Laurel Hubbard

[Red-Robbo]

52 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

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. 

 

But if wheelchair athletes had asked - and expected as a right - to compete alongside able-bodied middle-distance runners, then that, I argue, is the analogous scenario.

They didn't of course. They realised that it wouldn't be fair to the able-bodied athletes.

Transwomen quite rightly expect to be treated as women and with full respect. I support that. But there are a tiny number of highly unusual scenarios, including elite sport, where I think a distinction has to be drawn between women who didn't experience the changes of male puberty and those that did. 

It simply isn't fair to cis-gender women, the vast majority of competitors in the events we are discussing, otherwise.  

(Totally agree with your last paragraph about the need for a consensus position. I also think more, independent research is needed into the subject, which - to be fair - is Emma Hilton and Tommy Lundberg's position)

[LondonBristolian]

1 minute ago, Harry said:

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

They are called females. 

I personally try to the word "females" full stop as it sounds a bit weird to my ears. It sounds a bit too much like describing specimens in a zoo rather than actual people. 

Nonstransgender female athletes are indeed female athletes. Transgender female athletes are also female athletes. Hence me using some language to make a distinction. Not sure it's the big deal you seem to think. 

[Harry]

2 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

I personally try to the word "females" full stop as it sounds a bit weird to my ears. It sounds a bit too much like describing specimens in a zoo rather than actual people. 

Nonstransgender female athletes are indeed female athletes. Transgender female athletes are also female athletes. Hence me using some language to make a distinction. Not sure it's the big deal you seem to think. 

Not a big deal, but something that shouldn’t slip into mainstream usage, I feel. 
 

There are female athletes. 
There are transgender female athletes. 
There is no such thing as nontransgender female athletes. 

[LondonBristolian]

4 minutes ago, Harry said:

Not a big deal, but something that shouldn’t slip into mainstream usage, I feel. 
 

There are female athletes. 
There are transgender female athletes. 
There is no such thing as nontransgender female athletes. 

I frequently talk about non-disabled people and it is a simple description of people who are not disabled. Nontransgender female athletes are simply female athletes who are not transgender. That said, I agree it hopefully need to slip into mainstream usage as I don't think there's really a need to specify whether someone is transgender or not so describing all athletes, transgender or non-transgender, will hopefully be the long-term fix. 

[OneTeamInBristol]

5 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

I frequently talk about non-disabled people and it is a simple description of people who are not disabled. Nontransgender female athletes are simply female athletes who are not transgender. That said, I agree it hopefully need to slip into mainstream usage as I don't think there's really a need to specify whether someone is transgender or not so describing all athletes, transgender or non-transgender, will hopefully be the long-term fix. 

So just people?

[OneTeamInBristol]

5 minutes ago, RalphMilnesLeftFoot said:

Not a theory 

CPS guidance

"

"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."

Gay people can be homophobic, transpeople can be transphobic and in your example you could be racist towards someone else who is Asian if they felt you had. 

Perps, for some strange reason, dont get to decide. The victim does. 

Glad we could clear that up as well. 

This thread is so enlightening.

And you think that is how the real world works?
 

'I found what you replied to me earlier in this thread deeply racist, and you can't argue otherwise. I'm the victim so I'm reporting you.' 

Do you see the problem now?

[Red-Robbo]

28 minutes ago, RalphMilnesLeftFoot said:

Alas, no like before the proof's in the science

General overview here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7415463/

 

Androgen Receptor Repeat Length Polymorphism Associated with Male-to-Female Transsexualism Report below

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3402034/

 

No idea what's happened with the text, but hey ho but yeah science

Dr Hilton is a full blown terf. There's even a disclaimer in the research you linked about it previously..  I'm not sure what more you want from that  aside from that she does not want trans people to exist period...  It's a bit like a climate change denier leading reasearch on climate change as an analogy. Same deal here.  Gadzooks!

Regarding your last part on IOC (Joanna Harper already does that) so no it's already in place.. 

 

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 ..

