Jump to content
IGNORED

Laurel Hubbard


Silvio Dante

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, RalphMilnesLeftFoot said:

Well, I am going to have to disagree with you here. Massively

So, starting with you link which I presume is the Harper Lundberg report without looking given the themes contained within your post

https://www.outsports.com/2020/8/28/21405145/joanna-harper-world-rugby-transgender-athlete-ban-science-research-transphobia

It's futher dissected and debunked here https://www.outsports.com/2021/4/9/22375059/jangles-science-lad-justin-gibson-hilton-lundberg-transphobia-trans-athletes-arkansas-youtube

Dr Emma Harper is a noted anti trans campaigner. I mentioned fair play for women previously, and here she is https://fairplayforwomen.com/emma_hilton/

She's also denied things around sex, that are immutable in biology IE she states sex is binary

Science, disagrees https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a

The research has not been peer reviewed either and was published straight on to the net to cause alarmism, fancy that.

A look at meta data on trans people up til 2017 is here https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-016-0621-y

More research here https://sportsmedialgbt.com/transphobia-in-sport-misconceptions-and-the-media

Some details around trans athlete transitions are here

https://www.vice.com/en/article/vv95a4/what-actually-happens-when-a-trans-athlete-transitions

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-57338207

 

Some myths debunked around Laurel Hubbard are here

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-09/five-myths-about-transgender-athletes-debunked/9634496

 

Trans kids in sport from the US

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trans-girls-belong-on-girls-sports-teams/

 

I'm interested to see where the whitcomb, harper research goes, last time I looked at it there was no conclusive data because of paucity, though some trends depending on hormonal levels and participation of sport.  Harper is trans and hated roundly by trans people and those defending women in sport, so she's probably doing something right

Further discussions about trans people in sport are here , Harper is in there again confirming the changes hormones make to the body etc. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/sports/2021/06/09/its-life-death-issue-trans-athletes-fight-draconian-laws/5290074001/

 

So when you're ready quite happy to have that discussion

and not some sodding science experiment to be gawped at much like people used to do with people who used to be in asylums

 

 

 

Thanks for the reply. I have to finish some work now, or I'll knacker up stuff for my team, but I promise to read all those links when I have time. I do say things should be science-based, so if I'm quoting dud science I'm happy to retract my arguments. (Plus we should note that even the Hilton/Lundberg paper only questions current guidelines in some sports - not all) 

One question though (and an observation):  Are you saying Emma Hilton the co-author of the study I quoted, is the same as Emma Harper?  I thought Emma Harper was an MSP who is embroiled in this issue. Dr Hilton is an English university researcher.

The observation I want to make is that in no way do I deny trans rights and I do sympathise with those who are affected by bigotry and prejudice like yourself. In no way do I want to sound like I deny anyone's right to gender determination. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

I can't see why not. Transgender athletes and knowledge of testosterone levels may not have featured in the ancient Olympics or when Baron De Coubertin revived them in 1896, but things move on.

A TG category/categories would allow TG athletes to compete on a level playing field with others in a way that neither they, nor cis-Females, could say is "unfair". As has been said, the current arrangement tarnishes the achievements of TG athletes in controversy. 

It would mean the Olympics reflected modern gender distinctions, rather than those of the past. 

I think the issue is that it stigmatises people and sends out a message that trans women are not really women which doesn't feel like it fits into an Olympic ethos of respect and friendship. There's obviously a separate issue of people who don't conform to binary ideas of gender but, to my knowledge, that's not massively present as an issue amongst existing athletes at the moment.

The other thing for me is that it currently feels like a solution in search of a problem, by which I mean that the numbers of transgender athletes looking to compete are very small and I feel a lot of solutions are of the "sledgehammer to crack a nut" variety.

If we end up with a situation where trans women are dominating Olympic categories, I'd understand why a conversation might then exist but, as it stands, the number of transwomen competing at an elite level are not high and I'm not convinced there is yet sufficient evidence that those transwomen who are competing are gaining an unfair advantage. Unless and until that situation arises, I'm not sure there's yet even a problem to be solved.

I certainly think some of the concern is exaggerated. As has been said already, I don't think there is a major risk of men suddenly identifying as women just to compete in the Olympics and, even if they were, the vast majority who tried would still be nowhere near good enough in any case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Harry said:

Is she allowed to compete? Yes. No rules are being breached. 
Should the rules be changed. Yes. 
 

