Trans woman’s victory in female snooker sparks fairness row (Times, 2 Sep)

[BettyFilous]

Another day, another mediocre male taking a woman’s prize in women’s sport.

A transgender snooker player’s victory in a women’s competition has triggered fresh debate about fairness in sport.

Jamie Hunter, 25, became the first transgender woman to win a women’s ranking tournament on Sunday by beating Rebecca Kenna 4-1 at the US Women’s Open in Seattle.

snip

Hunter, 25, from Wigan, Greater Manchester, responded: “If Maria is upset, it is disheartening and saddening, but I’m there to help grow [the sport] not ruin it. I want the tour to prosper. 🙄

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/6c08649c-29ea-11ed-a830-74a6c8fbb722?shareToken=b718d32e7db506e5bf707834f039c760

Rebecca - congratulations on your win! Sorry to hear you were cheated out of your prize money.

"Ultimately, its men not accepting that there are spaces and events that they cannot enter"

Strange how someone can win a completion they " cannot enter"!

It's not unfair discrimination. The competition is ostensibly for women. Jamie is male, therefore Jamie's exclusion would be fair. If Jamie is included, it's potentially unfair discrimination against other men.
Men are not a minority - either numerically or in the sense of being disadvantaged.
TW are a small subset of men, hence a minority numerically, but not disadvantaged due to their claims of a special identity.

Except when that discrimination is against a minority group like transwomen!

Trans people aren't a minority in the case of sport where its divided by sex. They are still male or female - approximately half the population.

Also being a minority doesn't mean that someone gets to change the rules and claim discrimination when everyone else calls them out on it.

@Walkden
You're just being silly now.

"Trans people aren't a minority in the case of sport where its divided by sex. They are still male or female - approximately half the population."

I would imagine the proportion of people who are transwomen or transmen is tiny so would consider them a minority. There are probably hundreds of women for every transwomen and vice versa.

Yes. It is discrimination. Of course it is.

Not all discrimination is negative discrimination. And some discrimination is necessary to protect another oppressed group from the negative impact of the rights of another group.

This is well known and is not controversial.

Only people willing to overlook the harms to females caused by such a decision, would prioritise the needs of any males over females. Are you willing to overlook the harms caused to females by allowing males to participate in this sporting category?

How comes such a high proportion of trans women are sports people? Or is it that there is a high proportion of non sports people but we just don't see it?

I would imagine the proportion of people who are transwomen or transmen is tiny so would consider them a minority. There are probably hundreds of women for every transwomen and vice versa.

An irrelevant argument for this instance. And also irrelevant in discussing deprioritizing female’s needs and elevating those of transitioned males to be the priority.

Transwomen are males. This is the key thing isn't it? In what way do I want to discriminate against them. I really truly am curious. I believe that Jamie can wear dresses, have long hair, express their feelings, receive all of the same rights in terms of employment, health care, education, housing... If Jamie's friends refer to Jamie as 'she' and invite them on a 'girl's night out', that's up to them. But Jamie wants an extra right which other men and women don't have. There are a very small number of areas in life where society has decided that for protection, fairness and dignity biological males and biological females should be separate. It is the right of every man in this country to use a urinal without a woman wondering I and seeing him pee, for example! Jamie still has access to male facilities and snooker competitions by virtue of being male, but ALSO wants access to female space by virtue of saying ( there is no actual test) that they are female. If Jamie is given this right it is discrimination against any other male or female person who also wants to access both male and female spaces. So, maybe you agree with gender ideology 100% and feel that absolutely everything should be mixed sex. If that's your view, I respect that despite disagreeing. But what was a revelation for me is that there is no in between - you cannot prioritize one small group and give them the right to choose on a basis of preference whether they are male or female.

Agree, sounds like he'd be rubbish in the Mens tournament. How do the higher ups not see what is happening and DO something about it.

There is actually some excellent Cambodian players. They're women though....

Anyway. There's none so blind as those that will not see.

A transwoman who was a hobby player and a man until five minutes ago waltzing in and winning a major women's championship against the best women in the world who have been serious players for years kind of knocks the "women just aren't obsessive enough" argument on its head anyway.

"So, maybe you agree with gender ideology 100% and feel that absolutely everything should be mixed sex"

Obviously there are good reasons to specify whether trans competitors can compete in things like swimming football rugby etc where physical differences can self evidently make a difference in terms of completion and safety.

I am not convinced that snooker is one of them as I've pointed out.

I'm also against against exclusion of transmen or any individual solely on the basis of gender critical beliefs. I know op has said this harms women but I would consider transpeople a minority potentially facing discrimination from men and women. Positive discrimination should act to support minorites surely rather than favour the majority unless there is very clear evidence to the contrary.

