As the world cyclocross championships come to a close this evening, the UCI’s decision to stage the event in Fayetteville, Arkansas has come under fire due to the state’s anti-trans legislation.
In April 2021, Arkansas became the first state to ban gender-affirming treatments and surgery for transgender youth. Later that month Brook Watts, a longstanding cyclocross promoter in the United States, resigned from his role as organiser of the Fayetteville world championships in protest against the new law.
“The situation in Arkansas remains problematic and unfortunately, I don’t see any satisfactory resolution,” Watts said at the time. “I have sincerely but unsuccessfully attempted to work out my concerns and differences with constituents. However, regrettably, we were not successful”.
At the US national cyclocross championships in December, anti-trans activists representing a group called ‘Save Women’s Sport’ staged a protest, shouting and holding signs opposing transgender participation during the women’s race.
USA Cycling was heavily criticised for not taking adequate action to prevent the protest taking place at the event in DuPage County, Illinois, with trans rights supporters saying that the governing body did not facilitate a safe and inclusive environment for all competitors and spectators.
> British Cycling launch consultation on transgender policy
Tara Seplavy, the deputy editor of Bicycling Magazine, referenced the protest in Illinois when she announced on social media yesterday that she was boycotting this weekend’s world championships.
“For several reasons I don’t feel personally safe going to Arkansas right now as a visibly trans person,” she wrote. “I also do not feel comfortable rewarding USA Cycling for its continued lack of action or follow-up for allowing a hate group to attend US national championship events to harass athletes. I am not even sure if I will tune in to watch the races online at this point to be frank.
“The ship sailed moons ago on any type of boycott or direct action of the event. Instead of attending Worlds, I urge friends and followers to donate to organizations fighting against hate legislation in the state, doing work for the queer community in the region, or advocating for the rights of trans athletes in cycling.”
301 thoughts on “UCI world cyclocross championships under fire due to anti-trans laws in host state Arkansas”
When did women’s rights
When did women’s rights become a “hate group”? And when, in a democracy, did authorities incur censure for [i]allowing[/i] protest?
Well said
Well said
Garage at Large wrote:
oof, a racist and anti-trans. Shocked, shocked I am.
How is being anti-trans
How is being anti-trans anything to do with ‘women’s rights’?
Presumably you’re fine with
Presumably you’re fine with women being forced out of sport because biological men with demonstrable retained advantages are competing in the same category as them? That’s not fair. Trying to link this to white power and black athletes, is false equivalence and designed to distract from the issue at hand.
https://savewomenssports.com/
Thanks for the link, the one
Thanks for the link, the one which leads with a quote from a daily mail article. Says it all really.
Not getting into an argument about something which I have no stake in or lived experience of as to do so would be extremely patronising, so will just leave it to the ACLU who I feel may (?) know what they’re talking about.
https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/four-myths-about-trans-athletes-debunked/
MsG wrote:
Please define “biological men”. Is it a new brand of washing powder?
Please define “biological men
Please define “biological men”. Is it a new brand of washing powder?
This Paroxysmal Political Correctness is getting out of hand: we all know what biological males are: 23 X,Y without any mosaicism or other chromosomal abnormalities, and biological females are 23 X,X. That’s all there is to it. It’s just carping to criticise the substitution of ‘men’ for ‘male’. It seems to have been generally accepted that people can claim to be whatever gender they choose, but it has not been generally accepted that athletes can compete in whatever sex-separated event they choose. There are arguments on both sides.
wtjs wrote:
The XY chromosome is just that. It determines primary sexual characteristics. But that’s about it (and it’s by no means fail safe in that regard either)
Nobody looks at each others tackle (much less less a genetic test) to categorise them on first meeting. The assumptions we make a more about cultural differences. hair, clothing, presence of make up, type of scent.
It’s really (really!) rare that we put any more thought in it than that. Yes, even when completing in sports events. I’ve done a few and I’ve never been asked for evidence of gender.
Of course there are arguments in both sides, that’s why there’s an argument.
Only I’m finding it harder to see how we can say with any conviction of integrity, yes I accept you as a woman (or man), and you have a right to live your life as you see fit. Except in this part of public life that I feel uncomfortable about.
Captain Badger wrote:
Presumably because everyone knows attempting to sex a badger always offends?
chrisonatrike wrote:
Presumably because everyone knows attempting to sex a badger always offends?— Captain Badger
Well that all depends on the context…
Captain Badger wrote:
Presumably you’re fine with women being forced out of sport because biological men with demonstrable retained advantages are competing in the same category as them? That’s not fair. Trying to link this to white power and black athletes, is false equivalence and designed to distract from the issue at hand.
https://savewomenssports.com/
— Captain Badger Please define “biological men”. Is it a new brand of washing powder?— MsG
That won’t wash…
That won’t wash…
MsG wrote:
Can you demonstrate how women are being forced out of women’s sports?
Can you demonstrate how
Can you demonstrate how biological females *don’t* lose out to the inclusion of men in their category?
It reduces the opportunity for women to win – this does put them off competing.
There’s also the issue of removing single sex spaces e.g. in changing rooms – this has a massive impact on women from particular religions, meaning they are deterred from taking part in sport.
MsG wrote:
I take it from your answer that you can’t demonstrate how women are being forced out of women’s sport. Of course you can’t. Because they’re not.
The most you can refer to is a wild assumption that (some) women might not want to participate in a given event. And why? Because another competitor might have an assumed (yet not demonstrated) advantage due to physical or genetic characteristics. Sounds like every competition ever to me…
Now for me to answer your question you’d have to define “biological females” (have already asked you to do so) but I will respond to your minor point on facilities
I’ve entered events with unsegregated changing facilities – individual cubicles. I’ve also taken part in mixed events with no facilities at all. One would have thought that it isn’t beyond the wit of organisers to ensure these issues don’t even surface by adequately catering for their own events.
And yes, the above is a mere logistical detail. It does not even come close to informing a debate about accepting our fellow humans fo who they are
Google Leah Thomas, Fallon
Google Leah Thomas, Fallon Fox, Alana McLoghlin, Laurel Hubbard.
All biological males that are or have demonstrated that if more biological males transition then there’s a high possibility they will be dominant in the chosen sport.
The 2016 Womens Olympic 800m was won by 3 intersex (all have XY chromosomes and male testosterone levels) athletes. Displacing the biological female to 4th.The chances of having 3 intersex athletes is extremely rare but this just shows that it’s more than likely they’ll dominate.
We should accept people for who they are and who they wish to be but when it comes to sports there has to a defining line.
But what about counter
But what about counter examples – the trans wrestler who didn’t win, etc?
maybe define “woman” in a way that is rigorous first, then see if that gives an outcome that is desirable. Because when someone says “sex” it’s unlikely they know anythung more than herp derp XX XY and that’s such a “surface” level view it’s useless. Ask actual biologists about sexy and be prepared for a very long conversation.
I’ll highlight your last line
I’ll highlight your last line, as this seems to get to teh crux.
This seems to mean “I get to chose how far people who aren’t like me get to participate in public life”
Haha! Oh how we can twists
Haha! Oh how we can twists others words eh? Let’s change my words to fit your narrative yeah? Maybe call me a bigot next if I don’t shut up?
As I’ve already stated, in normal life it doesn’t matter what you are and what you do and what you want to identify as. In sports, where one physical prescence is pitted against another, not ideals or feelings but actual physical beings then it comes down to very minute differences at the elite level.
Has anyone spoken to a female that’s competed at the highest level and had dreams shattered by someone who’s had a clear, but unfair advantage?
How do you think the forum of a female dominated sport related website would look?
You keep dismissing gender
You keep dismissing gender identity as mere “feelings”
dont
Seperste but equal – that’s your idea? Just be honest.
Believe me, I’m not
Believe me, I’m not dismissing gender identity as mere feelings. I have nephew that was once my niece 10 years ago and another niece that may also be my nephew in the coming years (she’s 13). Both have gone through turmoil, self-harming and even attempted suicide. I would never look at my nephew and call him any less of a man than I am. The fact I’ve got a condition that renders me unable to produce testosterone means I can in some small way empathise (I had thoughts of many kinds while trying to get treatment and we both apply testosterone). But, after saying all that, he could never compete against biological men in most sports due to the fact he’s never gone through puberty. No amount of training, will power and even PEDs can bridge the gap that puberty and prolonged exposure to testosterone gives.
sparrowlegs wrote:
No, the words were clear. No twisting no misrepresenting.
No I don’t think you are a bigot. But I do think you’re wrong
no argument there
All advantages are unfair. That’s how people win. And yes dreams are shattered the top level of sport – we see it played out at every top-level event.
Not dissimilar to here I suppose – with people talking to each other and disagreeing
I must confess, I don’t actually see the point of your post…. None of what you have said addresses the point of how we accept trans people in their chosen identity (the vast majority of whom do not compete in top-level competitive sport) whilst at the same time unilaterally limiting, without consultation, how they participate in public life.
I’m not trying to limit the
I’m not trying to limit the public life of trans people and I haven’t stated that. I’ve tried to be as inclusionary as possible whilst still making sure biological women have a clear, fair and level playing field.
When you say “all advantages are fair” you’re right. In every sport, the biggest, fastest, strongest nearly always come through to dominate. That’s not what I’m saying here. I’m stating that from a testosterone point of view, what makes boys in to men (and transitioning females to men) gives those people an unfair advantage in the sporting arena. I’m not saying just because I don’t think a transitioned biological male should compete in sports against biological females they don’t have the right to exist in public life. What I’m asking is where do the rights of the biological females in sports not to compete against biological males come in to play?
So, again. Separate but equal
So, again. Separate but equal. You’re a woman, except where we have arbitrarily drawn the line. And it is arbitrary, there is no scientific definition of “biologically female”, which is why you have crazy rulings such as a dis woman being told they have to take testosterone blockers to make it “fair” on others.
the only solution that actually respects everyone’s rights is, if you’re going to have a dividing line because historically you’ve always had one, have it based in soemthing a tad more scientific than 46xx goes one way and 46xy another.
maybe – and here’s a crazy thought! – DONT create a binary when it’s proven that a binary doesn’t actually exist in reality? Maybe have, like you have for lots of sports, some form of tiering system based on physiological traits.
That’s the long term solution. Enforced binary was a poor solution. Continuing it makes no sense.
I’m literally shaking my head
I’m literally shaking my head at this. I think I’ve been catfished in some way, but…
So, lets disregard science. Let’s disregard the fact that XX XY has been and will be the best way of drawing a defining line when it comes to SPORTS.
Lets explore your physiological tier system. How would that work? Break it down for me? What would use for the defining traits? Height? Weight? Arm length? Leg length? Lung capacity? Hematocrit levels? How many different categories would be needed?
Also, can you show me examples of the other sports where they are broken down by physiological traits?
If you’ve ever seen this
If you’ve ever seen this argument play out elsewhere on social media then you should be aware that those in favour of mens’ rights outweighing fairness don’t agree with 99.9% of the rest of the world’s view on biological sex.
The whataboutery is strong!
If you haven’t encountered this before – welcome! I suggest you seek out Emma Hilton, Jon Pike, and Ross Tucker’s work.
It’s pointless continuing to argue with people who are prepared to dismiss womens rights so casually and even brand those campaigning to defend them hateful. However it does help to shed light for bystanders.
Oh what nonsense MsG.
Oh what nonsense MsG.
TERFs like you are only pro-their kind of women. Echoes of a 1930s ideology abound
all TERFs manage is to show bystanders that you still have some amazingly bigoted narrow minded people that can’t let other people live their life and decide about their bodies for the,selves. A large number are forced-birthers as well, which at least is consistent with failing to respect a woman’s right to choose for themselves at least…
sparrowlegs wrote:
Isn’t this about making it so people feel they are able both to compete and to compete fairly with others?
Simple principles. On the other hand this is presumably about Big Sport which then brings in complications (after all there’s nothing to stop anyone riding around the park issuing challenges!)
From an outside perspective (e.g. not really big on the sports) it seems to me that your tier system would have to be the way forward. Sports governing bodies love making rules / categories. Said bodies already make arbitrary rules around body / technique / various hormones and other substances in your system *. In the far more varied world of the paralympics enabling and matching fairly seems to be possible.
Agree there will be difficulties about the details. The practical realities of sport involve commercial pressures, political tensions, state funding (or not), corruption, cheating and all that we’re learning about the sometimes abusive relationships of members of the hierarchy with athletes. (Again – overwhelmingly men doing the abusing there…)
* In general these rules seem to be applied to women and to their disadvantacge. I understand that like all categories this arises through history – presumably to do with what some Eastern block states were getting up to. Plenty of examples – Caster Semenya and Maria José Martínez-Patiño may be the best-known. By this point I’ve no idea whether you’d say that was restoring a level playing field to lots of women at the expense of a few outliers or disadvantaging particular women.
I’m still waiting for your
I’m still waiting for your “science” definition of biology than ACTUAL biologists would agree on. Because they certainly don’t agree that the totality of sex is defined by the mere existence of XX or XY. Which you’d know, if you’d bothered to read any of the links others thoughtfully found for you.
it will be? There can never ever be a better system? That’s quite the claim yiure making about the human races inability to get better and improve.
I don’t have the answer as to what the perfect system is. Just stating the obvious fact – well, not obvious to all, clearly – that there can be a better system where you don’t have to tell a cis-woman that she is “too manly” to compete withiut taking hormone blockers.
rifle shooting, eaquestrian, and other sports. Didn’t take long.
so,,how about you finally defining “biological female” ? You keep using the term but don’t know what it means…
JHC. Are you still going at
JHC. Are you still going at it? You haven’t come up with a better way to define the already defined biological male and biological female catagories other than to call science and biology a fallacy.
Until something comes along that gives the simplicity of the current 2 sex categories then we’ll just have to carry on using that.
Rifle shooting? Equestrian? Where are the competitors physical traits used to create catagories?
https://olympics.com/en/featured-news/olympic-shooting-air-rifle-3-positions-rapid-fire-air-pistol-shotgun-trap-skeet
I couldn’t find anything there that mentions specific physical traits of the shooters. So I’ll await your link that proves otherwise.
Same with equestrian, another popular sport played up and down the country on school fields. I couldn’t find any evidence that the riders are separated by physical traits. So again, I await your link.
I gave you the textbook definition of a biological female earlier, did you miss that one? You’re muddying the waters because you know there’s more evidence that biological markers give a better indicator to the persons sex than anything else. Not gender, sex. You’re conflating scientific facts with thoughts and feelings so as to try and disprove something that’s obvious to 99% of the population so that biological men can beat biological women in sports. Simple as that in this context. Anybody that’s opposed your view has been called names to try and shut them up (sounds a bit like hate speech doesn’t it?).
Mostly because I don’t need
Mostly because I don’t need to, you genital obsessed individual. All I can do is point out the blindingly obvious – that when you have cis female athletes being told to take hormone blockers that your simplified view of how to arbitrarily split sport may have one or two problems, don’t you think?