I doubt she wins the gold medal, or even medals at all, so I don’t think that’s the main issue. 
I think about it more in terms of the opportunity that’s been denied to someone else. 
I don’t know how many New Zealand weight lifters qualify for the Olympics, but let’s say for argument sake it’s 3. 
If I had a daughter who’d strived all her life, sacrificed so much to her sport, and she was denied a place at the Olympics because she finished 4th in the qualifiers, and the 3rd spot had gone to someone who had previously competed as a man, regardless of her trans-rights, I’d be pretty effing fuming! 
Where’s the rights of the women who’ve been denied a lifetime opportunity by someone who was born with a unique advantage. 
 

I should state quite clearly (and particularly for Ralph’s benefit), that I have absolutely nothing against trans people. I genuinely live my life on the basis of people can be whoever they want to be and it ain’t none of my business.  But when that choice impacts on the achievements of others, I think rules need to be sharpened to prevent this kind of thing. How is it fair to women that someone who used to be a man is allowed to compete against them and deny them their hard fought opportunity. 
I feel that women’s rights organisations really ought to be the most loudly outspoken on this matter. 

Her previous score of 285 at the world championships would have put her 1kg behind 3rd place at the 2016 Olympics so it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that she’ll be competitive at the top end

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RalphMilnesLeftFoot said:

perhaps when you've had to justify or even debate your entire existence over and over and over again, just so people can live free from shite like this, then maybe, just maybe I get slightly aggressive.

I sympathise with you. I really do, however you will never persuade people to change if you are aggressively in their face. You accused me of many things - nothing I said deserved that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, richwwtk said:

I don't believe it's a choice. Have you chosen to continue being male, or is it just what you are?

Now that’s a point that can become a very polarised debate. 
Is it her choice that she feels like she should be a man? No. And no one has an argument with that. As I said - be who you want to be, none of mine or anyone else’s business. 
Is it her choice to transition? Yes. That’s fine. See above - be who you want to be. 
Is it her choice to have competed as a man and now continue to compete as a woman? Yes. 
Is that a choice which impinges on the careers and achievements of other women? Yes. 
Does that make it fair to other women? No. It’s completely unfair. 
 

Im happy for women to become men or vice versa, but ultimately there are the physical facts of whether someone was born male or born female. You can be anything and everything you want with your desired ‘gender’, but the simple biological facts mean that a male has a different physical make-up than a female. 
Be who you want to be - but it shouldn’t affect other peoples hopes, dreams and ambitions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, RalphMilnesLeftFoot said:

I didnt j'accuse anything and pointed out a position of privilege. 

As for being angry. 'debates' like this affect my everyday in the real world. So I'm not going to apologise for having my say in my terms of reference. It is literally a trans voice you are trying to silence 

I've lost two mates this month because of a reaction to lgbtq bullying and a third to Covid.

It's pride month and no, we shouldnt be shamed or funnelled into neat boxes, when conversations like this will lead to more abuse and hate. 

It's a shame that rather that understand where that anger comes from, your post is more concerned with something else. 

 

I don’t think anyone is trying to shame you or silence you.  Nor, I think, did anyone even know you were trans yourself. 

I don’t think this thread had cast any aspersions toward trans folk. The debate is simply whether someone who has transitioned to a female has an unfair advantage in a sporting environment, specifically one of strength and muscle. 
 

No one is shaming you. Don’t be so over reactive. You are who you are. I am who I am. We can be who we want to be and you are not being judged on that. It’s a simple question of sporting equality.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RalphMilnesLeftFoot said:

I didnt j'accuse anything and pointed out a position of privilege. 

As for being angry. 'debates' like this affect my everyday in the real world. So I'm not going to apologise for having my say in my terms of reference. It is literally a trans voice you are trying to silence 

I've lost two mates this month because of a reaction to lgbtq bullying and a third to Covid.

It's pride month and no, we shouldnt be shamed or funnelled into neat boxes, when conversations like this will lead to more abuse and hate. 

It's a shame that rather that understand where that anger comes from, your post is more concerned with something else. 

 

You are clearly angry. I could take each point that you make and debate but I feel it’s pointless. 

