"I don't give a shit about the scientific explanations. If they identify as a women, they get to compete in sports"

[EdgeOfACoin]

Emma Vigeland, presenter on The Majority Report, a "progressive" internet talk radio programme and podcast, has made it crystal clear that gender identity trumps fairness when it comes to sport.

Unfortunately I'm not tech savvy enough to clip the relevant section from the show directly, but plenty of other have, including Triggernometry presenter Konstantin Kisin, who Tweeted about it. You can see the video on his Twitter page:

https://twitter.com/KonstantinKisin/status/1662390264005120001?t=3-gYh1LvSAt93Fh1N68boA&s=19

Emma has not backed down from her comments and has since mocked "terfs" for being "triggered" by her, declaring that "gender affirming care" for minors would solve all of the problems anyway:

https://twitter.com/EmmaVigeland/status/1662491715352010752

Emma has unequivocally declared that she is right on this issue.

Fascinating to see any pretence that the subject is "complicated" has gone - no, if a person with a penis wants to compete in women's sports, then that takes priority over everything else, including fairness.

As a side note, she used to be a presenter on The Young Turks and made a (very) half-hearted attempt to defend her former colleague Ana Kasparian last month after Ana lost patience with being referred to as a "birthing person". (Interestingly, Ana hasn't retreated from her own comments either.)

Didn't know that. Good point.

EmiliaB71 has attempted to leverage a couple of fallacies here.

"I would think that given only about 1 to 1,5% of the population is gender dysphoric/transgender, it seems logical that they won't overrun cis gender women in sports."

This is the 'not many' fallacy. It relies on a couple of things. Firstly, it relies on people thinking that 'oh there are not many, so just let them in...' which feeds into the description of this group being a vulnerable minority deserving of extraordinary measures to accommodate them. In this case it is about ignoring category boundaries.

Perhaps @EmiliaB71 , you would tell us which of the following other categories that you would agree to allow boundaries to be ignored just for a few people ....

Should a sighted person compete with blind athletes if they identify as blind?

Should a 25 year old compete in the under 14’s if they identify as a child?

Should a 25 year old compete in the over 85 year old Masters category if they identify as 86 years old?

Should a professional athlete compete as a novice?

Should an athlete born in the UK with parents who are born in the UK with all the advantages of sports access and still living in the UK, compete in a sport representing Samoa and exclude a Samoan person?

Should just be a few people right.... shouldn't be any issue at all? They are just 'competing' yes?

Secondly, it is a sleight of hand. Because it is using the 'total' numbers of 'competing', when the reality is even just a few CAN overrun women's sports. As Hag mentioned, US cycling at the moment has just a 'few' males who are winning competitions, sometimes two or three in the top 4 or 5 places and setting female records.

So. Emilia's argument is actually dishonest. Because by calling for a compassionate 'there is just a few vs the huge numbers of girls and women playing sport that it is not like they will overrun the teams', it ignores the reality that those 'few' CAN cause SIGNIFICANT harm.

It has been proven that they can and have caused harm and significant injury too.

"it's easy to call them cheaters when in reality, all they did was follow the rules the sporting bodies set out."

Emilia has forgotten something important here. Emilia has infantilised the very people that they are supposedly supporting.

What adult takes advantage of competition rules to their advantage, knowing that they are competing with a known and well discussed physical advantage (and that is not including the other advantages such as better training opportunities from childhood etc either)?

So, Emilia, if an adult was presented with the opportunity to enter the categories I mentioned in this post, are they being respectful of the people those categories have been set up to protect by accepting that opportunity. Just because they can? How is that adult showing respect for those people who need their own category?

Yes, it IS cheating. The science is clear, despite your misinformation.

And what prize money, Emilia?

"before you consider that a victory: where do you think the men are going to get the prize money from?"

I mean, some marathons are now giving prize money for a non-binary category. EQUAL prize money to the male and female category. For what has turned out to be for mediocre males to win. No non-binary females to win. Just male people and athletes who are so far down the results list.

https://x.com/is_a_woman/status/1703486815372546490?s=20

Here we are in the NYRR Bronx 10 miler.

The first place NB was a male athlete who finished 59th overall. The male winner ran 48.56 minutes, the female winner ran 54.38 minutes and this male athlete ran 56.04 minutes. The 3rd place winner of the NB competition was placed 217th overall. And STILL took a prize.

As expected and tirelessly explained by many experts, creation of a third NB category just gives more male people opportunity to win and it is direct discrimination against female people under the guise of 'kindness' and 'inclusion'. To clarify, the supporters of this new 'inclusivity' are now directly negatively discriminating against female people while declaring themselves the very opposite of oppressors.

