Transgender women in sport on women's hour 20/03/23

[WarriorN]

Just heard they're going to discuss it.

Ugh 'cis female athletes' - lawyer

Sharron was bloody brilliant!
"What about the mental health of female athletes? Why is a tiny minority being prioritised over the majority?" (I'm paraphrasing)
Wonderful!

We are not Cis women…why is this not ever challenged? After this if the WH sportswoman thing includes a single male, our response should be massive. Go Sharron

Really good discussion! Technically two v Sharron.

Sharron was on FIRE!

Oh yes

Sharron Davis is so knowledgeable and articulate that it is no surprise that Joanna Harper was unavailable.

The research may also be failing somewhat....

Sharron was amazing, absolutely clear in complete contrast to the lawyer.

It’s not about competing views…it’s about safety and fairness in sport. Trans athletes should compete in their sex category.

Thanks for posting about it @WarriorN
I just can't bring myself to listen to WH any more but I tuned in for this when I saw your post and Sharron was great

Love Sharron.

It's taken decades for women to be allowed to compete in certain sports or women's sports and categories to be allowed in Olympics and World champs (eg first women's marathon at the Olympics was 1984, first women's boxing in 2012) why on earth would they not stand up for it?

Right? So bored of trans activists claiming to be a disadvantaged group, when they get given everything they want all the time, and anyone who objects on boring grounds like physical safety or fairness gets abused and arrested.

They’re the most privileged minority I’ve ever seen. Huge amounts of taxpayer and donor funding flows to transactivist groups. The media print anything they’re told to if a trans person demands it, even if the story is as boring as ‘I am trans and in a relationship’ I’ve literally seen an article about that as front page news on BBC and also HuffPost.

It’s a male supremacist movement with two purposes: (1) oppressing women and (2) accessing children to talk to children about sex.

Lawyer doesn't like analogy with 'doping'...
’WADA is all about anti doping to stop people cheating…’ Er yeah, cheating, that’s exactly what we’re talking about too 🙄
She’s very focused on needing to hear ‘peoples lived experiences’ and their feelings and needing to know whether they want a separate category. Nope, no we don’t. Fundamentally it comes down to, is there any point at which a transwoman becomes a woman and so can therefore compete in sport with women. And the answer is no, there is no point at which a transwoman becomes a woman. 🤷‍♀️

the Lawyer is pathetic.

Thank goodness that there is someone as articulate and measured as Sharron. I would be hard pressed not to lose my rag with some of the guff spoken by the lawyer.

I thought there was an issue with Joanna Harper's research in that three of the four trans athletes had dropped out? www.westernstandard.news/news/three-of-four-trans-women-athletes-drop-out-of-olympic-study/article_387dc2e0-a3cd-11ed-ad3c-1344c5dae9d4.html (sorry for random link, I knew I'd seen it reported on Twitter and this was the first link that came up)

What would the lawyer who has an issue with pointing out the direct parallels with doping call having twice as much testosterone as the other competitors?

From my link above: "The current IOC guidelines allow trans women to compete if their testosterone levels are below five nmol per litre for a year (men usually have 10 to 35 nmol/L, while a woman’s level is usually 0.5 to 2.4 nmol/L)."

I noticed a new one, tacked onto 'cis' - 'typical women'. Which sounds like something old fashioned sexist geezers say, accompanied by an eyeroll.

The lawyer was an embarrassment to the academy. Such sloppy, woolly thinking!

The lawyer had no capacity seemingly to understand the points Sharron made - and totally unwilling to accept there is a clash of womens rights and trans demands. You can't have safety, fairness and inclusion on a level - they, as Sharron said, have to be in the order of safety, fairness and then inclusion.
The presenter kept pressing for clearer answers but wasn't prepared to say, surely, safety should be first then fairness. Too much fence sitting, in my opinion

Absolutely hope Sharron is reading this thread. You were AMAZING this morning, Sharron! Clear, incisive, cut through the flannel from Nuala and the lawyer from Nottingham University (she sounds so balanced....), defined your terms and kept on with your points.

I'm horrified at how the WH presenter continually tried to rein you in or blunt your impact. Particularly the bit where she says 'well some people think that the science isn't clear...' in response to the 17 critical, peer-reviewed analyses published that Sharron mentions several times - I'm sorry but saying 'some people' against peer-reviewed studies isn't a valid rebuttal, it's just OPINION.

Not impressed with Nuala McGovern at all.

Many beautifully articulate responses here.

So I’ll just add a small, but counted: Go Sharron! What a woman (adult human female).

Trying to listen to this on catch up and can’t as this episode is not available despite the fact later programmes in the schedule are available.

l follow Sharron Davis on Twitter - she’s great.