British Cycling has confirmed that transgender cyclist Emily Bridges will not now make her competitive debut as a woman at the National Omnium Championships in Derby this weekend, saying that the UCI has informed it that under current regulations, she “is not eligible to participate in this event.”
We will have more on this story in the morning. In the meantime, in a statement released this evening, the national governing body said:
At British Cycling, we believe that transgender and non-binary people should be able to find a home, feel welcome and included, and be celebrated in our sport.
Under the British Cycling Transgender and Non-Binary Participation policy, Emily Bridges was due to participate in the British National Omnium Championships on Saturday 2nd April. We have now been informed by the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) that under their current guidelines Emily is not eligible to participate in this event.
We have been in close discussions with the UCI regarding Emily’s participation this weekend and have also engaged closely with Emily and her family regarding her transition and involvement in elite competitions. We acknowledge the decision of the UCI with regards to Emily’s participation, however we fully recognise her disappointment with today’s decision.
Transgender and non-binary inclusion is bigger than one race and one athlete – it is a challenge for all elite sports. We believe all participants within our sport deserve more clarity and understanding around participation in elite competitions and we will continue to work with the UCI on both Emily’s case and the wider situation with regards to this issue.
We also understand that in elite sports the concept of fairness is essential. For this reason, British Cycling is today calling for a coalition to share, learn and understand more about how we can achieve fairness in a way that maintains the dignity and respect of all athletes.
Within recent years, we’ve seen huge advancements in the science and testing around elite sports, the broader scientific and understanding of human biology, developments in protection provided by the law, and crucially a greater respect for the psychological and societal challenges of those who are transgender and non-binary. This is a complex area and by uniting, we can share resources and insights.
We know that some of these conversations are happening in pockets of the sporting world, but we want to encourage all sporting governing bodies, athletes, the transgender and non-binary athlete community, the Government and beyond to come together and find a better answer.
Across sports, far more needs to be done, collectively, before any long-term conclusions can be drawn.
Below is our original article, published at 1215 today.
A transgender cyclist who was once part of the men’s Great Britain Academy Programme, and who last month won a men’s race at the British Universities Track Championships, looks set to make her competitive debut as a woman against some of the country’s top female riders including multiple Olympic champion Dame Laura Kenny at the National Omnium Championships in Derby this weekend – although some competitors are said to be afraid to speak out about her potential participation in the event.
Emily Bridges, aged 21, revealed her struggles with gender dysphoria and the impact it was having on her, including depression and feeling isolated, in an article written for Sky Sports that was published on Coming Out Day in October 2020.
She started undergoing hormone therapy last year, and her testosterone levels are now sufficiently low to allow her to compete in women’s events under British Cycling’s Transgender and Non-Binary Participation Policy.
First published in 2020, the latest version of the policy was published in January this year following a consultation last summer that attracted 600 responses.
Transgender athletes are required to have testosterone levels below 5 nanomoles per litre for a year (men generally range between 10 and 30 nanomoles per litre) before being permitted to compete against other women.
Announcing the update, British Cycling said: “Our first Transgender and Non-Binary Participation Policy was designed to be as inclusive as possible, imposing only necessary and proportionate restrictions on eligibility to ensure fair and meaningful competition, based on the most relevant available guidance.”
The governing body said that it would “continue to follow the UCI regulations introduced in March 2020, which are based on objective scientific research and driven by a desire to guarantee fairness and safety within the sport … For this reason, testosterone levels remain the primary method of determining which members are eligible to compete in the male and female categories.”
It added: “While there has been much commentary on the effectiveness of testosterone-based measures, at the current time we do not have sufficient research or understanding to update this area of our policy in a way which is relevant and appropriate for our sport.
“However, we remain committed to moving with international bodies and scientific opinion, and supporting research efforts in any way we can.”
News of Bridges’ likely participation in Derby this weekend has attracted criticism within the media, with Owen Slot, chief sports writer at The Times, writing that should she beat Kenny – five times an Olympic gold medallist, two of those in the Omnium – this weekend, it would underline the unfairness of allowing transgender women to compete in female sports events.
Meanwhile, Olympic silver medal-winning former swimmer Sharron Davies, who believes that despite reduction of testosterone levels, transgender women retain an unfair physical advantage over biological females and should therefore be excluded from women’s sport, says that she has been contacted by women cyclists who are fearful of going public with their concerns.
“British Cycling ought to be ashamed of themselves,” she said, quoted on Mail Online. “I have had quite a few of the girls very distressed on the phone. They are frustrated and disappointed.
“They are all for inclusion but not at the loss of fairness and opportunities for biological females.”
However, Bridges’ mother Sandy, writing on Twitter, said that her daughter may have to have police protection at the championships this weekend.
“This is the reality of being trans today,” she wrote. “That my daughter has to be on a police operation plan to compete in a bike race in the UK. How in any way can that be #SafeToBeMe2022.”
301 thoughts on “UCI bars transgender cyclist Emily Bridges from debut as woman at National Omnium Championships this weekend”
Let’s be sensible and
Let’s be sensible and sensitive here.
My main comment is that, from a scientific, evidential and medical perspective (irrespective of other issues), the testosterone level tests make the 50% haemocrit level rule that we had in cycling in the 2000s look positively cutting edge. It’s a number plucked out of the air based on what can be measured rather than a well-evidenced threshold.
Firstly, Bridges has done
Firstly, Bridges has done nothing wrong. She does not deserve any abuse or vilification whatsoever. She is free to live her life as she sees fit and if she complies with the rules as they are then she can compete in women’s events and should not be criticised for doing so.
My issue is with the rules not with the athletes who abide by them.
I don’t think enough of the physiological advantages enjoyed by the average male over the average female are removed just by lowering testosterone levels.
As a consequence I don’t think the current rules ensure fair competition and they need to be revised.
I have to say Rich_cb that
I have to say Rich_cb that based on my reading of your previous postings I would not have expected such a sensitive and nuanced post from you. Mea Culpa for showing me I’m wrong.
And bloody good post!
Rich_cb wrote:
Oh no she isn’t. She should follow society’s rules and laws even if they are directly opposed to her wishes. Just like the rest of us, really.
I think far from doing
I think far from doing nothing wrong she is to be applauded for being honest and prepared to follow the regulations in place and thank you for stating what many trans people suffer with regard vilification and abuse. The main problem as pointed out is ensuring that other female competitors have a level playing field. It is interesting to note in the Cycling weekly article that Emily commented on support from female athletes and on the polarised views. I suspect many perceived physiological advantages are in reality dis-advantages but will vary for that individual sport and event to be held ? It is difficult to know what is fair competition when perception on fairness can be tainted from standing at the starting line ?
I’d definitely agree that the
I’d definitely agree that the degree of advantage will vary from sport to sport.
Height is a huge advantage in some sports and obviously does not change at all on transition.
In other sports extra height may hamper aerodynamics and be a hindrance
Oh my lord this is gonna be a
Oh my lord this is gonna be a minefield comments section.
Maybe they ought to have a non-binary seperate category? I would like to be a woman often, but I am not a woman. I would feel uncomfortable transitioning and then beating persons who have not made a gender transition.
This will cause some negative
This will cause some negative comments I’m sure, however this is a good thing for sport and for all genders, for me.
visibility that trans women are indeed women is key in helping others with their own identity. It shows you’re not alone and that you can be true to yourself and not suffer institutional phobia and discrimination as a result.
seperate but equal never works in the long run, so if equality (this is equality) isn’t acceptable then the other solution is to bracket on physiological criteria other than the gross “xx/xy” split we have now. That is probably better in the longer run but is obviously a more radical change.
Not wanting to get into the
Not wanting to get into the rights and wrongs of things here (I don’t believe any commentators here are qualified to judge), it will be interesting to me, to see how someone with as much sporting talent to ride for Ribble and HUUB teams in previous years as a male will fair in the womens league after all the drugs and hormones.
Bridges was interviewed for a
Bridges was interviewed for a Cycling weekly article that was published last month. I don’t know if it would clear up any misconceptions but if anyone is interested in the topic then it may be worth a look:
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/fitness/i-just-want-to-be-competitive-again-trans-cyclist-emily-bridges-on-preparing-to-race-in-the-female-category
Rich_cb has a good point (“My issue is with the rules not with the athletes who abide by them.”). Could it be that a lack of real understanding of the issues, even by experts and sport governing bodies, is why we’ve reached this position? I simply don’t feel I know enough to have a valid opinion.
Interesting article, thanks.
Interesting article, thanks.
Interesting video on this
Interesting video on this topic:
https://youtu.be/VgmyFXdbIT4
The evidence suggests that
The evidence suggests that suppressing testosterone does not have enough impact to undo the advantages bestowed by male puberty. On the basis that most males are bigger, faster and stronger than most females, trans women have a physiological advantage in women’s sport. This goes against fair competition, a sporting cornerstone. It will be interesting to see the competition results in this case but one thing is for sure, the rules surrounding this need to be further developed to ensure that women are not unfairly deprived of team membership and victories they may otherwise have gained.
Thats fair. Its really
Thats fair. Its really important to differentiate in this topic between the existence of the Trans Athlete(s) and the reality of a set of immature rules from Governing bodies to achieve a level playing field.
My hunch is that we need to evolve towards a classification system similar to the Paralympics rather than the convient binary fiction they adhere to now.
Secret-squirrel wrote:
How would you see that working? There are multiple categories in the Paralympics, to cover the spectrum of disabilities. Whereas major sporting events often struggle to cater fully even for the present binary classification.
Moreover, I don’t think that the idea of multiple classifications would satisfy trans people, whose demand is to be fully accepted as an ordinary member of their chosen gender, and not of some third category.
You might also like to consider why we have a Paralympics in the first place.
Sriracha wrote:
But therein lies the question. Is a trans athlete sufficiently similar to a cis athlete for them to be fully accepted as an ordinary member of their chosen gender for the purposes of fair sporting competition?
And how much leeway should there be in those similarities?
For example, besides his inate talent and years of training, Usain Bolt, at 6’5” and with a stable lengthy stride, has significant physical advantages over me at 5’9” and with relatively short legs/stride when it comes to sprinting.
There is nothing I can do about that and, even if all other factors were equalled out, the chances are he would pound me into the dust in a 100m race due to those advantages.
And to become Olympic champion I would have to beat him because we are both in the same category.
I think ultimately, there may have to be compromise on both sides of the aurgument, but there is a lot of science and a lot of open discussion to be had before we get to the point where everyone accepts the answer.
Taking the “Sharron Davies” position of it not ever being permitted because it fundamentally unfair is not sustainable, but neither is simply allowing trans athletes to just compete in their chosen gender category without proper consideration of whether (or how much) that is fair to everyone.
You still only need two
You still only need two categories – female and other. Other is for anyone not born female.
brogs wrote:
so it’s a transphobic split yiure after. Just to be clear, that makes you transphobic.