Which textbook definition is that? A high school / gcse level one that only thinks a single chromosomal pair is the be all and end all? How is that meant to be convincing when actual biologists – those people say better at this than you or I – don’t agree on how to universally define sex ? Never mind gender, which isn’t the same as sex despite your repeated conflation of the two!
not calling you names to shut you up. Pointing out your anti trans, separate but equal viewpoint is abhorrent. You’re taking a marginalised group, based on some stats widely considered to be the most discriminated against group in modern society, and deciding that rather than actually reform sport along anything other than a guess as to a dividing line, you’d rather exclude them further.
so, once you’ve found a none naive, laughably bad definition of “biological female”, share it. As I’ve said, you’d make bank in the papers you’d be able to write, as people have been looking for this for literal decades now and can’t agree. You’d be a wonder, a marvel for all ages. So, go on them. Any time you’re ready. Dazzle us.
Can you define cis-female? It
Can you define cis-female? It’s something you’ve used but not really given a definition of.
Can you define a trans athlete too please?
Have I mentioned genitals in any post?
Can you provide the story to the cis-female that was forced to reduce her testosterone levels?
So that’s “no”, you can’t
So that’s “no”, you can’t define biological female in a non-trivial way. Thanks for confirming.
Cis-gender would be someone who identifies that their gender is congruent with the sex assigned (usually) at birth from that quick glance you’re given. Notice how this still doesn’t involve XX and XY….a trans athlete would also be fairly s8mple as a combination , usually considered to be an athlete whose gender identity does not match the sex they were assigned at birth Because gender isn’t biology alone.
You keep going on about characteristics not based in chromosomes as your dividing line, so yes.
https://www.aljazeera.com/sports/2021/2/28/caster-semenyas-fight-is-for-all-women-lawyer-says
hardly tricky. Quite well known. Notice how it’s apparently not fair for this cis-woman to compete withiut taking hormone blockers to reduce her natural testosterone levels ? My word, is that a sport deciding that the arbitrary dividing line isn’t enough and a Physiological difference is suddenly used to decide whether she can compete with men or women?
sparrowlegs wrote:
You know, these things aren’t hard to google…
Cis-female
“Cis, short for cisgender (pronounced sis-gender, or just sis), is a term that means whatever gender you are now is the same as what was presumed for you at birth. This simply means that when a parent or doctor called you a boy or a girl when you were born, they got it right.”
– https://www.transhub.org.au/101/cis
Trans athlete
I’m presuming that Count Orlok means an athlete who is trans (ie. presumed male at birth but identifies as female, or vice versa)
Cis-female athletes and testosterone levels
(1) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-57748135
(2) https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/sep/08/caster-semenya-loses-appeal-against-world-athletics-testosterone-rules
sparrowlegs wrote:
I think that is what is happening. You asked for a dividing line when it comes to sports
I still would like a definition of “biological female”.
It seems (and I’m really not trying to put words into your mouth) that what is meant is a genetic test to ensure that the individual has the desired genotype, in this case XX.
This would be the only sphere of public life ( of which I am aware) where it would be required.
Every person (trans or not) would be required to take a genetic test to enter a woman’s event.
Alternatively, you would only test people who fell “under suspicion…”
Unless of course, a passport or birth certificate would suffice. these are both pretty onerous requirements to apply for a sporting event, especially as it is unlikely to be required in the men’s.
And passports and birth records don’t have a genetic test either – the sex of a child is determined by a cursory glance from medical staff on arrival. So this is not a test for genotype, it is a test for phenotype of primary sexual characteristics. There is a strong correlation, and a causative one, it is true, however it is not universal, and mistakes are made. Add to that there are only two legal options for sex on teh birth certificate, and it becomes perfectly possible that there are many none-XX already participating in women’s sport, unknown even to themselves. Following the logic that XX confers a disadvantage in sport (perhaps, although it does feed into the patriarchal view that women are weaker and categorically different from men), they may well already be presenting at a higher percentage than in the background population, and at the higher levels.
So much for at birth. Lets face it, after puberty we start to get suspicious that someone might have an unfair advantage in sport due to how they appear. They’re tall, heavily built, a bit hairy, flat chested, deep voiced. All of these are secondary sexual characteristics, and not a direct phenotype. In short they are not directly controlled by genes – there are no monohybrid inheritance traits at this stage. So when “suspicion” is raised the individual come under close scrutiny, with prurient interest garnered about what is in their pants or genome. Cheat, freak etc are bandied around freely, which when intersex or trans I can imagine would be yet more persecution to what they already suffer.
And this is only considering the top level competitve game, a tiny percentage of participants relatively. How we start to apply this to the game that most women participate in clubs or at school I find difficult to fathom – especially at school where trans people I think would need most support and acceptance
possibly, although the production of testosterone (and oestrogen) occurs in both men and women, has no gender identifying levels, rather trends cross the population, and even then fluctuates in the individual according to many factors. it also is less important than people think (Testosterone Rex by Cordelia Fine is a really fascinating read – it’s a science book primarily)
But let’s imagine now testosterone is the be-all and end-all. Now we move away from scrutiny of a strict genotype, and turn our gimlet stare to a variable phenotype that is influenced by a myriad of genes, not the XX/XY (false) dichotomy. Does this mean that if a woman has too high a level she can only participate in the men’s events? and I with my below-average levels (a guess, however half of men have below average), in spite of my stature, and muscle mass, may now compete with the women, or at least with the women that have higher levels than me?
Now the terms biological male/female have sprung up on a number of occasions, however folk are still reluctant to say what they mean. In reality, the terms have no basis scientifically, unless we take a very narrow genetic view of genotype presented by 1 chromosome pair out of 23 and define male and female on that basis, to exclusion of all others. Only we don’t in society, it would be a conceit. Perhaps there is desire for changing the names of events from men’s and women (cultural constructs) to XY and XX events, requiring anyone who wants to enter to undergo a invasive lab test, but I think not – and it too would be exclusionary.
The fair play I get, but we also, really, understand it is an illusion – all winners are better than the people they beat on the day. Some are better so consistently in their time in the light, that no one else gets a look in. That has never deterred me from participating. A friend was shocked that I, when going up against the then British number one of my chosen sport in an Open competition (who I unfortunately drew in the first round, grrrr), stated my intention to win. The fact that I was not going to was neither here nor there.
Sport is a massive cultural phenomenon and is public. Ultimately the reluctance to accept trans people at this level still is a projection, at a subconscious level granted, of that nagging thought “but they aren’t really women”.
Another excellent post there.
Another excellent post there.
I do so love it when you have people trying to reduce a complex topic down to gcse level biology and expect to just have that view accepted. Sex and gender are way more complicated than that, something we would have more data on if it hadn’t been for a certain governement in the 1930s. Dropped us back decades.
Passports in the US wouldn’t
Passports in the US wouldn’t help either – you can. Now have the X marker for NB / GF et al.
Sriracha wrote:
I can think of several examples
With so many locations to
With so many locations to choose from to hold the championships, why choose a state with laws from the dark ages. Find somewhere more inclusive and enlightened
Erm… one word answer to
Erm… one word answer to that one… the sponser, Walmart. They are based and originated in AR.
I don’t care much for the
I don’t care much for the labelling of womens right groups as “hate groups”. Protesting for womens rights does not equal harassment of people who don’t share the same view. It seems the inclusive world that is called for Tara calls for doesn’t include people who disagree.
Except they’re literally
Except they’re literally harassing people who don’t share the same view, aren’t they? The idea that a ‘tolerant’ society should tolerate hate speech has been repeatedly debunked, I suggest Google but bing would also work.
When you say “tolerate hate
When you say “tolerate hate speech” that’s where you lose me. I disagree that having a different view makes it hate speech. (Also disagreeing on this point doesn’t mean I hate you).
They are absolutely hate
They are absolutely hate groups, as they’re only “our kind of women” womens rights groups. Much like the LGB Alliance, TERFs are NOT pro womens rights.
Well said my pointy toothed
Well said my pointy toothed friend. To elaborate for the benefit of TinMan:
JHC. I’m gobsmacked that this kind of exclusionary behaviour has to be explained to someone who’s presumably a cyclist.
It’s the pattern of behaviours that make them so insidious and obvious when you know what to look for.
Firstly oppose an out group that threatens the status quo. Say cyclists or trans ppl.
Exagerate or invent a threat. Light jumping or bathroom rape.
When in reality the opposite is true. Dead cyclists from RTA’s or abused and suicidal trans ppl.
Tell undecided people “they” are coming for them.
Use the resultant fear and reaction to cloak yourselves in respectability and supportive coverage to lobby that something must be done.
Double down on the status quo.
They did it to gays for decades, cyclists for decades and now they are doing it to trans ppl.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
I think there is an inherent difference between persecution in life, and a level playing field in sport.
There is only one question, does a trans woman have a physiological advantage over a born woman?
Does having gone through puberty as a male then transitioning lead to increased strength. Clearly it does or testosterone would not be a banned substance. How much time with reduced testosterone levels is required to redress the balance, or is it never equalised?
This is a strange viewpoint.
This is a strange viewpoint.
Are groups that advocate for gay rights or black lives not interested in human rights?
Cis women may only represent 99% of women on the planet but being pro cis women’s right doesn’t make you a hate group.
If increasing the rights of group X will diminish the rights of group Y then surely group Y should be able to say something about that without being labeled bigots?
When when you’re an
When when you’re an exclusionary group that’s fighting to diminish others rights because they’re not “our kind of woman”, yes, they’re a hate group.
Have any women ever been
Have any women ever been harmed by the inclusion of trans women in spaces previously reserved for cis women only.
They have.
So if you’re concerned about the safety of cis women you’re hateful?
If you’re concerned that trans women have inherent advantages over cis women in some sports then you’re hateful?
Accusing people you disagree with of bigotry is a pretty poor substitute for a decent rational argument.
Have any women been harmed by
Have any women been harmed by cis-identifying males accessing single gender spaces.
yes they have.
is this rate astronomically higher than the rate of cis-women harming women in single gender spaces? Yes.
is this rate higher than the rate of trans-women harming any women in single gender spaces? ALSO yes. We know this because the rates are so low there are no meaningful statistics on crimes commited by trans women
so, in any rational society a good approach is to address the higher risk factors first. You also consider the relative rights of those involved – rights are not absolute, as should be well known, so you have to balance the rights of a group or individual against the rights of the other.
When confronted by a comparatively minor in occurrence , and in some cases exceptionally weakly defined “harm” versus the provable harm that comes from denying one of the single most marginalised and discriminated against groups in modern society, it feels a little wrong to decide that any amount of perceived “harm” justifies further excluding and demeaning a group of people just trying to live an already harder to live life. Seperate but equal is a phrase that hasn’t been used for a while, for good reason
To put this in cycling terms, an apt comparison is bike registration. It causes more harm than the “problem” it would “solve” causes, and neatly ignores the million uninsured motor vehicles showing that registration woukdnt be enforced anyway…
Are you aware that it is
Are you aware that it is becoming difficult to ascertain the crime statistics committed by transwomen due to said crimes being increasingly recorded as being committed by women (this include those men self identifying as women). Interesting how this obscures what would be a useful piece of information isn’t it?
A trend that has been noted however from the data available is that (a) transwomen show a male pattern in rates of offending and (b) half the transwomen in prison are in for one or more sex offences. An increasing number of whom are in womens’ prisons.
So if transwomen are in single sex female spaces, the biological women are at least the same risk as sharing the space with a non-identifying as women male.
Another point to pick up on, is if (particularly) we go with self Id, how is any woman supposed to differentiate between true trans and a pretending “cis-gender” male?
https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-male-criminality-sex-offences/
https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-prison-policy/
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/trans-offenders-are-skewing-crime-statistics
Oh that old chestnut again.
Oh that old chestnut again.
im assuming you’re a member of LGB Alliance, given the copy and paste (literally) “talking points” that yiu seem to think are so killer …
the claim that trans women exhibit a “cis male” pattern is complete hookup because, as the cps have stated, there are not enough cases identified to actually produce meaningful stats…
but sure, you keep on with “not-our type-of-woman”. It’s absolutely NOT a bigoted piece of hokum that should have been buried in the 1940s but is still rearing it’s ugly head amongst, thankfully, a shrinking number of TERFs .
I owe a large number of my rights as a gay cis man to trans women and men, and am also a compassionate human who actually cares…
Looks like Addison didn’t get
Looks like Addison didn’t get the memo, 3:28 onwards in this video
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lAZjoPaXwt8&t=391s
You might also want to give Caitlyn a refresher too
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56960011.amp
Mr Phelps, even after having a relationship with an intersex partner still feels that allowing biological males to compete in womens sports is unfair
https://www.insider.com/michael-phelps-trans-athletes-womens-sports-doping-comparison-2022-1?amp
Yes, because as we know, all
Yes, because as we know, all trans people are a homogenous group and cannot possibly have their own view points. What’s next in your attempt to be relevant?
btw Mrs Jenner was pro trans sports until … she decided to run as a republican candidate when the republicans platform is anti trans. Shock. A politician (wanna be) happens to change their mind when it’s politically expedient, like, I don’t know, prominent remainer Boris too thick to know they’re at a party Johnson ?
So, found that definition of biological female yet? You asked and two of us answered your trivial questions, I’m sure yiure managed a basic treatise by now? Come on. Tick rock. Fame awaits this masterful revelation.
You know what, I don’t think
You know what, I don’t think it really matters in this regard. I don’t have to define what a biological anything is. Let’s leave it to the sports governing bodies and see what they decide. It might even come down to what the paying public decide what they want to see in womens sports.
It’s not my fight. This is for women to fight it out for themselves. They’ve been fighting for their rights for quite a few years so they are well set up for this type of thing. I’ll just sit this out and watch from the sidelines.
Ive enjoyed this little too and fro. I wish you all the best and genuinely hold no grudge or judgement against you. I hope a outcome that’s fair for everyone can be reached, whatever that is.
Gotcha, you’ve used a term to
Gotcha, you’ve used a term to demean trans people (by making them seperste but equal) but yiu don’t have to define it.
Feminism is everyone’s fight, and I’m constantly aware of my assumed privileges in life, plus where I’m not so lucky.
please enjoy life but don’t think it’s not your fight. I’m in this to make everyone’s life a little better.
Cis Women have been raped and
Cis Women have been raped and sexually assaulted by trans women given access to their women only spaces.
Your argument is that this harm is acceptable relative to the harm caused by excluding trans women from these spaces.
That is a perfectly logical way to look at the problem but when you’re asking cis-women to accept a higher risk of rape and assault ‘for the greater good’ it seems a bit rich to then call them bigots for having a different perspective.
It’s also how, historically,
It’s also how, historically, courts have assessed the balance of rights. It’s also pointing out the occurrence is far lower than reportage might indicate, AND that a trans woman is more likely to be the victim than the perpetrator.
Thatsnalso not what these groups actually represent, which would be blindingly obvious if more than a cursory glance from you went their way. They are very much trans women are not women, and very much of the idea that they should know the contents of someone’s pants anytime they wish. See MsGs standard TERF idea that they need to know who is “true trans” and that allowing someone to “self ID” – you know, having that crazy idea that human adults might have agency and be able to decide who they are for themselves , shock! – is ldangerous”
it’s the standard, tired old dog whistling nonsense and hyperbole that’s been taken advantage of by the right wing.
You can justify your position
You can justify your position in anyway you like but, to put it bluntly, you’re asking cis women to accept that the occasional rape or sexual assault is the price you want them to pay for your vision of a fairer society.
