Transgender people in sport: FA requires trans men to say they are 'biologically female' to play football

[ANameChangePresents]

Transgender people in sport: FA requires trans men to say they are 'biologically female' to play football:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cvg89449lv7o

I find this quote in the article laughable. Especially in so much as it is dropped in without comment from the journalist.

One transgender footballer, who has played men's football at amateur level, condemned the language used by the FA in the new guidance.

"I am not a biological female, I am a man," the player, who asked not be named, told BBC Sport.

If you ever needed evidence to demonstrate that bloke's t-shirt is correct, I present 'exhibit A', m'honour. It's obviously a demonstration of implicit capture of the BBC too. I doubt they would put a nonsensical Flat Earther or Pro-Ana quote up there without qualification in the subsequent sentence

Definitionally, to be a trans man, you have to be biologically female. I'm sorry that their MH condition makes them find a non-pejorative word repellent, but that really is a 'them issue' and not something for society to mollify.

That said, the whole thing seems like an arse covering exercise by the FA. Why they have to register, I have no idea. Have the disclaimer/blanket statement that people participate at their own risk, including trans men, and the acceptable testosterone limits and be done with it. If these Adult Human Females (who identify otherwise) want to play on a riskier pitch, so be it.

The most frightening things for trans-identified people are words, specifically factual words. Not the risk of physical harm to them (or to others) but the risk of having their fantasy worldview challenged.

Have the disclaimer/blanket statement that people participate at their own risk, including trans men, and the acceptable testosterone limits and be done with it.

It may be that making trans identified females acknowledge and agree that they face greater risk than male players is necessary to cover the FA in terms of insurance and litigation.

As Jellysaurus says, this drives a coach & horses through the trans fantasy world.

You’ve changed your name, cut your hair, trimmed your testosterone enabled beard, then reality comes crashing in as you’re required to acknowledge that the actual men, with bodies that have been through male puberty, can crush you into the ground.

And i thought all trans people recognise that sex and gender are not the same thing.

It's the argument that they won't like the wording, so won't sign it, so really it's a ban, that shows how far they are from normal human expectations and reactions.

Every insurance and disclaimer is going to spell things out - sometimes an uncomfortable truth if it relates to your medical history or previous car accident, for example.

I know someone who transitioned 25-30 years ago and all treatment made sure they knew it was only cosmetic and they weren't really becoming a women. It wasn't considered informed consent otherwise, if the patient is deluded. Unrealistic expectations and lies set people up to fail, it's not doing anyone any favours to pretend. All other areas of medicine have to be upfront about outcomes and treatments, I can't see how this group are treated so differently

"I am not a biological female, I am a man," the player, who asked not be named, told BBC Sport.

This is so tiresome.

Yep, someone I know who transitioned a long time ago and has a GRC said that acknowledging and accepting you weren't changing your sex was part of the process and that it was pretty stringent. No reason to disbelieve that as nobody used to pretend to believe otherwise. I guess if you did then you were refused on psychological grounds.

That’s not totally true that people participate at their own risk. If I join a woman’s league I expect my own risk to be the risk of me playing against women, and it’s the leagues responsibility to not allow teams to field bigger stronger men against me. So they need a different clearance than blanket own risk.

Oh for sure. I'm saying make that part of the general risk statement. I appreciate that the registration is a way of getting them to acknowledge they've read that, but man - it is dumb that it's necessary.

I suppose I generally have little patience with safetyism in general. So given the current context, I get it. I just bemoan that such arse covering is necessary. If a trans woman wants to walk into the meat grinder of risk, it's on noone else.

Does it go both ways? Have TIMs ever been asked to confirm that they are male? Would the equivalent to a TIF confirming their sex in order to accept risk mean that all women playing with/against TIMs should have also signed something?

If they subscribe to transgenderism and genuinely welcome him, yes.

They are opting for the 'more risk' option. Noone is making them play in the men's category, unless they are testosterone doping.

I suppose then they are left with no other option if they want to play. It's all a consequence of their own decisions ultimately though. I'm not sure what their is for the league to manage here, as sort of evidenced by the fact that the limit of what they are doing is essentially an applied disclaimer.

And also, no. Because there is absolutely no way of knowing whether these women have been corrected or gaslighted into signing.

Apologies - trans man, rather.

This bloody ideology and its mind warping terminology.

Great point. Are the TIMs being forced to sign 'triggering' disclaimers stating that they understand that they need to keep their testosterone under certain limits? And the women in THE ENTIRE LEAGUE asked to sign waivers accepting their increased risk profile?

If not, that's how we know who the men are. The men aren't asked to suffer this nonsense. Especially the special ones.

Do the male players get a say in whether they play (and possibly change) with biological females. Trans men may not have the physical advantages that make it unfair for trans women to compete against biological females, but surely it is not fair to insist biological men compete against trans men knowing there is more risk of causing injury. Or change with them showing their own bodies and potentially putting themselves at risk of allegations.

I suppose then they are left with no other option if they want to play. It's all a consequence of their own decisions ultimately though.

Imagine an athlete abusing steroids - it's their own body after all, their choice what they do to themselves - and then complaining that it's unfair to bar them from participating with or against non-doping athletes. Or that it's unfair/outing/untrue to make them sign a disclaimer, if they want to participate with or against non-doping athletes, because the steroid abuse has weakened their heart and put them at greater risk than non-doping players.

Waah waah waah toddler tantrum.

There is very little that all trans people agree on about transness.

That is mostly because it is a new thing, and has been driven from many directions for many reasons.
Not all those reasons are good and honest.
Lies are no barrier to people and organisations with dishonest motives.

I broadly agree. I was exploring my thoughts. I guess with 'gender affirming care', it's a controlled abuse of steroids - I e. It puts you inside typical male limits? I suppose that's a difference. Ultimately though, my sympathy for said TIF is adjacent to, if not, nil. If they have made a decision to modify their body to such extremes, of course there will be consequences. Noone can have it all.

So this person says that being female is incompatible with being a man.
Presumably they are being called a terf, transphobe etc?

Is it, or is it not, transphobic to have this belief?

I believe that both football and rugby have a similar process for youth players playing 'up' an age group. For young players there is a risk assessment and regular review.
It seems that trans identified females are now being treated in the same way.

The journalist who wrote this is a transwoman who was playing in a woman's football team until recently. And has also run in the women's category in the London Marathon. So yes, the article isn't very balanced..

I guess with 'gender affirming care', it's a controlled abuse of steroids - I e. It puts you inside typical male limits? I suppose that's a difference.

It's doping.

Men who want to get into the women's category without losing much of their male advantage dope down.

Women who want to get into the men's category - albeit without losing much of their female disadvantage - dope up.

Am I understanding their position correctly: transwomen can't play with women because they pose a risk of injury to the women, but it's okay for transmen to play with men because the risk is to the transmen, which they're willing to take (and they can sign a waiver)?

If so, that still seems very unfair to the men. If a man injures a female player, that would be distressing for the man - you can't sign away the reality of that. Not to mention the reduced competition, where the men know they can always win on pace, can shoot harder etc.

If I were a man who enjoyed playing football I'd want a proper game where I don't have to hold back, and can enjoy playing and being tested against full strength opposition. Why should their enjoyment of their hobby be ruined?

Well, men will either have to find ways around it, or make it clear to the FA that letting trans identified females play in men's teams is a problem.

Welcome to the world of pandering to gender ideology, lads.