Ridiculous. It’s cheating on
Ridiculous. It’s cheating on a scale higher than Armstrong. Sport should be divided by grounds of sex (which can be proven) rather than gender (which cannot). All people carrying the XY chromosome are male whereas those carrying XX are female. Simple as that. If one has passed through puberty as a male (like the man calling himself Rachel McKinnon) you will have an unfair physiological advantage over those who are biologically female.
Your GCSE/O Level/ CSE
Your GCSE/O Level/ CSE Woodworking is not a safe foundation for thinking you understand how to classify Sex and Gender.
Nature disagree’s with you.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07238-8
So if someone rocks up with
So if someone rocks up with Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) which category would they race in your ‘simple’ system?
Toss of a coin?
capedcrusader wrote:
Considering some of the many manifestations of Klinefelters are small testes, low testosterone and low muscle mass I don’t think they’ll be racing in the pro tour.
michophull wrote:
There are some very good posts on here exploring this issue carefully and sensitively.
Yours is not one one of them.
How does someone who is genetecially XY and has complete androgen insensitivity syndrome fit in to your categories of sex? Or a person who is XX with a severe virilising form of congenital adrenal hyperplasia? Or a person who is a mosaic XX/XY?
Are these, in the main,
Are these conditions typical of sportspeople who present as trans?
Sriracha wrote:
My understanding is there are Cis women with these conditions who were then treated as trans and removed from the sport.
JustTryingToGetFromAtoB wrote
My question was not, do they exist, it was are they typical, in the main, of trans people. The debate is about trans people.
Sriracha wrote:
Its quite clearly not – its about general inclusivity and fairness in mainstream sports that clearly fail to recognise there are many conditions where a binary classification into male/female is inherently unfair. I suggest you take some time to actually read some of the posts on this thread.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Its quite clearly not – its about general inclusivity and fairness in mainstream sports that clearly fail to recognise there are many conditions where a binary classification into male/female is inherently unfair. I suggest you take some time to actually read some of the posts on this thread.— Sriracha
You can’t have it both ways. If “a binary classification into male/female is inherently unfair” then it should be scrapped and replaced with a classification system which is fair.
Moreover, whatever classification system you arrive at there will always be outliers which don’t fit the boundaries, not until everyone is an individual category of their own. Hence my question as to whether the various genetic conditions raised were in fact typical of people who identify as transgender.
And finally, I don’t see why we can’t argue differing views without recourse to condescension.
No, the original statement
No, the original statement was “All people carrying the XY chromosome are male whereas those carrying XX are female. Simple as that.” – which is simply not true.
Sriracha wrote:
Caster Semenya for example. She, of course, presented as female and thought of herself as female, as often happens with androgen insensitivity. It goes to show that people who say XX/XY it’s as simple as that just have no idea.
Personally I agree with rich_cb on this one that in some sports exposure to biologically effective testosterone gives people an advantage. The problem that who experiences this is not simply XX/XY dependent. And we do not know what levels of testosterone exposure or for how long have what effect. Or indeed which sports may be relevant – I think there evidence that in some ultra races XX individuals with no metabolic pathway abnormalities have an advantage for instance.
The problem is that this is such a complex area only a handful of medical specialists fully understand the field and then how it applies to competitive sports, what levels of testosterone exposure and when they occur in childhood and adolescence – I think it is fair to say that no-one currently knows the implications and how to ensure a level playing field with a purely “male/female” classification as that is obviously and inherently wrong.
So the classification is wrong and the rules are wrong, and in the meantime people who already have documented higher levels of depression and death by suicide suffer a trial by ignorant media for the crime of wanting to be themselves and take part in a sport they enjoy.
– How does someone who is
– How does someone who is genetecially XY and has complete androgen insensitivity syndrome fit in to your categories of sex?
Male… Plus, I should imagine the vast majority of the tiny minority of those with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome will identify as male. Anyone not should be supported in understanding if their choice to identify as female is despite, or due, to their syndrome.
– Or a person who is XX with a severe virilising form of congenital adrenal hyperplasia
Female… in extreme cases of classic CAH, you could argue for intersex, but that would not be truly accurate.
– Or a person who is a mosaic XX/XY?
Intersex, although I guess a sex will be defined by analysis of internal biological structures.
All of the above are extremely rare. Taking into account even the mildest examples of the above, you are at most, looking at 1.7% of the population being potentially affected. True rates of intersex are more likely in the region of 0.018%.
You are right, it’s not quite as simple as XX or XY but from a practical view point, it really is.
And from a sporting fairness perspective, its that 0.018% that is relevant to the discussion, not the 1.7%.
This whole ‘how do you define a woman’ argument is, to me, a complete red herring, for 99.98% it really is a case of black or white.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
1. Almost always wrong
2. Often wrong, but changing more recently
3. Ah so now we have invented “intersex” as a new sex classification whereas previously “All people carrying the XY chromosome are male whereas those carrying XX are female. Simple as that” – so it isn’t as simple as that.
4. So when we are talking about trans athletes is IS the rare exceptions and edge cases that are important.
5. If the whole argument about how we define a woman is a red herring, why say those carrying XX are female?
1. yes, you are absolutely
1. yes, you are absolutely right, my error… did a little further reading, the ‘complete’ was the important point I’d missed.
3. I don’t think I’ve invented anything.
4. Can I ask why, what is the correlation and importance to the trans sport discussion?
5. Not sure what you mean?
michophull wrote:
I think you shoud get off the fence and tell us how you really feel.
michophull wrote:
The IOC and IAAF tried that. It turned out that biology isn’t simple as that.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/magazine/the-humiliating-practice-of-sex-testing-female-athletes.html?utm_source=pocket_mylist
But if he wears the wrong
But if she wears the wrong length socks she’s out.
The reality is there is no
The reality is there is no good solution to the problem.
Trans people are not made physically the same as the sex that they have become, which cannot be resolved by medical technology of today, and the effects of being another sex before their point of transition does result in long term differences.
That leaves a dilemma, for fair competition a trans athlete may be permanently advantaged or disadvantaged against their competitors through no malign intent. Given the minute scrutiny of a modern athlete, such differences cannot be dismissed. On the other hand, excluding those who have transitioned does appear discriminatory. Enforcing participation on the other competitors has the potential to alienate trans people from otherwise open and accepting people (both fellow competitors and genuine followers of the sport) if there is a genuine unfair advantage.
I think in part that the solution must rest with the trans person, who perhaps needs to recognise that they do not fit into a neat category (well, I am sure that they do know that), so they can participate but might wish to voluntarily withdraw from results and rankings where they recognise they have had an advantage bestowed upon them by their transition. Not a great solution, but it’s the best I can think of so far.
Which unfortunately then
Which unfortunately then leads anyone watching trans athletes competing “for fun” ( as they cannot win the competition) it’s sending the messsge that the trans athlete is t equal
all of sport is about having an “unfair” advantage brought about by genetics.
My view on this is that
My view on this is that competitive sport is something we should encourage / enable everyone to participate in.
Aside from the physical benefits of exercise / sport there are significant mental health benefits.
Given that many people living with gender dysphoria often describe real suffering and acute mental health issues we should therefore ensure they can compete in the sports that they enjoy – but that can’t be to the detriment of other athletes.
So that leaves the issue of fairness.
It’s very clear that some of the athletes recently in focus still have very significant physical advantages over their peers that will not change with the passing of time. This seems inherently unfair.
So we must find ways for them to compete without making it unfair to the athletes that are competing in their birth sex. Perhaps “open” classes available to athletes of all genders but with a handicap system might be one solution.
Apologies for any clumsy wording on this one and / or any offence inadvertently caused.
As long as you continue with
As long as you continue with the men / womens split, adding a third category essentially says that trans athletes are “separate but equal”.
Difficult one, this. I think,
Difficult one, this. I think, ultimately, to be fair to all, there should be a seperate category for trans athletes. Men transitioning to women will always have the upper hand so to speak and have an unfair advantage.
Interestingly, you never hear of women who have transitioned to men, competing against men. Is there any reason why? It is always former men competing against women.
I think you have expressed
I think you have expressed two sides of the same coin; women are at a disadvantage when the competition is with men.
Emily is not a man.
Emily is not a man.
gender is not the same as sex. Try not to repeat your previous posting history which was transphobic.
I don’t get what you’re
I don’t get what you’re trying to say here. Emily was born a man, correct? No matter what she does, hormones she takes, she will always be, biologically speaking, male. With that comes the inherent abilities and strengths over and above her competitors that were not born biological males.
Try to have calm and rational discourse were differing views can be heard, people can be corrected if they are wrong, without throwing around labels such as transphobic.
sparrowlegs wrote:
Emily had her sex assigned as male, however she is not a man and never was from a gender identity perspective
You have used the term “biological males”, but yiu do not have a definition of such that csn be agreed upon by the wider scientific community I know this to be true, becsue there ISNT such a definition. Gender is a spectrum, it is not binary, and so your attempts to reduce it to such is going to fail.
Sriracha is a transphobe, as Emily is not a man yet they are saying Emily is I am having a calm discourse, but much like deadnaming someone I will not tolerate or accept silently transphobic comments
It’s kind of irrelevant to
It’s kind of irrelevant to the content of this article, but I think it’s interesting that you seem to think the only value in competing is if you can win. I “compete” in open zwift races: it’s fun and makes me ride faster. I don’t really see what the “disadvantage” is there.
British Cycling have now
British Cycling have now announced that Emily will not be taking part after discussions with UCI.
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/about/article/20220330-British-Cycling-calls-for-coalition-to-address-transgender–and-non-binary-participation-in-elite-sports-0?fbclid=IwAR3mM8yhcoM0m359xWjzi9y4MDQdEZnBJEGCfz7oP2BsQxq00UfhE39zga8
whether or not the decision
whether or not the decision was the right one. shame on the UCI for letting it get this far. its not good for Emily or the Sport.
Why not scrap the archaic Men
Why not scrap the archaic Men and Women categories and introduce XX and XY chromosome categories?
Women with the Y chromosome can compete in the XY category and Men without a Y chromosome can compete in XX.
Everyone is welcome and no one is disadvantaged.
?
?
Bill H wrote:
Because the IOC and IAAF trued that. All it acheived was telling a number of women that they’d had a Y chromosome all their life and were previously unaware of it. Not sure how that’s helpful?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/magazine/the-humiliating-practice-of-sex-testing-female-athletes.html?utm_source=pocket_mylist
Why is that a problem Ian?
Why is that a problem Ian? Those women can still compete in the Y category of their chosen sport.
No one should be denied the opportunity to take part in sport.
It’s a shame it got so close
It’s a shame it got so close to Emily competing until the ruling was applied but I do feel it’s the right outcome. I feel sorry for Emily but I’d have more sympathy for the competitors that she beat if she were allowed to compete.
As someone who suffers from complete testosterone production shutdown I know how powerful testosterone is and the difference it makes.
