Kelly Holmes changes her mind on trans inclusion in women's sports?

[HootyMcboob76]

"Equally, the vast majority of sport is played on a local playing field where taking part and inclusion, as well as physical and mental health benefits are perhaps more important than winning.’"
www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/dame-kelly-holmes-admits-she-was-previously-ignorant-about-trans-athletes/ar-AA16qIej?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=669f524540e644eeb669ce51f43b9e00

I read this as her saying that women should just be grateful to be playing, never mind if a biological male beats them! In other words, be kind, shut up, and be prepared to lose out on a medal, as long as the special male athlete gets to participate.

She is now a proud member of the special community so apparently a gay woman cannot continue to fight for women's sports being for women?

Other gay female athletes (e.g. Martina Navratilova) have still been able to say that natal males should not be included in women's sports.

Does anyone read this article differently?

Inclusive means flexible in this case. I have a trans relative f-m who is fully accepted by his rugby team. Not as easy the other way around but where it's about winning, not a league mixed can work- my dd is fed up with not being able to play rugby at college because there's not enough female players

How many local amateur sports teams that play just for fun can you name ? I mean actual real ones, not just speculation.
Even a 5 a side kick about has 2 sides who, you know, compete against each other.

"More important than winning" Shame on her

If this is her statement it is not really very clear what she is saying because she doesn’t actually state that males should sometimes be allowed to compete in female sports categories.

She allows people to draw that conclusion though.

Yes, I thought that too. It's an attempt to please without actually spelling it out. She obviously feels like she has something to apologise for

@onyttig

I agree about middle aged men! But my exh played mixed 11 a side football abroad (min 5 women) and it worked really well. Still got injured though! I just think we shouldn't put barriers where they don't need to be, my dd was helped by being allowed to play football with boys until 14 (it was 11 previously) it wasn't a hindrance

So everything mixed then?

That's a different question to whether a special group of males should be included as "female".

But then we get the situation in the US where trans women can compete against women, except in mixed crews, where at least half of the crew must now be natal females.

Who gets to decide when winning matters? As far as I'm concerned, if I'm taking part in a sport where points are scored then winning matters.
I'd also argue that in team sports there is an ethos and camaraderie among women's teams that would be altered when a transwoman is included. I would certainly feel more reserved in their presence and would ultimately probably choose a different team - although partly because I wouldn't want to be part of a team that has an unfair advantage.

Inclusive means flexible in this case. I have a trans relative f-m who is fully accepted by his rugby team.

Fully accepted, but incredibly dangerous. It has been demonstrated that females have a significantly higher incidence of concussion - traumatic brain injury - and neck injuries while playing other females. Your relative is putting themselves, and being allowed to put themselves at greater risk of injury for the sake of inclusion and acceptance.

As Ross Tucker says, you cannot balance fairness/safety and inclusion. You have to pick a side, and that’s the same at any level of sport, even club and grassroots levels.

I'd also argue that in team sports there is an ethos and camaraderie among women's teams that would be altered when a transwoman is included

Plus the obvious changing room issues.

Yes, but at least it would corall them all in one place, and the rest of us could just go on normally.

Feel so let down reading this. Kelly knows more than most how both amateur and professional competition requires, fairness and safety. Again there is no thought to women and girls in her statement. It's all about the enjoyment for trans people.

I agree that what she says is quite nuanced.

And she kind of has a point about the benefits of 'taking part'.

Fixture cancellation due to insufficient player numbers is fairly endemic in very low level amateur sport [in all age/sex/etc classes]. One can imagine a very benign hypothetical scenario where a women's football club has a middle aged TW coach or something who will as required offer to turn out for the opposition in a situation where they otherwise wouldn't have enough players to fulfil a fixture.

