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.

"I think readers by now can see your lack of credibility."

I don't Calum credibility, expertise, and have openly stated I assign no importance to my. Opinion.

I promptly got told to stick to the facts.

The fact is that my views seem to align more closely with th decision the snooker governing body made so now you deflect with lack of expertise about sports in general.

If it was simply as a binary choice between mixed events Vs sex based events, then we wouldn't have this mixture of eligibility of transwomen for female categories , would we?

Why have a women's tournament at all in that case?

Discussed earlier in the thread.

The fact is that my views seem to align more closely with th decision the snooker governing body made so now you deflect with lack of expertise about sports in general.

You were the one who derailed into sports in general by taking part of my post about snooker out of context and saying:

You may think this is a binary situation but the fact that some sports have separate classes based on sex and others don't suggest different.

You didn't need to bring in 'some sports' and 'others', because my post was only about snooker.

I was just pointing out how ridiculous it was to say that men didn't have an advantage, create a women-only class (why? if men have no advantage) and then say that men could enter the women-only class.

Did someone explain what the point is of a women-only class which men can also enter? I must have missed that.

Did someone explain what the point is of a women-only class which men can also enter?

Yes.

I'm off to do something else rather than waste any more time on pigeon chess. Because this one really is shitting all over the board.

Yes old crone while infuriating it's also helpful as highlights all the holes and contradictions in the argument. To list a few....

1. No sex class in snooker....but there is, there's open and women's.
2. Men just train harder and are more focused....than women who have trained for years. This male was a hobbiest, playing occasionally and going nowhere in male leagues until transitioning. 2 years into their transition journey (which we're often told how difficult, traumatic a time it can be) they're so focused and dedicated they can outperform women)
3. A hobbiest could never rise to defeat men....but apparently there is no difference between men and women in snooker and only one sex class see points 1 and 2 above so why can a hobbiest defeat women not men.
4. There is no male advantage....even if we discount physical advantage, many articles up thread link to all the other disadvantages women have faced including being barred from local clubs and tournaments, playing in secret at times committee members wouldn't notice, abuse from other club members etc. Therefore far fewer girls enter the sport and continue to participate. Jamie transitioned as an adult and is male sex so non of these barriers applied to Jamie.

How does a man live as a woman?

Well it's by growing his hair and putting on a dress and a stuffed bra, obviously. Nothing else is required.

But why would we make it all mixed sex and spoil the fun? I think we're missing the point here, the women's category is a lovely idea to give low ranking males the opportunity to have a moment of glory without trying too hard. Only works if there's only one transwoman in each competition though. They'll have to organise a rota system if the idea becomes too popular.

Sorry for the sarcasm but my head is starting to hurt! Hi

Message of the thread then really, is "be kind".
Same old shite.

Also - try harder women! Practice more! Be more dedicated!

Same old misogynistic bullshit.

Sporting bodies are obviously trying to make sport classes by gender identity rather than by sex. The problem with that is they dont/cant define what the two gender identities are. So they are pretending its still by sex and that some men can and have changed sex.

Then an obvious man gets on the podium and everyone looks like fools.

I don't know how long, and what ridiculous arguments people are going to make to justify why there's men in the womans class, before they have to admit tha its just because men are more valued than women.

The really stupid thing is that even if males only dominate because males are somehow better able to obsessively practice or concentrate more or something... it still doesn't justify allowing a male into the female only tournament because he thinks he's a woman. He's male. He is therefore in the sex class that has the better aptitude for obsessive practice... according to Steve Davies or whoever. So he still has the advantage that has led to the need for a separate female tournament.

If Jamie rocked up to the open category with glittery nails and a bow in his hair and won, the word 'controversial' would not be used about his win.

This is not about being transphobic, there are transwomen who are not in denial that they have a male body and believe they should therefore compete alongside other males. They seem to have no problem with the idea of having a feminine identity but a male body. It's really not that complicated!

The fact is that my views seem to align more closely with th decision the snooker governing body made so now you deflect with lack of expertise about sports in general.

No. You seem to be twisting wildly here. It must be really hard to keep a straight face.

You arguments here to date consist of :

You may think this is a binary situation but the fact that some sports have separate classes based on sex and others don't suggest different.

And twist… you pivot away when asked for evidence saying ’No. I thought we were discussing snooker’.

And

You introduce Reanne Evans saying:

"She believes mental strength rather than physical power is the key factor which sets men apart from the women.

"It can be an advantage if you have cue power but there are a lot of men out there who haven't got a lot of cue power, like [Hong Kong's world ranked number seven] Marco Fu compared to [world number five] Shaun Murphy," she added

errr. Fu and Murphy are both males. She is comparing males to males. This was said in 2014 I believe, there has been generally research into male vs female sports advantages done since. I doubt she would make the same statement now.

So, I don’t believe this supports your argument. And you then tried to imply anyone saying that she could be wrong would be ‘mansplaining’.

Then is the pivot to ‘there is no research for exactly snooker male player advantage.