 

Well the first paper (Boucher & Chinnah) confirms what I said that there has been found to be a presumed connection between GD (Gender Dysphoria) and genetics in some but not all people with GD. The authors are the first to acknowledge the small sample size. I don't think we can draw sweeping conclusions about all people with GD from that study and nor is it claimed we can. Moreover, the conclusion tells us:  "The studies and research that have been conducted allow us to confirm that masculinization or feminization of the gonads does not always proceed in alignment with that of the brain development and function. There is a distinction between the sex (visible in the body’s anatomical features or defined genetically) and the gender of an individual (the way that people perceive themselves)".  I've highlighted one section as it's at the nub of the issue. Whatever the brain thinks in GD, the body tells the story of evolutionary sexual development.  You can be a woman,  but if you were male at puberty your muscle mass, denser bones, larger frame and larger cardio system will give you an advantage in many sports.

The Hare & Pascal study (UCLA and Melbourne University) suggests the mechanism that might concrete the genetic link suggested by Boucher & Chinnah. Again, it is not saying all Transgender people have the particular genetic marker they identify and again it qualifies their research by the small (112 individuals in two locations) study size and says there is more work to be done on the subject.

It's all interesting research to be sure and it gives lie to the bigots claim that GD and Transgenderism is some sort of trendy lifestyle choice. However neither study has anything to say about athletic advantage conferred on those who have undergone male puberty.

As for Dr Hilton, I have read nothing she's written that suggests that "Transgender people shouldn't exist". Can you back that up?  I don't find labels like Terf very helpful. They are as pejorative as the unpleasant names Trans people are sometimes called. 

As for your last par, that's very difficult to answer and I'm genuinely sorry that you feel that my considered position on this subject goes down a Transphobic path. However, I feel there is a difference between mindless, hate-inspired discrimination, and discrimination due to sound reasons. The circle that can't be squared is I think allowing some TG elite athletes to compete for medals, records and cash prizes against elite cis-gender females discriminates against the cis-gender females. It's unfair to the majority of competitors in female sport. Do you ignore that unfairness? Do you ignore the physiological differences that experiencing male puberty brings?

The Rolling Stones sang You Can't Always Get What You Want.  The world should treat Transwomen as women, but in this very limited area (elite sport) we have to recognise that there are things that set them apart from cis-gender women. As Boucher & Chinnah says these are defined in the body's anatomy.  That doesn't make them "not women", but it does make a difference in this narrowly defined, unusual set of cases.

Nothing in the above bars Transwomen's access to sport or even competitive sport. A Transwoman runs most Saturdays in my Park Run. No one gives a shit. She's accepted as a female runner. But that's Park Run. Its you against the clock, looking to improve your past time, neither a cash prize, sponsorship nor precious metal lies at the end of it.  If we were professionals running for some lucrative prize, I'm guessing the women might feel differently. 

[Riaz]

56 minutes ago, RalphMilnesLeftFoot said:

Not a theory 

CPS guidance

"

"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."

Gay people can be homophobic, transpeople can be transphobic and in your example you could be racist towards someone else who is Asian if they felt you had. 

Perps, for some strange reason, dont get to decide. The victim does. 

Glad we could clear that up as well. 

This thread is so enlightening.

Do you have a link to that “guidance”

That is simply ridiculous.

Because what that is saying is people can be prosecuted for homophobia/racism etc, without actually being homophobic or racist. No evidence needed. I find that extremely hard to believe.

To clear up my case where i was accused of racism. I was working in a bar, pre-smoking ban. In the bar i was working, there was a no smoking rule at the bar. As a non smoker, i loved this rule. This Asian lady was smoking at the bar and i showed her the signs and politely asked to either stop smoking or smoke somewhere else. I got verbally abused and then i stated, she will have to leave if she continues with the abuse. When she was being asked to leave by the manager, she claimed i was racist. Even though, no comment was made about her race. (Plenty of bar staff and customers witnessed the exchange)

But apparently i could be arrested to racism? Because the Asian lady felt i was being racist??? Or have i missed something?!!
 