I hope something can be done that allows trans people to compete but this should not include the erosion of womens sports.
sparrowlegs wrote:
Total own goal by the UCI – there’s a surprise! If they were going to move it should have been much much sooner.
We have to be careful – assuming she will win isnt fair on her or her competitors. For all the fuss around Lia Thomas she won 1 of a number of races that weekend, coming 8th in another. Then the 1 race she won was then jumped on as somehow representative of her entire performance – which was all over the place. All over the place for an elite swimmer of course.
The narrative of “Trans women will always win” is being leveraged to stoke hostility by the Right to Trans existence in general, when in fact 99.9% of Trans women arent going near competitive sport.
We also need to be aware that Sport is a tiny tiny piece of transdom and frankly most trans ppl have bigger fish to fry.
There’s speculation that Lia
There’s speculation that Lia Thomas lost on purpose so it doesn’t show total dominance. She’s also slowed her times in the races she has won too. Some people would say this shows that the performance margin between trans and biological competitors isn’t that great. Others could say Lia is playing possum. Either way, we’ll never truly know.
I’d argue that no matter where she placed, it displaced someone Lia shouldn’t have been racing against.
In other words, she didn’t
In other words, she didn’t dominate as we expected her to do so she must have not been trying.
That seems to line up with people who state, “I can’t see the curve so the earth must be flat”.
I don’t know where you get
I don’t know where you get that comparison from.
Lia did win a race, so does that make the earth a bit rounder or a bit flatter? She lost some others, so again, does that make it rounder or flatter? Or, does it make it totally unfair that she was even allowed to race at all?
You pointed out that because
You pointed out that because she didn’t totally dominate it and was a good 10 seconds behind the record for that event, she was not swimming to the best of her abilities. You also pointed out that she did not win other races, so mist of deliberately lost them.
Seems to me to be up there with the best conspiracy theories to me, hence my comparison.
And yes, IF she met all the rules currently there for her to compete, then she can compete.
sparrowlegs wrote:
Who are speculating? And on what basis would someone make that kind of accusation? That’s horrible. And demonstrates how brave she has been.
Or how duplicitous? She’s not
Or how duplicitous? She’s not daft, she’s heard/seen the furore around her inclusion in the sport and if she dominates then it adds further fuel to the fire. Lose a few and suddenly it causes doubt.
My issues isn’t with Lia or Emma but the rules that have cowardly been applied by the sports governing bodies that have caused undue stress for so many female competitors.
sparrowlegs wrote:
so you’re accusing her of throwing races, based on….?
seems like trans people can’t win x do too well in a sport defined by things not being a level playing field, and yiure wring. Don’t do well, and you’re deliberately throwing the result.
JustTryingToGetFromAtoB wrote
There’s speculation that Lia Thomas lost on purpose so it doesn’t show total dominance. She’s also slowed her times in the races she has won too. Some people would say this shows that the performance margin between trans and biological competitors isn’t that great. Others could say Lia is playing possum. Either way, we’ll never truly know.
I’d argue that no matter where she placed, it displaced someone Lia shouldn’t have been racing against.
— JustTryingToGetFromAtoB Who are speculating? And on what basis would someone make that kind of accusation? That’s horrible. And demonstrates how brave she has been.— sparrowlegs
I notice the acknowledged transphobe hasn’t bothered substantiating any part of their apparently libellous comments.
I wonder why that is.
JustTryingToGetFromAtoB wrote
A 6’5″ man competing against women. So brave…
Who is 6’5″?
Who is 6’5″?
Mark_1973_ wrote:
There’s speculation that Lia Thomas lost on purpose so it doesn’t show total dominance. She’s also slowed her times in the races she has won too. Some people would say this shows that the performance margin between trans and biological competitors isn’t that great. Others could say Lia is playing possum. Either way, we’ll never truly know.
I’d argue that no matter where she placed, it displaced someone Lia shouldn’t have been racing against.
— Mark_1973_ Who are speculating? And on what basis would someone make that kind of accusation? That’s horrible. And demonstrates how brave she has been.— JustTryingToGetFromAtoB A 6’5″ man competing against women. So brave…— sparrowlegs
disgsuting post, again. You really are trash.
.
.
Good comment until you started on with ‘the Right stoking hostility’.
.
Naaa, think it’s acros the spectrum.
.
The easy solution to this one
The easy solution to this one is to replace “men’s” and “women’s” events with “open” and “female”.
Whilst that solution is
Whilst that solution is attractive in its simplicity, it fails to address the fundamental issue which is that trans-women will not be satisfied unless they are accepted in the female category, and not the “open”.
Because trans women are women
Because trans women are women, rather obviously.
and rather than discriminate against a tiny minority that want to participate and the larger minority that are trans that would like some confirmation and visibility that transwomen are indeed women in all aspects of society, if you’re going to have a crude men/women split in sport, you don’t get to decide who is a “true” woman
nosferatu1001 wrote:
So you advocate the elimination of competitive sport for natural born women? Or do you want them to turn up, “compete”, lose, and stand smiling on the podium?
Mark_1973_ wrote:
interesting false dichotomy there
of course, you’ve got reams of data to show that “natural born women” are going to lose every competition if the tiny number of trans sports people compete? If so, any chance you could show it instead of, you kniw, massive hyperbole that helps no one?
We need to stop confusing sex
We need to stop confusing sex with ability.
People who produce less testosterone shouldn’t be forced to compete with those who do simply because of gender.
.
.
You’re confusing me! Please clarify.
.
It’s interesting to me to see
It’s interesting to me to see the different number of comments on different articles, purpotedly about womens’ sports and health: this article has more than 50 comments before I’ve even finished my coffee.
In comparison, the interesting and well-researched series ‘bump and ride’ about cycling and pregnancy: 1 comment spread across three articles. Anna’s article about aligning your training with your menstrual cycle: 0 comments. A WHOOP press release about addressing the gender gap in researching sporting performance: 0 comments. I guess, I’m not saying I really want all the blokes over here to have opinions about riding during pregnancy, and not all women are interested in pregnancy or can get pregnant (trans women are women), but I do think it says something about the roadcc demographics. And maybe if you’re not interested in any of those other articles, perhaps you could think a bit more about why you’re interested in this one. If you’re a man who has exceedingly strong opinions about who should be allowed to compete in womens’ sports: why? Do you see yourself as a protector? It’s not necessary, please. Do you feel threatened by the idea that there is a woman out there who is stronger and faster than you? I’m sorry, but Emily isn’t the only one, just the one you find easiest to dismiss.
roadcc commentators are attracted to conflict and outrage like moths to a flame — perhaps some of us should think about why that is and try to be more mindful about choosing positive interactions instead of negative ones. I probably won’t comment again on this thread, I don’t like to throw more fuel on the fire. Be kind to each other, please.
notMyRealName wrote:
Errm at the time of your posting it had been running for 24hrs.
Wow, nothing like a bit of
Wow, nothing like a bit of projection there… so men showing an interest must be to do with mysogynist leanings and their own inferiority complex? Classy.
Out of interest, did you feel the need to comment on the recent article about male prostate health? If not, why not?
I think the reason why this topic is such a hot one is because equality and fairness in sport is something we can all relate to. That ‘fairness’ is very much open interpretation which in turn leads to strong, differing opinions, and accordingly lots of comments.
I think another reason this subject is so triggering is because for many, there is a sense that the current regulations and their application have been defined with seemingly little public / participant consultation / explanation. Taken to extreme;
Governing Body: ‘Head’s up, it’s OK for Men to race as women now, they just need to keep their testosterone levels down’
Member: ‘sorry, what?’
Governing Body: ‘why you questionning this, trans-phobe!!?’
More discussions needs to take place, to break down those objections and inaccurate beliefs; the general populus is not as ‘woke’ as many expect / want. Simply shouting down anyone with an alternative view will not change their views, it will only polarise them.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
I’m not sure I’m reading quite what you seem to be reading. Seems like a reasonable observation. As to the reasons for that – could you be projecting yourself?
However I agree with you on one of the reasons you allude to. This is “cultural change”. Much of the population is still catching up with this idea in the “concrete implications” as opposed to the abstract. (Much easier to agree with a principle.) Probably this is more salient to a greater percentage of older people than younger ones. Like – I imagine – many who post on here or write strongly-worded letters to newspapers, governing bodies etc.
More discussions – yes and no doubt this will continue, possibly for generations. I suspect there is also the current bias on not hearing women’s opinions on this as in many other areas.
.
.
Most male bike riders not over-interested in articles on women riding when pregs.
.
Shock, horror! Who’d a thought it?
.
Found a handy little lookup
Found a handy little lookup cheatsheet for determining sex from: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sa-visual/visualizing-sex-as-a-spectrum/
Edit: changed image to their finished version
hawkinspeter wrote:
Thank you, on first glance that looks horrific but on reading it is actually really clear.
I’d wager that whole spectrum
I’d wager that whole spectrum of differences covers about 1% of the population. Due to the vociferous few it seems like large percentages of the population are minorities when it just isn’t so.
sparrowlegs wrote:
Quite possibly.
I first saw that image used in this Twitter thread posted on Imgur: https://imgur.com/account/favorites/UAxNPWp
It’s well worth reading and mentions the following bit
The reason I don’t have my students look at their own chromosome in class is because people could learn that their chromosomal sex doesn’t match their physical sex, and learning that in the middle of a 10-point assignment is JUST NOT THE TIME.
I’ve never had my chromosomes tested, have you?
hawkinspeter wrote:
I’ve never had my chromosomes tested, have you?
— sparrowlegs
On testosterone alone, up to 10% of women (myself included) can move along the spectrum due to a specific condition.
Edit: I would never have known this (I had personally suspected but had literally been laughed at by a GP). However, I then had this condition identified and testosterone checked through investigations for something completely different.
Nope. Never needed to. I’m
Nope. Never needed to. I’m not trying to masquerade as something I’m not.
sparrowlegs wrote:
The point is that you wouldn’t necessarily know if you were somehow mis-classified (masquerade is a loaded word) until seeing the results of a test.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Given that sparrow has shown a fair amount of transphobia I would suggest the choice to use an abhorrent term was deliberate.
sparrowlegs wrote:
yet more transphobia. Any chance you could just not?
Why is that people who
Why is that people who identify as the gender they were born aren’t allowed to apply binary differences and yet people that identify as a different gender to that when born fight so much to be a part of this binary group?
Trans people seem to think that identifying as trans is somehow lesser than anything else when it’s not. They should be proud to be different and celebrate their differences.
Doing anything else is just setting the trans movement back and awakening people to the madness of what it looks like to have a boilogical male standing in direct competition to a biological female. It’s doing more harm than good but hey, keep going because all I can see is more and more sporting bodies banning the including of trans athletes because it discourages anyone else from competing. Once a sport doesn’t have competition any more people will stop watching it. The sport will die.
sparrowlegs wrote:
what a load of mostly nonsense.