You accuse me of trying to silence you but I’m not - i just argued that there is a different opinion to your own. As for your point that I should understand your anger - how do you expect me to know? You are just an angry individual on the internet. Express yourself better and you might get bet more sympathy. Being angry and lashing out will only give you negative feedback

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Harry said:

It’s a simple question of sporting equality.

But no sport is equal when it comes to natural physical advantages.

She was born trans, which may give her an advantage over the average in her chosen sport, but it's not something she had any control or choice about and there are plenty of women who were born biologically female that are bigger than other women and use that to their advantage too. Nobody cries foul at them.

P.S. I knew @RalphMilnesLeftFoot was trans prior to this thread, purely through reading this forum. I have no idea who they are in RL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, richwwtk said:

But no sport is equal when it comes to natural physical advantages.

She was born trans, which may give her an advantage over the average in her chosen sport, but it's not something she had any control or choice about and there are plenty of women who were born biologically female that are bigger than other women and use that to their advantage too. Nobody cries foul at them.

P.S. I knew @RalphMilnesLeftFoot was trans prior to this thread, purely through reading this forum. I have no idea who they are in RL.

No she was born a man.

That's the whole point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, richwwtk said:

But no sport is equal when it comes to natural physical advantages.

She was born trans, which may give her an advantage over the average in her chosen sport, but it's not something she had any control or choice about and there are plenty of women who were born biologically female that are bigger than other women and use that to their advantage too. Nobody cries foul at them.

The point is still valid. The individual in question by going through puberty (testosterone) gains physical benefits others cannot attain. The nurture of nature cannot be equal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, richwwtk said:

But no sport is equal when it comes to natural physical advantages.

She was born trans, which may give her an advantage over the average in her chosen sport, but it's not something she had any control or choice about and there are plenty of women who were born biologically female that are bigger than other women and use that to their advantage too. Nobody cries foul at them.

See now, that’s where people get pissed off on this whole debate. 
Biological sex is REAL. Every inhabitant of this planet, be they human or animal, are born as either a male or a female of their species. 
The fact that humans have advanced technologies enabling them to perform surgery to alter their bodies, does not mean that a male was actually born as a female. 
 

No one is denying her right to become the person she thinks she’s always been. That’s fine, good for her.  But I will never entertain the fact that at birth there are only 2 biological sexes that any living thing can be. It’s not a choice. It’s biological fact. 
 

In a sport which is solely reliant on muscular strength, it is absolutely undeniable that a male will have a natural advantage over a female. I just think it’s a kick in the teeth for the female athletes who have missed out on their lifetime goals because someone who was called Gavin for 30 years of their life decides to compete as a woman instead. Women’s rights campaigners really ought to be apoplectic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RalphMilnesLeftFoot said:

No, likely born trans, latest science suggests that people who are trans have a 'wonky' testosterone receptor uptake just prior to birth. Physical characteristics form first, then brain etc. it's that uptake that isnt taken properly, causing mismatch. 

 

I mean no disrespect to you at all, but a human being cannot be born trans. They are born either male or female.

She was born a man, that is the fact and the element causing this debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Harry said:

ee now, that’s where people get pissed off on this whole debate. 
Biological sex is REAL. Every inhabitant of this planet, be they human or animal, are born as either a male or a female of their species. 
The fact that humans have advanced technologies enabling them to perform surgery to alter their bodies, does not mean that a male was actually born as a female. 

It wasn't so long ago that people were denying some people were born gay and claiming that they had a choice.

And there were trans people way before surgery was available, it's not some kind of fad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, richwwtk said:

It wasn't so long ago that people were denying some people were born gay and claiming that they had a choice.

And there were trans people way before surgery was available, it's not some kind of fad.

But, ummmm…. gay isn’t a biological sex. 
I have no problem saying that whatever biological sex someone is born as is perfectly entitled to be whoever they want to be and if they are gay then why should anyone have any problem with that. 
Absolutely fine - be who you want to be. 
But it doesn’t stop the fact that whether someone is gay, straight or anything inbetween, they are biologically a male or a female. 

Of course there were trans people before surgery; that’s not the point. The point is that it’s a specific human intervention that has altered this persons physical being to enable them to compete against people born of a different biological sex. 
 

