports

[InvisibleDragon]

Article here, thought it deserves a post of its own:
amp.theguardian.com/sport/2022/jun/20/no-magic-solution-in-the-battle-over-trans-inclusion-in-womens-sport

Discusses inclusion Vs fairness &safety dilemma and basically concludes that inclusion basically compromises fairness and safety. I know sports stuff is given more leeway to include biology, but it's a big contrast to the Guardian's preferred line.

Megan Rapinoe states that sport isn't the most important thing in life. True. So let's persuade transwomen of that and then they can make a quiet exit from women's sports.

This. Don't these people ever grasp what they are saying?

I’m not sure why I’d need to point that out? Quinn is not a transman, Quinn hasn’t stated that anywhere, but has usually used the term trans, non-binary.

I pointed out Quinn was trans in the same team as Megan Rapinoe to highlight that Megan has personal experience of a trans athlete on her team, albeit not in the way that is currently being discussed. So her opinions will be influenced by that experience.

It is relevant though what sex Quinn is. Rapinoe pontificating about trans people in sports isn't informed by her playing on the same team as a male person.

Quinn is a good example of trans athletes being included in the sport of their sex at the very highest levels so should be being celebrated as a model for inclusion and fairness together surely?

I am not sure why everyone has leapt on my comments, I was just pointing out the misconception that Megan Rapinoe was trans, or Retired, both of which were stated wrongly on the thread.

Yes, but I do think it's important to be clear on people's sex as much as their self proclaimed gender identity.

It’s also important to be clear with the facts, or is this a case of leaping on someone assuming their opinions, and letting other people who have essentially been incorrect go ahead and misstate facts because you know their opinion agrees with yours?

And the fact is Quinn is biologically female. That's something which is highly relevant to most people, as most people disagree with the inclusion of male people in women's sports and are largely uninterested in gender identity either way.

Quinn is a good example of trans athletes being included in the sport of their sex at the very highest levels so should be being celebrated as a model for inclusion and fairness together surely?

Because Quinn is female. That is the only reason Quinn is "a model for inclusion and fairness together" in a way a male is categorically not.

It is important to be clear with the facts. Your initial comment read like Rapinoe had played on a team with a trans person who was biologically male. This lead me to reassess other people's comments about Rapinoe having no experience with playing against someone who is male on a female team. Further comments revealed that Quinn is in fact female. Whether they are non binary or not is irrelevant because they have a female body, playing against other females.

Yes, hence Quinn is a role model for including trans athletes in the sport of their sex as stated above. What is so hard to grasp there?

In future I’ll make sure anyone I mention I include their biological sex, didn’t realise it was a forum rule.

A male could also be the same, if included within the sports category of their sex, or am I missing something?! Is that not the whole point? How can they categorically not be?!!!

Where did I say anything other than Megan Rapinoe had a trans athlete on her team? Just because people leapt to conclusions- I am not sure how that’s my issue and not theirs?

In future I’ll make sure anyone I mention I include their biological sex, didn’t realise it was a forum rule.

It isn't, but your comment wasn't clear, as people have said. It came across to me as slightly disingenuous to omit reference to Quinn's sex as it is highly relevant, but I now understand what you meant, so thanks for clarifying.

And, I withdrew that post, so MR is not at all referred to as maybe being trans on this thread anymore.

I had thought MR had some self proclaimed specialness. More than being a run of the mill woman, of course. Maybe only really aware of MR because MR appears to advocate for the inclusion of males in female sports. So, I had associated MR with trans issues. Has MR ever spoke out in support of women in sport, I wonder. It is so much less encouraged, provided for or supported. Indeed, one could interpret MR's advocacy as contrary to women's interests as the protected status allows for women and girls not just to participate, but to excel. And, be recognised for that excellence.

In sport all "trans athletes" are not equal. Gender identity is irrelevant. On what possible grounds would Quinn not be allowed to play on a women's team where fairness was the goal? Why would they need to be "included"? The "inclusion"argument refers to males on women's teams. Not female people.

Megan Rapinoe has been one of driving forces for the equal pay campaign in American womens football which has now succeeded. So yes has advocated hugely for womens sports. Maybe not in the way that is relevant to trans issues, but she has been very vocal about the worth of womens sport. Shes done some really valuable work in that sphere.

