Across the Red Line Radio 4

[Everyoneesleistheproblem]

Sharon - fucking amazing.

That's all. Just on now (possibly a reoeat , recorded before Paris)

I was pleased to hear the presenter, Anne McElvoy, say “sex observed at birth” in her introduction rather than the frequently used but inaccurate “assigned”.

Crikey, was I really bumbling around with my post for (at least) 12 minutes? Must need another coffee.

I love that respectful debate is being demonstrated on the bbc.

I've picked up that Labour want to bring critical thinking and debate back into the curriculum; it's urgently needed.

I'm probably in the minority here because I like this format and make a point of listening, whatever the topic. I've been hoping they would tackle sex and gender for a while now. The format really highlights when someone is totally intransigent. It's a shame the producers couldn't get some of the people who think it's OK to threaten women but of course they would never agree to actually having a debate.

The problem I have with the format in discussing this issue is that the goal is to find the centre ground. The mediator is motivated to make this happen and views the two sides as either enabling this or blocking this.

However it relies on the two sides presenting facts and doing so honestly. It doesn't do any testing of what is presented. This means that if one side uses misinformation and emotional blackmail, you can end up with the mediator leaning in to a persuasive narrative that is misleading/deceptive and being irritated at the other side "blocking" when they point out that what they're facing is not honest.

I'll add this in a separate post in case it's deleted.

Personally, I'm not interested in us ending up at the centre ground of only some children being sterilised who end up living a life of being a permanent medlical patient.

Women do race in F1 although few qualify and only one (Desiré Wilson, who seems to be genuine biological woman) has ever won a race

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_Formula_One_drivers

I think F1 is still a macho, sexist sport. It's arguable that it's this that stops women getting the opportunities to drive at all never mind to drive the cars that actually are capable of doing well.

But I think it's naive to think our different bodies don't play a part, the F1 teams will be aware of that and they want to win.

The format really highlights when someone is totally intransigent.

Well, the transwoman was completely intransigent on "transwomen are women." And didn't really engage with Sharron Davies simple, basic contention: that sport is about bodies, not feelings.

Davies has biology and realism on her side: it was interesting to see that Charley had no recourse to evidenced argument argument in the face of Davies' insistence on reality.

yep. There is absolutely no doubt it is a sexist sport but it is also true about the advantage.

Just the sheer muscle density ratio means that the car has a driver who is a powerful as possible, with the body to last that long in the car with minimum fatigue, and is as light as possible too. Every kilogram counts I have been told.

It was a good listen. Sharron is a great, clear speaker on the subject. Anyone listening to it who didn’t know much about the issues would have found her argument very convincing. She just made so much more sense than Charlie.

I have listened to this programme since it began and have enjoyed it. The format works really well when you have a topic where the issue is an established fact but the opponents have different perspectives.

For example the last one about obesity. Should it be classed as a disease. Between a consultant oncologist who disagrees and an obesity campaigner who agreed . This was an interesting debate and both parties argued their point of view logically and respectfully. The format worked well here . Because obesity is a fact. It's a real thing . both parties came at the argument from this point of view.

The transgender debate was completely pointless because there was no agreement on the basic premise.
Sharon's pov being that biological sex is an absolute and cannot be wished away. That males have a biological advantage over females in sport.
Whereas Charlie's pov was that she was female because she had 'transitioned' .. which is not a fact. It's a wish . A wish is not a fact - so the basic premise makes a discussion in this format a non starter.

I thought Sharin was fabulous. Left Charlie whining about being 'othered' and less respected. Yet couldn't express the same empathy for all the women who will never be ranked in their own sport if biological men are allowed to be admitted.

The very first minute made me laugh.

Saying that Martin is competing in a male dominated sport… well fuck! Yes. And Martin competing still makes it male dominated.

I didn't hear this, but I'm glad that Sharron did a good job - though that is exactly what I'd expect.

The problem with the format is that it's putting up someone who believes the earth is round up against someone who believes the earth is flat and asking them to find common ground. There is no common ground because one view is scientifically and factually correct and the other is erroneous.

In the same way that the BBC no longer gives air time to climate change deniers, it shouldn't give airtime to idiots who pretend that humans can change sex. The only advantage of doing so is that they reliably show themselves to be idiots.