End of the day, I don’t care one way or another how people want to live their lives. I just feel sorry for the women athletes who are being denied opportunity, and it think it spits in the face of those who have fought for years for women’s rights. I wonder what that poor women who got ran over by a horse would think about it?? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've taken this from a friend of mine who is far more intelligent than I am. It's a long read but very relevant to this thread.

Some people get frightfully upset when you point out that gender identity is more complex than the simplified, black-and-white version most people are brought up with (i.e. boy or girl).
In 1890, the X and Y chromosomes were discovered. It was found that the men who were tested had 46 chromosomes, including an X and a Y, while women who were tested also had 46 chromosomes, including 2 X chromosomes.
So obviously the conclusion was that the Y chromosome defined masculinity. A reasonable conclusion.
Fast forward 50 years... and it was found that some men had 47 chromosomes, including 2 X's and a Y, while some women had 45, including only one X. Still no problem with the "Y chromosome defines masculinity" idea.
Then... it was found that fully 1 in 300 men weren't 46,XY. Some women were. 
Oops. 
After DNA was discovered in the 50s, it was found that the SrY gene, usually found on the Y chromosome, sometimes was missing. And sometimes had been translocated to another chromosome, hence 46,XX men and 46,XY women. So SrY defined masculinity. 
Then.. it was found out that some men didn’t have an SrY chromosome, not anywhere. Some women did. Other genes were involved. Worse, other factors, such as Androgen Insensitivity made 46,XY people female, and Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia masculinised 46,XX people.
Then in the 70s, other syndromes, such as 5alpha-reductase-2 deficiency were identified, which caused babies to look like one sex at birth, then the other at puberty. Worse, in some places 1 in 50 infants had this natural sex change, it was not rare there.
Science 1974 Dec 27; 186 (4170): 1213-5
In an isolated village of the southwestern Dominican Republic, 2% of the live births were in the 1970's, guevedoces....These children appeared to be girls at birth, but at puberty these 'girls' sprout muscles, testes, and a penis. For the rest of their lives they are men in nearly all respects.
In the 90s, it was found that hormonal hiccups in the womb caused some parts of the body to develop as one sex, othersbas the other, regardless of genetics.
Male–to–female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus. Kruiver et al J Clin Endocrinol Metab (2000) 85:2034–2041
The present findings of somatostatin neuronal sex differences in the BSTc and its sex reversal in the transsexual brain clearly support the paradigm that in transsexuals sexual differentiation of the brain and genitals may go into opposite directions
It's a matter of timing during foetal development. Sometimes a boy is born looking like a girl, sometimes a girl is born looking like a boy, regardless of chromosomes.
This is complex stuff. We don't teach the Theory of General Relativity in grade school, Newtonian physics or at most Special Relativity (far simpler) is enough. Similary, "XX is female, XY is male" is good enough unless you do medicine or biology in college.
It's only really relevant when talking about Trans or Intersex people, just as Relativistic effects only become relevant in the domain of the very big, very small, or very very fast, close to 186,000 miles a second.
People do *not* need psychiatric help when they think that things get heavier, more massive, as they go faster... while lengths contract. People do *not* need help when they think their sex is something different from their genetics.
Intersex people exist. Trans people exist. They are unusual, so trying to apply the usual approximations is as silly as trying to apply Newtonian physics to things moving close to or at light speed. Legislating such things is as insane as legally ruling that Pi=3... as has been done in the past.
I hope this helps explain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Paul G said:

I've taken this from a friend of mine who is far more intelligent than I am. It's a long read but very relevant to this thread.