What you're missing @Walkden is that trans players are transgender. They have changed the gender they want to be known as, but their sex hasn't changed.

Sports are segregated according to sex. Gender doesn't matter. The only accommodation which might be necessary is for male players to be more accepting of their feminine brothers who like to present as transwomen and change their names to female sounding ones.

I'm also against against exclusion of transmen or any individual solely on the basis of gender critical beliefs.

could you please explain this statement?

And if a female is not taking testosterone, why would they be excluded from the female sports category? This is a quite a straw man you are building.

However, your post neatly shows why language and words are so important. If we rephrased your post to :

‘I'm also against against exclusion of females who don’t take testosterone or any individual from the female sports category solely on the basis of gender critical beliefs.’

It reveals the question of who are these other individuals? And what ‘gender critical beliefs’ are excluding them?

I know op has said this harms women but I would consider transpeople a minority potentially facing discrimination from men and women. Positive discrimination should act to support minorites surely rather than favour the majority unless there is very clear evidence to the contrary.

And that the point I made before. The solution to male problems shouldn't be one that harms women. .We are not here primarily to make men happy and solve their problems.

I would imagine the proportion of people who are transwomen or transmen is tiny so would consider them a minority. There are probably hundreds of women for every transwomen and vice versa.

There are probably hundreds of women for every man called Morgan. That subgroup of men's "minority" status doesn't qualify them to compete in female tournaments.

We are discriminating against that minority group of "men called Morgan" the same as every other man. No males in female tournaments, no exceptions, no matter your male sob story.

(Under your logic, every man is a minority of one, so could claim to be a poor persecuted minority...)

What you're missing @Walkden is that trans players are transgender. They have changed the gender they want to be known as, but their sex hasn't changed.

Sports are segregated according to sex

Exactly.

This isn't even a difficult concept.

Absolutely no one is being 'excluded'. They play in their sex class like everybody else.

I would imagine the proportion of people who are transwomen or transmen is tiny so would consider them a minority

For such a teeny tiny group, TW are making a big impact on female sport.

Now I wonder what we could put that stastical improbability down to? 🤔

So most posters here simply see transwomen as just another man, simply trying to gain an unfair advantage

Whereas I would think someone who changed gender faces lots of barriers, makes massive changes in their lives faces discrimination from women who see him as a man, and discrimination from men who might them them as a woman and hadn't done it with the intention of depriving a woman of a snooker trophy

"They play in their sex class like everybody"

Except of course that some sports don't have a sex class, and currently at least promote inclusion, like snooker!

hadn't done it with the intention of depriving a woman of a snooker trophy

You don't know what this individual has been through or what his intention was. But its irrelevant - he has deprived a woman of a trophy.

Positive discrimination should act to support minorites surely rather than favour the majority unless there is very clear evidence to the contrary.

There is plenty of clear evidence, you just choose to not acknowledge it unless it specifically fits this sport. This is exactly the same argument as seen in rugby and other sports. It is not unusual.

Ok. I read that article you clipped Reanne Evan’s quote from. Her quote was in relation to a prominent male who was pointing out some weirdly worded, but obviously relevant points as you felt they were relevant.

They also bring to attention, as does Reanne’s quote, about the impact of pregnancy and time taken to recover from pregnancy and labour while potentially nourishing an infant.

No male has to deal with this. Only females, ever. And Kerry Fisher and other female competitors have shown that the time taken for this has significant impact on their competitiveness. It takes time to regain their form.

All females have the potential for this to happen. Just based on this one point alone, why should any male be allowed access to the female category?

And please don’t bother bringing females without the body parts into the argument. They are not a gotcha to be utilised to include any male into a category set up for all females not using testosterone.

What do you mean by changing gender? What connection do you think this has with someone's sex? Do you think people change sex when they change gender?

In snooker there's an open (for men and women) category and a women's category (for women).

If Jamie had won the open category, nobody would complain.

So most posters here simply see transwomen as just another man, simply trying to gain an unfair advantage

No. They are male. No need to attribute them with any motivation. That is clearly you attempting to use emotionally manipulative tactics.

Whereas I would think someone who changed gender faces lots of barriers, makes massive changes in their lives faces discrimination from women who see him as a man, and discrimination from men who might them them as a woman and hadn't done it with the intention of depriving a woman of a snooker trophy

Sure. They face barriers. And not one person on this earth can force another to perceive them in the way they wish to be perceived.

It has nothing to do with motivation. If they need accommodations in the male sex category to account for discrimination they receive, go and argue for that.

What other discriminated against males should be allowed into the female sex category for sport?

The female category is not there for discriminated against males.