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

[WarriorN]

Just heard they're going to discuss it.

I said this before on another thread about this topic but wait until a mediocre male tennis player decides he's a woman and beats every female pro on the circuit. It will be a wake up call for all the be kind nonsense when people realise that women's competitive tennis is, to all intents and purposes , over!

Sharron was fantastic! Clear and forceful and insistent on the research that confirms the injustice. Emphasised the male puberty features that trump testosterone levels. Law lecturer spluttered away ' need for alignment... need for discussion... need for research'... well the research is there- buckets of it ! Gold for you Sharron!

Sharron was excellent as always - factual, cool, and respectful above and beyond any sane requirements (i.e., even when faced with Tom Daley's nonsense).

Nuala challenged Sharron a bit too much at the start (trying to maintain BBC balance, LOL), but I swear I could hear her eyes rolling at Seema Patel's waffley non-answers to basic straight questions by the end of the piece.

@Myaiminlife exactly. Even in amateur athletics competitions they sometimes have people measuring the heel drop (in mm) on trainers and you can't take part if your footwear doesn't meet their criteria. That's the level of marginal gains were talking about....but supposedly ok for someone whose gone through male puberty to partake in a women's competition...

This. Inclusion = exclusion. Why can’t they see that? I feel so angry for all the young girls dreaming of becoming sportswomen. Why should they even bother, when a male-bodied person can storm in and smash all their records? Testosterone levels are only one part of the male advantage.

I think they have decided that the word inclusion is emotive, and that's why they are using it. As soon as you start questioning it, tho, it falls apart.

There is a great deal of this. Commandeering and throwing around of words intended to manipulate others with no actual understanding or value based agreement with it. 'Kind' is one. 'Diversity'. 'Intersectionality'.

And then you get the commandeering and changing meaning of words that are usefully powerful such as homophobia and misogyny changed to mean 'said no to a man', or commandeering and reframing of powerful words to mean men who say so and solely advantage them at the cost of women, such as lesbian, feminist, woman.

Inclusiveness really is exclusiveness, especially if you now include new groups which will take over a category. It's not then being fair to some marginalised minority, but being expected to bend over and accept the new overlords in quiet obedience (except for applauding them when needed).

Inclusiveness is almost entirely a spear aimed at women; men are not asked to be inclusive at all (there is no mxn, but there is womxn, there are no 'ejaculators' in health articles, but there are 'menstruators'). Inclusiveness is the new sexism on steroids...

If an able-bodied person insisted in being included in Paralympics as a competitor, it would not be allowed, because when this conversation is not about us humble ovary-havers the losses of this new child of the queer theory causes actually matter: If people without disabilities were allowed in, then over a fairly short time frame people with disabilities would stop participating. You could argue that this would be self-exclusion, just as women now are beginning to self-exclude from sports, but it is really because the category has been colonised and the meaning of 'disabled' has been appropriated.

We allow this appropriation of women's identities, yet we do not allow the same to take place in any other context. This is pure sexism, so that now all political parties are for sexism (in the past the left ones pretended not to be).

If an able-bodied person insisted in being included in Paralympics as a competitor, it would not be allowed, because when this conversation is not about us humble ovary-havers the losses of this new child of the queer theory causes actually matter: If people without disabilities were allowed in, then over a fairly short time frame people with disabilities would stop participating.

It's interesting to remember that Oscar Pistorius campaigned to be allowed to compete in (I think?) the Olympics as well as the Paralympics, but was eventually barred because his blades gave him an advantage over able-bodied runners.

Those in charge were fairly clear where to draw the line on #bekind inclusion when it was men's athletic titles that were at stake.

Sorry - have just fact checked that and seen that he did in fact compete in the 2012 Olympics, amid much controversy.

DH tipped me off about this so I’ve just listened and I agree with you. How Sharron kept her cool I don’t know. I was rolling my eyes for you, Sharron.

There was a very strong push by lots of male athletes to keep him out. I didn't follow the outcome well enough, but I think Emma Hilton (?) wrote a long Twitter thread on the difference between the arguments then and the current arguments,i.e., the idea that men should have been inclusive to Pistorius was not made at all.