This business about, "looking at the individual person" I like a lot less. In so far as there is a 'point' to elite sports [i.e. not grass roots], it's about the opportunity for participants to achieve something that's really remarkable, really special, often so much so that spectators, sponsors, etc will be prepared to put hand in pocket to witness it. Sex and what is remarkable/special are, of course, inextricably linked. Globally, a really really small proportion of of men can run the marathon as quickly as Paula Radcliffe did, or the 100m as quickly as Dina Asher-Smith does... but elite men can do it fairly easily, and I hate the argument that there's no problem in letting in a man who's only about as fast as, or a little slower than, PR or DA-S because it's not as if they're going to breeze to every championship, South Park style... the point is that if you let men in you completely blitz the remarkable/special element.

She has completely betrayed women and girls.

Yes. This was the first thing that crossed my mind when reading a female is playing on a male rugby team - with no issues.

The ‘issues’ may become apparent in a decade to come with dementia from tackles and collisions.

It has been proven that all levels of contact rugby carry risk. But that females are especially prone to injury.

It is very easy to say ‘those female players’ are making an informed decision. But are they really? Do they fully understand the risks? Or just ignore the risks and their friends and family just tell themselves it is their decision to reduce the concern.

Remember many of these people are very vulnerable. Indeed we are told they are the, or among the, most vulnerable in society. And people saying ‘there is no issue, how wonderfully accepting’ are certainly not acknowledging that ignoring those risks contribute to harm.

But the point is, there is no nuance. Either you support the protection of single sex sports for women and girls for fairness and safety or you don’t, because you prioritise inclusion. There’s no nuance for elite sports. There’s no nuance for grassroots sport. There’s no nuance for the vast majority of sports that are currently segregated by sex for well-established reasons.

So nuance can get to fuck.

So she isn't allowed an opinion or a rethink ? Jesus. Everyone is entitled to their views

Which many people have said. And we in turn are entitled to ours.

Yes and people are allowed to disagree with them.

Well said.

She is entitled to her views and to change her mind. The scepticism and disappointment on here is because we're so familiar with countess hostage videos from woman who have literally been subject to a form of "re education" It's made clear that they will be expelled / thrown out of work[places, social groups, communities and friendship groups if they don't submit, suspend all critical thinking and meekly obey TWAW and associated mantras.
Faced with rejection, they obey orders.

I suppose the thing is that Dame Kelly Holmes was a (middle distance) runner. She was always training to improve her own personal times. It would be easy enough for her to TRAIN alongside males on a track as they are each working towards their own goals, just as my teen daughter can train in a swim lane alongside younger or slower males. Kelly isn't/wasn't hitting/kicking/heading balls in a team.

At about the age of 11 or 12, boys start to develop a noticeable physical advantage over girls as they grow bigger and stronger. That is why the "mixed teams" drop away.

Anyway, she is entitled to her view. I and the vast majority of parents of sporty teens are just likely to disagree with it.

saying that all Trans athletes shouldn’t compete in elite sport isn’t right.

It also isn't something anybody is saying. All trans athletes are free to compete in any level of sport they can qualify for. In the correct categories.

Its funny - nobody is arguing for making age categories more inclusive, are they? If they are, I may take up the 100m sprint. I'm pretty sure I could beat the current world record holder in the over-80 category, and some days my knees do feel really old.

It is very easy to say ‘those female players’ are making an informed decision. But are they really? Do they fully understand the risks? Or just ignore the risks and their friends and family just tell themselves it is their decision to reduce the concern.

It's clear that's what happens. That recent "trans" ice hockey event has an example, with the female player who was knocked out trying to downplay it.

I’ll end with some good news: That Team Black player knocked into the boards has recovered. In a recent social media post, #91 reported, “I am okay, [though] I was diagnosed with a concussion and muscle strains in my left neck, shoulder, and back.”

Strangely, though, the player then went on to provide an apparently fictionalized account of the accident. While the video plainly shows #91 being struck by a Team Pink player, the victim reports that, “I was playing the puck, and I took a very odd fall into the boards.” There’s no mention of any opposition player—though the post also notes, cryptically, that this part of the story is “sensitive.” Reading this self-blaming narrative reminded me of those stories about women in troubled relationships who tell friends they got their black eye from walking into a door.