You still haven’t found that elusive definition of “biological female” and so essentially everything you’ve hung your argument falls away. You did this last time, and avoided answering because you know you’re wrong.
Or, you know, we could realise that the gross and completely arbitrary split we have now is completely outdated , and work up a different system. Or, you know, you could just let this complete non-issue stay a non-issue, as opposed to further discriminating against people you find icky?
Every person on this earth up
Every person on this earth up to now has been born from a biological female.
You refute that?
But you know what, I couldn’t give a shit what you call me. If you think that standing up for biological women competing against biological women and not allowing sporting achievements to be taken away from them by biological men is transphobic then so be it. Evidence suggests I, and many more, growing by the day, thanks to the likes of Lia Thomas and Emma Bridges, are taking a stand against this unfairness and calling it out.
sparrowlegs wrote:
so you’re downgrading “woman” to mean “birthing device” now? Wow, that’s very chauvinistic of you, to reduce someone to their ability to carry children or not. Quite insultimg
i also don’t give a shit about you and your proven, abhorrent transphobia. You’ve proven you’re a troll. Bye bye! Bye bye now!
So you’re saying that the
So you’re saying that the creation of life, the bringing of another in to this world is nothing? It’s the greatest thing a woman, a biological woman for that matter, can do and is the reason every one of us is on this earth.
sparrowlegs wrote:
I had totally meant to leave this thread alone but I need to comment on this, as a woman who has birthed multiple times.
Some women may view the birth of the kids as the greatest thing they have ever done. Some women may view the fact that for whatever reason they have not been able to birth kids as the greatest tragedy in the lives. That us personal to them.
But it is not the greatest thing for any woman to do, I have done many great things, I will continue to do great things and the greatest thing, of many many great things, my daughter will ever do will likely not be birthing a child.
Never, ever, reduce a woman to a walking fucking womb. This vile cult of motherhood is the root of misogyny.
Everyone on this thread take a good fucking look yourselves.
Hear hear.
Hear hear.
That is your opinion.
That is your opinion.
Being a mother is one of many great things women can do, not just the only great thing they can do. But if you think it’s right that a trans woman competes directly against non-trans women and that fathers of daughters can’t have an opinion on that then you can fuck right off.
sparrowlegs wrote:
Your opinion on my womb, the womb of others or lack thereof is worthless. Your comments that it is the greatest thing a woman can do is reprehensible.
That was the view of a woman
That was the view of a woman who has birthed my children. A woman who has her own businesses and has achieved a lot in her life but she still holds the creation of our children has the greatest thing she has ever done.
Again, if you think it’s right that non-trans females have their right to fair competition just swept away then you are deluded. Keeping on about me bringing the existence of women down to one thing each time will not make me back down. No matter what you call me or say about my opinions I truly don’t give a fuck. The fact is, the world is noticing now that it’s just not fair that trans women compete directly against non-trans women.
sparrowlegs wrote:
You don’t appear to get why what you have posted is appalling. The opinion of someone else with regards to their own body and what it has achieved cannot in any way be compared to your reduction of all women to reproduction.
If you can’t grasp why that is a) different, and b) horrendous, how can you possibly grasp the nuance of other discussion.
JustTryingToGetFromAtoB wrote
That was the view of a woman who has birthed my children. A woman who has her own businesses and has achieved a lot in her life but she still holds the creation of our children has the greatest thing she has ever done.
Again, if you think it’s right that non-trans females have their right to fair competition just swept away then you are deluded. Keeping on about me bringing the existence of women down to one thing each time will not make me back down. No matter what you call me or say about my opinions I truly don’t give a fuck. The fact is, the world is noticing now that it’s just not fair that trans women compete directly against non-trans women.
— JustTryingToGetFromAtoB You don’t appear to get why what you have posted is appalling. The opinion of someone else with regards to their own body and what it has achieved cannot in any way be compared to your reduction of all women to reproduction. If you can’t grasp why that is a) different, and b) horrendous, how can you possibly grasp the nuance of other discussion.— sparrowlegs
seconded. It’s the cry of the mysoginist the world over. To reduce “women” to their reproductive ability.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Maybe to balance things a little bit, we should perform semen analysis on male competitors and ban anyone that does not meet the quality required for reproduction (e.g. low motility, poor quality etc).
hawkinspeter wrote:
It would certainly lend new meaning to the coaching exhortation “Time for you chaps to man up and show a bit of spunk!”
Rendel Harris wrote:
If I get to pick I don’t mind volunteering to help obtain donations… especially with some of the rugby players out there..oh my!
nosferatu1001 wrote:
New Zealand Rugby Commentator – ‘Andrew Mehrtens loves it when Daryl Gibson comes inside of him.’
Harry Carpenter at the Oxford-Cambridge boat race 1977 – ‘Ah, isn’t that nice.. The wife of the Cambridge President is kissing the Cox of the Oxford crew..’
Ken Brown commentating on golfer Nick Faldo and his caddie Fanny Sunneson lining-up shots at the Scottish Open: ‘Some weeks Nick likes to use Fanny, other weeks he prefers to do it by himself.’
Having played rugby, there’s
Having played rugby, there’s a reasonable chance he does love it ?
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, but it’s not really the commentator’s place to advertise it.
Next, they’ll be saying how rugby players taste scrummy
hawkinspeter wrote:
I can neither confirm nor deny how rugby players taste….
nosferatu1001 wrote:
And you’re not even embarrassed by your own hypocrisy. Imagine if, as a straight male, I posted on here about performing sex acts on female athletes. How many likes would I get for that? How many of your Guardian reading sycophants would encourage me further?
Mark_1973_ wrote:
If I get to pick I don’t mind volunteering to help obtain donations… especially with some of the rugby players out there..oh my!
— Rendel Harris And you’re not even embarrassed by your own hypocrisy. Imagine if, as a straight male, I posted on here about performing sex acts on female athletes. How many likes would I get for that? How many of your Guardian reading sycophants would encourage me further?— hawkinspeter
How is that “hypocrisy”? Do you understand the words you use, or are you just throwing polysyllabic words out in the hopes it makes you sound like you know what you’re talking about?
Btw you do realise how transphobic the guardian is, right? Or are you as stunningly ignorant of that as you are about everything so far in this thread?
If I’ve offended you JTTGA
If I’ve offended you JTTGA then I apologise. I sincerely do. You misunderstood me if you thought I was reducing women to just one thing. I meant it as a miracle that can only be achieved by biological women, not the only achievement that biological women can do.
sparrowlegs wrote:
“if” you’ve offended them you’re going to apologise? If?
more weasel words
Have you found proof the person threw the competition yet,as you stated they must have done?
Hear hear
Hear hear
sparrowlegs wrote:
Where are you writing from, Gilead? Are you seriously claiming that all the other millions of wonderful things women can and will and have achieved are inferior to procreating? Are Marie Curie’s two Nobel prizes inferior achievements compared to someone having an unwanted child after a drunken one-night stand? Apart from the fact that on a desperately overcrowded and resource-straitened planet arguably the greatest contribution any man or woman can make to humanity is to decide not to procreate, you are reducing women basically to brood mares. Astonishing.
How you are comparing Marie
How you are comparing Marie Curie’s achievements to a one night stand just shows how far you are from reality Rendel. Again, this isn’t twitter. I’m not reducing women to anything, I’m not belittling womens achievements, I’m celebrating them and wanting them do achieve more. Allowing trans women to compete against non-trans women will stop that.
sparrowlegs wrote:
You literally said and have repeated that there is no greater achievement for a woman than giving birth to a child. Therefore you must, logically, believe that every single woman who gives birth, no matter what the circumstances, has achieved something greater than Madam Curie’s achievements in science. I don’t think it’s me who is having trouble with reality here.
ETA – just checked the date, well done, you got me! Silly of me to believe that somebody could really still hold such mediaeval beliefs in the 21st-century.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Personally, I think the greatest achievement for a woman in the modern age is to compete against a man, lose graciously and stand smiling in the silver and bronze positions on the podium. Warms the hearts of women like “getting from whatever it was to wherever it is”…
Well said. In the past, lots
Well said. In the past, lots of gay people hid their reality in order to be seen as straight because of all the discrimination etc. Times have changed and now they aren’t interested in being seen as straight, they’re happy and proud to be what they are and to be seen as what they really are. Why can’t transgender people be the same and be proud to be different to both men and women?
JimM777 wrote:
hi, as a gay cis man I can tell you that, based on my actual lived experience, you’re talking nonsense.
Very interesting figure (and
Very interesting figure (and very useful for discrediting some of the ill-informed posts that have inevitably appeared on this article…) However, it’s certainly not complete (as it acknowledges) – from what I can tell some (most?) individiduals with gender dysphoria would, according to the flowchart, be “typical biological males/females” up until they start any surgery or hormone treatments.
Hopefully other biologically
Hopefully other biologically female competitors in sport start taking the boycott stand. This should have been nipped in the bud a long time ago but nobody wanted to risk offending a fraction of a percentage of the population.
Spot on…
Spot on…
Please define an objective
Please define an objective standard, supported by science, of “biologically female”
Sport isn’t fair because
Sport isn’t fair because people are not created equal, but we categorise in an attempt to make things fairer: age, size and gender all come into this at some point or other.
Age and size are difficult to blur, though I’m sure that my 10-year old centre forward of a son has faced one or two 70kg + defenders this season that he shouldn’t have. Gender is different because it can be blurred, is a politicised subject, and more often than not brings with it size and strength advantages.
Sidestepping the politics, perhaps the starting point could be a secret ballot of the other contestants, to see whether they object?
It may be the case that in certain events they don’t, but in competitions when titles are at stake they might. And this should be respected. Otherwise competitive sport could become rather pointless.
Change is healthy. Change is
Change is healthy. Change is good.
The UCI and the sport will have to adapt along the same path as do people who choose their sexual orientation.
Is it not inevitable that the answer will require the UCI’s recategorisation into chromosome XX or XY Competition? These are the facts.
The reference to “men” or “women” is terribly outdated.
I’m not sure why yiure
I’m not sure why yiure talking about “choice” there. I didn’t choose my sexual orientation, nor did I choose my gender. They’re both inate.
The UCI and IAAF used to use
The UCI and IAAF used to use chromosomes as a way of determining an athlete’s sex. It didn’t work.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/magazine/the-humiliating-practice-of-sex-testing-female-athletes.html?utm_source=pocket_mylist
Day 1: Attend protest in
Day 1: Attend protest in support of transgender rights.
Day 2: Attend protest in support of fairness in sport.
Day 3: Realise you’ve just contradicted yourself.
Only seems to be an issue for transgender (male to female) so there’s an issue here. Seem to recall that para-sport struggle with (broadly) similar issues where athletes contest the category they’re placed in. Only a small example but typifies how modern western liberal democracy just ties itself up in knots; meanwhile more people are losing democracy and China and Russia continue to spread their influence.