"The problem with the format is that it's putting up someone who believes the earth is round up against someone who believes the earth is flat and asking them to find common ground. There is no common ground because one view is scientifically and factually correct and the other is erroneous."

yes. That is what I am hearing on this.

The issue is that a trans activist is speaking purely based on emotion and ideology and is stating so much misinformation and that cannot be adequately refuted on this type of program. The facilitator is trying to get them to agree when doing so requires Sharron to overlook and accept misinformation as truth.

Martin comes across as being wholly influenced only by misinformation and flawed studies.

Can you share link?

Just finished it and I feel like I have just been through an episode of emotional manipulation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0021xst

Here you go

Elite shooting is fascinating. Stillness and substantial self-control over the physiology are key. There are several explanations with more or less evidence behind them.

Breathing (obviously) and the heart beat (less obviously) create displacement (tiny as it might be in the latter case) and it's sufficient to create inaccuracy over distance. Elite shooters are trained to fire between breaths and between the heart beats.

Reasonable but science-free account.
https://www.eurolympic.org/shooting-between-heartbeats-inside-the-mind-of-an-elite-shooter/

There are sex-based differences in the peripheral blood network (e.g., impact of oestrogen on fingers).

There are some shooting competitions where women do well consistently, leading to these occasional articles. I'd like some substantial science research in these areas before such measures are taken.

www.theguardian.com/sport/article/2024/jul/28/women-often-outperform-men-in-olympic-shooting-is-it-time-for-open-events

There’s a bit of classic F1 commentary during a race between Damon Hill and Michael Schumacher, I think, where they talk about a double bend- 4G force to the left, 4G force to the right, that’s 9G force on their neck muscles as they take that corner…

It’s a bit of an in joke in my house. Those forces are more easily endured by fit men.

This is being repeated this morning at 9am in case anyone missed it first time.

I happened to catch this and found it astonishing that Charlie was unable to see that “but you just have to accept us!” meant that “you just have to let us win”. I wonder what Charlie thinks of the two male gold medals in women’s boxing?

I was thinking, given the Paralympics on at the moment, is a good analogy something like: an able bodied person decides to identify as someone with a disability. Then competes in para sport and obviously wins because they are able bodied. Too simplistic?

I’m finding it every bit as irritating this time as the first time. This therapeutic method is, IMO, totally nonsensical. And in this case, it enabled Charlie to present mistruths and misinformation.

So-called resolution expert Louisa Weinstein is coming across as another sympathetic ally, which is seeping through her commentary. As for Charlie, seems again with the male entitlement dressed up as ‘we’re just innocent lil trans folk being hated on’ and Charlie is being allowed to conveniently side step the basic facts and science that Sharron is talking about in relation to women’s sports.

It’s only interesting because of highlighting the problems with the fairness argument. Sharron says it’s not fair to women in sports. Charlie says it’s not fair that TW cannot compete in the category that expresses their true authentic selves and it’s just a happy coincidence that they win. Two different understandings of fairness.

I agree with Sharron of course, but often felt fairness as a category for making decisions was problematic in how what’s fair is determined by the individuals’ perspective.

I missed this first time round but heard it today. I agree that the format is not good and, if this is how it's going to be done, the programme needs to be longer. Sharron was great as always and when she said, clearly and calmly, that humans can't change sex and no one ever has, her "opponent" had nothing to offer just a bit of gibbering

The idea is not to prove one side is right at the expense of the other. It's getting both to a place where they can agree or compromise.

Effectively it helps the GC cause as no one cares if men wear dresses and nail varnish or changes gender identity. We could all agree not to laugh at the bloke in the heels ( if men could also refrain from laughing at the fat woman). It's the sex based rights that can't be infringed and I think it was clear even Charlie admitted sex is unchangeable.

Any conversation that highlights gender and sex as separate classifications are important.

Actually the BBC are one of the worst in their reporting of climate change. Of course they won’t give air time to anyone that questions it (and brands them as deniers) and only those scientists whose funding depends on it are reported on.

Its not that dissimilar to the “no debate” and TWAW mantra we’ve been force fed.

Follow the money for both. Same with those who questioned the Covid narrative and vaccine injuries and deaths.

No doubt this will get deleted because hurty words but the genie is well and truly out of the bottle.