Some people get frightfully upset when you point out that gender identity is more complex than the simplified, black-and-white version most people are brought up with (i.e. boy or girl).
In 1890, the X and Y chromosomes were discovered. It was found that the men who were tested had 46 chromosomes, including an X and a Y, while women who were tested also had 46 chromosomes, including 2 X chromosomes.
So obviously the conclusion was that the Y chromosome defined masculinity. A reasonable conclusion.
Fast forward 50 years... and it was found that some men had 47 chromosomes, including 2 X's and a Y, while some women had 45, including only one X. Still no problem with the "Y chromosome defines masculinity" idea.
Then... it was found that fully 1 in 300 men weren't 46,XY. Some women were. 
Oops. 
After DNA was discovered in the 50s, it was found that the SrY gene, usually found on the Y chromosome, sometimes was missing. And sometimes had been translocated to another chromosome, hence 46,XX men and 46,XY women. So SrY defined masculinity. 
Then.. it was found out that some men didn’t have an SrY chromosome, not anywhere. Some women did. Other genes were involved. Worse, other factors, such as Androgen Insensitivity made 46,XY people female, and Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia masculinised 46,XX people.
Then in the 70s, other syndromes, such as 5alpha-reductase-2 deficiency were identified, which caused babies to look like one sex at birth, then the other at puberty. Worse, in some places 1 in 50 infants had this natural sex change, it was not rare there.
Science 1974 Dec 27; 186 (4170): 1213-5
In an isolated village of the southwestern Dominican Republic, 2% of the live births were in the 1970's, guevedoces....These children appeared to be girls at birth, but at puberty these 'girls' sprout muscles, testes, and a penis. For the rest of their lives they are men in nearly all respects.
In the 90s, it was found that hormonal hiccups in the womb caused some parts of the body to develop as one sex, othersbas the other, regardless of genetics.
Male–to–female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus. Kruiver et al J Clin Endocrinol Metab (2000) 85:2034–2041
The present findings of somatostatin neuronal sex differences in the BSTc and its sex reversal in the transsexual brain clearly support the paradigm that in transsexuals sexual differentiation of the brain and genitals may go into opposite directions
It's a matter of timing during foetal development. Sometimes a boy is born looking like a girl, sometimes a girl is born looking like a boy, regardless of chromosomes.
This is complex stuff. We don't teach the Theory of General Relativity in grade school, Newtonian physics or at most Special Relativity (far simpler) is enough. Similary, "XX is female, XY is male" is good enough unless you do medicine or biology in college.
It's only really relevant when talking about Trans or Intersex people, just as Relativistic effects only become relevant in the domain of the very big, very small, or very very fast, close to 186,000 miles a second.
People do *not* need psychiatric help when they think that things get heavier, more massive, as they go faster... while lengths contract. People do *not* need help when they think their sex is something different from their genetics.
Intersex people exist. Trans people exist. They are unusual, so trying to apply the usual approximations is as silly as trying to apply Newtonian physics to things moving close to or at light speed. Legislating such things is as insane as legally ruling that Pi=3... as has been done in the past.
I hope this helps explain.

All I can say to that is : Did Gavin Hubbard have a penis until the age of 35? 
Answer : Yes. 
Is Gavin Hubbard perfectly entitled to transition and become Laurel Hubbard. 
Answer : Yes. 
Is it unfair to other women athletes that someone who had a penis until the age of 35 is allowed to compete against them and deny them their life’s work.  
Answer : Yes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, RalphMilnesLeftFoot said:

Deadnaming, trans shaming and repetition of transphobic rhetoric which has roundly been proven as rubbish. 

How's that working out for you@Harry?

 

Sorry? What’s that in English? What exactly are you saying I’ve done wrong? 
 

I’ve stated facts. This person had a penis until the age of 35. How is that transphobic? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simon Grayson looks like he's took a total turn..

But in my opinion, it's not fair on the born Women who have put their lives into their professional field. 

South Park predicted this weirdly

4 minutes ago, Harry said:

Sorry? What’s that in English? What exactly are you saying I’ve done wrong? 
 

I’ve stated facts. This person had a penis until the age of 35. How is that transphobic? 

Everything is transphobic, everything is homophobic, everything is racist to some people. 

They just don't like other opinions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, RalphMilnesLeftFoot said:

No, likely born trans, latest science suggests that people who are trans have a 'wonky' testosterone receptor uptake just prior to birth. Physical characteristics form first, then brain etc. it's that uptake that isnt taken properly, causing mismatch. 

 

 

Well I think there's some guesswork going on there.

I suppose that advance testing could determine that, or if Laurel was born as biological male as 98% of males, went through puberty leaving her with heavier, stronger bones, more muscle mass, a bigger heart (etc) but felt her gender identity didn't reflect the person she was.  Gender dysphoria and Gender nonconformity do not necessarily have an apparent biological cause, although academic research did find some genetic markers in common present in some cases they looked at.

Whatever the driver was for Laurel to transition, which she did in her mid-30s, no one is denying she went through puberty which left her with the physical advantages males weightlifters have over female weightlifters. When you compare the records, you see these advantages are substantial, with elite male weightlifters typically lifting 30-40% heavier weights than elite females in their respective categories.