It was a different era, true,but I still think that if men were actually affected by any of this we would see the whole thing end overnight. Currently almost all losses caused by the TRAs are borne by women as a sex, almost none by men as a sex.

Men do care when it comes to their daughters, but they would have begun caring much earlier if transmen had begun taking over everything they hold dear.

I was idly wondering how we might get the men on board and even up the disadvantage. I think if the female athlete displaced in the women’s event by a transwoman took the equivalent medal in the men’s event that would help ensure equity of opportunity. So, eg if the top female athlete gold medallist in 100m sprint is bumped to silver by a transwoman in first place, she takes the men’s gold medal in 100m sprint and he gets silver. Transwomen take gold, silver and bronze in the 400m? Oh dear, no medals for you this year chaps. 🤷‍♀️ Fair’s fair, we need to spread the burden of this utopian inclusive sports landscape. Right? Tom Daly’s totally behind trans inclusion so I’m sure he’d put his money where his mouth is and be on board with this initiative. Nah, only kidding. This would be over by the middle of April if this rule was introduced. (I’m allowing time for all the sports’ governing bodies to arrange a meeting to vote my proposal down)

So many good points.

Absolutely Nepta, inclusion now just means #bekind. I've seen too many children being damaged by struggling on in mainstream and then come into SEND where they fly. Inclusion doesn't mean shove everyone together. As you point out, this is why the para Olympics exist.

In this case, it's be kind to men, at the expense of everyone else.

Also, so if TWAW they should compete in women's sport...

So why are transmen also permitted to compete in women's sport? Because if TWAW then TMAM.

Why aren't Transmen then being told by TRAs they have to compete in the men's?

I more or less liked her 'safety-fairness-inclusion' framework, exploiting the rhetorical power of three is never a bad idea, and it's absolutely right to put safety top, though she for me didn't do quite enough to really stress why fairness should come before inclusion.

This framing is from Jon Pike's research: theconversation.com/why-the-world-rugby-guidelines-banning-trans-athletes-from-the-womens-game-are-reasonable-152178

Seema might have another career as a politician when her first as a peddler of woo runs out.
She really slid around that interview OOO IT'S COMPLICATED.....OOO BE KIND.....OOOOO TRANS ATHLETES SHOULD SPEAK.... (I was glad the presenter pointed out one just had ffs).

I really hope more and more women are getting fed up with "cis" nonsense.

Yep nine times out of ten when the inclusion of men in women's sport is discussed the only 'women' included in the debate are in fact men. As several posters have pointed out the vocal TWs avoid debating with the likes of Sharron because she won't take anyshit isn't prepared to roll over for them.

Two things.

1. Bookies won't lay odds

1. People won't watch if the outcomes are always the male bodied people winning.

So you destroy the great glory that is female sport, for what?

Cities, Altius, Fortius... but blokius only please

So many good points.

Absolutely Nepta, inclusion now just means #bekind. I've seen too many children being damaged by struggling on in mainstream and then come into SEND where they fly. Inclusion doesn't mean shove everyone together. As you point out, this is why the para Olympics exist.

In this case, it's be kind to men, at the expense of everyone else.

Also, if the human right of the person to compete in the category matching their gender identity then is crucial to all humans then why aren't Transmen's rights completely in the conversation.

And make the male category open to Transmen and fairer by giving Transmen certain advantages over their biologically male competitors. Ie Help them qualify, give an earlier racing start, add extra distance to their jump, throw etc etc.

Why isn't the male category having to change to accommodate biological females?

Thought Sharron Davies argued her point very well. IMO it not fair if people who were born male are allowed to compete in women's events. Interesting point brought up that the opinion of women is not being sought.

Also interesting point about people being scared to oppose this girl fear of being vilified

I think it’s fear of being targeted by the TRAs who will lobby sponsors, funding bodies and NGBs to sanction them / withdraw funding, plus being heavily constrained about what they can say without being at risk of deselection.

Just caught up on this. That lawyer, what a load of waffle.

Indeed. Couldn't even answer a straightforward question about whether she would change her mind when the evidence was in. Which spoke volumes.