[LondonBristolian]

1 hour ago, OneTeamInBristol said:

So just people?

As are disabled people. Hence the need to specify.

[BS2 Red]

18 minutes ago, Riaz said:

But apparently i could be arrested to racism? Because the Asian lady felt i was being racist??? Or have i missed something?!!

You could be arrested I guess, but as there was no racism, you'd not be prosecuted/found guilty.

The law isn't saying that any accusation of racism means somebody is instantly found guilty. It's saying that in the case of a crime, if the victim feels it was motivated by hatred, an additional charge can be added on.

So, beat somebody up while shouting racial slurs? The victim would (rightly!) judge the cause of the beating to be racism.

Tell somebody to stop smoking in a non-smoking bar? The only victim is the barman, the customer is a fool for not listening. 

Tell somebody in to stop smoking in a bar that allows smoking? No crime, smoking might be allowed but it'll always be at the discretion of the owner/staff.

Tell somebody to stop smoking at a bar that allows smoking while screaming racial slurs at them? That'd be a crime.

[Harry]

1 hour ago, Riaz said:

Do you have a link to that “guidance”

That is simply ridiculous.

Because what that is saying is people can be prosecuted for homophobia/racism etc, without actually being homophobic or racist. No evidence needed. I find that extremely hard to believe.

To clear up my case where i was accused of racism. I was working in a bar, pre-smoking ban. In the bar i was working, there was a no smoking rule at the bar. As a non smoker, i loved this rule. This Asian lady was smoking at the bar and i showed her the signs and politely asked to either stop smoking or smoke somewhere else. I got verbally abused and then i stated, she will have to leave if she continues with the abuse. When she was being asked to leave by the manager, she claimed i was racist. Even though, no comment was made about her race. (Plenty of bar staff and customers witnessed the exchange)

But apparently i could be arrested to racism? Because the Asian lady felt i was being racist??? Or have i missed something?!!
 

Jeez Riaz!! You’re such a foul racist. You’ve gone down in my estimation lad!!

1 hour ago, BS2 Red said:

You could be arrested I guess, but as there was no racism, you'd not be prosecuted/found guilty.

And therein lies a HUGE problem. 
Once you are arrested, it’s on your record. This has severe impacts for your future life. 
Even if no charges were ever pressed and you were 100% not guilty, it’s still on your record. 
 

Here’s a real life example. Someone I know was arrested for alleged racism. This was at Ashton Gate. A steward had reported racial abuse and my friend was arrested. 
He was completely innocent and the steward had made it up. 
My friend was released a couple of hours later, and after cctv was gathered, it was confirmed by the police that my friend hadn’t done anything wrong whatsoever. 
He was visiting from another country. He’d been temporarily living in another country and was making his last visit to the U.K. before making the move permanent. He was due to get married in the other country in a few weeks and he’d had a job lined up at a school. 
The fact he was arrested was now on his record when he was completing his application for immigration. This jeopardised his move to a new country in which he’d already been temporarily living for 2 years. It jeopardised his wedding and it put at risk his job. 
The very fact he was incorrectly arrested for racism very nearly ruined his whole life. 
 

That’s why it’s a dangerous law. If the arrest was completely scrubbed from the record, then ok, but it’s not. And it ruins lives. Accusing people of being racist, transphobic, whatever, because you ‘feel’ you were abused, is a nonsense law and affects people in real life. 

[BS2 Red]

10 minutes ago, Harry said:

That’s why it’s a dangerous law. If the arrest was completely scrubbed from the record, then ok, but it’s not. And it ruins lives. Accusing people of being racist, transphobic, whatever, because you ‘feel’ you were abused, is a nonsense law and affects people in real life. 

I'd agree that any arrest should be scrubbed from your record if you are not convicted.

That's a separate issue from hate crime legislation.

I'm perfectly happy that a crime with racist/sexist/transphobic/disabilist intent gets an additional punishment. 

[nebristolred]

This topic has become far more interesting than I'd ever imagined, the amount I've learned in the past 2 pages shows I really hadn't a clue about how this all works, maybe I'd always been naive to it.