Which is irrelevant because other sports use the studies published and are making decisions now increasingly to protect female sport. And Sports UK council stated that female fairness cannot be downplayed and any body making a decision focusing on inclusion is ignoring fairness.

Then came discussions about discrimination (no minority group should be discriminated against - ever according to you), whether this male was full time or part time a female, even transitioned females got leveraged in there.

Now you start nonsense of ‘focusing on facts’ . And trying to say discussions around fairness is emotional manipulation. No they are analytical by nature- assessing the advantages on either side….

Who care if your opinion ‘aligns’ with the sporting body. The fucking IOC got it wrong too. Badly!

If it was simply as a binary choice between mixed events Vs sex based events, then we wouldn't have this mixture of eligibility of transwomen for female categories , would we?

Please explain. This seems like word salad that doesn’t actually say more than ‘be kind’.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.eurosport.co.uk/snooker/why-nutcharut-mink-wongharuthai-is-perfect-flagbearer-for-snooker-s-future-after-women-s-world-champ_sto8793613/story-amp.shtml

This is a link to an article about women's snooker.

Here are some quotes from the article:
There is no men’s game. The professional tour is open to men and women equally but historically participation levels have massively favoured male players.....

Even if Evans does not seriously challenge for a pro title, a girl taking up the game now because of her or Mink could do so in the future.
This has not gone down well with all male players, who point out that women are able to attempt qualification through Q School, but their complaints ignore some uncomfortable truths.

The fact is, women have historically faced barriers to participation in the UK, including bans from some snooker clubs deemed to be men-only establishments. Even when women were allowed in there was often an unwelcoming atmosphere in clubs, the like of which many parents would be loath to allow their sons into, never mind their daughters.

For years women were only seen at TV events as adornments, accompanying the presentation party at the end of finals. Their role was to stand in the background while the men got on with the serious stuff.
But times have changed. The old-style clubs have died out and much of the prejudice with it. Women are more visible in general in the sport. Michaela Tabb broke new ground 20 years ago by becoming a top referee and several more female officials have followed in her wake.

So even Eurosport acknowledge social barriers to women's participation and the need to address this. This would rule out Jamie.

unherd.com/thepost/trans-player-wins-womens-billiards-championship/

Interesting article and subsequent comments on this issue. Article written by Debbie Hayton (transwoman).
Many points raised not mentioned here, such as the elbow angle and shoulder anatomy of males vs females, spatial awareness etc.

There are TW who also don't believe man belong in women's sports. Are they bigots too? Or just realists?

I was going to talk about elbows and shoulders but honestly the details of the male advantage remain irrelevant. The male advantage is observable regardless of detail in the big picture of results in open competition for many years. If women were not disadvantaged in some tangible, physical way in the sport I believe that tenacious and determined women would have broken through the misogyny by now and we would see at least some women at the top end. We don't. So an innate male advantage is a reasonable assumption.

Is there anything hayton doesn't have a hot take on to distract from his actions?

If he's a realist, he needs to be real about his contribution to women and girls rights in schools.

Completely agree.

Man comes along after over FIVE years of not advancing in the men's competition.
Spends a few months in the women's league and then wins?

Yes, nothing to see here!

I'm not that familiar with the rest of Hayton's beliefs but for the purposes of women in sport, at least he acknowledges the reality.

As in, he seems to accept that TW are males and remain biologically male regardless of identity.

I can only agree with that.

I can't comment on the rest of his beliefs though.

There isn’t a single sport in which females have a known advantage over males.

in some sports the performance levels between males and females is less than in others - but there’s still always a gap

If a proper study was undertaken into male and female snooker players I would fully expect it to show that males are ‘better’ regardless of socialisation

Here’s Reanne Evans talking about practice leading up to a big tournament:

Yes heading back to Thailand for Women’s World Championship. I’m still hungry for more titles. So trying to my best to prepare myself for the competition. Just a lot of practice is required, a good 5 to 6 hours each day leading up to the event.

arburton.com/travel-feature-reanne-evans/

Contrast that with Ronnie O’Sullivan:

Ronnie O’Sullivan put in more practice than he has done since he was 18-years-old ahead of this week’s Northern Ireland Open, he revealed after booking his spot in the quarter-finals.

‘I was playing maybe four or five hours a week before that, last week I’ve done about 20 hours. I’ve never done that before in my life, well I did when I was 17 or 18.’

metro.co.uk/2020/11/20/ronnie-osullivan-reveals-strictest-practice-regime-for-25-years-ahead-of-northern-ireland-open-13626130/amp/

OrJudd Trump on his “gruelling practice regime”:

‘Cutting my phone off whilst I’m practicing has been a big help and I’m doing five or six hours non-stop daily.‘

metro.co.uk/2019/11/28/judd-trump-details-gruelling-practice-regime-ahead-uk-championship-challenge-11233186/amp/

That sounds like everyone is doing a similar amount of practice then? Except Ronnie, who must be a lazy ass woman.

Thanks Dreikanter.

That was very interesting.

Physically - nearly everyone peaks in their mid 20s and are very much declining when in their 30s.

For a while motivation and experience can mask the decline but it catches with everyone eventually