Cis women are simply the collateral damage in your grand plan and any of them that object to that will be vilified as TERFs/Bigots etc.
As a gay man how would you feel if the government introduced a policy that would lead to an increase in homophobic violence and then told you to accept the increased risk to your personal safety as the price of a better society for all?
Again, you fail to address
Again, you fail to address the disparity in rates. To put it bluntly, yiur argument is the usual dog whistle garbage that TERFs usually throw out, chiefly because it fails to address that cis-men cause more issues in womens spaces than trans-women do, and don’t seek to address the higher risk factor first. It’s exactly the same as the less important cycle registration chestnut that idiot drivers spout. It ignores the million uninsured drivers and pretends any solution is better
and yes, society is about accepting risk for some when not doing so has a disproportionately shitty effect on others. That you don’t give a damn that trans people are, historically and currently, one of the most discriminated, abused and scarred groups is apparent and abhorrent. That just allowing people to live their lives isn’t ok with you because they need to be collectively punished for the actions of a few. A few so small that meaningful stats don’t exist on offending rates but you can’t take any risk…
what’s the purpose behind this policy you’ve just made up? What does it address? What benefit would it bring that would make balancing the increased risk to me and others worthwhile? See, notice how your frankly pathetic “what about….” fallacy doesn’t help you in any way, because I’m not goi g to talk in absolutes but actually analyse the situation from a rational standpoint, as opposed to the dog whistling you’re doing?
Simple question.
Simple question.
Will the policy of allowing trans women access to women only spaces increase the absolute risk of sexual assault for the cis women currently occupying the spaces?
Yes or no?
The answer is yes.
You are telling cis women that they have to accept that risk. Would you accept a similar risk to yourself without objection.
Trans women have a very high rate of sexual offending in women’s prison. The absolute number is low only because the number of trans women in women’s prisons is low. The relative risk compared to a cis woman is huge.
Why should vulnerable cis women have to accept that increased risk?
Rich_cb wrote:
Not sure that allows you to infer anything about sport though…? (EDIT – Apologies if you’d already moved to the general. This discussion is inherently going to go to the maximal case obviously). Are you only saying “we should examine putting trans women together with cis-women in prisons?” (and maybe we should also add qualification about people who were already in prison who chose to transition while in prison before being moved…?) If you’re extrapolating to any other case I think you need some other evidence. Prisons are very different environments than most spaces and there is a ton of evidence for different – and specific – behaviours there. I seem to recall there’s a high rate of sexual assaults in men’s prisons – rather higher than outside prison. Maybe we should police all men’s changing rooms then (or men should have a criminal records check before sharing changing rooms)?
Additionally I would guess – no evidence, sorry but someone else will deffo know! – that trans individuals are at a much higher risk *within* prisons also. Multiple factors on that, doubtless.
You’re normally excellent at finding research / citing evidence – that’s why I’m asking!
We were discussing offending
We were discussing offending rates. Statistics are available for sexual offending rates within prisons.
Trans women have a far higher rate of sexual offending within prisons than cis women.
This article contains statistics on offending in prisons and trans prisoner numbers:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/02/trans-women-with-sex-offence-convictions-in-female-jails-lawful-rules-judge
Number of total prisoners in women’s prisons here:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/283475/england-and-wales-prison-population-by-gender/
Crunching the numbers there were 34 trans women in women’s prisons. They were responsible for 7 sexual offences over 3 years.
The corresponding figure for cis women is approximately 3,900 prisoners and 90 sexual offences over the same period.
3900/90 gives a rate of 1 offence per 43 inmates.
34/7 gives a rate of 1 offence per 4.9 inmates.
An order of magnitude larger.
If just 10% of the female prison population were trans women we could expect the number of sexual assaults to double.
Is the trauma inflicted on those 7 women worth the benefit of housing 34 trans women in a women’s prison?
I don’t think it is.
So you’ve
So you’ve
– selected a small sample and are pretending you can extrapolate out from this small sample it’s such a small sample that the confidence levels are hugely low and I’m also aware of these stats because they’re the same stats LBG alliance uses to call for collective punishment of all trans people after calling trans women “men” of course,
– selected a self selecting small sample of people exhibiting criminal behaviour, and appear to be extrapolating this out as if it applies to the wider population. This is unsound in obvious ways. Firstly it is too small a sample to be meaningful, has no control group, and it’s trying to draw a link between existing criminals and further criminal behaviour and a group withiut that (proven) initial behaviour.
Fortunately for everyone , people with a little more idea on how to balance harm have looked at this and concluded you remain wring
You are entitled to your bigoted opinion, based on a seeming fear of the other and ignoring the much wider societal issues while yiu collectively punish one of the most marginalised and discriminated groups in modern society, but it remains an opinion with fortunately no policy implications amongst more rational members.
I think you’re done here.
I’ve provided statistics.
I’ve provided statistics.
The difference in rates of offending between the two groups is enormous.
The sample sizes are indeed small and you are correct that confidence intervals will be wide but it is the best evidence that we have and given the size of the difference between the two groups it is still likely to be significant.
You can choose to base your opinion on the best evidence available or you can choose otherwise.
Your position is that you are willing to see a small number of additional cis women suffer sexual assaults and rapes in order to produce a more trans inclusive society.
Why should you, as a cis man, be able to call for a policy which you know will lead to more cis women being raped?
What gives you the right to denigrate the women who object to this?
Throwing around words like bigot doesn’t win you the argument, it just exposes the weakness of your position.
Rich_cb wrote:
No, you’ve provided numbers. Calling them “statistics” when you haven’t analysed for obvious sources of bias (in reporting of and collection, to give two obviousnstarting points for why your analysis is laughably poor and wouldn’t meet GCSE stats requirements) and then *admitting* that your confidence is low (while failing to address the self selecting nature of your sample and the failure to account for population make up ie offences, age groups, sentence length, conditions etc) by just hand waving away “this is the best we have” as if that makes it any better!
If yiu have crap, untrustworthy data that’s too flawed to make extrapolations from, don’t extrapolate from it then!
My position is not what you’ve decided it is. My position is that the starting point is balance of rights between the most marginalised and the rest of society, and you’ve singularly failed to show anythung (ironically, you’ve made your position worse – like TERFs usually do so you’re in an undistinguished grouping at least) to dissuade me that this balance test still needs to be undertaken.
I have the right to call out bigoted behaviour, such as yours, at all times. I’ll call out bigoted groups that are anti trans and refuse to call all women women, instead dead naming or -gendering one of the most discriminated against groups (I love that you still won’t address why you are for collective punishment – you do realise that’s usually considered a war crime, yes?) we have in society, while ignoring an issue that’s of greater risk – which is offneifng rates of cis-men.
Going to address your logical fallacies? Or will yiu pretend they somehow strengthen your position?
statistic
statistic
/stəˈtɪstɪk/
plural noun: statistics
a fact or piece of data obtained from a study of a large quantity of numerical data.
I’m pretty sure what I presented meets that definition.
Have you any data whatsoever to back up your position?
Rich_cb wrote:
I’ve highlighted the bits that, despite you quoting, you don’t appear to understand
1) there was no “study” . Such a study would have included – assuming it is following usual best practice – the control and bias measures I’ve talked about before. I’m sorry you don’t seem to understand this
2) 34 is not a “large quantity” of numerical data. It’s also not even numerical data as it is, by its nature, approximating qualitative experiences into categories that can then be counted, but given the rather large flaw already with your numbers, and your complete inability to address a single one of the failings I’ve already covered, trying to explain this one to you seems like a lost cause.
I don’t need data to back up my position that the balance of rights test should be applied here, because, and again I’m explaining something quite obvious, part of the balance test involves looking at far more than just a single poorly founded sample that wouldn’t pass a gcse stats module exam.
So you have literally no data
So you have literally no data to back up your position?
Absolutely none?
The actual number of prisoners was 2900. 34 represented one group of said prisoners.
If you don’t think that’s a large enough number it suggests you have read very few published papers.
The best data we have suggests a sexual offending rate for trans women that is 10x higher than the rate for cis women.
Do you have any data whatsoever that shows otherwise?
My position that before
My position that before deciding collective punishment is ok, we do a balance of rights test? No p, I don’t need “data”to back up the position that the BALANCE OF RIGHTS TEST answers this by actually conducting an actual study
you, yet again, hand waved away that you are drawing conclusions from a sample that is too small to draw such a conclusion from. Never mind you’ve completely ignored – for the what, fourth time now? It’s hard to keep up with how much you ignore in the desperate need to “prove” you’re right – that extrapolating from this back to the actual topic, which is womens access to sport (that’s all women – unlike you, I know trans women are women) isn’t possible. Not in a sound way. Of course, you will do so, because you’re not arguing from a position of good faith, just bigotry.
Your conclusion, as presented, is a lie. Stop lying. Stop being a bigot. Not difficult, I would hope.
Rich_cb wrote:
(This is all against the backdrop that UK prisons are neither safe nor effective at preventing people from returning to them. This can also simply be read as “we need safer women’s prisons” or just “we need better ways of dealing with (female) offenders”).
Thanks – and I think as with the rest of this debate it all points to a wholly different arrangement than currently. Yes – we have separate units / facilities for certain categories of prisoners at elevated risk – sexual offenders I believe. I’m not sure that those are both complete (all sexual offenders in them) and exclusive (only those in that category) however.
As you said earlier the sample size for trans people here is small. Also what is the rate of sexual (and other assaults) on trans people in men’s prisons? Note we’re already in a calculus of harm here because in many cases putting people in prison increases their risk of harm anyway. (This is definitely arguable – for example it may overall decrease some women’s risk).
Certainly it’s the business of prisons (or should be…) to protect prisoners. I think there should also be a focus on re-integration. If we say people have the same status outside of prisons is it not important to reflect that within them?
The rapes and sexual assaults
The rapes and sexual assaults committed by trans women in women’s jail’s would clearly not have happened if the trans women were not in said jails.
What level of sexual violence are we prepared to accept in our prisons?
Is it ridiculous to say none?
Isolating those at highest risk of committing offences from those at highest risk of being victims of offences seems an entirely reasonable proposal in my opinion.
Rich_cb wrote:
Are you secretly agitating for the closing of all jails? How very leftie of you Rich. Unless you only care about certain genotypes getting raped. Or maybe you don’t care at all and are using this datapicking as a cynical way to score points against the evil people who believe that trans folk have a right to the same considerations as everyone else.
Or maybe you do directly support a policy (that of viciously underfunded incarceration) that ensures people of all genotypes get brutalised and traumatised whilst inside – look at general assault (of all types) and suicide rates in prisons.
Captain Badger wrote:
Are you secretly agitating for the closing of all jails? How very leftie of you Rich. Unless you only care about certain genotypes getting raped. Or maybe you don’t care at all and are using this datapicking as a cynical way to score points against the evil people who believe that trans folk have a right to the same considerations as everyone else.
Or maybe you do directly support a policy (that of viciously underfunded incarceration) that ensures people of all genotypes get brutalised and traumatised whilst inside – look at general assault (of all types) and suicide rates in prisons.— Rich_cb
Rich seems to be.
I do notice Rich doesn’t answer awkward questions. Just bullies on through hoping no one notices.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
They rarely respond to me at all. Now you put it like that I’ll take it as a compliment….
Yeah, I’d say it’s a
Yeah, I’d say it’s a compliment ?
They do tend to ignore anything inconvenient. Must be useful having such impenetrable blinkers…
So, no comment on yiur what
So, no comment on yiur what about fallacy? Or will you just ignore that like you keep ignoring the hokum you spout and get called on?
You are willing to see more
You are willing to see more cis women being raped and/or sexually assaulted in order to produce a more trans inclusive society.
Is that correct?
A simple yes or no is all that’s required.
So you’ve finally admitted
So you’ve finally admitted you’re arguing in bad faith?
good to see
Yet another fallacy – that of the false dichotomy – simply proves you’re not capable of presenting an argument without resorting to more contemptible behaviioir.
im in favour of a society where those most at risk of violence are treated better. If that means other elements of society have to shift to allow for that in a way that is safer for all, then yes
for example, sorting out the root cause rather than the symptom. Addressing WHY and HOW Women are getting assaulted in single gender spaces, most often by cis men, would be an obvious start.
much like “wear a bike helmet” is a moronic answer to the issue of cyclist deaths caused by inattentive motorists, making trans peoples lives worse just because you’re too lazy to address the cause isn’t a good answer.
You are willing to see more
You are willing to see more cis women being raped and/or sexually assaulted in order to produce a more trans inclusive society.
Is that correct?
A simple yes or no is all that’s required.
Rich_cb wrote:
You’re all for collective punishment of trans people simply wishing to live their lives as full members of society?
a simple yes or no is required
Answer my question.
Answer my question.
Yes or no.
I don’t believe I’ve called for collective punishment.
Is it collective punishment to exclude men from women’s jails?
If not, why not?
I won’t answer a false
I won’t answer a false dichotomy, as I explained but I’m guessing you didn’t understand. I reject the premise of your question
You stated you are for the exclusion of some women from womens sports, collectively punishing them because SOME of them MAY have an advantage that you consider unfair. That you don’t understand this is collective punishment isn’t really my issue to deal with.
and finally there we have your bigotry exposed for all to see. You do not think that trans-women are women.
Pretty sure you’re done here.
Well let’s break your
Well let’s break your argument down.
You think trans women prisoners should be housed in women’s jail’s and that such a policy will benefit trans women prisoners.
Correct?
We know that trans women have committed rapes and sexual assaults in women’s jails.
That is a non negotiable fact.
So, by definition, you support a policy that will lead to more cis women being raped/assaulted in order to create a more trans inclusive environment.
You can try and wriggle out of it all you like but that is your position.
Rich_cb]Well let’s break your
So you’re just going to ignore that you’re in favour of collective punishment, by excluding all trans women from participating in all womens segregated sports, because you believe that trans women aren’t actually women but are men, and believe some may have a competitive advantage?
yes or no.
come on…you keep making demands, but don’t actually manage to answer yourself. However I’m not the only one I don’t think who has noticed your flagrant bigotry…
I think that trans women are women, and that means in all ways, unlike you who has stated that trans women are actually men. Which is abhorrent.
Wrong. I already explained how I would look,to addrsss assault by ALL genders, but you ignored it. Again
it’s amazing. You break down “my” argument by instead writing something else that I didn’t say… impressive.
I think that trans women are
Please point to where I have said that or apologise and withdraw the comment.
You’ve accepted that you support housing trans women in women’s jail’s. Good, we’re finally getting somewhere.
Do you accept that trans women have committed rapes and sexual assaults against cis women whilst housed in women’s jail’s?
As for your balance of rights test, please explain how you can carry out such a test without data.
If you’re aiming to balance the harm done to one segment of society with the benefit derived by another segment of society surely you need some way to measure said harms and benefits?
Rich_cb wrote:
done so above, and quoted it. In context, when talking about your desire to remove trans women from womens prisons, you skipped and said the quiet part out loud.
So, how’s that collective punishment idea of yours going?
Yes. Do you accept that trans women have been assaulted in womens jails? Do you accept that cisxwomen have assaulted cis-women in womens jails? Do you accept that cis-men have assaulted women in womens jails? Do you accept that trans-women were assaulted in mens prisons?