One thing I will say though to those on the sceptic-side (for want of a better term) - 90% of young trans people have contemplated suicide and 25% have actually tried it. This is something that I can attest to from those in my personal life too, so maybe try to make things a little less heated this time around in making points. Not trying to have any kind of moral high ground here btw, I'm as guilty as anyone when it comes to message tone at times. But after something that happened to someone I know recently, I couldn't not say something, and referring to some points as 'bollocks' and the like can be unnecessarily demeaning on a fragile subject. 

[Red-Robbo]

8 minutes ago, RalphMilnesLeftFoot said:

 

 

Regards the wider conversation. 

Trans people in this thread have been called 'mental' or other wise insulted

 

 

 

 

Which I think is totally out-of-order. 

However on the narrow issue of should people who have experienced puberty as males be able to compete in women's elite sport, I'm still on the side that the evidence says no (although more research would be welcome).

You may think that's exclusionary, but I just think it's fairer to those women who didn't develop extra muscle mass, stronger bones and a more vigorous circulation system as a result of having gone through puberty as women IE: it's fairer to 99.99% of competitors.

[Riaz]

17 hours ago, RalphMilnesLeftFoot said:

https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/hate-crime

There ya go. 

 

Thats describing a hate crime no?

You would need evidence of violence or verbal abuse for a conviction no?

[Riaz]

16 hours ago, RalphMilnesLeftFoot said:

Regards the wider conversation. 

Trans people in this thread have been called 'mental' or other wise insulted

Trans people in this thread are being called to be segregated

Trans people in this thread are being specifically targetted to have their freedoms eroded. 

Trans people in this thread have been told how they should be have and their voices muted and that others can decide what's best for them

Amongst many other back and forths.

 

 

I wouldnt go as far as saying all trans people are mental.

But am i right in thinking that suicides are extremely high for people who have undergone a sex change?

And in light of this, would you agree that a persons mental health should be assesed before a life changing operation/medication etc?

[LondonBristolian]

3 minutes ago, Riaz said:

I wouldnt go as far as saying all trans people are mental.

But am i right in thinking that suicides are extremely high for people who have undergone a sex change?

And in light of this, would you agree that a persons mental health should be assesed before a life changing operation/medication etc?

I don't think someone's mental health will be improved by forcing them to live a life they are not comfortable with.

I also think that the high suicide rate might me more reflective of the barriers, discrimination and hostility that trans people face and the impact that has on people than something inherently "wrong" with the mental health of trans people.

I'd say it's a reason to be kinder to trans people, and indeed anyone else, and not make sweeping statements that add to that hostility and discrimination. 

[Riaz]

1 hour ago, LondonBristolian said:

I don't think someone's mental health will be improved by forcing them to live a life they are not comfortable with.

I also think that the high suicide rate might me more reflective of the barriers, discrimination and hostility that trans people face and the impact that has on people than something inherently "wrong" with the mental health of trans people.

I'd say it's a reason to be kinder to trans people, and indeed anyone else, and not make sweeping statements that add to that hostility and discrimination. 

So just ignore High rates of suicide post sex change??

I'd never be unkind to a trans person, for no reason. That goes to any person, regardless if they are trans, of colour or religious etc

[Riaz]

51 minutes ago, RalphMilnesLeftFoot said:

transphobia, racism etc are classed as hate crimes.. 

It's still for the victim to decide if they've been a victim of and not the perpetrator... 

A court needs evidence no?

[Riaz]

1 minute ago, RalphMilnesLeftFoot said:

Riaz i know this seems difficult to get your head around, but the victim of hate fets to decide whether they've been a victim. 

If there's evidence police will conduct enquiries etc decide to charge on to cps etc. 

Really not all that difficult to get. 

I think you are missing my point.

My point is, the victim feeling like they have been the victim of prejudice isnt enough for a conviction.

[Silvio Dante]

20 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

Which I think is totally out-of-order. 

However on the narrow issue of should people who have experienced puberty as males be able to compete in women's elite sport, I'm still on the side that the evidence says no (although more research would be welcome).