So, I am not quite sure what your point about prize money is. Please explain it more clearly for us all.

And I just cross posted with porcelina because I was too slow to finish my post...

it's easy to call them cheaters when in reality, all they did was follow the rules the sporting bodies set out.

Lol.

The sporting bodies captured by trans ideology and actually containing the cohort we're taking about?? Those sporting bodies?

You'd think these people had never heard of the expression marking your own homework.

Marking it, setting it and grading it, whilst it never actually leaves their own hand.

But these male athletes… they don’t ‘dominate’. They don’t over run women’s events.

https://x.com/i_heart__bikes/status/1703533662640463893?s=46&t=HTxp6zC_d4GZ2FFv4a-YeQ

“Male racer Gage Martin took the win in his very first women's mountain bike race, the Land Mine Mountain Bike Classic.”

“Can you believe there's ANOTHER extremely talented male women's mountain biker? What are the chances?!”

Their very first women’s bike race! Remarkable. Care to explain this @EmiliaB71 ?

No… no over running here surely…. Just read iheartbikes timeline they are documenting this phenomenon… you know the one you cannot fucking see that is right in front of the world’s eyes now…. But hey… not fucking happening, is it?

Just a fucking moral panic isn’t it! None so fucking blind, I reckon, as those soaked in misinformation and disinformation.

Moral panic
Wrong side of history
Just want to pee
Who's a pretty boy then

I wish this political lobby would teach its parrots some new phrases to replace these now very, very tired ones.

Male athletes in women's sports are cheating. Plain as day. They know it, we know it. Fuck the governing bodies and the letter of the law, they are moral cheats. All cheats excuse their actions to make themselves feel not guilty however they cheat. Transwomen in women's sports are no exception.

And non-binary prizes in sport are like teachers contriving to give some kind of prize to a volatile kiddo at sports day even though he's crap... because they know he'll kick the fuck off if he doesn't win something. Like a "special" rosette at a horse show. 😆

It's pathetic all round. You have a sexed body, just fucking deal with that reality.

@EmiliaB71
Can I ask why you resurrected this thread from four months ago?

Exactly this.

The rules are there to ensure fair competition.

In the before times people cheated to give themselves an unfair advantage.

Now they just change the rules to give themselves an unfair advantage.

Have you also considered that getting SRS isn't easy? 4 years waiting for an initial consult. You need to live full-time for a minimum of 1 year before you're allowed to have a conversation. SRS requires permission from 2 surgeons who independently confirm that you are informed and know what to expect. It took me until end of June this year to get the endorsement letter for surgery. And now it's again a waiting game (18months is the current waiting time between endorsement and surgery). In some ways it is humiliating that at 52 I am not in charge of my own body.
As for sports: at elite-level, if I specifically look at e.g, Lia Thomas, the reduction from 2 to 1 year hormone therapy was a bad decision. 1 year is too short. Anyone who has gone through transition from male to female will confirm that a lot of changes to the body are very much in full swing during that second year. That is also a big part of the turmoil now: It's like every federation threw a dart at a dartboard to decide what their policy would be. And now It's really how it is being handled now which is just not helpful for anyone. If they don't do proper longitudinal studies, it will remain guesswork. And meanwhile organisations with ulterior motives will use the situation to drive their agendas, which ultimately helps nobody but a few extremists. And the new open categories don't fix anything...because as I hinted previously: where do you think they will get the prize money from? the men's? Hmm when was the last time you saw men give something up for a fairer world...

Lia Thomas, the reduction from 2 to 1 year hormone therapy was a bad decision. 1 year is too short. Anyone who has gone through transition from male to female will confirm that a lot of changes to the body are very much in full swing during that second year.

You could wait 80 years, and Lia would still have all the advantages of male puberty, in terms of heart size, lung capacity etc

I'm new, I was merely reading and honestly hadn't noticed it's an archived thread. But the thread shows something I see happening everywhere these days.: Nobody really talks anymore. All that tends to happen is as soon as 2 sentences are said, people dig in their heels and stop listening. Once that happens it never ends well. In barely 5 years time I have seen the UK change into such a dark place. I am lucky in a sense that I get to flee. I merely go back home in a month, sell my flat here and that's that. But if I'm honest, I don't see the UK surviving for another five years. Every democratic principle has been severely undermined and you've got Murdoch who constantly stokes division and hate because that's how he gets richer. This country is in a lot of trouble.