Do you believe that any amount of harm to one group allows you to collectively punish an entire other group?
becsuse I’m not conducting the test? Additionally the starting point is equal treatment – trans- and cis- women are women, after all, and the extraordinary position ie the one that needs *proving* is that they are not equal So far you have not given any proof, becsue your only argument is that any amount of harm justifies collective punishment Luckily for the actual society we live in, that’s not how this is decided
Yes, I’ve never said I haven’t. I’ve simply pointed out that your “evidence” is so flawed as to provide no statistical value whatever. Literally none. I’ve explained, in sufficient detail, exactly what the problems are. You’ve failed to address one single issue raised. This means you accept that the issues are real. Meaning you accept you cannot draw a valid conclusion.
to do otherwise would be disingenuous.
We’re finally making some
We’re finally making some progress.
I addressed your point about collective punishment. You unfortunately misunderstood.
We currently exclude men from women’s jails.
Why do we do this?
The data I presented has only a relatively small sample size for trans women but the difference in rates of offending are huge. Small sample sizes can be used when the differences between the two groups are very large.
Has anyone carried out a balance of rights test for housing trans women in women’s prisons? You seem to base a lot of your argent on this idea but so far have not linked to a single piece of evidence to support it.
Rich_cb wrote:
no, I decided that you couldn’t surely be making the argument that, having decided as a matter of course to split along gender lines, you’d argue if doing so was collective punishment, Because by doing so you would still be saying trans-women aren’t women . Can you just confirm that you believe trans-women are women? An explicit statement is good,
are you now deciding we should have a seperste but equal prison system for women? Simple answer of yes or no there
Good question! Why do we have a system of jails that singular fail to protect inmates? Even better question!
csn be used with care, and only if you’ve answered all the other issues. You know, the ones you keep ignoring, preferring to cling only to numbers as if they’re going to somehow save your arguments only hope, that of extrapolation
so, can you answer all the other issues with this not at all scientifically sound study? K thanks
You seem to still not understand
The *startung point* is equality, You would only instigate a test to challenge the starting point. As, again, that’s how legal matters tend to be constructed – the injured (or claimed injured) brings suit, directly or by the state in their behalf (CPS prosecution). So has anyone done so? Not to my knowledge.
if you feel this strongly, maybe you can bring a JR to challenge this? Starting cost of mid five figures. You have to be represented, from memory.
If we take equality as our
If we take equality as our starting point why are men excluded from women’s jails?
Can you answer the question instead of deflecting.
I’m happy to accept that trans women are women. Yes.
Rich_cb wrote:
I answered. Try reading again.
can you answer the rest of the questions? To my count you’ve answered one of about two dozen.
No you didn’t. You deflected
No you didn’t. You deflected with an alternative question.
Try again.
Why do we exclude men from women’s jails?
Rich_cb wrote:
“no, I decided that you couldn’t surely be making the argument that, having decided as a matter of course to split along gender lines, you’d argue if doing so was collective punishment,”
because that would be a moronic argument.
is that clear enough?
What is your solution, almost your “final” solution, to the “problem” of trans-women being able to live their lives as the women they are? Are you going to create a third category in sport, maybe called “other”? Given this was originally about sport until you realised yiu couldn’t win that argument, then it became about offending rates in prison because you found these – to you – whizz stats that sadly for you turned out to be completely useless , for all the many reasons already given, can you at least answer that?
try again. I’ve asked multiple questions. You’ve answered one.
As we know, the correct answer is to deal with the chronic issues of violence in all prisons, withiut idiotically trying to deal with a )p(potential) symptom. A little bit like you don’t deal with cyclist deaths by mandating helmets, you deal with unsafe roads and how they influence motorist behaviours.
Now you’ve done it. The “h”
Now you’ve done it. The “h” word, we’ll be at 500 posts by the end of the day…
So you still haven’t answered
So you still haven’t answered the question.
Let’s try once more.
Why do we exclude men from women’s jails?
The answer to both questions is to abandon divisions along binary gender lines and develop new ways to divide the population in order to achieve the purported aims of the original binary gender divisions.
Which is why I asked why we exclude men from women’s prisons?
We could also ask why do we divide men and women’s sports?
Once we know what we are trying to achieve in each case we can redesign the system in order to achieve those aims in our modern times.
I answered, just not the
I answered, just not the answer you want.
I won’t play your games any more, Rich. You ignore questions you find inconvenient. It’s irritating. I’ve decided you’re not worth the irritation.
You won’t answer the question
You won’t answer the question because you can’t answer the question. An honest answer to that question entirely undermines your position. You know this, hence the constant deflection and obfuscation.
If we take inequality as our starting point then we would have no gender division in sport or prison etc.
As a society we decided to divide some areas of our society by gender whilst simultaneously declaring that the genders were equal.
Why?
Does arbitrarily dividing by gender still work in our enlightened gender fluid modern world?
Does it still achieve our goals?
If not, why don’t we choose a new arbitrary division?
I always find it amusing that the most ardent supporters of a non binary approach to gender are also the most ardent defenders of a continued binary division of society.
I’m not ardently defending a
I’m not ardently defending a binary split?
knowjng many NB and GF friends that would be a weird point of view to have.
imanswered the question, just withiut giving the answer you were looking for. You also didn’t answer any questions given to you, ok bar one.
iI won’t continue the dialogue of the deaf you are insisting upon. You’ve been a good laugh in some ways, but definitely not worth the time invested so far.
You didn’t answer the
You didn’t answer the question.
You consistently deflected and avoided the question.
Rich_cb wrote:
The question is posed in a patronising and hectoring manner , without the courtesy referencing Nosferatu’s answers. In addition it is a deliberate red herring, expecting that forcing a 2 dimensional strawman will give a nice neat justification for invalidating human rights – yes, trans folk are human.
In addition to being irrelevant, it doesn’t even deliver what you believe it will
Our prison system is a hangover from the Victorian era – there has been virtually no net progress with getting the prison system to deliver anything other than indiscriminate brutality to those that enter.
Prisons were split by gender by the Victorians (as far as they understood the concept) for ideologies of moral probity and seemliness – don’t fool yourself that it had anything to do with the safety of the inmates, to state the bleeding obvious.
Whereas an individual (of any gender) might perpetrate an assault, the environment that makes it overwhelmingly likely is a direct outcome of deliberate policy decisions, vindictive funding cuts, inhuman overcrowding, and staff conditions that guarantee a high churn and loss of experienced staff.
The point is that no prisoner’s safety can be guaranteed when in this brutal environment, and a high proportion suffer assaults and abuse – yes even in women prisons.
All inmates require risk assessment of both their vulnerability, their likelihood of risk to others, and in many cases both. Separating people by cultural preconceptions of gender just does not even begin to tick this box.
Against this background of systematic brutality and violence, that occurs daily which the public (that includes you Rich) blithely ignores, or even spitefully revels in, suddenly arrives a bunch of people who cynically use this manufactured situation to pursue a vendetta and persecution against those who happen to be different.
Would you support the removal
Would you support the removal of gender division in prisons?
How about in sports?
If not, why not?
Rich_cb wrote:
Gosh, it’s almost as if you haven’t bothered to read… well anything.
And really? Comparing sports to prisons? One a voluntary recreational activity enjoyed by the general public?
The other an involuntary and systematically violent and dysfunctional form of politicised revenge on people?
You really think the governance of either are comparable in anything more than the most trivial way?
To sum up you seem to be saying that a marginalised group should be excluded from public participation cos… look over there, prisons!
If you look carefully you’ll
If you look carefully you’ll see the same simple question being avoided once more.
Why could that be?
Two people who are dedicated to binary gender divisions in our society but absolutely refuse to explain why…
Why do we divide sports by gender?
Why do we divide prisons by gender?
What are we hoping to achieve by these divisions?
Tune in next week for some more excuses.
Rich_cb wrote:
You have been told on a number of occasions why your question is not only irrelevant, but disingenuous. No, questions like that really don’t need to be dignified with an answer.
I noticed your hypocrisy and pearl-clutching about brutality and assaults, whilst utterly (and I’m beginning to suspect willfully) ignoring the situation in prisons that these experiences are rife, and the suffering not limited by any level to or by any particular gender. But only when you think you can score some trivial points (cos there are no others you can score) do you pretend compassion and concern.
Most people entering prisons are assaulted. Many are raped. Some are murdered. But your key takeaway to this vile situation is it offers you an opportunity to double down on a perverse wish to other some folk cos they are different.
Disingenuity, hypocrisy, transphobia
All in one thread.
Roll up, roll up for some
Roll up, roll up for some more avoidance.
Why do they refuse to answer a simple question?
We all know the real reason but let’s sit back and enjoy the wide variety of excuses being desperately rolled out.
Why do we divide sports by gender?
Why do we divide prisons by gender?
Rich_cb wrote:
I think that’s the best you’re able to contribute now – parrotting your own already answered questions.
I’ll leave you to it. Have a great day
Excellent.
Excellent.
Any objective observer will wonder why you and Nosferatu point blank refused to answer a simple question.
Ridiculous deflections about Victorians etc can’t disguise that fact.
Have a delightful day.
Stop lying, as any objective
Stop lying, as any objective observer can see
Answers were given, you just didn’t get the answer you wanted. Ironically, yiure now claiming “victory”
if you do actually give a damn about prison safety and the history of our Victorian prison system, which I doubt very much but hey, yiu never know, I suggest you actually have a look into their fascinating and pretty dark history.
in case you’re wondering why the “all seeing Eye” is such a chilling concept in LotR , you may wonder where Tolkien drew inspiration from …
As you point out, your
As you point out, your refusal to answer is there for everyone to see.
Rich_cb wrote:
aaaaaand back to the dialogue of the deaf
Answer the question and the
Answer the question and the discussion can move forward.
Keep refusing and we’re pretty much stuck.
Everybody reading this knows that you can’t answer and they also know why.
Keep up the pretence if it makes you feel better but repeatedly refusing to answer simple questions is always the sign of someone with something to hide.
Rich_cb wrote:
I’d highlight every single question you failed to even acknowledge, let alone answer, but you fail to reach the level where that would be worth my time.
You have never argued in good faith, and have never been honest. Goodbye.
The thread is there for all
The thread is there for all to see.
I’ve answered the pertinent questions.
You cannot say the same.
Rich_cb wrote:
I think that’s the best you’re able to contribute now – parrotting your own already answered questions.
I’ll leave you to it. Have a great day— Rich_cb
Your ally in obfuscation
Your ally in obfuscation agrees with you.
Quelle surprise.
Multiple posts full of unanswered questions from several posters would indicate otherwise wouldn’t they?
You’ve failed to answer more
You’ve failed to answer more questions from more posters than anyone here
but hypocrisy is the least of your issues.
Well you still haven’t
Well you still haven’t apologised for your false accusations.
Let’s start there shall we?
I answered all the pertinent questions put to me. You did not.
Rich_cb wrote:
Bye bye.
Can’t even own up to a
Can’t even own up to a blatant false accusation.
What a guy.
Toodles.
Rich_cb wrote:
im sorry that you wrote something so crazy that the best interpretation was that you were being a TERF.
wont even answer questions such as – why do you only “care” about prison violence commited by people who identify as trans? And other such gems.
you can deman all you like. Sadly, your privilege doesn’t extend everywhere.
bye bye!
Back to shouting out
Back to shouting out playground insults.
That question is blatantly designed to distract, like all your other desperate attempts to avoid answering the questions put to you.
Caring about one type of violence doesn’t stop you caring about other types so the answer to that risible question is ‘I don’t only care about one type of violence’.
If you had provided any evidence whatsoever that housing trans women in women’s jails led to a reduced level of violence overall then it would have been a valid question. You couldn’t provide such evidence, or any evidence at all for your position, so I ignored your pathetic attempts to save face and distract the discussion.
You’ve made a complete fool out of yourself on this thread.
It’s hardly “desperate” to
It’s hardly “desperate” to avoid answering a crass, meaningless question.
not sure many playgrounds understand the term TERF. But sure
Enjoy your “seperate but equal ” world. Thankfully, a view that is mostly disappearing, mostly through natural attrition.
So you use the term “separate
You use the term “separate but equal” repeatedly but fail to see how that is directly relevant to a question about how we treat men and women in our society.
So it is indeed desperate to avoid the question.
Rich_cb wrote:
I understand it, entirely. Your question remains crass. See how this works? It’s almost like your privilege to demand soemthing doesn’t actually mean I have to do it.
you managed to entirely avoid all the pertinent questions about how our prison system is organised, and only focussed in on trans people. Wonder why.
Are men and women not
Are men and women not ‘separate but equal’ in our society?
They have legally equal status but have separate prisons, separate facilities and, mostly, separate sports.
That’s what my question boiled down to.
You knew that which is why you desperately avoided answering it.
You didn’t ask any pertinent questions about the prison system, you tried to distract the discussion repeatedly to avoid answering the questions that undermine your entire position.
If you have any pertinent questions I’m happy to answer them.
Me laughing at your continued
Me laughing at your continued attempts to demand answers to a question you know is a deliberate red herring, trying to force a complex world into your simple 2d version, is hardly “desperate”
you remain irrelevant. ?
Nice try.
Nice try.
If you’re going to use the phrase ‘separate but equal’ I think the onus is on you to clarify what you mean.
The more you avoid straightforward questions the more dishonest you look.
There’s only 1 question I
There’s only 1 question I want you to answer.
Do you think trans women should compete directly against non trans women?
No use pointing at other people not answering questions when you continue to dodge the one above. But, of course, I lack nuance or the ability to understand.
I wonder which bit of this comment you’ll copy and paste in an I’m-rubber-you’re-glue way.
sparrowlegs wrote:
I want you to answer the questions put to you, and maybe for you to apologise for your gross idea that you can reduce an entire gender down to the presence or otherwise of specific genitals.
but you’re an ignorant hypocrite, so that’s never going to happen, is it.
at no point will I answer questions from someone proven to be arguing in bad faith, and certainly not as moronic a question as you keep posting. You’re irrelevant. Your question is irrelevant.
Captain Badger wrote:
I think that’s the best you’re able to contribute now – parrotting your own already answered questions.
I’ll leave you to it. Have a great day— Rich_cb
I now have an image of rich as a parrot, squaking away “answer the question, answer the question” in Paxmans voice, not realising that the owner left half an hour ago.
Well… I’ve no idea how we
Well… I’ve no idea how we got here, so far away from squirrel memes, traffic lights and puns but I’m not sure rich_cb is “blithely ignoring or spitefully revelling in” this. (I stand to be corrected if you’ve data on rich_bc on this issue – a chart or graph maybe!).
rich_bc asked a particular question related to a particular current statistic (10x greater risk etc.). You can say “bogus!” to the numbers, question the statistical significance of this (which I did), point out that overall this might represent harm reduction (which I did – depending on the rate of harm of trans women in mens prisons – I don’t have the numbers) OR indeed say (as several have) “I think this tells you that jails need to be safer or brings into question a lot about that system” (agreed). I guess you could say we’re part-way through fixing several injustices and the realities of how we practically apply principles mean this takes time.
In reality even the current pretty terrible system categorises prisoners beyond just “male” and “female”. These categories are partly based on the history of the prisoner. Different rules / accommodation may be the result, ostensibly with the idea of mitigating specific risks. So the idea that this might be something to consider isn’t of itself outrageous.
