British Rowing - Imminent Announcement?

[SabrinaThwaite]

The Telegraph is reporting that British Rowing to ban transgender athletes from women's events after members urge policy change in a policy announcement expected tomorrow.

… the governing body has decided to follow the majority view of its 31,500 members, more than 80 per cent of whom are understood to have urged a change in approach that would ensure the fairness and integrity of the female category.

… under the revised rules, these events are to be protected exclusively for rowers who are biologically female.

Rowing is the last of the big Olympic sports in the UK to have been sitting on the fence about allowing males in the women’s category.

Fingers crossed that this happens.

You can put the following link into an archive service to read it.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rowing/2023/08/02/british-rowing-transgender-athletes-womens-sport/

@CouldNotResist the boats aren't that tiny! In a way you sit in top of them rather than in them. Long levers are definitely an advantage. Ds is called the 'pocket rocket' in his crew, being 6'1".

It is beyond my comprehension how people can see that women and girls benefit from being surrounded by female coaches, role models and other female staff and then suspend their comprehension, logical thought processes and critical thinking functions and suggest that these roles can be filled by men. How do we make our voices heard?

I wonder who the weak transwoman footballer is that Peter knows? And how does he know they’re weaker than all the other female footballers in the team - have they had arm-wrestling competitions?

I think he said "much smaller" too. I can't think of anyone that would apply to, the trans referee who often gets wheeled out by the media is built like the proverbial brick lavatory.

Therere are load of bloggs by men who claim to be part of womens sport without any issue. He's probably just read one of those.

Tatchell acknowledges that men shouldnt have an automatic right to play in womens sport - he talks of 'case by case' basis. But isnt able to come up with a fair criteria.

'They are shorter than the average man' is the best he can come up with.

The Labour (mostly) men subreddit being characteristically reasonable about this. Not. The mods (some of whom seem to be trans) seem to me to use banning for "discrimination" in a highly coercive way. They don't seem to realise that the debate will simply happen, and is happening, without them, if they won't address the facts in their echo chamber.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/15h864h/britishrowinggbanstransgenderrwomenfrommfemale/?utmsource=share&utmmmedium=iosapp&utmmname=ioscss&utmcontent=1&utmmterm=1

Oh my God that reddit thread is like a discussion by a bunch of gerbils on weed. None of it makes any sense.

Excellent description PermanentTemporary I felt I was loosing brain cells reading it.

My favourite comment is:

"You keep harping on the point that these are biological advantages based on sex, but why does a biological advantage based on sex matter more than any biological advantage? It doesn't make sense; your issue is with the biological advantage, not sex, why is sex relevant?"

Well we could get rid of sex categories entirely, if that's what you're advocating for. But that's what they are, sex categories. For a reason. As the respondent points out, within every category men would dominate.

Dare someone to go on and post some actual evidence that wrong sex hormones don't make it fair for males to compete against women. They'd be deleted and banned in a heartbeat, even though people keep disingenuously posting "where is the evidence?".

It seems that reading History at Cambridge also makes you an expert in biology.

Or maybe not.

https://juniorrowingnews.com/trans-women-arent-a-threat-to-womens-sport-british-rowing-risks-becoming-complicit-in-a-toxic-culture-war/

Outside of the multitude of trans subs, the labourUK one is probably the most pro-trans sub.

They really, really, don't want woman only spaces.

That article is so disingenuous it actually makes me angry. It wilfully ignores the nonsense that was going in cycling where transwomen were smashing records and winning races by huge margins. The candian centre for ethics in sport is a jokeshop organisation that places 'inclusion' above everything else despite mentioning 'fairness' in their mission statements. She challenges one study from world rugby's report when there are another 48 peer reviewed studies that formed the backbone of their decision. Irish prop Tagdh Furlong weighs 125kg, if he decided to become trans and play for the Irish women's rugby side he would be up against players like England scrum half Lucy Packer who is 55kg. No advantage there at all! There is zero challenge to heart size, lung size and cardio vascular efficiency, bone density, twitch muscle fibre advantage, general muscle mass and height. I'm a 48 year old bloke, I competed at Henley Royal Regatta a number of times twenty odd years ago. I can still pull a 7.10 2km erg which will place me in the top two of the senior women's squad at my club. There are 6ft plus 40 something blokes in my boat who can record sub 6.40 scores. It is fucking absurd there is no physical advantage.

With Peter Tatchell's suggestion of deciding on a case by case basis- why should this only apply to trans identifying people. Why not just decide sporting categories by weight, height etc. I have no doubt that this system would result in some males competing in the male category being smaller/lighter etc. than the males being included in the female category!

Any discussion about trans inclusion in sport needs to start with whether people agree or disagree with sex segregation. If they don't, it isn't a debate about trans people. If they do, and argue that sport should be sex segregated but some males should be included in the female category, they need to focus on the characteristics that justify separation in the first place and find evidence to show that these characteristics can disappear when someone thinks about themselves differently to other males.

TRAs are losing ground at significant rates in the tug of war/rights. The initial ground they gained from obfuscation have been lost now that their arguments are being more widely interrogated.

With sport, their best bet is to stick with the only bonafide argument, which is that it is upsetting/ distressing for some males to be excluded from the female category because they want to be regarded as women.

Claims that the sex binary isn't a binary and that physical intervention leads to actual sex change involves so much subverting of facts that it'll never hold up to scrutiny.

So long as the issues are scrutinised and so long as fairness over inclusion is prioritised in sport, there is only one outcome that will prevail, which in my view is the right outcome.

@DontYouThreatenMeWithADeadFish I'm a 48 year old bloke, I competed at Henley Royal Regatta a number of times twenty odd years ago. I can still pull a 7.10 2km erg which will place me in the top two of the senior women's squad at my club.

As an ex-rower who competed at reasonably high levels, I'm guessing that the senior women are in their 20s, and train like professional athletes!

Yep, youngest is 19, the eldest is 32. Five on the water sessions a week with weights and ergs land training on top. They are making huge sacrifices to train that hard.

I used to be in that category - life revolved around rowing and training and even though I was in my 40s I was always top of the senior women ergs scores, won medals at the indoor champs. But was still matched by a male friend who was a 'couple of times a week' recreational rower, 10 years older and 5" shorter than me.

It’s infuriating that, given there are so many studies clearly demonstrating male advantage across the board, the Tatchell’s of this world are still trying to gaslight with the “case by case” nonsense.

It’s even more infuriating that we are in this position in the first place.

On that brain frazzling reddit thread that was linked one of the 'arguments' (I use that term loosely) was, wait for it, that transwomen have lower muscle mass,, bone density, etc., than bog standard men before they transition. Have we moved on from lady brain in gentleman's body to lady body in gentleman's body?

They talk such utter fucking shit.

Claims that the sex binary isn't a binary and that physical intervention leads to actual sex change involves so much subverting of facts that it'll never hold up to scrutiny.

IW's response to a question, what are your chromosomes XX or XY?

https://twitter.com/IndiaWilloughby/status/1688158732297859072

Maybe IW thinks you can choose your chromosomes in the same way that you can choose your pronouns.

IW, having fathered a child, cannot be XX or XXY.

IW is best ignored.

maybe India's magic cervix can also change chromosomes.

seriously though I'm not really surprised that no-one has replied to that tweet, either in support or mockery, it's just too feeble to merit a response.

Mr Willoughby knows that he gets a lot of traffic on his Twitter when he comes out with things that he knows and the rest of us know are BS. He’s the Boris Johnson of the trans world - it’s all about the clicks people, it’s all about the clicks.