The advantages conferred to males through puberty cannot be underplayed. There are 9,000 male athletes who have recorded faster times in the 100 metres than the fastest woman 100m athlete.  In most events, no women would qualify for the Olympics if they had to meet male qualification criteria.

Having read Dr Hilton's work, and the criticism of it, I don't think she can be labelled "transphobic" just because she believes the current IOC measurement of testosterone may not reflect the advantages athletes who have gone through puberty as males have over those that have not. It's an opinion, with numerous supporting scientific studies. In fact, even the Jones, Arcelus et al paper, which you posted in support of inclusivity in sport, notes endogenous testosterone levels alone give a poor correlation with excellence in sport.  They also assert "on average, men perform better than women in sport; however, no empirical research has identified the specific reason(s) why." I would dispute this. Much of their argument is based on social rather than scientific points, and is centred around fairness to the TG community. Critics would argue this has to be balanced with fairness to cis-gender females.

In short, I don't think transphobia means disagreeing with a vehemently held view by many transgender people. I recognise that trans people experience vastly more negative prejudice, stereotyping and often hostility than any cis-gender male or female ever faces. This must change. It's unacceptable.

However, I don't think allowing people who have male muscle mass and bone density to compete with females in sport will do anything to dispel transphobia.  Quite the reverse.

@LondonBristolianwrote a very fair retort to my earlier post, but largely based around the principle that there aren't many TG Olympic class athletes (which is irrelevant in my view) and having separate TG categories in sport would deny Transwomen their identities as women.  I dispute that. We don't allow male wheelchair athletes to compete in the Olympic men's 800m, but that does not deny their male identity or imply "ableist" discrimination. It reflects the bald fact that sports wheelchairs can go faster over that distance than legs. Ergo, having developed higher and denser muscles, stronger and more spaced bones and a bigger cardio capacity as a result of going through puberty has to be recognised as a significant advantage in sports where male physiognomy will be an advantage.

And that's most sports. Males are faster, stronger, can jump higher, punch and kick harder and are physically taller and heavier on average than females. Hormonal changes in transitioning to female will only partially negate this. Yes, I recognise that there are some people for whom biological sex is not binary. These cases are more common than were thought in "classical" medicine, but even the Nature article you posted note they are still statistically rare. How many Transgender athletes fall in to this category is unknown.

For now, I think Laurel Holloway matches  IOC rules and it is only right that she can compete in the Olympics. She's clearly a talented athlete and you can do no more than adhere to the rules as they are set.

However, having reviewed all the science  that time will allow me to do, I still think there is a case for the IOC to review criteria for competing in women's events. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Riaz said:

The only way to make it fair is to create a trans women division.

Otherwise, it will kill womens sports.

Totally unfair.

And when this happens in combat sports (Which it has) - highly dangerous.

Thing is Riaz, whilst this seems like a perfectly logical suggestion, trans-campaigners have previously poo-poo’d such an idea, as apparently it’s not fair to the trans-women who actually feel that they are women and want to compete as women. Having ‘trans-competitions’ will be denying trans folk their right to compete as the the gender they feel they are. 
So basically, you can’t win. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Harry said:

Thing is Riaz, whilst this seems like a perfectly logical suggestion, trans-campaigners have previously poo-poo’d such an idea, as apparently it’s not fair to the trans-women who actually feel that they are women and want to compete as women. Having ‘trans-competitions’ will be denying trans folk their right to compete as the the gender they feel they are. 
So basically, you can’t win. 

The other aspect to that is it could be classed as more inclusive. This discussion has been centered around Trans women, but equally there are Trans men who were born female - and because they identify as men, wouldn’t want to have competed in female events. However, due to the reasons Robbo has stated, they - post puberty - are unlikely to be able to compete as at high a level as cis men. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

The other aspect to that is it could be classed as more inclusive. This discussion has been centered around Trans women, but equally there are Trans men who were born female - and because they identify as men, wouldn’t want to have competed in female events. However, due to the reasons Robbo has stated, they - post puberty - are unlikely to be able to compete as at high a level as cis men. 
 