I don’t think simply saying “bad faith, you don’t care” is correct. I often disagree with rich_cb. And rich_cb has a particular style (people in general don’t like being on the receiving end of a socratic). I hoped I might learn something – even if it was just a better view of apparently irreconcilable positions. For just a couple of posts there were suggestions of what people thought might change and how which is more interesting than “you’re wrong”.
Of course, if we’re all just on here for a knockabout / reinforce our positions then send me some flames, bring on the Garages and have at it!
chrisonatrike wrote:
Part of my issue with Rich is reductionism to the point of irrelevance. And yes some questions don’t qualify for an answer.
As to why we segregate again this was clearly answered – we always (since the Victorians at least as policy) have, and it was nothing at all to do with safety.
In addition, hectoring on about what we do in prisons bears no relevance on whether folk can participate in a voluntary cultural event as themselves. I remember similar arguments about allowing gay people in the armed services “In a war situation, do you really want some bloke looking at your arse…. ” kinda thing.
Rich does on occasion come out with some valid points – however here they have displayed patronisation, hectoring, and actually brought little of substance, except “will no one think of the prisoners???”.
Their conflation of someone wanting to participate in sport, with someone intent on commiting serious assaults in prison is really quite distasteful.
I also wasn’t quite sure how
I also wasn’t quite sure how we’d got to prisons from cyclocross races but I assumed it was something to do with being in either involved misery…
chrisonatrike wrote:
Probably all come in teh same bracket as commenting on forums….
However as an aside, at least
However as an aside, at least Rich is sort of answering you now Badger, maybe because I won’t play their silly games anymore?
The Victorian panopticon , individual cells was indeed mostly religious inspiration with a dash of over bearing “morals” (you couldn’t even speak unless spoken to, for example ). Nothing to do with safety at all, not of an individual.
Hence why their question got answered, but as I didn’t fall into their attempt at a trap they got in a huff. It’s a shame, as there might be a valid conversation there one day – but one that “others” all trans-women due to a perceived advantage in sports isn’t goi g to be one such, as it is invalid in conception
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Alas, that’s the second ref in this thread, do we now invoke Godwin’s Law?
chrisonatrike wrote:
I assumed that was bringing it back to a sporting reference. Although I am confused as to why you’d have a separate aproach for finals to what you would up to semi-finals.
chrisonatrike wrote:
as I explained page one, it’s a sadly relevant reference. Trying to exclude some women from being able to live their lives as women has some poor historic precedents and so failing to acknowledge that is never a good thing.
I’ve gone away, done a bit of
I’ve gone away, done a bit of research, or, at least tried to but bloody Google must be broken or something. I’m hoping you can help me out here.
I googled “how many transgender women have had cervical cancer”.
Stupid Google kept bringing back results for transgender women having testicular cancer and prostate cancer. I’m like, FFS Google! That’s not what I asked!!!
I think Google is broken. That’s the only option surely?
An amazing content less post
An amazing content less post there, thanks!
Rich_cb wrote:
here is where you call trans women men.
in context of course, given your constant call to remove trans women from womens jails
That is not what I said.
That is not what I said.
I was talking about men, not trans women.
Please try again.
In what way are trans women –
In what way are trans women – women?
They have to be men to qualify for the description of trans women. Don’t they?
What’s your definition of trans woman?
Is it gender dysphoria, born in the wrong body, feminine essence or simply because that biological male says he is?
How exactly is a trans woman, a woman? And why does having a different opinion about this* make it ok for you to call someone a bigot?
*Working on the basis of your other comments, it appears your opinion is trans women = women. If I’ve misunderstood, then apologies.
Because they are? In what way
Because they are? In what way are cis men men? It’s in the definition of the term.
The existence of someone isn’t up for debate, is how it makes you a bigot. Same as stating gay men didn’t exist. Or lesbians. Debating existence of a person is abhorrent. Enjoy.
MsG wrote:
Yuck.
If I thought that first question was born from anything approaching genuine curiosity, I’ll apologise.
But yuck
Captain Badger wrote:
Yuck.
If I thought that first question was born from anything approaching genuine curiosity, I’ll apologise.
But yuck— MsG
If you look at MsG other post you’ll see they’re directly from the LGB Alliance et al playbook – misquoting the Swedish study, complaining about collection statistics and drawing wild conclusions.
Rich_cb wrote:
Rich, that is utterly disingenuous.
The appalling conditions in jails in this country have facilitated the systematic abuse of staggering numbers of prisoners for decades or even longer. And yet it suddenly takes a possibility of marginalised group’s human rights being considered for you to care. Except of course, you don’t care, except in so much as it allows you to take a pop at that group in general. Job done. Don’t have to pretend you give a f*ck about people in jail now.
I also notice you’ve
I also notice you’ve singularly failed to answer captain badgers excellent post just below. Care to do so?
Rich_cb wrote:
Can you demonstrate how trans people are trying to diminish women’s rights? I presume that’s what you meant.
Increasing the number of
Increasing the number of people that can access a finite resource or opportunity will clearly be to the detriment of those people who previously enjoyed access to it.
This is particularly true is the extra people given access are better placed to utilise said resource/opportunity. This is the case for women’s sport.
There’s also the issue of safety. We exclude men from women’s only spaces because men pose a significant danger to women.
As trans women used to be men and therefore used to be excluded on the basis of potential threat is it wise to now allow them access and assume they no longer pose the same threat?
There have already been cases where trans women have committed acts of violence against cis women when given access to women’s only spaces.
Those cases have increased the threat felt by women when using women’s only spaces, diminishing their ability to utilise and enjoy said safe space.
Given that women must live with the ever present fear of violence removing the few spaces where that fear is minimised is a significant reduction in their rights.
Rich_cb wrote:
It seems you are putting the maybe shortage of an unspecified commodity before the principle of rights
In any case it doesn’t address the question, of how are trans people eroding women rights? Which rights of women are being revoked, and, just as importantly, who actually is revoking them?
I can’t remember, in any of the sports I participate in, being excluded from participating with women on teh basis of the threat I post to them.
In terms of safety you seem to be saying that trans women must be excluded because cis men are dangerous
There are also examples of cis women committing acts of violence against cis women, and cis women committing violence against trans women (and trans men for that matter). Should cis women be excluded from women’s spaces?
Your argument here seems to be that women must be isolated from the rest of society for their own safety….
I’m going to go back to the question
How are trans people eroding women’s rights? Specifically which rights are being revoked? by whom?
Are trans people demanding that gender equality legislation is peeled back?
Are Trans people demanding the revocation of the emancipation of women? removal of women’s votes?
The repeal of domestic violence laws?
Campaigning against pay equality?
I put it to you that recognition of trans people’s rights to be themselves does none of these things.
Captain Badger wrote:
It seems you are putting the maybe shortage of an unspecified commodity before the principle of rights
In any case it doesn’t address the question, of how are trans people eroding women rights? Which rights of women are being revoked, and, just as importantly, who actually is revoking them?
I can’t remember, in any of the sports I participate in, being excluded from participating with women on teh basis of the threat I post to them.
In terms of safety you seem to be saying that trans women must be excluded because cis men are dangerous
There are also examples of cis women committing acts of violence against cis women, and cis women committing violence against trans women (and trans men for that matter). Should cis women be excluded from women’s spaces?
Your argument here seems to be that women must be isolated from the rest of society for their own safety….
I’m going to go back to the question
How are trans people eroding women’s rights? Specifically which rights are being revoked? by whom?
Are trans people demanding that gender equality legislation is peeled back?
Are Trans people demanding the revocation of the emancipation of women? removal of women’s votes?
The repeal of domestic violence laws?
Campaigning against pay equality?
I put it to you that recognition of trans people’s rights to be themselves does none of these things.— Rich_cb
exactly
Comparing trans exclusionary groups to gay rights, or BLM, misses a very important point. The latter groups do not want to reduce the rights of others, but improve their own. The “separate but equal ” anti-trans hate groups are attempting to dim8nish the rights of not-their-type-of-woman
Unless its mixed sports; If
Unless its mixed sports; If they’re male, they should compete with other males. If they’re female, they should compete with other females, otherwise it’s simply not fair to either. You can’t change from one to the other, you really can’t. Really. How is this not understood by people?
Oh shit, have you considered
Oh shit, have you considered emailing the experts in their field who’ve spent the last decade debating this issue and carrying out actual scientific research which shows you’re wrong? They need to know that actually they’ve been wasting their time.
Dogless wrote:
Which experts have shown that male bodies should be allowed to compete in the female category?
Which scientific papers have shown that male bodies which have gone through puberty are NOT stronger, faster, etc. than women and have higher lung capacity, etc.?
Please quote them.
SpiderJ wrote:
Which experts have shown that male bodies should be allowed to compete in the female category?
Which scientific papers have shown that male bodies which have gone through puberty are NOT stronger, faster, etc. than women and have higher lung capacity, etc.?
Please quote them.— Dogless
Please tell us what how you determine a male body
alexuk wrote:
Thats not how gender and gender identity works.
please, read something written after the 1950s.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
What has gender got to do with anything? Define gender? How many are there? Why should ‘feelings’ have anything to do with sport categories?
alexuk wrote:
As there is no objective scientific measurement of “maleness” or ‘femaleness”, you are actually talking about categorisations.
To categorise you have to make definitions. Definitions need to be accepted by all stakeholders to be useful. This is the problem.
Your assertion that you can’t change one to the other presupposes that we have a clear accepted definition of what males or female is. There is none scientifically (certainly not objective scientific values), and the culturally accepted definitions are contested, which is kind of the point here.
We sometimes frame trans rights as being about who competes in what sporting categories. It should be obvious to say that this is a detail to be worked out. The real issue is that people are allowed to live their lives as they see fit without persecution.
Captain Badger wrote:
Unless its mixed sports; If they’re male, they should compete with other males. If they’re female, they should compete with other females, otherwise it’s simply not fair to either. You can’t change from one to the other, you really can’t. Really. How is this not understood by people?
— Captain Badger As there is no objective scientific measurement of “maleness” or ‘femaleness”, you are actually talking about categorisations. To categorise you have to make definitions. Definitions need to be accepted by all stakeholders to be useful. This is the problem. Your assertion that you can’t change one to the other presupposes that we have a clear accepted definition of what males or female is. There is none scientifically (certainly not objective scientific values), and the culturally accepted definitions are contested, which is kind of the point here. We sometimes frame trans rights as being about who competes in what sporting categories. It should be obvious to say that this is a detail to be worked out. The real issue is that people are allowed to live their lives as they see fit without persecution.— alexuk
I’ve never read such utter bunkum. There is very clear science as to what is male and what is female. Every single cell of your body clearly shows what sex you are.
SpiderJ wrote:
Please demonstrate the clear science.
The main thing people talk about is the XY chromosomes. These are not clear on your cells. Essentially all cells look the same – you have to do a genetic test to find which is which (if you’re lucky you can find a cell under going mitosis on an electron micrograph, if you’re especially lucky you might be able to make out a y chromosome (with a sizable error margin))
Humans don’t do genetic tests to determine our genders. Our genders are determined at birth with a rudimentary inspection of genitalia by medical staff. Everything else follows from there, and for most of us it’s ok.
For some though it’s not.
Why do we have such prurient interest in other people’s tackle, or genome, when they wish to form their own identity based on what feels right for them?
SpiderJ wrote:
— SpiderJI suspect there is a lot more to it than that. Perhaps you could benefit from reading more widely on this topic. Some first hand comments from Pippa York (fka Robert Millar) in this youtube video with Matt Stephens might be a good place to start:
https://bit.ly/The-Cafe-Ride-Pippa-York
SpiderJ wrote:
It’s never a good idea to challenge nature to a category contest. Things are never as straightforward as our intuitions or even observations (in our part of the world / universe) suggest. You might find the following interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_chromosome_anomalies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_chromosome
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex#Medical_classifications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_(genetics)
chrisonatrike wrote:
There’s a cis female athlete, IIRC, who measures as having naturally higher testosterone levels than pretty much every cis male. High enough that she was told that the only way she could legally compete was to take testosterone blockers.
(Sorry – just wanted to throw some more information into the pot).
You’re a braver person than
You’re a braver person than me. The only thing I know about these conversations is they almost immediately become hotly contended and not particularly civil. Of course there’s no telling from usernames and most of the writing… but I have a creeping suspicion that much of the shouting is done by people not directly affected (either by being trans and having issues competing in an event, or competing in an event against trans people). I know it’s the internets but since I’m not a sportswoman (or sportsman for that matter) and not trans I’m not going to weigh in.
On the general issue I’m all for rights of people not to be persecuted and excluded. And we’re clearly not up to speed with women’s rights yet either. From my very limited perspective it looks like a lot of the general oppressing is being done by (presumably cis) men.
Anyway – as BikeSnobNYC said (?) sport is inherently about making up arbitrary rules. (F’rexample one of my bikes is outside the UCI definition of hetrodox for historical reasons – not that my example would win anything). Given that they’re so there’s no “natural reason” to stop them being changed either.
chrisonatrike wrote:
You’re absolutely right about the folk not being affected. And hands up, I’m in that category.
Except I think we’re all affected – first they came for the….., and I didn’t not speak up…. and all that.
Captain Badger wrote:
It seems the first rule in this discourse is “there is no neutral position – with us or against us”. I’m generally on the side of those getting a shoeing. Which as far as gender, sex, orientation etc. goes is mostly “anyone bar straight men” (noting that “straight” is a rather modern idea – orientation and gender being rather fluid over time and cultures [1] [2]…). I suppose in the case of your quote the analogy will stretch a bit because the Nazis essentially invented – or arbitrarily redefined – a category and put others in it (however they understood themselves). Of course they weren’t trying to win at sports (well… they did that too) but oppress and annihilate.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Reading the article above and others in the past, it seems it is women who are getting bloody angry about coming 2nd to bodies that are not regarded as ‘female’…
You could argue its a bit like people getting upset that they feel they cannot compete against other atheletes doping and on steroids…
I was always taught that when
I was always taught that when you are born, that males have dicks and balls (scrotal sacks etc) and females have instead vulvas and female wotnots.
Call me old fashioned but I go with that definition – for the purposes of what you were born as… if a person wants to identify as another gender when they are able to – thats all good. But they still originally (as a foetus) developed as a specific gender of the regular two (barring hermaphodites).
We are really talking about bodies, not identification, not objectification or stigma, or prejudice, just human bodies…
joe9090 wrote:
Why barring “hermaphrodites”? Are they not human? What should they do? how do you define a “hermaphrodite”? Physiological differences? isn’t the mind a physiological component?
I wouldn’t call you old-fashioned necessarily. But the view is certainly outdated, and does not account for diversity of the human experience. In addition the (crazy strict) binary view of the entirety of humanity, although not exclusive to western worldviews, is certainly not ubiquitous, nor has it much if any scientific basis.
The difference between “male” and “female” bodies starts and ends with primary characteristics, which are minor and limited (and not to mention by no means definite) – however it does lead to a human cultural categorisation, not a scientific absolute, and it’s tautological as that is how “males” and “females” are perceived in the first place. Secondary characteristics are much more fluid, and definitely non-binary.