@Mel338a I was just pointing out the misconception that Megan Rapinoe was trans

Where did you do that? It certainly was not in connection with my posts as I had my own post deleted yesterday, and indeed a 'correction' made yesterday as well.

So, where are we now? The 'trans' players who are biologically female still play on the women's football teams. And, I should hope football players are not allowed to take performance enhancing testosterone. That's be doping. Just like the former East Germans did.

So, it looks like it is still the male athletes who have the natural biological advantage. Irrespective of how they identify.

If she has been such an advocate for women in sport - how can she believe what she is now saying? How can she turn her back on all that for something that is a biological impossibility? Unless, as per foxy kimono, a family member/friend/close person requires absolute and total support and affirmation -I wonder?

Just a thought, but would it even be women's football, or uniquely women who benefit from a raise if female sports places are taken by male athletes? MR appears to be advocating for that. And, it is odd as MR must know biologically female trans players (like Quinn) wouldn't get anywhere near the men's football team.

My deliberately misquoted quote from Sir Thomas More in a 'Man for all Seasons' comes to mind.
"For cheating males? Why MR, it profit a woman nothing to give her soul for the whole world ... but for cheating males!"

But it says some unfairness to females in sport is acceptable in exchange for being inclusive.

Inclusive is all that matters as long as it relates to males muscling in to female sports. Too bad if it excludes women from their own sports. Hopefully, given the high profile of so many women pro cyclists there will be a backlash against this, similar to swimming.

I don't understand the basic premise of inclusion being the starting point rather than fairness, in any of these discussions.

When women started competing in sports, they weren't included with the men (for most sports at least), they had a separate category to compete in. It was recognised that it would be unfair for women to compete against men.

When disabled athletes started competing, again a separate category was set up. It was recognised that to compete against able-bodied athletes would be unfair. And actually took this even further in order to ensure fairness. Multiple sports have multiple categories for disability. It's recognised that it would be unfair for someone with a moderate sight-loss to compete against someone who's totally blind. It would be unfair for someone missing a hand to swim against someone missing two arms.

Even in sports such as boxing there are weight categories to ensure fairness.

So why this talk about inclusion rather than fairness? It's totally baffling to me when you compare it to the rest of the sporting world 

Agreed. It doesn't make any sense, we already know that exclusion is part and parcel of competitive sport. It's sort of the whole point - to see who is the best within the parameters of a particular defined category.

The only way this whole mess makes sense is if you accept the fact it isn't about sport at all - it's simply that a group of males want something from women that they aren't entitled to, and therefore the whole world is going to tie itself in knots to ensure they get it, and make up all sorts of crap to justify it.

The only way this whole mess makes sense is if you accept the fact it isn't about sport at all - it's simply that a group of males want something from women that they aren't entitled to, and therefore the whole world is going to tie itself in knots to ensure they get it, and make up all sorts of crap to justify it.

Good JCJ thread this morning on a similar theme, responding to someone saying how "accepting someone for who they are" and believing in "self actualisation" are left-wing traits.

Finale of that:

You are conflating 'self-actualisation' with 'forcing other people to recognise you as you dictate irrespective of their own perceptions.'

That's not 'self-actualisation.'

That's domination.

Srsly, talking about 'self actualisation' in a situation where male people are demanding the right to take resources, opportunities and achievements away from female people is some serious rhetorical bullshit.

I have no doubt the female Ivy League swimmers really feel like their self actualisation has been prioritised here.

Elite sport is not about inclusion. But it's pointless if it's unfair.

I can't get my head around this either.

Well, actually, I can, but it hurts. It upsets me a lot whenever I confront the unvarnished reality that women and girls just don't matter. And when I say 'upsets', it makes me rage and cry at the same time.

It's not really inclusion though.

How many females will no longer enter cycling competitions?

Its not possibly to be inclusive here. Allowing TW means that it is no longer fair to females, which will mean many females will be excluded for 1 TW.

It is just not going to work. At least they have admitted they are prioritising TW. I hope enough woman now respond.