Cricket, no not those ones, a duck (possibly a drake)

[lcakethereforeIam]

Cricket banning men from women's elite sport the rest the a free for all

https://archive.ph/gb0vR bypass the paywall

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2024/10/17/english-cricket-ban-transgender-elite-level-not-grassroots/

Edited to add link.

Do you think the ECB think TM are biological men and TW biological women? It's a fairly common mistake for those not mired in the gender swamp. (Not excusing it if they are confused, this is a damaging and dangerous mistake to make.)

Burner name change as ECB staff member 🫣
That's a cracking article from the telegraph and I agree with every word of it.

The policy was written knowing about SCEG and the balance of fairness/inclusion conclusion (not being possible).

@Igmum no, not the case I'm afraid

In which case the treatment of TM and NB is lunacy....

So they openly favoured the trans agenda? A quick google shows there's a prolific LGBTQ etc employee network at the ECB. Maybe where all the Victorian misogynists congregate and have been able to work to destroy women's cricket?

https://www.ecb.co.uk/news/3886348/the-lgbtq-community-in-cricket-employee-network#:~:text=Our%20vision%20is%20to%20make,influence%20positive%20change%20within%20cricket

No, they set out definitions in their FAQ. https://resources.ecb.co.uk/ecb/document/2022/03/15/1270e3ce-7e82-4d5f-9f1d-0233f8907e31/Trans-Playing-Policy-FAQs-2022.pdf

In which they also say sex (as well as gender) is a spectrum. And bizarrely, that 'being trans is as common as having red hair' - a lie usually applied to DSDs, not to trans identities. So they've not even understood the propaganda correctly, never mind the science.

So they're yet another organisation that's beclowned themselves by cut and pasting transactivist demands to trash women's sport and used zero thought, insight or sporting / scientific knowledge to tempoer those demands. 🙄

And the definitions are also given in in the policies, e.g. : https://resources.ecb.co.uk/ecb/document/2021/03/16/acf76d0f-f74b-4e37-8b1a-c1b1c8a4e6a7/25.ECB-Policy-on-Trans-People-Paying-Cricket-2021-vF.pdf

The account that made the Tweet I posted last night is now protected, so here's a screenshot of the relevant bit of regs for recreational games.

I think they are mainly just following the mad queer theory soaked logic of genderism. Nothing has to make sense outside the specific area it applies to.

@MrsOvertonsWindow yes trans agenda is a high priority.
I've been concerned for a while that it conflicts with growing the game for girls, particularly Muslim girls.
We won't know who ruled out cricket for their daughters, and chose a different sport. It's totally at odds with the Chair's desire for us to be the most inclusive sport.

The final paragraph of the first article is cracking. Once you stop talking about transwomen and start talking about men the whole thing falls apart. Hence the strenuous attempts to police our language here

If I have a 13-year-old girl who needs to change because she has just started her period, she could well be sharing a confined space with a man who, under ECB policy, has decided they are now female,” a source said. “I have real concerns about that.”

This is the trouble isn't it. These governing bodies wibble on about "inclusion" and how hard it is for men who claim to be women, all the while ignoring their catastrophic exclusion of women and girls from the sport. But they never have to answer for it.
Which is a shame as once our prime minister was ridiculed for spouting nonsense about what a woman was etc, he suddenly changed his mind and remembered that sex matters.

The Times have reported on it, unfortunately I cocked up copying the link so just take my word for it 😁 It was very bland, imo, just the bare bones.

Not one of the articles I've read has picked up on the treatment of women with trans or NB identities.

i thought their position was re TW but also hadn’t seen that they are excluding TM and NB biological women are excluded from the female category.

www.thetimes.com/article/0fc7f939-f9ac-4b31-821d-89fb87cee6ba?shareToken=13712cfc0b7b53e682fea844d510630b

www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/oct/17/cricket-transgender-women-banned-top-two-tiers

Not one of the articles I've read has picked up on the treatment of women with trans or NB identities.

Because nobody cares if women - any women, regardless of gender identity - are excluded.

What's really disgusting is that the ban on TW at elite level but not grassroots shows that the ECB is concerned about egregious unfairness only if it's a) visible to a broader public and b) likely to cause sponsors to pull out. Once you decide men can't play elite women's cricket because of physical differences, there's absolutely no argument in favour of allowing them to play, say, village cricket - which I used to play and a lot of teams are about 50% teenage girls. I played as a teenager myself and it's scary enough facing bowling from grown women, never mind grown fucking men.

I'm not surprised Bint. I'm spelling it out for anyone reading. It's always there, but it's subtext and people, myself included, often don't notice.

Actually, I lie. TM and NB are suddenly very important when it comes to erasing the words that are specifically female, breast/chest feeding or mother/birthing parent for example. Always to benefit fetishtic men though. When it comes to specifically male language; prostate, etc. we don't see the same erasure.

Read some daft things on MN, but this has to be right up there. The bit about transmen can't play on female teams just puts the cherry on top. The ECB should be shamed into dumping this garbage. And I can't help but think that a few well-known (male) cricketers saying so wouldn't hurt.