It really isn’t about “junk”. Think of how many people you have known in your life. You’ll have seen between teh legs of very few of them, and seen the genome of even fewer if any. And yet we are generally quite happy to take people as we find them, based on how they present themselves and leave it at that.
And why wouldn’t we? why do we care so much about what is in people’s pants, especially those that don’t neatly fit a binary worldview?
Yeah bnot sure about all that
Yeah bnot sure about all that boss, I agree with all of it probably. I never said hermaphrodites child wasnt a human! jeez.
I just think women suffer enough at the hands of men and I share some of their concerns mentioned elsewhere here. I think far too many take offence far too soon these days but i do know as a man that men are a bit shitty and women deserve alot more in society than some of the bullcrap they still have to put up with.
joe9090 wrote:
I didn’t really think you did, just wanted to establish it though. So what do they do? Who are tehy allowed to identify as?
And likewise, I am largely in agreement. And trans people suffer hugely at the hands of (cis) men (and to a lesser extend some (cis) women) too.
I’m still not certain how (cis) men being awful to women means that trans people can’t be accepted at face value by society.
these concepts are uncomfortable as they conflict with all we’ve been taught, as you point out in your earlier post. This doesn’t mean that all we’ve been taught is correct.
Captain Badger wrote:
HEAR HEAR
I’m just watching the event
I’m just watching the event on bbc. There is a person with a pro trans banner in the crowd. Doesn’t strike me as an uncomfortable atmosphere to share their views, just as a general point of interest.
Save Women’s Sports is not
Save Women’s Sports is not anti-trans. It’s FOR women. It is fighting to protect single-sex categories in sport from having men in them. Male-born athletes are still more than welcome and able to compete in the male or open categories. Nobody is stopping them. So, it’s very inclusive. But allowing male-born athletes into female sport PUSHES women out and will destroy the category.
We don’t allow senior athletes to compete in junior categories for good reason. So there is no reason to allow male bodies in female sport.
No, that’s not how it works.
No, that’s not how it works. If you decide women aren’t women, becaus they don’t fit your definition of a woman, you’re very much not pro-women.
The entire premise is that people will willingly transition just to compete. That’s not happening. It isn’t going to happen.
“Separate but equal”. Apparently that lesson hasn’t been learned yet
If someone was born with a
If someone was born with a man’s body and all the associated junk and then decide they are a woman and also claim they were a woman when they were born… must we then ‘decide’ that this is fact also and not question it?
If you have a 90+ kilo 2+ meter tall Adonis of a woman who was originally born with a male body smiting all the competition in a woman’s class in a specific sport (one that favours strength and inherent athleticism) – is that not somehow like erm… weird or even unfair to other women?
I don’t believe any male
I don’t believe any male athlete would transition to move from also ran to potential winner. (although I can’t be certain as many people were prepared to take dangerous drugs)
But I can’t accept a previously male athlete has no physical advantages such as longer limbs and greater muscle mass. While we can say the numbers of trans people competing as women is tiny it’s not an issue. It is an issue to the woman standing second on the pdodium, looking at someone with the strength and build of a man on the top step.
Has any research been done on when/if the advantage of greater strength deteroriates to the point of no benefit after transitioning?
One go-to person seems to be
One go-to person seems to be Veronica Ivy. See Wikipedia article then search from there. I think she’s been cited on road.cc before – probably with lots of heat and little light in the comments.
There are also debates from
There are also debates from other angles about how current sporting rules are drawn up, see e.g Caster Semenya.
wycombewheeler wrote:
it’s an interesting point, although every winner will have some advantages. It’s why they won. There is no such thing as a fair fight, the most we can say is that one might be is played in accordance with culturally manufactured rules.
Your thought experiment is interesting. You would have to identify what “the strength and build of a man” actually is. Would cis-gendered women who fall into this category be barred from competing in women’s events? Would cis men who have the “strength and build of a woman” be allowed to participate in women’s events? Would they be barred from men’s events?
Regarding your last question, (Has any research been done on when/if the advantage of greater strength deteroriates to the point of no benefit after transitioning?) I have seen articles demonstrating either way – as we know it is easy to find evidence on the internet supporting both sides of any argument (surely there’s a law here – Badgers Law…?). As time goes on a broader picture will emerge.
Captain Badger wrote:
We know roughly what the physical advantage of being male over female is in each event, based on comparison of world records. So if the performance of a post transition female had deteriorated by that percentage over their pre op performance, then the advantage could be considered to be withinthe realms of fairness
So the mens record for the mrathon is 122 minutes and the womens record is 139 minutes. (14%) If a man was runnin 126 minutes before transition and 136 minutes post transition, then it’s hard to assign their post transition world record to anything other than previously having been male.
Interestingly the biggest percentage differences are in throwing events (36% further in the javelin). It’s hard to imagine someone transitioning would lose that sort of distance from their throwing ability.
Of course it’s hard to see the change if someone only takes up sport after transition, but proof of the advantage could be demonstrated or disproven wit those that competed before and after
But height is definitely an advantage in many sports and no matter what happens post op height will not change this is one advantage locked in at puberty
wycombewheeler wrote:
It certainly would be fascinating to see these figures – we will see more of them as this plays out. It would be hard though to use the timings of one individual to make rules about other people. And again what if a cis woman achieves these levels – is she banned from participating in women’s events?
Of course another advantage may be cultural. Social conditioning by gender is a huge factor in participation in sports, and achievement thereof. If physical advantages peter out over time, do psychological advantages?
SpiderJ wrote:
It’s frankly laughable that someone would transition in order to be obectively better at a sport than someone else. Transitioning is a deeply personal and long-winded culmination of people’s identity crises that, often, are so damaging if left unattended that loads of folks commit suicide and self-harm if unable to live as their true selves, as women or men if born differently.
So why ban ALL trans folks from competing, when the reality is that a) the number of trans athletes wishing to compete is as yet small, and b) as someone has already pointed out, the number of trans athletes competing with obvious physical advantages is even smaller?
This is aking to banning cycling to stop a few people jumping traffic lights. Cycling is not the problem, those few people are. Demonising cycling/trans folks in general is just a weapon used by those in power to justify their prejudices.
Exactly! It’s ludicrous to
Exactly! It’s ludicrous to suggest people transition purely to compete. It isn’t happening.
Same as the dog whistling about access to other spaces. Cis-men are still the issue there.
I think you’ll find
I think you’ll find biological men are the issue.
Weird, you keep using that
Weird, you keep using that term, but can’t seem to define it yet. Care to get on that?
If you’re using ‘biological
If you’re using ‘biological men’ to define both cis men and trans women post-transitioning, you might find that hormone therapy etc. don’t really leave trans women with any vestiges of male ‘biology’ per se. No-one is going around identifying people by their X and Y chromosomes. Besides, a penis and testicles do not ‘manly’ attitudes make.
See also: male gender as a cultural phenomenon.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
and you base your broad strokes statement that cis-men are the issue based on what data? Sounds like hate group thinking – “they” are the problem whoever “they” may be.
Based on the overwhelming
Based on the overwhelming data on criminals, mostly.
Compare cis-male offending rates vs trans-women.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sweeping statements like this make you part of the problem as far as I am concerned, cis-men are not the issue, some individual cis-men may be the issue but branding us all as the issue is insulting to the vast majority of us!
Part of what problem? It’s a
Part of what problem? It’s a fact that the overwhelming majority of crimes against women, whether cis- or trans-, is by cis-identifying males. Pointing out that trans-women are not a statistical risk factor doesn’t make me “part of” a problem
You’re blaming all cis-men
You’re blaming all cis-men for the actions of a few, that tactic is not going to win you much support and would be called “hate speach” if it was applied to any other group.
No, no I’m not. Im responding
No, no I’m not. Im responding to a point stating that trans women are a problem when it comes to access to single gender spaces, by pointing out that even in this spaces, the overwhelming majority of cases are from cis-males. That isn’t saying all cismales everywhere are always a problem, but in this context, the more likely offender by far is a cis-male.
try to understand context.
You’re not wrong in
You’re not wrong in suggesting that cis men are the issue. Or in suggesting that that statement requires context. It seems like everyone who is commenting that ‘Not all cis men’ is either missing this context, or choosing to wilfully ignore it.
Other examples – ‘Black Lives Matter’ —–> ‘No, all lives matter!’
‘This woman is afraid that a man might assault them’ ——> ‘But, I’m a man and I won’t assault them….’
The context being that, as you’ve rightly stated, trans women and men are being blamed for reducing chances for cis women to participate in sports, whereas in reality the actions of cis men, both in sports management (Patrick Lefevere, anyone?) and in sports participation have been proven as harmful to women’s rights in sports.
Most people get so het up about supposed attacks on themselves or whatever group they belong to, that they forget to place themselves in the shoes of those being oppressed or hurt.
Relying on people
Relying on people understanding your point because of context is lazy writing and in my opinion stupid in an argument as people will bring their own context to the argument as can be seen in other posts in this thread. Your phrase “the more likely offender by far is a cis-male” would have fitted fine in the post I complained about and would have removed any ambiguity. Please try to make your arguments clear.
I think you may have confused
I think you may have confused the comments section with a peer-reviewed journal. When you talk to people at the pub, do you accuse them of being ‘lazy’ and ‘stupid’ every time there’s any ambiguity in something they say?
But this is not the pub,
But this is not the pub, there is far less information transferred by the written word than by the spoken word, think of how many times you have seen a flame war arise on the internet over something trivial. This thread is about a very serious subject and people should put appropriate thought into their posts.
It’s the virtual equivalent
It’s the virtual equivalent of the pub – people in the comments section are not professional wordsmiths – you can’t expect every comment to be the result of extensive research and hours of carefully crafting prose.
If you’re concerned about ‘flame wars’, then I’d suggest calling people ‘lazy’ and ‘stupid’ is probably not the best way to go about avoiding one.
I called the writing lazy and
I called the writing lazy and the method of arguing stupid specifically to try to avoid people taking the words out of context.
Backladder wrote:
Maybe you should have tried harder.
You’re confusing your
You’re confusing your inability to look beyond your own perceived understanding of this post, with someone else’s responsibility to make their argument easily understood for you. Someone with enough care to reply angrily to a comment should also have enough care to read it properly and attempt to actually understand it. Don’t blame them for your anger/misunderstanding.
I agree with misunderstanding
I agree with misunderstanding but I said I was insulted not angry. I would have thought that when trying to make a case in an argument you would want to make it as clear and simple to understand as possible.
Which I had done, or so I
Which I had done, or so I thought.
I was responding to the un-nuanced statement that trans-people are an issue for all sports people who identify as women, by pointing out that this is, statistically speaking, complete nonsense. The odds of a woman being attacked by any randomly chosen cis-male is so overwhelmingly higher than for a trans-woman as to make a comparison nonsensical, which is why the dog whistling on this topic is so aggregious.
I never said all cis-men are the issue. I said, compared to trans-women, dis-men are the issue. That you inserted “all” in front is not my issue but yours.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Apparantly not:- https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/current-treatment-period-may-be-too-short-to-remove-competitive-advantage-of-transgender-athletes/
Apparantly not:- https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
I didn’t add “all” in front, that is assumed because you did not include any limitations.
I am not qualified to interpret the science behind the links above but they are from sources I consider reputable, feel free to refute them with other reputable sources.
So your assumption is somehow
So your assumption is somehow my fault. Sure
Firstly to address the BMJ article which you seem to think helps your argument:
– qualified with may. This means they don’t have a statistically confident sample yet, or ever
– still doesn’t address that even if for SOME trans athletes there MAY be some competitive advantage, this doesn’t mean that trans people are an issue for ALL. By definition. Which is what I actually said and yiu quoted.
Lastly, even if there is some advantage – completely unqualified as to magnitude – this still has to be balanced against the rights of trans individuals to fully exist as their gender. If this means sports have to actually move away from the arbitrary assumed-gender split they currently use to soemthing based on science, so be it. “We always did it this way” is a shifty excusing for refusing to progress. And after all, they’ve already forced one cis-woman to retire early as she’s too “manly” (high testosterone) to compete with other women. So turns out that some perversion of science can be used after all…
Second study is the infamous Swedish study, which has been used by anti trans groups widely and the authors have stated thus has been misinterpreted
https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2021/04/21/long-term-follow-up-of-transsexual-persons-undergoing-sex-reassignment-surgery-cohort-study-in-sweden-a-review-of-dhejne-et-als-findings-on-criminal-convictions/
“This study is widely but inaccurately cited by anti-trans groups on social media as evidence that trans women retain “male patterns” of criminality, an error repeated by Profs Freedman and Stock.’
I applaud that you appear to be looking into this topic a little deeper, but be aware you’re falling into some classic traps.
Any women commenting in here?
Any women commenting in here? This all feels like blokes shouting at blokes.
Miller wrote:
Wot I said only of course the whole point is it’s the definition of “women” and “blokes” which is under discussion. So I phrased that in terms of people directly affected in the contest of an actual sporting event. (I’m deluding myself that this is a discussion which can be limited to the case in point). Of course there are then friends and family who’d definitely have an opinion and then on and outwards (as Captain Badger pointed out with his quote) so there’s little chance of fence-sitting here.
No women, although there is a
No women, although there is a bloke who identifies as a badger and another who identifies as a squirrel if that counts
Is that the easiest question
Is that the easiest question to answer?
I identify as a woman, at birth a doctor decided my outside repro bits were sufficiently shaped to be classed as female, having had two kids I’m confident my inner repro bits class me as female. I haven’t had my chromosomes tested but I suspect they come under typically female as well.
Hormones are where it gets interesting. Like an estimated 10% of women, I’m polycystic and have elevated testosterone. Probably higher levels than a significant number of men. My understanding is sex hormane levels vary more within genders than the average between the genders.
I’m very uncomfortable with TERF positions. Firstly, I don’t think there is any single definition that classifies people into two neat binary categories and nothing I have read so far convinces me otherwise. Secondly, the biological advantage bit is weird for me…. because all top sports people have biological advantages and we still enjoy it… I’m happy to allow the scientists to work out what’s fair on that one.
Finally, the safe spaces is the kicker. Trans people are far and away the most vulnerable category of people
There will always be examples of a woman did this, a trans woman did that but the reality is men presenting as men are far and away more likely to be attacking anyone of any gender. So instead of excluding vulnerable groups everyone would be safer if energy was spent on the root cause of the issue.
Thank you. Having many trans
Thank you. Having many trans friends the idea that they’re the risk I find to be incomprehensible. It seems to be fear of ither manifesting again, and mostly by the US right now they’ve realised attacking LBTQA isn’t working for them, but attacking T can still yield results, sadly.
Yes. See my comments from
Yes. See my comments from last night.
I think a lot of people get
I think a lot of people get gender and sex mixed up. I don’t care what gender you are, what pronouns you want me to call you (I will respect that) but what I do care about is biological males entering the sports arena in the biological female catagory.
Look at the current issue in American swimming with Leah Thomas. Leah is a biological male that’s transitioned and she’s crushing all the biological females by huge amounts. She recently beat her closest competitor by 38 seconds.
There are a few cases of transitioned biological males fighting biological females in MMA. One of the opponents suffered a fractured skull and wasn’t told prior to the fight that she’d be fighting a biological male.