You may think that's exclusionary, but I just think it's fairer to those women who didn't develop extra muscle mass, stronger bones and a more vigorous circulation system as a result of having gone through puberty as women IE: it's fairer to 99.99% of competitors.

The only other point I have on that is this.

Pre-pubescent males and females I’d guess are less likely to transition (apologies if I’ve got that wrong) - it might be lack of parental understanding, medical staff not being happy they’re mentally old enough to make the decision or even the person themselves not being sure that’s what they want at that stage - all sorts going on with everyone at that age and nobody can really say they were sure who they were in every respect at age 11.

So, it wouldn’t then be excluding just post pubescent TG women - but in practice I’d imagine excluding all TG women. I think your suggestion has a lot of logic in it, but we probably have to call it what it is - which is practical total exclusion (noted from selected strength based sports only).

 

[LondonBristolian]

2 hours ago, Riaz said:

So just ignore High rates of suicide post sex change??

I'd never be unkind to a trans person, for no reason. That goes to any person, regardless if they are trans, of colour or religious etc

Last year COVID cases rose dramatically in the UK in the three weeks after St David's Day. Correlation and causation are very different things.

If there are high rates of suicide amongst transgender people, that is not evidence that having an operation  - which not all transgender people do, in any case - is a factor in why those suicide rates rise, or that refusing someone an operation would reduce those rates.

Your logic is fundamentally flawed. 

[BS2 Red]

1 hour ago, Riaz said:

I think you are missing my point.

My point is, the victim feeling like they have been the victim of prejudice isnt enough for a conviction.

Nobody is claiming it is enough for a conviction.

There will always have to be evidence of a crime. 

The "flagging" section on the link below explains it better than I can.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homophobic-biphobic-and-transphobic-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance

[JamesBCFC]

5 hours ago, Riaz said:

I think you are missing my point.

My point is, the victim feeling like they have been the victim of prejudice isnt enough for a conviction.

If you've been robbed, but there isn't the evidence to convict the person who did it, were you still robbed?

[Harry]

48 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

If you've been robbed, but there isn't the evidence to convict the person who did it, were you still robbed?

Possibly the worst analogy I’ve ever seen 

[BS2 Red]

3 minutes ago, Harry said:

Possibly the worst analogy I’ve ever seen 

Not really.

Imagine you get burgled (with no damage) and the police catch the criminal. He claims he was only looking for a squat and left when he realised somebody was living there. You tell the police that your wife's bracelet was stolen which proves he was a thief.

The police are in no doubt about the trespassing, but should the police believe you that a bracelet was taken, or should they believe the thief who says he was just looking for somewhere to sleep?

[Harry]

5 minutes ago, BS2 Red said:

Not really.

Imagine you get burgled (with no damage) and the police catch the criminal. He claims he was only looking for a squat and left when he realised somebody was living there. You tell the police that your wife's bracelet was stolen which proves he was a thief.

The police are in no doubt about the trespassing, but should the police believe you that a bracelet was taken, or should they believe the thief who says he was just looking for somewhere to sleep?

But this isn’t a person ‘deciding they are a victim’. It’s a terrible take. 

[BS2 Red]

2 minutes ago, Harry said:

But this isn’t a person ‘deciding they are a victim’. It’s a terrible take. 

No, it's listening to a victim rather than the criminal.

Nobody is suggesting there is no need for evidence, an investigation or a trial. 

[JamesBCFC]

1 hour ago, Harry said:

Possibly the worst analogy I’ve ever seen 

Coming from you, that's quite the compliment.

Thought you weren't replying to me any more anyway.

[Riaz]

4 hours ago, JamesBCFC said:

If you've been robbed, but there isn't the evidence to convict the person who did it, were you still robbed?

My point was in the context of someone feeling or claiming they have been wronged isn’t enough… because quite often, they haven’t been wronged. I used an example where i was accused of being a racist by a disgruntled customer.. there was no racism, therefore no evidence. It’s not enough to say the “victim” said so