Seriously?
Seriously?
False dichotomy.
You can worry about more than one thing at once. Getting finer degrees of fairness internally, whilst encouraging coarser degree’s to those less mature places.
Well the UCI had better not
Well the UCI had better not show face in Scotland once the Scottish government push through their Gender Recognition Act Reform 2022 bill.
This bill basically states that a male can self-ID as female and no questions asked.
Yes, and about time too.
Yes, and about time too.
gender critics can do one.
Really?
Really?
So you think it is acceptable for a man with all his tackle to be able to walk in to female changing rooms, etc.? Just because he self-id’s as a woman?
Really?
dubwise wrote:
yes. Why is it a problem? If you know someone’s genitals when they’re in a cubicle I’d suggest you’re the one with the problem.
also, don’t dead gender people. If they are a woman, use the correct pronouns. Costs you absolutely nothing.
You need to give your head a
You need to give your head a wobble.
biker phil wrote:
nah, I’m good.
My personal opinion, and you
My personal opinion, and you’re welcome to yours…
In any sporting event where a man who wants to be a woman wants to compete against real women, the real women should just refuse to compete. It will end the debate overnight.
Wow, that’s one load of
Wow, that’s one load of transphobic nonsense there.
transwomen are women. That’s not up for debate.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Your opinion; but unfortunately, and contrary to your opinion, anything is up for debate.
Which inevitably leads me to ask the question you already knew I was going to ask, and therefore have a perfectly prepared response for me…
If “transwomen are women”, then what is a woman?
Mark_1973_ wrote:
the existence of a person isn’t a topic for debate. Last time this was tried was Germany 1939-1945. Not happening again.
this is a literally comparable situation as the decades of research into people who we would now recognise as trans was destroyed, and many people killed. Alongside many other people.
a woman is someone who identifies as a woman. Anything else requires you to create a biological definition of gender, that csn be agreed upon by the scientific community. No such definition currently exists .
lastly, as trans people are one of the most discriminated and denigrated members of society, deciding that the arbitrary historic split of men and women is a way to further decide they can be separate but equal better have a really good reason to stand. Not a single credible reason to do so has been given.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ok. In that case I’ve just become a woman. Why? Because I say I am and neither you, nor anybody else can, by your own definition, argue with that.
By the way, simply screaming “transphobia” every time somebody disagrees with either you or the elimination of women from society and sport is lazy and won’t scare me away. Believe me when I say that I really don’t care what anybody does in society, how they want to dress, who they want to have sex with, what name they want to be called by etc. (as long as it’s legal) but I will not stand by and nod in agreement with somebody who is a man one week and then decides to compete against women in women’s sports the next.
Oh, and how do you have the nerve to compare the death of 6 million Jews in WWII to the argument against men competing in women’s sports? You want to call people names and then compare a debate about sex affecting a minority within a minority to the holocaust? I would say you should be ashamed of yourself but, for you, I assume there is no greater problem facing the world today than so-called transphobia?
Ok. In that case I’ve just become a woman. Why? Because I say I am and neither you, nor anybody else can, by your own definition, argue with that.
By the way, simply screaming “transphobia” every time somebody disagrees with either you or the elimination of women from society and sport is lazy and won’t scare me away. Believe me when I say that I really don’t care what anybody does in society, how they want to dress, who they want to have sex with, what name they want to be called by etc. (as long as it’s legal) but I will not stand by and nod in agreement with somebody who is a man one week and then decides to compete against women in women’s sports the next.
Oh, and how do you have the nerve to compare the death of 6 million Jews in WWII to the argument against men competing in women’s sports? You want to call people names and then compare a debate about sex affecting a minority within a minority to the holocaust? I would say you should be ashamed of yourself but, for you, I assume there is no greater problem facing the world today than so-called transphobia?— nosferatu1001
1) sure, if that’s your belief. Why would I argue against it? I don’t know your self, you do.
2) I’m not simply “screaming” transphobia, I’m correctly pointing out where transphobic comments have been made.
3) this isn’t “eliminating women from society”, and a large number of women, cis and trans, would heavily disagree with you that your fallacious attempt to speak for them is at all correct.
4) I’m not trying to scare you away. Just stating facts.
5) so with your completely pathetic attempt at belittling the competitor in question who has not decided to be a man one week and a woman the next, nor is there any evidence that this is actually happening, any chance your hyperbole laden spiel could have some actual facts?
6) How dare I compare the systematic extermination of trans people (including the destruction of the medical research and of course the abhorrent research carried out) to peoples atempts now to state that trans people aren’t valid and don’t exist? Sure, I can’t see how that can be compared. And just because trans people are a “miniority within a minority” they somehow don’t count? What about the gay men and women (et al) ? Are they small enough a number not to count? Cos if that’s what you think you can sod off, the pink triangle is something I am proud to have helped reclaim.
And no, this isn’t the worst thing in the world. But that diesnt exactly help you either – why are you bothering to post if it isn’t that important to you? We’re allowed as people to have concerns about multiple th8gs, personal and not so close.
thanks for confirming your are a transphobe. Bye.
It’s just not working any
It’s just not working any more is it Nos? Pointing and screaming bad words at people so that you can have your way? Pasting retorts that were probably given to you in word document or from other forums. This isn’t twitter, it’s not an echo chamber, these are the views of real people. People with daughters that are engaged in sports and have dreams of one day holding aloft a gold, silver or bronze example of their hard work. People that are thinking if we don’t stand up to this now, what could be left for our daughters when/if they do make it to the hallowed ground of local/national/international competition? If this madness is allowed to continue then what’s the point allowing them to become just another Emma Weyant? They might as well give up now. Maybe that’s why you’re meeting more and more pushback when stories like this emerge?
sparrowlegs wrote:
sure, transphobe.
once people stop panicking and reacting to the dog whistling going on mostly by the members of the right, and realise that “sport” needs some pretty overdue reforms to stay relevant , it’ll be alright in the end.
bye transphobe.
You still haven’t answered my
You still haven’t answered my question though…
Do you think it’s fair that a trans female compete, directly, be it in a pool, on a running track or on a bike, with a non-trans female?
sparrowlegs wrote:
Define a way to objectively measure fair and unfair. Oh, and define biological female please. You keep failing to do so.
You still dodge the question
You still dodge the question that everyone wants you to answer whilst rattling off round after round from the transphobe machine gun.
Like I said many weeks ago, competitors and spectators aren’t going to stand there silently anymore whilst misogynistic people like you erode the hard fought rights of biological women. The tide is turning, we are witnessing it now.
sparrowlegs wrote:
You do realise the competitors were amongst the responders who voted to let her compete, right? Or are you so far up your own transphobic fundament you’re ignorant of that fact?
I haven’t dodged the question, I’ve just asked you to define terms. You’re AMAZINGLY adept at flailing around screaming that things are unfair, when you don’t have the slightest clue what “fair” means in an objective sense, and we all know why you ignore the requirement to define “biological female”, and that’s because you can’t do so and you know it. It’s a fatal flaw to every transphobes whining.
“a woman is someone who
“a woman is someone who identifies as a woman”
So, on that basis, anyone, regardless of their chromosomes or genitalia can simply say, I’m a woman, I’m entering the next women’s race.
Get real!
JimM777 wrote:
if it weren’t for governing bodies adding in incredibly suspect and not massively scientifically sound criteria in order to compete, then yes.
its almost like the completely arbitrary split into “mens” and “womens” sports, mostly from the point at which women couldn’t compete.
if you disagree, please give a scientifically complete definition of “biological female” (and bio male, if you like) . None currently exists, so you may be some time.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
So, and a simple yes or no will suffice, if Anthony Joshua woke up tomorrow and announced he was now a woman, you’d have no problem with him competing against a woman in a heavyweight boxing match? It would be fair and just in your opinion and “she” wouldn’t have an unfair advantage?
Exactly – why do they have
Exactly – why do they have all this hormone and testosterone business then? Does nosferatu the labeller disagree with those regulations? Is everyoe a transphobe in their book until proven otherwise? They seem angry.
Is it OK for a man to brutally assault women in public, get sent to prison and then identify as a woman and go to a womans prison and carry on that sexual violence in a womans prison? Clearly not. Somehwere we need to have some common sense about how we recognise reidentification.
joe9090 wrote:
No, just stating facts. Make a transphobic comment, you’re a transphobe. It’s pretty simple.
They have these regulations in place becsuse sports bodies are flailing, trying to defend an outdated, mysoginistic system (the reason we have womens and mens sports is because originally we only had mens, women were banned, as a general theme) that enforces a crude binary not related to the real world. So they try to find a way to measure “male” and “female”, in ways that are absolutely shoddy but have the benefit of being cheap.
The prison systems issues were covered the last time people thought they could debate peoples existence and it be ok, and it goes far beyond your crude attempt at dog whistling
Is that you Kier?
Is that you Kier?
biker phil wrote:
no
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Are you saying those are just two different words but with an identical definition and meaning?
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Please enlighten us what a woman is then?
And why is it not up for debate?
dubwise wrote:
because identity is personal, and you don’t get to debate whether people exist or not. Same as you dint get to debate the humanity of other races or the validity of sexualities.
a woman is a gender identity, and is not tied or dependent upon any specific biological characteristics.
Wrong. A woman is not a
Wrong. A woman is not a gender identity. Gender identity is what the person wants to be.
In case you are wondering, a woman is an adult female human being, courtesy of the Oxford Dictionary.
biker phil wrote:
wrong. Gender identity is that the person is.
“Adult human female” is the usual cry of the transphobe.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
I agree with you, identity is personal. However, if I identify as a pigeon, it doesn’t mean I am one (or would you disagree?).
Mark_1973_ wrote:
so you’re trivialising gender identity and deciding it is the same as a “species” identity now? Wow.
Well, there are other
Well, there are other situations worth comparing, which certainly are not “trivialising”:
https://blog.apaonline.org/2021/07/06/changing-identities-are-race-and-gender-analogous/?amp
In your opinion. Others are
In your opinion. Others are entitled to their own opinion.
biker phil wrote:
no, it’s a fact. Bye transphobe.
As ever with this topic, lots
As ever with this topic, lots of opinion, much heat, very little light.
There was an interesting article in the Independent last week about a trans woman swimmer in the USA. https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/us-sport/lia-thomas-swimmer-transgender-identity-b2028124.html
I realise some here will be scared by it due to the presence of facts, but it is worth a read.
It is also worth listening to/ reading Phillipa York’s experiences.
Honestly if articles like
Honestly if articles like this, or more over the comments on them, do one thing. It is show that attititudes towards transgender, and indeed to some degree the wider LGBTQ+ community still have a considerable way to go.
Adam Sutton wrote:
indeed. The transphobia on display is pretty abhorrent.
It isn’t transphobia, it is
It isn’t transphobia, it is about what is fair and sporting, and what is not.
biker phil wrote:
those people stating trans women are not women are being transphobic, by definition.