I didn’t bother about all this until I suffered with testosterone issues. It’s called hypogonadism and my body no longer produces testosterone naturally. My T level dropped to that of a biological female (<1ng/ml), hardly on the scale for a biological male (current scale is 8.8 – 28.5 ng/ml). Even at that level, which I endured for over a year before I recieved treatment, I was still able to train and ride, albeit with longer recovery times and not at the weights/speeds I could do. I still retained all the male attributes gained through puberty and continual access to testosterone. I was just weaker with less stamina and needed longer between training sessions.
Towards the later stages, before I started TRT (Testosterone Replacement Therapy) I could hardly get out of bed, I started growing breasts (gynomastia) and was pretty much impotent for nigh on 18 months. Yet I still retained my male attributes. Bigger lung capacity, bigger heart etc. All these things are irrefutable advantages that being a biological male has over a biological female.
Even now, due to the dangers of being on TRT brings, I’m on the lower end of the T level scale. I’m 14st, around 15% bodyfat and can train more or less every day.
This is the reason we can’t allow biological males to compete against biological females. Take a look on youtube at More Plates More Dates and others that know about steriods and the advantages they give. Yes, they take PEDs to the extreme but the point still stands, when a biological female produces <1 ng/ml of testosterone and a trans competitor could be producing many times that then it just isn’t fair. It’s not exclusionary, it’s not anti-trans, it’s an unfair advantage.
I’m not all over the science
I’m not all over the science of this so I’ll not comment on that but thank you for sharing what must be a challenging experience.
Thankfully it doesn’t stop you getting on the bike!
I’ve heard it put this way.
I’ve heard it put this way. The amount of transitioned biological males that are competing in female sports is very small, but they all seem to have greater success. So the ratio means that if a bilogical male transitions to female, they have a higher chance of dominating.
In the sporting arena we can’t take into account how seemone feels, or what someone thinks. We have to take the bare bones of what that person is under it all. Yes, there are biological men with naturally low testosterone and biological females with naturally high testosterone (even this is very low by male standards. Intersex is different) but at the end of the day they are bioligically what they are. The biological male will not be able to compete with other biological males that are larger, faster, higher T levels but that’s just what sport is.
There are examples in the biological catagories of people having huge physical advantages, such as Usain Bolt’s height, or Michael Phelp’s arm span but that just highlights even further the physical advantages some males have over other males, never mind what they have over females.
The Australian Womens football team were beaten something like 15-0 by a team of under 16s boys. Serena and Venus were beaten in straight sets by the same male player who by all accounts wasn’t in the top 100 male tennis players.
Take a 10 stone biological female and a 10 stone biological male and in nearly every case the biological male will be stronger, faster, leaner, have a bigger lung capacity, faster reactions, faster recovery, won’t menstruate and loads more advantages. No amount of extra training on the biological females side will make up for that.
You start on the right lines,
You start on the right lines, but fail to follow to conclusion
The numbers of those competing at a regulated level who are trans female is so tiny that trying to control this isn’t required. You’re solving a problem that doesn’t exist in a significant way,as opposed to fixing other areas of sport such as inequalities in pay that do meaningfully impact the sport.
it’s exactly the argument to why, for example, registration for cyclists has no support in govt. it’s a problem that is so small the impact is negligible, and the effect of trying to impose controls – reducing the number of cyclists overall – is worse than the impact of allowing the “problem” to continue.
Same here. By all measures, there is no actual systemic issue. Not all trans athletes are winning all, and the numbers are so small the impact is so close to zero as to not be measurable in a meaningful way. .
Trying to control this problem that doesn’t manifest creates actual issues, by further stigmatising and excluding one the most marginalised and discriminated against groups out there. So yiure fixing a problem that doesn’t exist by stamping even harder on people already stamped on.
Tell that to the biological
Tell that to the biological female competitors that have worked all their lives to be good at one sport, they get to the pinnacle only to be beaten by someone that has a pure physiological advantage because they were born a biological male and have benefitted from that. These are people’s livelihoods and incomes being taken away because a biological male wants to identify as females and compete. Remember, they don’t have to have had any gender reassignment or even have reduced their T levels (the OIC has taken the brave move to pass this hot potato on to the sports relevant bodies).
Just because the numbers are smal doesn’t mean it’s not an issue. When do we start to look at it? When 15% of winners in female sports are trans? 40%? 60%?
It won’t take many biological males to dominate a whole host of sports. The numbers show that if there is a transitioned biological male then it’s easier for them to dominate in the chosen sport.
How many transitioned biological females do you see even competeing in sports, never mind dominating them?
I’ve offered evidence of trans biological male athletes beating and dominating in their chosen sports. The numbers are small but they highlight that it doesn’t take many transitioned biological males to dominate the sport they choose.
Basically what’s being done is that biological females are being told that a transitioned biological males rights to compete at an unfair advantage outweight their rights to a fair and level playing field.
Define, in a rigorous and
Define, in a rigorous and systematic way, your term “biological female”.
once you’ve done so, you can probably make bank, as you’ve done soemthing no biologists can currently agree on.
Or, you can decide that “separate but equal” is a phrase you’re totally comfortable with.
When bodies are found and
When bodies are found and they use the remains to determine what the person was, do they use a divining rod? A crystal ball? Maybe just guess?
You tell me, when science has very exacting ways of determining the sex of a long dead person, where they are going wrong.
There’s no “this person identified as ….” is there?
so sex and gender are the
so sex and gender are the same?
Again: find a book post 1950s on gender and gender identity, and read it.
I note you have had to resort to a fallacy instead of answering the question.
That’s just it, sex and
That’s just it, sex and gender are not the same. Have I at any point said they are?
Fallacy? What fallacy? So again, you point to science and decry it as wrong (in your view) and yet offer what in return? A social construct? An ideal?
A quick google defines biological female as – A person with XX chromosomes usually has female sex and reproductive organs, and is therefore usually assigned biologically female.
I’m guessing that even though that’s correct for 99% of the female population, you’ll have a different definition?
Again, I’ll reiterate, I stand by anyone with what they want to be identified as, but, when it comes to sport, which isn’t a social construct or in any way a barrier to hold anybody back or oppress anyone, if one competitor has been through puberty and lived their life as a man, they will have clear advantages over those competitors that haven’t.
Wait – are the dead wanting
Wait – are the dead wanting to compete as well? I’m going to have to ask my mummy about this.
sparrowlegs wrote:
7-0. And they were missing most of their top players. And they hadn’t been training for a while. And they were treating it as a glorified training session.
Well they only played one set each, so ‘in straight sets’ is a bit meaningless. And Venus had just come out of a quarter-final match. And everyone involved admitted they weren’t really taking it seriously.
Other than that, spot on, though.
Not to say that there’s no differentiation between men’s and women’s sports, but these aren’t really the illustration of a vast gulf that you’re presenting them as.
Look at Serena’s interview on
Look at Serena’s interview on one of the night chat shows. She admits that the women’s game is a totally different to the mens game and that she would not want to play against men.
There’ s big enough gulf in the performance difference in men and women that a distinction was made in the first place. What’s changed recently?
sparrowlegs wrote:
And she may be right. But the ‘matches’ you cited are no real evidence of that.
I think old-fashioned notions of ‘propriety’ probably had more to do with seperating them than performance. The biggest advantage men had at that time was probably that they didn’t have to play in full-length dresses.
The matches I stated were the
The matches I stated were the only recent examples of it. There haven’t been more because it’s not in anybody’s interest for a male to play a female really is there? But I’m open to maybe the current No1 female player playing the current No1 male player. Care to wager a bet at the outcome?
So, what you are saying with your last statement is when they play in the same clothing i.e. that made for the sport. There’s no difference? Women were held back back the old fashioned notions? So, by that, we no longer need the distinction between male and female sports people? They should all play in one big category? I wonder what that landscape would look like in terms of winners? Care to wager a bet?
I get that some people are going through turmoil in their life because they don’t feel they can be the person they want to be. But, to then crush the dreams of what some would consider to be a group that’s had to fight tooth and nail to get to where they are, to get the recognition they deserve isn’t right. By doing this, by what is basically biological men competing against biological females can only cause more of an issue for the trans community as it goes forward and more and more compete against biological females.
You seem to be under the
You seem to be under the misapprehension that I’m claiming that there’s no difference between men’s and women’s sport. Odd, because I explicitly said
and (in reference to you quoting Serena Williams saying that men’s and women’s tennis are different games)
I’m just pointing out that the examples you’ve chosen to support the claim that there is a vast difference between men and women don’t really demonstrate that.
No. I didn’t say that. I said that performance wasn’t the original consideration that led to men and women being seperated.
And I said (as an aside) that clothing was probably the most significant factor in differences in performance at that time. That doesn’t preclude there being other factors playing a part.
You’ve still failed to define
You’ve still failed to define “biological female” in a rigorous systematic way. I know this is hard but try to do it in a way that doesn’t involve arbitrary binary split.
as a starting point for your education, try https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2020/06/15/the-myth-of-biological-sex/
The starting point of the
The starting point of the article was about Arkansas legislation rather than trans inclusion in sport… a quick search and…wow. If I was running a sporting event I would not want it in Arkansas which appear letting down all women, Cis and trans alike.
You know: I’m getting the
You know: I’m getting the hint that this is a slightly contentious topic…
brooksby wrote:
I did try to tell people. By my very limited experience with only 120-odd posts and still not locked / removed after a day this particular thread is a rather sedate and thoughtful example. Limited appearance by our special guest commentor yet although they may have been warned…
brooksby wrote:
I am not brave enough for this one. I like nuance and grey in discussions.
I have learnt some things from some thoughtful posts though and my view is evolving.
Sniffer wrote:
How much? Can you quantify for us? Any particular number in mind?
Captain Badger wrote:
Somewhere between a bit and a dollop.
One, two , many, lots. The
One, two , many, lots. The best system?
Sniffer wrote:
4 dozen? maybe a couple more?
Captain Badger wrote:
A little less…. 42?
Sniffer wrote:
Was wondering whether it might be more, oooh, about 50 ish…..
Does anyone on here remember
Does anyone on here remember a 70’s model called Tula, probably one of the most delicate and beautiful models of the time. She was frequently pictured posing in motorcycle mags and numerous men fantasised about her.
Unfortunately her career was destroyed when she came out as Trans but she was never accused of rape by other models.
The rape accusations are a smokescreen just like accusing all cyclists of being RLJers. This is just another prejudiced view of the different.
Are the road.cc mods taking
Are the road.cc mods taking bets on which side will give up first? Have you run out of popcorn yet?
MsG wrote:
Probably having a sweepstake on how many comments it can get to before the whole site goes for a few hours lie down.
mdavidford wrote:
Probably having a sweepstake on how many comments it can get to before the whole site goes for a few hours lie down.— MsG
Got a hot tip for ya….
mdavidford wrote:
Probably having a sweepstake on how many comments it can get to before the whole site goes for a few hours lie down.— MsG
Probably some obscure linking of posts to ad revenue 😉
They’ve all ordered new N+1’s.
Well after two long days and
Well after two long days and six pages of mainly the same people having a good’ol fashioned internet punch up, I’ve learned three things.
1) The meaning of the term cisgender and the history of the term. And that the word ‘cisgender’ was put into the Oxford English dictionary in 2015 (it made me feel old and or blinkered that I just learnt this).
2) The amazing insult ‘TERF’ and it’s very woke meaning, knowing this makes me feel like I’m down with the uni kids.
3) That we’re not quite the hive mind or echo chamber that I sometimes think we are here at road.cc, (which is absolutley a good thing because we’d never learn or grow otherwise).
.. anyway.. I find agreeing with Badgers is probably the best way forward as they are ferocious little buggers.
TERF was actually coined by
TERF was actually coined by the hate group, and they’ve since decided it’s an insult. Or they’re proud. It’s hard to tell. It is however a useful piece of short hand for a group of bigots.
When Godwin’s Law has been
When Godwin’s Law has been met, it’s definitely time to close the comments.
Though I’d argue we were well past that with the ‘in what way are trans-women women’ commentary.
JustTryingToGetFromAtoB wrote
its sadly an accurate comparison to make – a large amount of the European based research in this area was destroyed deliberately in the 1930s and 40s. It’s an especially sensitive topic as sometimes it feels like the forgotten victims are those wearing the pink triangle.
Two hundred and fifteen
Two hundred and fifteen comments???
brooksby wrote:
Wrong! Two hundred and sixteen now
Only about 25 comments, but
Only about 25 comments, but some of them lots of times.
mdavidford wrote:
Is it “everything there is to be said has been said – but it hasn’t been said by everybody” or just the Paxman interview (the same question and same answer repeated with minor rephrasings)?
Rich asked the same
Rich asked the same irrelevant question about ten times, and is now running off somewhere in a huff.
235 comments I believe.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Well it now seems to be more like:
“You’re a farty-pants!”
“No – you’re a farty-pants!!”
mdavidford wrote:
Old but still good, Gary Larson.
Dammit, responding to a
Dammit, responding to a Godwin’s Law thread but fuck it, here’s my head above the parapet. Yes, I’d support desegregation of prisons. It’s way down the list of changes that are needed in prisons but if the specific question is whether I would support it it then yes, I would. There would be a lot of advantages to the prisoners and to society as a whole.
Of course women’s prisons are not fully desegregated right now. Do you think women prisoners are more scared of trans-women prisoners or cis-Male guards?
JustTryingToGetFromAtoB wrote
Probably either Queen Bea or Joan Ferguson
True dat
True dat
And just to chuck another one
And just to chuck another one in… when did the world get so weird about toilets and changing rooms? In the 90s when the trendy clubs started building unisex toilets, me and my mates didn’t feel unsafe in them AND the queues were shorter.
The problems were being grinded from behind by someone with erection on the dance floor and working out if you could slap them and grouping with your mates in the taxi queue so some random bloke couldn’t pick off the drunkest.
To my recollection, these incidents were generally carried out by individuals presenting accoutrements culturally associated as male though as rule I didn’t perform a chromosome test, check their genitalia (though there was a clue with grinding), perform an internal scan to check their internal machinery or request blood hormonal tests. So could not be sure.
Edit. Yes, I needed to find better clubs. And I did. Gay clubs and metal clubs had a much better vibe.
Thus, really!
Thus, really!
metal clubs are well known for not tolerating the crap that more mainstream clubs would, and with gay clubs they don’t usually have the same consent issues re women, although some do for men when it comes to being hands-y just because yiu don’t have a top on…
A favourite quote for me is “if you know the genitals of the person in the cubicle next to you, they’re not the one with the problem”
There is a problem in sport with the perceived default split and, rather than trying to shoe horn peopl,e into one or the other it’s time for a ground up rethink of the outcome you’re trying to achieve and devise a system to implement that.
Wow. This has gone in a
Wow. This has gone in a different direction since I last looked.
I originally posted to show that people that have had prolonged exposure to testosterone have a huge advantage over those that haven’t. This cannot be doubted. Whilst testosterone levels don’t necassarily mean the highest will be best, it does mean that there is definitely going to be a distinction.
All I wanted to highlight is the unfairness when it came to sports and sports only. My own experience with testosterone usage and the various levels of it that I’ve been exposed to have shown me just how powerful it can be when it comes to the bodies growth from and reaction to exercise.