Ergo, as I mentioned at the start, the only people for whom opportunity will be taken away from them, are women who’ve worked damn hard to be the finest in their field, but miss out due to a trans woman. As you say, it wouldn’t happen the other way round. 
I’m firmly on the side of women in this one. It’s women who will be snubbed. As said before, women’s right campaigners should be apoplectic with rage on this. It spits in the face of all these years of battling for equality for women. You can ask a young talented female athlete to dedicate themselves to their sport, sacrifice everything to fulfil their ambition, only for it to be taken away from them by someone with a clear physical advantage given them through the fact they were previously a man. 
The people who are directly impacted by this are the ones who should be listened to. Those women who currently compete in this particular discipline are not happy about it; and rightly so. They’ve dedicated their lives to reach this pinnacle of their careers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

 

@LondonBristolianwrote a very fair retort to my earlier post, but largely based around the principle that there aren't many TG Olympic class athletes (which is irrelevant in my view) and having separate TG categories in sport would deny Transwomen their identities as women.  I dispute that. We don't allow male wheelchair athletes to compete in the Olympic men's 800m, but that does not deny their male identity or imply "ableist" discrimination. It reflects the bald fact that sports wheelchairs can go faster over that distance than legs. Ergo, having developed higher and denser muscles, stronger and more spaced bones and a bigger cardio capacity as a result of going through puberty has to be recognised as a significant advantage in sports where male physiognomy will be an advantage.

 

I think the difference with para-athletics is that, with wheelchair athletes for example, it is a completely different sport. I'm a big fan of parasports but things like wheelchair racing, wheelchair rugby, goalball etc. are different sports with different rules, expectations and skillsets. What's great about those sports is that non-disabled people aren't blocked from competing for fairness. They'd simply get their arses kicked. I used to work with a former paralympic skier and he once told me that he never had a chance of wining medals for the simple reason that he became an amputee as a teenager and people who'd been on prosthetic legs since four or five had such a massive advantage over him he'd never ever bridge the gap.

However the major lesson of the paralympics is that pretty much every positive step that has happened in disability equality has been developed in partnership with disabled people and where it always, always, always goes wrong with disability is when non-disabled people start deciding what disabled need without talking to them. The key slogan of the disability rights movement is "nothing about us without us" and I think this is crucial. 

Going back to the debate in hand, I think any solution - if one is needed - has to be developed in conversation with transgender and nontransgender female athletes rather than imposed on either group. I think there are ways to have a reasonable, sensible discussion about it and come to conclusions that work for everyone but - much like with disability - it has to be working with the people who are affected by the decision rather than it being imposed by others.  And that doesn't mean prioritising one group over the other, or given into this narrative the two are in disagreement, but working together to find solutions that work for everyone rather than assuming what anyone thinks or needs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Harry said:

Thing is Riaz, whilst this seems like a perfectly logical suggestion, trans-campaigners have previously poo-poo’d such an idea, as apparently it’s not fair to the trans-women who actually feel that they are women and want to compete as women. Having ‘trans-competitions’ will be denying trans folk their right to compete as the the gender they feel they are. 
So basically, you can’t win. 

They have a para-olympics why not the trans-olympics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jj77 said:

They have a para-olympics why not the trans-olympics?

I agree. Perhaps they should. 
Its the trans campaigners who say it goes against their gender identity. 
To coin a phrase - what a load of bollocks! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

Going back to the debate in hand, I think any solution - if one is needed - has to be developed in conversation with transgender and nontransgender female athletes rather than imposed on either group.

A good starting point to any debate would be to not use the term nontransgender females. 
 

They are called females. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, RalphMilnesLeftFoot said:

Finally, it's down to the victims of transphobia to decide what they feel is transphobic. So if a trans person states that they feel something is transphobic, usually around the EHRC definitions or Equalities Act 2010 then it is.   Same thing with offences against race, religion etc. Amazing that people do not get that, and miss the whole point of the thing as they absolutely discuss curtailing people's rights, access to services, sport and the rest whilst silencing them. It has happened before. Presumably people dont want to go down that road again as at present that's exactly where we're headed ..

 

?

Not sure about that.

I was once accused of being racist... by an asian woman...

So going by your theory... this woman would be correct despite the fact.. i am also asian. And was simply doing my job at the time and made no racist comment....

And of course it will be used to shut down debate. Like it has been on this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...