Sport is literally about being a genetic outlier. Define “fair” under this context. Also, prove there is a material difference being made.
Trans women are naturally
Trans women are naturally stronger than biological women.
Explain to me why trans men don’t compete against biological men. Once you have explained clearly, we can move forward. But you are just calling people out for being transphobic without reason. Please answer my question.
biker phil wrote:
once you answer mine
– Define “fair” under this context
– prove there is a material difference
a generic statement which may or may not be true in specific is pretty useless, no? it is neither a definition nor is it proof of a material difference.
I’ve given my reason as to why a transphobe is being transphobic. Usually by simply quoting them.
It is unfair because a trans
It is unfair because a trans woman will be naturally stronger than a biological woman, hence has the strength advantage.
There is a material difference, a woman is born with a womans body which is completely different to a mans body. No matter what gender a person wants to be, they have the biological body they were born with. What they think they are cannot change that.
In your world, a transpohobe is someone that disagrees with you. Much the same as someone who disagrees with a person of colour is labelled as racist.
It is an easy get out to simply name call.
Your turn to answer my question now…
biker phil wrote:
please define “biological woman” x you’ve just used the term, so I’m sure you can
a trans woman WILL be, or CAN BE? you have not defined “fair” yet, yet you have declared something to be unfair. Again, in a world of genetic outliers we call sportspeople, please come up with a systematic definition of “fair” that can be used to compare and categorise every sportsperson. Once you’ve don’t that, you’re able to make a statement such as “x is unfair compared to y” with authority, as opposed to mere transphobia.
Ah, you don’t seem to understand the issue. I said prove there is a material difference. You instead made another unsupported statement claiming to be able to quantify a difference between a “man’s” body and a “woman’s” body, seemingly in all cases. Again, you seem to be labouring under the impression that science agrees with you. It doesn’t. You’ve got a massive hurdle to climb, and so far you haven’t even realised it’s there.
No, you’re not a transphobe b3csuse you disagree with me. You’re a transphobe because you just made yet another transphobic comment – and you didn’t even realise it.
Oh, and I DID answer your question. Happily proving you wrong. Even gave you a link proving it.
Now, thanks for proving our point. Bye.
biker phil wrote:
oh and as your ignorance seems to know no bounds, trans men have competed against cis men. At the olympics no less. You couldn’t even be bothered to google to see if you were spouting nonsense could you?
https://www.healthline.com/health/fitness/transgender-athletes-to-watch
Thanks for chiming in and
Thanks for chiming in and proving my point Phil.
But you are not claiming Phil
But you are not claiming Phil is a transphobe? Can we confirm that?
I don’t need to confirm
I don’t need to confirm anything to either of you. Maybe you recognise what you and others are posting is pretty toxic towards transgender persons and that’s why you want me to tell you, you aren’t being transphobic.
Maybe also go and look at the suicide statistics for transgender persons and consider the attitudes you both seem to want to validate and present, and how someone struggling with their identity feels when presented with such online.
Adam Sutton wrote:
I tried to draw out that element elsewhere, but got shouted down
while I’m a cis white male, as I’m gay I understand the need for visibility and the positive effect it has on myself and others to say representation in sports, the arts, government etc. I can assume, and know from speaking to trans colleagues and friends, that the same is important to them as well (shocking I know! ?)
the toxic comments in here are just that – toxic. Sadly those posting it are unlikely to realise that, experience has shown, and will instead double or quadruple down on it, for example by stating the greatest thing a woman can do is give birth.
For those who say that
For those who say that British Cycling allowing trans riders to participate in their events has come “without consultation”, I would like to point out that British Cycling actually did run a consultation that was open to riders, racers, coaches, parents, community members, and even you, if you took the time to fill in an online form. They did this after the first draft transgender participation policy was launched, and they incorporated the responses into the current policy. They wrote more about that here: https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/about/article/20220127-about-bc-news-An-update-on-our-Transgender-and-Non-Binary-Participation-Policy-0
So, regardless of how it makes you feel now, it remains a fact that the majority of respondents were supportive of transgender athletes being allowed to participate in the category with which they identify.
But of course, the naysayers
But of course, the naysayers seem to forget this.
Most people wouldn’t bother
Most people wouldn’t bother filling in such forms, which means that the result of such a “survey” will be strongly biased, and is not representative of the public in general.
JimM777 wrote:
but I thought it was competitors that mattered? That’s what’s mentioned in lots of peoples clsims – that they’re not transphobic, they’re just making sure competitors aren’t disadvantaged
Yes, exactly as I said. So
Yes, exactly as I said. So activist competitors skew the survey, and they tell their activist friends to help the skew. Your continual attempts to twist the truth don’t fool me.
Besides that, where do athletes get their money from? From other athletes? Or from spectators/supporters/public?
JimM777 wrote:
Oh, so when they held a survey, they should have ensured only JimM777 approved people get to vote? Don’t want any “activist” competitors being able to vote about the future of their sport, oh no!
Hey Jim how about this as an even more efficient idea – why bother holding a free and open vote amongst the members, given YOU kniw the answer that shoukd have been given, only you get to,vote!
So where did I say I knew the
So where did I say I knew the opinions of others? I didn’t, so please stop attributing claims to me that I did not make.
Like Brexit was supposed to be, the online form “vote” was only a consultation, not binding.
JimM777 wrote:
you claimed “activist” competitors “skewed” the consultation. You did so withiut a shred of evidence, then have the gall to suggest pointing out this failure on your part is somehow wrong?
I also didn’t claim you knew others opinion. Only that you don’t seem to agree with the result, have come up with spurious claims to deny the results validity withiut a shred of evidence, and so I was making an obviously numerous attempt to show you that approach of yours is logically absurd.
And you have not a sheer of
And you have not a sheer of evidence that the result was representative.
Anyway, as I’ve said on another thread, anyone reading a few of your posts can see that you are full of ****, so I’m done with trying to have a reasoned argument with you.
JimM777 wrote:
by “done with” what you mean is “I can’t actually answer the points raised, so I’m going to flounce away instead”
I don’t need to prove the result eas representative, you muppet. You’re the one making the claim that there were “activist” competitors that skewed the result. That means you have the burden of proof. But, like your fellow transphobe sparrowlegs who made the equally absurd claim that a competitor deliberately underperformed, you don’t have a single shred of anything to substantiate your claim.
You never started having a reasoned argument. You just spouted crap.
Trans activists should stop
Trans activists should stop making the absurd claim that if someone has the opinion that trans people should not compete in women’s sports then that means that the person is transphobic.
It doesn’t. And if someone has the opinion that adults people should not compete in children’s sports, that does not mean that the person is “adultphobic”.
JimM777 wrote:
see, it’s really easy to spot transphobes, as they make Really obviously transphobic remarks like you just did.
Please give a logical
Please give a logical rationale as to why my statements prove that I am transphobic, that is that I dislike trans people.
JimM777 wrote:
by separating transwomen out of the gender “woman” which you did above.
Your definition of “transphobic” is incomplete, or rather it shows your complete ignorance of the topic.
Seems to me that your notion
Seems to me that your notion of anyone who is “something-phobic” of some groups of people is that they don’t agree that the group should be allowed to do whatever they want.
Anyway your problem is quantity over quality – and anyone reading a few of your posts soon knows that you are full of ****. That’s why I’m done with trying to argue rationally with you.
JimM777 wrote:
No. sigh.
keep going. You’re not doing well here.
transwomen are women. You say otherwise. You are a transphobe. Own it.
If Transwomen are women why
If Transwomen are women why the need for the word ‘trans’ in the first place?
Bill H wrote:
to denote their gender doesn’t align to the sex assigned at birth. Same as “cis” indicates the opposite.
This is hardly rocket science, just language.
im a white gay cis male. Every prefix provides more information.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
At some point you children need to grow up and realise you don’t win a debate by accusing people of being transphobic. Disagreement isn’t bigotry. We didn’t get equal marriage by insulting and accusing, we used a well reasoned debate over time and proved that many of the fears and slippery slope arguments people used weren’t reasonable. Alternatively many of you trans activists are blatantly homophobic and push conversion therapy. Learn to debate like an adult and grow up.
I’m not looking to “win a
I’m not looking to “win a debate” with the transphobes here. They don’t matter to me. They’re mostly a waste of bytes.
Also, that poster is transphobic. It’s been proven by their posting.
Calling people children because their opinion differs to you is hardly a good way for you to come stomping in here, is it?
I would be quite amazed if I was homophobic. Truly.
JimM777 wrote:
Good luck with that! Radical trans activists been pushing blatant conversion therapy on Gays and Lesbians for years now. They claim that if men are attracted to biological males or females to biological females then it’s “transphobic”. That’s blatant homophobia, and their solution is disgusting conversion therapy for us to “unlearn” these dangerous attractions.
If Godwins law hasn’t been
If Godwins law hasn’t been reached yet.. can we just close this shit show of a thread please.
IIRC the last article about
IIRC the last article about trans issues went well over 200 comments. You’d think by now that the admins would realise that they ought to post the article but not open it to comments (like they do with the ‘open case’ crime stories).
peted76 wrote:
No. Because that would be the equivalent of an activist walking away when they can’t answer an uncomfortable question. Let the debate continue.
Mark_1973_ wrote:
you don’t get to debate the existence of others.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
But you didn’t seem comfortable with the fact that I was a pigeon. For the record, I don’t mind you debating it though. For example, I could point out that women don’t have penises, and you could point out that I don’t have a beak.
Mark_1973_ wrote:
No, I said that your obvious bad faith argument was crass, and denigrates the actual people involved here.
You could point out whatever you like, doesn’t make it true.
peted76 wrote:
Yeah well that’s exactly what Goebbels would have said.
Stalinist!
Stalinist!
chrisonatrike wrote:
trotskyite!
peted76 wrote:
Extremophobe!
New to this thread and there
New to this thread and there’s a lot to digest.
From a purely competition viewpoint I don’t see how it can be considered fair for a biologically male athlete to compete in a female competition…
alansmurphy wrote:
define fair
define “biologically male”
nosferatu1001 wrote:
I’m not the Oxford dictionary nor a scientist, I was going along the lines of someone who is born a male with the accepted standards of chromosones, hormones, testosterone etc.
Also, as we are discussing the matter, are we not having to apply a certain label to allow people to understand the principles we’re trying to address?
How is that?
As a lady recently replied
As a lady recently replied when asked if she was a biologist “I’m not a vet but I know what a dog is!” 🙂
sparrowlegs wrote:
A cat that barks?
Someone who has their sex
Someone who has their sex assigned as male at birth isn’t necessarily a biological male. That’s because there is no actual accepted definition of such. That’s why sparrowlegs won’t answer – or rather, manages to reduce the gender “woman” to “can bear children” and wonders why people are angry.