My intention was not to cause offence or demean anyone, be they trans or not. I’ve found the following on a website and I’d like feedback as it seems, in my opinion, that it looks at this issue fairly.
https://theconversation.com/striking-a-balance-between-fairness-in-competition-and-the-rights-of-transgender-athletes-159685
I think the “fault” lies in
I think the “fault” lies in trying to maintain a binary split for no other reason than we’ve always had one (for a sufficient value of “always”)
lit was a crude measure back when women were just banned from competing in toto and it’s hopefully obvious to all it’s an increasingly unworkable idea going forwards.
As ever, define the problem you seek a solution for first, then deign your solution. Trying to tinker around with a broken system leaves you with a broken system
You don’t think trans women
You don’t think trans women may or more likely will have an advantage over non trans women?
sparrowlegs wrote:
I don’t think you understand what I posted.
I understood perfectly, then
I understood perfectly, then replied with another question. You’re blaming the “system” for us being where we are now.
So I’ll ask again, do you think trans women have an advantage over non trans women when it comes to sports?
sparrowlegs wrote:
I don’t think that question has any relevance compared to what I posted, which is why it seemed like you didn’t understand. It’s like saying “I like oranges” and your response is to ask “but what about carrots?”; there’s a disconnect
It is also the usual reductionist 2 dimensional nonsense of a question that doesn’t help advance the discussion. You have the same issue as rich, of lacking any nuance.
I do wonder why you’re restarting this, claiming yiu didn’t offend, but if memory recalls you did the usual tripe of “but trans women don’t have cervices” which I’m sure, as ever, by reducing women to a mere body part must be greatly received…
Ah yes, here’s your “gem”
Ah yes, here’s your “gem” from page 7 or so. Say again how you weren’t here meaning to offend…
So basically you won’t answer
So basically you won’t answer it?
You’ll deflect and dodge but basically will not answer if trans women should compete directly with non trans women?
You’ll use pretty words to talk about nuances and gradations but you won’t answer the direct question posed to you?
sparrowlegs wrote:
see my answer abive about your common problem you share with Rich
bye.
So that’s a no then? You won
So that’s a no then? You won’t answer the simple and direct question? Do you think trans women should be competing directly with non trans women?
If you refuse to answer then I think we are done here.
Indeed, it seems you are done
Indeed, it seems you are done.
Don’t want to answer the
Don’t want to answer the question but want to have the last word yeah?
Or, maybe you do want to answer the question, do you think trans women should compete directly against non trans women?
I think that’s 4 times I’ve asked you and you still haven’t answered it.
“I don’t think that question
“I don’t think that question has any relevance compared to what I posted, which is why it seemed like you didn’t understand. It’s like saying “I like oranges” and your response is to ask “but what about carrots?”; there’s a disconnect
It is also the usual reductionist 2 dimensional nonsense of a question that doesn’t help advance the discussion. You have the same issue as rich, of lacking any nuance. “
Not so long ago, I read a
Not so long ago, I read a that a study by the American military showed that even years after gender realignment, trans female soldiers still showed to be much faster and stronger then their colleagues who were born in a female body
Jimwill wrote:
Strava or it didn’t happen…
Oh FFS, you’ve done it now.
Oh FFS, you’ve done it now. Said something without showing receipts. Even if you do provide links to proven studies that once puberty has happened nothing can erase that, it doesn’t matter because again, it doesn’t fit their narrative.
Go on, post a link to Leah Thomas destroying the non-trans women in a swimming race. It won’t matter.
Even quoting Caitlyn Jenner got me nowhere because she’s not the right type of trans woman apparently.
I’ve been called bigot, anti-trans, TERF and genital fetishist. That was a new one but I’m sure I’d seen it somewhere else and then it occurred to me…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-57853385.amp
You can say you agree with trans people having the same rights as the gender they identify as in every way except sports but that’s not good enough.
If people are that bothered
If people are that bothered its a Google away. Bloke who wrote was called Roberts I believe and it was a study including 49 trans Airforce personnel, after 2 years, they were still 12% faster in a mile and half run.
And I think It was referenced in a article about the swimmer. I would have saved the link if only I’d known how important it was at the time..
And you can also point to the
And you can also point to the trans wrestler who then didn’t go on to win everything as a counter point
I never said she wasn’t the “right type of trans woman”, as you well know. That’s another example of your argument in bad faith, I stated that she only stated that position *once she announced her running as a republican candidate, and the GOP is abusing trans people in sports right now as a dog whistle for ignorant voters, because gay bashing isn’t working for them any more*. Prior to that she was publicly pro trans people in sport.
hey, yiure the one who narrowed down “woman” to “has a cervix”, which is a really gross way to demean a gender. So I’d say bigot is a pretty clear one.
yes, because “seperate but equal” is totally fine with you, as we al know. It’s ok to diminish ALL of one of the most marginalised groups in society – a fact you don’t care about, clearly – as “colllective punishment” because some of them may want to compete in sport and may be better in some way that is “unfair”, yet yiu also seem totally ok with using “science” to keep Caster Semenya from competing as she, despite being a cis woman, has an unfair advantage for her sport.
The alternative is to look at *why* we have a crude binary split – mostly historic – and therefore what are we trying to achieve. That would be an enlightened, progressive way of doing things, but of course, change is bad, apparently…
What wrestler is this? Can
What wrestler is this? Can you find me a link or references? You should know by now we don’t just accept anecdotal evidence in this thread so cough up.
You dismissed Caitlyn’s view because of her political affiliations. Show me when she agreed with trans women competing against non trans women in sport and when she changed this view.
Also, Caster Semenya is intersex. She possesses the means to produce testosterone way above those of a non trans woman because she has testes. Again, this just highlights the fact that anyone who has or has had access to testosterone will more than likely be at an advantage when it comes to competing against non trans women. See the results of the 2016 Olympic Womens 800m. All the medal winners are intersex.
I used the example of someone having a cervix to highlight that it’s more than likely a trans woman will not have one. There are many physiological and biological differences between trans women and non trans women.
You have not produced one iota of evidence that disproves the stance that a trans woman will have a physical advantage advantage over a non trans woman when it comes to the sporting arena. Instead, you’ve resorted to name calling and saying “seperate but equal” when “equal but different” would be a better way of describing things. You use nuanced language to trap people and hopefully intimidate them in to silence.
Your demands are hilarious.
Your demands are hilarious.
Caitlyn – https://www.newsweek.com/caitlyn-jenner-flips-transgender-sports-issue-wants-state-determine-who-truly-trans-1595662. Took two seconds. You don’t do ANY research, do you? Oddly enough, as someone who cares about trans rights, I’ve followed her story for a fair while.
6 years earlier she said “I also want to acknowledge all the young trans athletes who are out there — given the chance to play sports as who they really are.” So while you cannot prove the two are linked, it is factual that
– the gop is anti trans,
– she ran as. GOP candidate
– she changed her public stance on trans inclusion after announcing she was running
Caster is a cis-woman.
no, you didn’t “use the example of”… the quote is above. You used a crude attempt at humour to try to define some through possession of a cervix. Don’t try to row back your bigotry now, that’s now how this works. You could apologise, but that isn’t going to happen…
stil waiting on your definition of a biological woman. It’s been quite a few days now – have you found one yet? You keep referring to but failing to actually, you know, do. I wonder why that is.
You also fail to understand. Again. I don’t have to disprove your contention because your contention isn’t relevant. It’s based on outmoded crude ideas of a binary split that it’s increasingly obvious to everyone just aren’t sufficient for the society we live in
here’s an analogy you might understand – SI units. The metre is defined according to an (as far as we know) unchanging physical constant. We’ve taken what was an approximation (the original metre was essentially an average of other measures, so yiu had multiple metres at one point, same as yiu had multiple inches etc) and defined it. We’ve used science to work out something
We can do the same with divisions in sport. Same as we have a crude weight classification for boxing we can do the same for all sports where we have a binary split. I, not saying it will be easy, and it might throw up some uncomfortable facts, such as “fairness” in sport being completely illusory (as was pointed out by badger, repeatedly, and you ignored) but it would be a start
So yiure comfy saying “you are a woman except here, where you’re not a woman” to someone who is trans? That is absolutely NOT equal.
If I read that right, Caitlyn
If I read that right, Caitlyn is saying someone who transitioned before puberty is ok to compete but someone who transitioned after puberty isn’t? So a distinction between pre-pubescent trans women and post-pubescent trans women? Again, pointing to if someone has or has not been exposed to testosterone.
Caster Samenya is DSD or intersex, she was born “46 XY DSD”, a condition that causes the growth of testes and therefore a higher testosterone level. You are conflating gender and sex.
So if the way forward isn’t easy for ways to define the boundaries and keep sport fair for everyone then surely it’s better to keep it as it is until the fairest way forward is found. Until then, athletes will compete in their biological marker defined catagories. Also, every athlete is tested to see if their testosterone levels (amongst other PEDs) are within fair limits already.
Also, we have weight divisions in boxing, that is correct, again, it’s fairly crude but it’s a way of creating fairness. We do not allow males to fight females, so that argument is mute. You might as well say, here’s a car with 4 wheels (car A), here’s another with 4 wheels (car B). Let’s race them on a smooth tarmac track and the winner recieves lots of money. Car A is a F1 car, car B is a F2 car. Which is more than likely got the advantage? Is that fair?
sparrowlegs wrote:
Seems like it’s anything but…
Haha! I put that in there to
Haha! I put that in there to test you are reading that far down 🙂
https://theconversation.com
https://theconversation.com/ten-ethical-flaws-in-the-caster-semenya-decision-on-intersex-in-sport-116448
item three may be of interest, to point out the flaws in this rulin and your position.
“Moot”, not mute.
“Moot”, not mute.
she is now, having lost, trying to row back on her position seemingly taken due to the gop being, amongst other issues, transphobic.
Caster semenya IS a woman, she is legally female, was identified as female at birth, and has always lived as a woman. You are the person confusing sex and gender, as I am talking gender, you again want to try to involve sex when that’s a different topic.
again, still waiting for you to define “biological female”, or as you are now confusingly trying to call “biological marker defined categories” when you already know – because we’ve shown you – there is no such thing. That rather inconvenience fact is one you keep on pretending doesn’t exist, as it rather destroys your argument. Only a truly ignorant bigot would think a pair of chromosomes adequately defines biological sex or gender, yet you appear to be doing so.
Yes, we can keep it as it is if you want! That means a woman competes with women, and men compete with men, and NB compete with….ooops. GF compete with… oops. So the actual route is to keep applying pressure to work out how to define sports in a way that is more fair to all. Not just the mob rule we have now.
it seems the point about boxing went over you, again. There, we have a division based not solely on gender, but on weight. It is crude, but it’s acknowledging not everyone is equal even with a supposed gender binary that doesn’t exist and never has existed , and has only been forced upon by a mostly white patriarchal western society, usually Christian of some form. Your point about eh F1 car works for me, not you….
So we are now down to
So we are now down to pointing out spelling mistakes?
Regardless about Caster Samenya, she is NOT a trans woman, so lets leave her out of any of this. Using her as an example helps me more as she has been exposed to testosterone all her life and we can see the results of that from her results.
Boxing isn’t based on sex is it not? Best tell Clarissa Shields as she had “GWOAT” on her shorts. If you think boxing isn’t based on sex then you are a fool. Get the best trans male against the best non trans male boxers in any weight and the trans male would be destroyed. And yes, I understand I’ve used the social constructs of trans male and non trans male and it’ll be obvious to everyone why but no doubt you’ll argue that point too.
Again, using NB and GF terms is conflating gender with sex and continue to do so.
You still haven’t answered my question, do you think it’s fair for trans women to compete directly with non trans women in sports?
Leah Thomas, is it fair she competes against non trans females?
No, it was simply correcting
No, it was simply correcting something that people get wrong. Or are you saying you knew it was “moot” and not “mute”?
No, she is a woman who is a woman, that the IAAF have decided to not let compete with women unless she does something doctors will not do… and you did t even read the article, and this is obvious because it shows that *no one knows if her levels of testosterone have had any effect* at all. That, SHOCK, you don’t seem to understand about how different peoples bodies react – or don’t react – to testosterone PROVE here results are sue to testosterone PROVE IT. You’ve made this claim so prove it
So, again, your conclusion is faulty! Again, you’ve failed to actually understand the nuance of a situation – that shock, gender and biology are more complex than you care to acknowledge, and your reductionist viewpoint is hopelessly crude and outdated
Dear Flying Spaghetti Monster, do you try to be this obtuse or does it come naturally I have tried every way I can think of to show that sport already acknowledges gender is not the only way to categorise competitors and that they have tried to use some crude measures – literally, weight – in an attempt to do so. Yet you just show absolutely no ability to comprehend that fact it’s stunning.
NB and GF are not conflating gender and sex. You’re the one crudely trying to talk about sex. In this context, the IAAF have since 2000 used gender, and not any concept of “sex”, for which area a competitor competes in. Except when they don’t .
How do YOU define a “biological female”? What are these “biological marker defined categories” ? Come on, answer for once. Give it a try
I think it can be fair for someone to compete against someone else, and sometimes it is unfair. That precisely answers your question, but sadly for you, I’ve added nuance to make it less offensive and stupid.
sparrowlegs wrote:
That BBC published article seems to be publishing an ‘ideal’ where individuals can be criticised for free thought.
I have never read anything like it.
I believe it’s promoting (by publicising) that if I were to rebuff another person’s advances I can be accused of being ‘whatever-phobic’ and being predjudice against that person’s ‘tribe’.
That article has been widely
That article has been widely criticised, mostly because they deliberately selected an anti-trans group (the LGB alliance, who’s stated aims are anti+trans ) to draw their “sample” from.
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/lesbians-stand-trans-women-open-letter-dangerous-bbc-article-rcna3903
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/british-media-your-bigotry-is-killing-trans-people/
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19695689.bbc-removes-lily-cade-article-transphobic-blog-posts/
hate group info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGB_Alliance
Glad to see it criticised,
Glad to see it criticised, not glad to see it still available online and used on other sites to promote further news around whatever point they are trying to make.
Regardless of the poor excuse for journalism, I’m reeling that the article published is suggesting by content a world of censorship and repressed speech.
peted76 wrote:
they gave a terrible response to the criticism as well, defending the decision to pick an anti trans group in a bizarre way.
For anyone discovering this
For anyone discovering this thread in 2023 tell our loved ones this is as far as we got:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBOj8YxV-hg
chrisonatrike wrote:
i take exception to that….
Quite right, I take that back
Quite right, I take that back. Optimistic outlook, allow more time. It’ll be spring before you know it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZqh-javSXE
What was that Jacques Derrida
What was that Jacques Derrida quote along the lines of “You can choose to define something but all other definitions remain in play”? (Not going to look it up, I’m no scholar of the canon and not even keen – more of a Jacques derider).
That…was quite the pun.
That…was quite the pun. Bravo.
Oh. My. God.
Oh. My. God.
Seriously. Oh my god.
Seriously. Oh my god.
Dear road.cc admins – any chance you could just silo this off so the main players on here can just fight among themselves?
brooksby wrote:
Thunderdome?
They definitely need to step
They definitely need to step in and do something. A line has been crossed when the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s name is being taken in vain.
Thanks for all your comments.
Thanks for all your comments. Please note this thread is now closed.