There's consideration for a whole bunch of people missing in the concern about transgender athletes. Their mental health and wellbeing, their nascent interest in competing drowned at birth. And tm can compete in women's sport if they're not taking testosterone

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12536037/transgender-women-sport-athlete-school-college-competition.html

And humans cannot change from male to female or vice versa, it's impossible, we're not clown fish. 1st year, 2nd, 90th, makes no difference.

Tw will have to decide what is more important to them, their sporting career now and their 'authentic self' later. Or not. As women have to choose between careers or family.

They reduce though. Don't underestimate the long term effect of the muscle mass we lose. Obviously I'm not a top athlete, but it after three and a half years I can say that I notice how much more effort it takes, having to support the same skeletal structure with less muscle mass.
The thing is that they can measure that? So why don't they? Ultimately I don't even care about the elite level. If elite level sports remains the goal, then indeed why transition? I can't speak for others, but for me it doesn't make sense. I mostly worry about the potential effect for people who exercise recreationally, as a way to spend time with their friends.

‘K, bye then.

a) they have measured it. The evidence is that a huge male advantage remains

But, more fundamentally,

b) It is not women's job to prove the case for their sports and facilities remaining single-sex. We don't want men in them. That should be enough. Our whole fucking lives are dominated by what men want, and now they want to take the tiny oases we have carved out. Well, men can fuck off the far side of forever with that idea and then fuck off some more.

I looked them up...It's how they organise the race: it;s a family event? They only have two categories and they are time based in terms of how much time they estimate they need to finish?

I mostly worry about the potential effect for people who exercise recreationally, as a way to spend time with their friends.

When it's local, not intended to be competitive sport, you can already have mixed sex clubs or sports.

Or someone can set up a new women's sports event that is trans inclusive. Maybe not rugby.

There are sports that never had that issue: squash for example. (I mean locally, not the highly competitive play of course) ...but in regional tournaments we often mixed in certain categories. It was great fun too. For tournaments I seem to remember that the ladies could enter in men's tournament with a higher ranking (to a certain degree) which worked really well. It was very competitive and nobody ever complained.

Some men take medication which makes them weaker. That doesn't make them women. Women are not weak men.

I assume your surgeons ensured that you understood that whatever surgery you had you would never be a woman. Otherwise it wasn't really informed consent.

And what is the point of your post? Is it merely to try and insult me? If it is, you are going to be mighty disappointed. Plus. I've never claimed being a cisgender woman. I'm a trans woman and I am much more acutely aware of any differences in biology that exist than you could possibly imagine.

A male having their cock chopped off doesn’t make them a woman and I would be horrified if any medical doctor was telling male individuals that it did.

what is it about the science of the male body, even without puberty and the science of sport that you are missing? Are you missing the skeletal advantages?

What about the lung capacity? The grip strength which is a huge fucking advantage and never mitigated?

No amount of time waiting on any fucking list means that a male should claim a female sports entry as a fucking reward for all that effort! The female sports category is not for failed male athletes, and it is not a reward for male people with extreme body modifications. The entitlement of such thinking is misogynistic and beyond comprehension.

not in charge of my own body!

Fucking hell! Does any male person understand the female lived experience!

I, and billions of women and girls living and who have lived, have not been in charge of our own bodies since puberty started. Get a fucking grip!

Why do you think female people need their own sport? One reason is menstruation! Something you have no concept about that causes performance issues every month, that dramatically increases injury risk, that causes significant pain and training issues! Fuck! The complete and utter entitlement of a male person talking about being in charge of their own fucking body, is mind explodingly ignorant.

“If they don't do proper longitudinal studies, it will remain guesswork. And meanwhile organisations with ulterior motives will use the situation to drive their agendas, which ultimately helps nobody but a few extremists. And the new open categories don't fix anything...because as I hinted previously: where do you think they will get the prize money from? the men's? Hmm when was the last time you saw men give something up for a fairer world...”

Community note:

The science has already been done. There has already been ‘longitudinal’ studies done. Some of the latest showing that even after a decade the reduction in testosterone doesn’t remove the advantages of the male body.

It is not ‘guesswork’ at all. The results simply are not what males who have reduced testosterone want to hear. So they are not accepting of the already proven science.

“And meanwhile organisations with ulterior motives will use the situation to drive their agendas, which ultimately helps nobody but a few extremists.”

The ‘extremists’ are any male who believes they have a place in female sports, rather than competing in a mixed sex team (as a male athlete) or against their own sex, male that is. The ‘extremists’ that emily seems to be referring to also includes female athletes demanding that their sports remain a protected category.

Again, the misogyny of that belief is immediately apparent.

And I really think that readers can plainly see that this poster very nearly gets it with this ….

“ Hmm when was the last time you saw men give something up for a fairer world...”

This post needs framing. It is a work of beauty!