You’re reducing a complex topic down, and that just doesn’t do when you’re dealing with peoples lives.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
People aren’t angry, you are. And no-one has their sex “assigned” at birth, it just is. Stop playing with biology and language and accept simple truths. I was born male, and am now an adult male. There’s not a thing I, nor anyone else can do about that.
Oh, and a woman is an adult female; not a man who either thinks he is, or wants to be, a woman.
Mark_1973_ wrote:
Whoops, turns out you still don’t know anything
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_assignment
im not “playing”, I’m being precise and with a viewpoint based on know,edge greater than herp derp o level biology, unlike yourself.
You own your transphobia! Be proud!
You dint think a couple posters got angry? Really? Wow. You’re wilfully ignorant in lots of ways.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Heterophobe
Oooh, based on….?
Oooh, based on….?
nosferatu1001 wrote:
The fact that I’m heterosexual and you’ve disagreed with me.
Mark_1973_ wrote:
doh, not how it works. I didn’t “disagree” with your transphobic views , I pointed them out.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
And I pointed out that women don’t have penises, which by your logic made me transphobic.
Mark_1973_ wrote:
not all women don’t have penises, sorry to break it to you. Your exclusion of some women from your idea on gender is what makes you, amongst other things, transphobic.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
So, if anybody can be a woman anytime they please, and switch back and forth at will, then there’s no such thing as a woman. How then, can transwomen be women?
Oh, and sorry to break it to you, but NO women have penises. Those humans are called men.
Mark_1973_ wrote:
not all women don’t have penises, sorry to break it to you. Your exclusion of some women from your idea on gender is what makes you, amongst other things, transphobic.
— Mark_1973_ So, if anybody can be a woman anytime they please, and switch back and forth at will, then there’s no such thing as a woman. How then, can transwomen be women? Oh, and sorry to break it to you, but NO women have penises. Those humans are called men.— nosferatu1001
awww, is the transphobe failing basic logic now as well as basic humanity?
It must be true, I read it on
It must be true, I read it on Wikipedia. ROTFL
biker phil wrote:
nice way of saying “I didn’t read the citations nor do I have a counter”
rofl
btw. I notice you still haven’t responded to where I proved your claim that transmen don’t compete against cismen was wrong – any chance you could? Or is reading hard?
It’s “observed” at birth.
It’s “observed” at birth. They like to play this “assigned” game because gender is “meaningless”, yet they feel like the opposite gender. Gender roles are “offensive”, yet they claim they liked things the opposite gender did as a kid, and that’s how they knew they were the opposite gender.
There’s a lot of well reasoned and grounded-in-reality trans activists, but they’re shouted down by the crazies unfortunately.
You don’t need to be a
You don’t need to be a biologist to know that males and females are different and develop differently. They have different chromosones, they look different, they develop differently, and they’re observably different on a biological level. There is only one observed sport where females have a genetic advantage over males, and that’s long distance running.
Unfortunately science is being sidelined or called offensive by ridiculous extremist activists.
Jenova20 wrote:
Oooh, pleas show us the peer reviewed paper where you’ve come up with a precise definiton then! Since you’ve been so confident about what you’ve posted, should be trivial to prove your credentials on the topic.
When you say “science is being sidelined”, that must mean you have proof otherwise you wouldn’t make such a ridiculous statement
come on then.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Please stop with the heterophobia.
Please stop
Please stop
nosferatu1001 wrote:
You realise we can dig up the dead and tell what sex they were right? It’s been a long time since an archaologist dug up a Pharaoh and claimed them to be a demi two-spirit genderqueer feminist otherkin hasn’t it.
The LGB community spent decades fighting for civil and legal rights and improving acceptance. Then the T got tacked on and what happened? You rewrite our history, you accuse us of transphobia because you can’t get a date, you demolish female sports, you call ordinary people transphobic for not agreeing with you, you accuse straight white men of everything you can think of, you harass people out of their jobs for disagreeing. You’re largely bullies and the way you treat the detrans community, the LGB community, and even straight people is disgusting.
You are the reason LGBT acceptance is actually declining in the west. Decades of work to make people realise we’re normal and just want our own families thrown to the fire by nutcases like you with a radical homophobic and even heterophobic agenda.
Jenova20 wrote:
bye TERF
It was the LGBT community first. Go back to the LGB alliance echo chamber where you can think you’re in some way relevant or representative of the queer community
no LGB withiut the T
nosferatu1001 wrote:
You keep saying “bye”, then reappearing. Can’t you mean it this time?
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Your ignorance on Lesbian and Gay history is staggering, though the ignorance you’ve displayed here is telling. The T actually has nothing in common with the LGB community. Also i’m not a Terf, since i’m not a feminist (neither are around 93% of Brits based on studies). As i’ve pointed out, all you can do is attack others. Grow up you homophobe.
it’s not staggering, I’ve
it’s not staggering, I’ve learned enough from community friends and through lived experiences to know when someone is talking crap.
the T is intrinsically bound to the LGB, which is why it is LGBTQIA+. Sorry that yiur bigotry isn’t working.
I’ll go back to loving the same gender as I identify as, which apparently makes me a homophobe.
Jenova20 wrote:
https://www.livescience.com/medieval-grave-non-binary-warrior-finland.html
From a quick search, the last instance I could find was August 2021 which feels like a long time ago.
Also, just found this article: https://psmag.com/social-justice/our-bones-reveal-sex-is-not-binary
and this one: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jan/16/archaeology-sexual-revolution-bones-sex-dna-birka-lovers
TLDR; science shows that you more you examine human development, the less certain you can be about “obvious” differences between skeletons. Ultimately, bone shape is going to be related to the individual’s hormone output which doesn’t always match their chromosomes.
hawkinspeter wrote:
thanks for digging that up (pun intended) – I knew they were wrong but I really couldn’t be bothered.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
I very nearly didn’t, but it bugged me that they were invoking “science” without actually having any idea of the complexities involved. I’m not in any way a biologist, but it’s trivial to find this kind of information at which point most people think “that’s a complicated issue”, so I reckon Jenova20 is suffering from a case of Dunning-Kruger.
hawkinspeter wrote:
The only way trans deniers such as Jeniva can operate is by trying to pretend a complicated reality is actually simple, and will deny anything contradictory
Very well said.
Very well said.
biker phil wrote:
Would that be the bit where Jenova invoked “science” which it turns out they completely made up? That bit?
nosferatu1001 wrote:
oh yes, can you maybe remember to comment on the fact you stated that trans men don’t compete against (other) men, then when I proved you wrong (yet again) you seemed to go really quiet?
I wonder why that would be…
Jenova20 wrote:
I showed you my science – show me yours.
For extra credit: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Can you explain how a gender reveal party works? Or when a pregnant lady (if she is indeed a lady) goes for a scan they determine that the child is male or female?
alansmurphy wrote:
they’re assigning sex, not gender (identity).
words have a meaning.
also, I find “gender” reveal parties really weird – this obsession some people have with proclaiming to the world the contents of their child’s pants is very odd, no?
Quote:
Unless you’re debating trans activists who can’t tell a male from a female, but also want to be the experts on the matter. Bye homophobe
Jenova20 wrote:
cis gay, none homophobic male here.
bye idiot.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Bye homophobe
Jenova20 wrote:
ok I’ll bite. Why am I homophobic?
I mean, we know you’re transphobic, and claim to speak for the LGB sub-community when you in reality aren’t even close to doing so.
they’re assigning sex, not gender (identity).
words have a meaning.
also, I find “gender” reveal parties really weird – this obsession some people have with proclaiming to the world the contents of their child’s pants is very odd, no?
[/quote]
Agree, gender reveal parnties are odd!
Ok, so could cycling events not be based on sex instead of gender, or sex at birth?
alansmurphy wrote:
Agree, gender reveal parnties are odd!
Ok, so could cycling events not be based on sex instead of gender, or sex at birth?
[/quote]
They could, but most people would find it very odd to have to “prove” their status , and in practice what would,happen is you end up only asking those who you don’t think “look” right.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
You find gender reveal parties weird, yet keep chanting transwomen are women. Why not just be, instead of revealing a gender to people that aren’t interested? Weird.
Mark_1973_ wrote:
they’re assigning sex, not gender (identity).
words have a meaning.
also, I find “gender” reveal parties really weird – this obsession some people have with proclaiming to the world the contents of their child’s pants is very odd, no?
— alansmurphy You find gender reveal parties weird, yet keep chanting transwomen are women. Why not just be, instead of revealing a gender to people that aren’t interested? Weird.— nosferatu1001
Youre still here? Weird.
im not revealing any one’s gender. You don’t seem to understand how prefixes work. The gender is “woman”, the prefix cis or trans indicates more information about that persons relationship to their assigned sex.
You seem to not really understand very much about this topic – if you’d like I can point you to some starting educational pieces.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Thanks, but millions of years of human evolution have served me and billions of others just fine in telling men and women apart. A bunch of activists claiming otherwise won’t undo that.
Mark_1973_ wrote:
You seem as equally ignorant of evolution as you do of biology. Perhaps you stop there before the hole you’re digging collapses in on itself? There is little value in debating with the wilfully ignorant.
Mark_1973_ wrote:
One doesn’t have to favour either side of this argument to see that’s pretty weak; in the 16th and 17th centuries many were saying to Copernicus and Galileo that since time immemorial we’ve known the sun orbits the earth and no bunch of heretics claiming otherwise won’t undo that. Knowledge grows, understanding changes. I’m not sufficiently scientifically literate, nor well enough read in this area, to know if there is a sound scientific basis for either your contentions or those of nosferatu, but saying “this is what’s always been understood so it must be right” is not really an argument.
Rendel Harris wrote:
One doesn’t have to favour either side of this argument to see that’s pretty weak; in the 16th and 17th centuries many were saying to Copernicus and Galileo that since time immemorial we’ve known the sun orbits the earth and no bunch of heretics claiming otherwise won’t undo that. Knowledge grows, understanding changes. I’m not sufficiently scientifically literate, nor well enough read in this area, to know if there is a sound scientific basis for either your contentions or those of nosferatu, but saying “this is what’s always been understood so it must be right” is not really an argument.— Mark_1973_
I don’t even know how the world has changed so much in so short a time that people will actually go on a public forum, quite comfortably, and argue (virtue signal) that women can have a penis. I do note, however, that it’s mainly men who support this argument. If it’s not misogynistic, I really don’t know what is.
Mark_1973_ wrote:
The only one reducing this to a simplistic “cock or not” is you.
Just because nature and life doesn’t conform to your narrow world view doesn’t make anyone misogynistic, it makes you narrow minded and bigoted.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
The only one reducing this to a simplistic “cock or not” is you.
Just because nature and life doesn’t conform to your narrow world view doesn’t make anyone misogynistic, it makes you narrow minded and bigoted. — Mark_1973_
Actually, I’m not the only one. I have billions of advocates around the world. And there you go with the name calling again. I do not believe a woman can have a penis. That does not make me narrow minded, nor bigoted; merely an adherent to biological fact.
You guys just carry on with the virtue signalling and tell your wives and daughters how wonderful and progressive they are to allow naked men to share their spaces.
Mark_1973_ wrote:
Actually, I’m not the only one. I have billions of advocates around the world. And there you go with the name calling again. I do not believe a woman can have a penis. That does not make me narrow minded, nor bigoted; merely an adherent to biological fact.
You guys just carry on with the virtue signalling and tell your wives and daughters how wonderful and progressive they are to allow naked men to share their spaces.— Secret_squirrel
Billions? Sure. Counted them yourself have you, or is this yet more of your hyperbolic crap?
it’s also not “mostly men”, but given you’re wilfully ignorant and closed minded of everything including biology, yet confidentially spout complete nonsense as fact, I can’t be bothered more with you
It isn’t virtue signalling, you transphobe. You’re just very odd as you seem to conflate sexuality with nudity, which is really,really weird.
Mark_1973_ wrote:
So you claim something that’s latently rubbish, get corrected, and rather than show SOME grace and accept you were wrong, you’ve decided to try to deflect and hilariously gotten evolution as bad,y wrong as you get biology.
Maybe stop? You can’t extricate yourself from the 100 foot hole you’ve dug, but you can at least not dig any further down…
Rendel Harris wrote:
HUZZAH! We’ve made it people.. a Nazi reference!
Now..please @roadcc please stop the monkeys throwing pooh at each other, or at the least, move them to a dark corner of the off-topic forum where they can insult and quote faux facts and opinions to each other all day long. The original news story cannot be brought to conclusion, no one here has a suitable solution to the issue of inclusivity in sport (regardless of what they think).
peted76 wrote:
I have to agree. Any topic on the trans community will always descend to a dumpsterfire.
Jenova20 wrote:
all it would take is for transphobes to just not decide people don’t exist, and it would be less of a dumpster fire. But no, can’t have that.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
I always like when you use that quote, which completely misrepresents things. “Transphobes” aren’t claiming you don’t exist, they’re calling you exactly what you claim you are: “trans men” and “trans women”. You also don’t get to decide what you are as biology doesn’t work like that.
Jenova20 wrote:
OH now I get it!
you seem to think that I’m trans.
Sorry. Turns out you’re clueless in more ways than one ?
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Anyone who goes to these lengths to argue the case for someone clearly has a “white knight” complex. Wait until you get into the real world, with a job and find out reality is different from your gender studies college class. Can’t call everyone out there a transphobe because they don’t agree with you.
Jenova20 wrote:
ohhhhh there you go again! You’re making yet more assumptions, thus time about my age. Whoops, wrong again!
im pretty aware of the world, thanks, but I can always learn more. I always hope others can learn away from a narrow, biased view as well, but don’t let it bother me if they stay bigoted.
“im pretty aware of the world
“im pretty aware of the world, thanks, but I can always learn more. I always hope others can learn away from a narrow, biased view as well, but don’t let it bother me if they stay bigoted. “
So why have you come on here calling everyone who doesn’t subscribe to your views bigoted, and transphobe? It obviously bothers you.
I’ve never seen you on here before, so I am thinking you’re a troll and have only registered on here to spout your bigoted views.
biker phil wrote:
Sure, Im the bigot ? you so silly!
You haven’t paid attention then, but it’s not my fault you’re inattentive.
Yure not a transphobe for not ascribing to my views. You’re a transphobe because yi have made repeated transphobic comments, it’s not a tricky concept.
For those that didn’t see,
For those that didn’t see, this short article from Wednesday is a really nice look at the people involved in this.
https://road.cc/content/blog/british-cyclings-transgender-policy-cyclists-experience-291525
all too often people seem to be forgotten behind labels.
I’m so pleased that people
I’m so pleased that people can discuss things openly on this site. (I’m just taking to a moment to appreciate that this is not a universal however much we may be used to it. Also appreciating the only way the world changes is when people engage with others – or when they leave). Again I’ve learned something. I wonder if we’ve got the best out of this now though?
I think this thread is down
I think this thread is done now.
BC have taken the common sense approach and stopped Emma from competing.
Until the next thread…
sparrowlegs wrote:
Can you tell me exactly what “common sense” is please? It sounds like an opinion which agrees with your point of view. Isn’t it funny how “common sense” varies from person to person and is not common to everyone and changes as your knowledge of a subject increases, everyone thinks that they have just the right amount of “common sense” and that people who don’t share their point of view don’t have enough common sense. I cringe whenever I hear the phrase.
sparrowlegs wrote:
In point of fact British Cycling have not stopped her from competing, the UCI have and they have done so because she is still registered with them as a male competitor, it’s a paperwork thing which as far as I know does not imply any judgement about whether or not she actually should be permitted to enter per se, just she currently does not have the correct paperwork to do so.
So she is still a he until
So she is still a he until the correct paperwork is filed? Seems logical.
sparrowlegs wrote:
nope, her paperwork means she can’t enter a completion. She is still a she.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Unless, perhaps, she decides to become a he again, in which case we’ll all change the English language to suit (well, I won’t, but you get my drift).
Mark_1973_ wrote:
and if she does do that, that’s her choice. Gender isn’t binary. Gender isn’t necessarily fixed. That you’re a dinosaur unable to cope with the modern world isn’t my problem.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Keep it coming. You sound more ridiculous with every post.
Mark_1973_ wrote:
and if she does do that, that’s her choice. Gender isn’t binary. Gender isn’t necessarily fixed. That you’re a dinosaur unable to cope with the modern world isn’t my problem.
— nosferatu1001 Keep it coming. You sound more ridiculous with every post.— sparrowlegs
Sure, I’m sorry that your world view is so narrow and fixed. It’s so limiting.
sparrowlegs wrote:
BC have taken the common sense approach and stopped Emma from competing.— sparrowlegs
The UCI not BC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP1_aLzdmsw
Just to add, I’m going out on
Just to add, I’m going out on my bike this weekend.
mark1a wrote:
Is it a man or woman’s bike?
Women’s bikes don’t have a cross-bar, so it’s trivial to determine which is which.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Confound it! A mixte! Why won’t the world stay still a minute?
Wait – I’m non-binary…
Wait – I’m non-binary…
hawkinspeter wrote:
what type of bike is a mullet?
nosferatu1001 wrote:
I think it’s a type of hairstyle. We’re not going to get into which hairstyles are male and female now are we?
love that pic
love that pic
given the site this is likely heresy…
https://images.app.goo.gl/ft8756rtBkShzYxi9
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Well, that’s got a clear cross-bar, so it’s a male bike.
As an aside, I did read a while ago about a theory that western society is pre-occupied with dualities largely due to Christianity and it’s inherent dualities (Adam/Eve, good/evil, heaven/hell). Other societies have had a less polarised view of genders, even going way back in history. As an example, Thais recognise about 18 genders in their language: https://soranews24.com/2017/01/27/chart-showing-thailands-18-genders-challenges-the-idea-that-there-is-only-male-and-female/
hawkinspeter wrote:
I edited a paper last year about Native Americans and was surprised to find that many tribes accepted the concept that a person could have a female “soul” in a man’s body or vice-versa. One Canadian tribe, whose name escapes me for the moment, called them “two spirit people”, which I thought was rather lovely. They were often regarded as shamanistic and more in touch with the Earth and their ancestors than others.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Non-binary genders are definitely not a new thing.
https://historyofyesterday.com/the-third-gender-existed-since-the-dawn-of-time-5f9765956ac1
hawkinspeter wrote:
many many peoples and tribes had concepts of two spirit people, or other than a gender binary. With colonisation came an attempt to eradicate these and enforce “Christian” concepts…
That and deciding that naked is always sexual, for some reason – are two of the many issues we’ve been left with.
For any who are care, I found
For any who are care, I found this an interesting read. I’m not putting it up here for argument’s sake or to prove one point or the other – that would be foolish since I’ve not read to the end of it yet (it’s fairly long, Im a slow reader). But I have found it interesting so far. It’s written by a gay man …
https://duncanhenry.substack.com/p/tra-to-gc?s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
PS looks like we’ve overloaded the comment thread software
Fascinating reading so far.
Fascinating reading so far. Thanks for posting that.
Sriracha wrote:
I kind of skimmed it to see if I was interested and found it quite off-putting. The “Woman = adult female human” definition seemed somewhat circular to me – how is “female” being defined? There’s a problem with using vaguely defined terms such as “female” or “woman” and then using it to exclude certain people as different people will draw lines in different places.
I’m not really on board with excluding certain types of people (e.g. coloured skin, unusual genetics, sexual orientation etc) rather than focussing on the undesirable behaviours, so the bits that I did read just didn’t sit well with me.
hawkinspeter wrote:
And I would agree with that sentiment, I think most would. I think the arguments arise over how to reconcile two groups or categories without prejudicing either of their interests.
Sriracha wrote:
The real difficulty is we can’t even define the groups sufficiently.
Going back to sport, there’s really an insurmountable problem that some/most women don’t want to compete against testosterone enhanced people and trans people want to compete in what they feel should be their category. Ultimately sport is all about natural advantages, so I don’t think there can be a “fair” outcome.
hawkinspeter wrote:
The real difficulty is we can’t even define the groups sufficiently.
Going back to sport, there’s really an insurmountable problem that some/most women don’t want to compete against testosterone enhanced people and trans people want to compete in what they feel should be their category. Ultimately sport is all about natural advantages, so I don’t think there can be a “fair” outcome.— hawkinspeter
it’s why I was asking people to define “fair” in a field where genetic outliers are the norm (at the level we’re discussing here)
Younhave categories based on, in almost all cases, a historic split dating back to when women were not allowed to compete. And it was a split that worked well-enough for the purposes then. It’s a really crude split, of cours, and as our collective understanding has grown (or in most cases, rediscovered after research was destroyed) for a lot of people there is the realisation that these crude splits don’t work terribly well.
so you either find a way to allow humans to be treated as human while maintaining e solit, or you find a way to more accurately define your categories of ability.
To decide some people are not equal and cannot compete as themselves is abhorrent as a viewpoint.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I kind of skimmed it to see if I was interested and found it quite off-putting. The “Woman = adult female human” definition seemed somewhat circular to me – how is “female” being defined? There’s a problem with using vaguely defined terms such as “female” or “woman” and then using it to exclude certain people as different people will draw lines in different places.
I’m not really on board with excluding certain types of people (e.g. coloured skin, unusual genetics, sexual orientation etc) rather than focussing on the undesirable behaviours, so the bits that I did read just didn’t sit well with me.
— SrirachaThat was the key failing of it as an article – it made a number of assertions-as-fact and never proved them
much like the posters here who make claims about “biological female” but cannot back that up with anything other than basic biology taught to 13 year olds as a useful lies-to-children (Terry Pratchett we miss you, that phrase is so perfect)