There you go.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8944319/

Fairness for Transgender People in Sport

Journal of the Endocrine Society. March 2022

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/majority-of-female-athletes-support-the-inclusion-of-transgender-women-20220419-p5aehx.html

Link

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8311086/

How does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin? Systematic review with a focus on the implications for sport participation

British Journal of Sports Medicine, March 2021

“We systemically reviewed the literature to assess how long-term testosterone suppressing gender-affirming hormone therapy influenced lean body mass (LBM), muscular area, muscular strength and haemoglobin (Hgb)/haematocrit (HCT).”

“In transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy.”

ChrispenEvan said:

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/majority-of-female-athletes-support-the-inclusion-of-transgender-women-20220419-p5aehx.html

Link

If this is the case, then, fine, great, i’m happy for all concerned.

However, any possible later complaints about being disadvantaged by this inclusive policy will fall on deaf ear.

It is ridiculous to suggest that being male bodied doesn’t give female transgendered people an advantage in female sport. The proof of this is the lack of female bodied male trans people dominating in male sport…

furious said:

It is ridiculous to suggest that being male bodied doesn’t give female transgendered people an advantage in female sport. The proof of this is the lack of female bodied male trans people dominating in male sport…

There are a few, but not many. I did find a list somewhere a few weeks ago. One was a boxer in the US, I think.

ChrispenEvan said:

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/majority-of-female-athletes-support-the-inclusion-of-transgender-women-20220419-p5aehx.html

Link

Fine, if most women don’t think it’s unfair, I’m happy to stop complaining.

I assume that eventually the separate Men and Women categories will be abolished in favour of unisex sports, since the idea that men have any unfair advantage is now regarded as old-fashioned and somewhat bigoted.

https://www.healthline.com/health/fitness/transgender-athletes-to-watch

Looking at this list, the trans women do seem to have had quite good results athletically prior to transition though.

Bubblecar said:

ChrispenEvan said:

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/majority-of-female-athletes-support-the-inclusion-of-transgender-women-20220419-p5aehx.html

Link

Fine, if most women don’t think it’s unfair, I’m happy to stop complaining.

I assume that eventually the separate Men and Women categories will be abolished in favour of unisex sports, since the idea that men have any unfair advantage is now regarded as old-fashioned and somewhat bigoted.

Then why is the male 400m record almost 4 seconds faster than female?

Bubblecar said:

ChrispenEvan said:

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/majority-of-female-athletes-support-the-inclusion-of-transgender-women-20220419-p5aehx.html

Link

Fine, if most women don’t think it’s unfair, I’m happy to stop complaining.

I assume that eventually the separate Men and Women categories will be abolished in favour of unisex sports, since the idea that men have any unfair advantage is now regarded as old-fashioned and somewhat bigoted.

…and my apologies to Lia Thomas for doubting the fairness of her participation in women’s swimming :)

It’s not her fault that she wins every race. She just happens to have a particularly powerful female body.

And then there is Caster Semenya (and others).

Bubblecar said:

ChrispenEvan said:

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/majority-of-female-athletes-support-the-inclusion-of-transgender-women-20220419-p5aehx.html

Link

Fine, if most women don’t think it’s unfair, I’m happy to stop complaining.

I assume that eventually the separate Men and Women categories will be abolished in favour of unisex sports, since the idea that men have any unfair advantage is now regarded as old-fashioned and somewhat bigoted.

Would it mean sharing change rooms, or would there need to be 3 change rooms – one for male only, one for female only, and one for unisex.

It would need a vast por-barrel fund to build new change rooms for every suburban sporting body.

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

ChrispenEvan said:

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/majority-of-female-athletes-support-the-inclusion-of-transgender-women-20220419-p5aehx.html

Link

Fine, if most women don’t think it’s unfair, I’m happy to stop complaining.

I assume that eventually the separate Men and Women categories will be abolished in favour of unisex sports, since the idea that men have any unfair advantage is now regarded as old-fashioned and somewhat bigoted.

Would it mean sharing change rooms, or would there need to be 3 change rooms – one for male only, one for female only, and one for unisex.

It would need a vast por-barrel fund to build new change rooms for every suburban sporting body.

It’s transphobic to suggest that males shouldn’t be using female changing rooms, if they identify as female.

Michael V said:

And then there is Caster Semenya (and others).

I read the Caster Semenya story. Special medical situation. Not really the same as transitioners. I’m not sure how you should deal with it. Although I gathered from what I read that they really did think she was a girl at birth and as a child.

It’s very complicated.

https://journals.lww.com/cjsportsmed/Fulltext/2022/03000/Gender,_Testosterone,_and_Sport.1.aspx

As an aside, the only transgender people I know (3), transitioned to male.

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

Fine, if most women don’t think it’s unfair, I’m happy to stop complaining.

I assume that eventually the separate Men and Women categories will be abolished in favour of unisex sports, since the idea that men have any unfair advantage is now regarded as old-fashioned and somewhat bigoted.

Would it mean sharing change rooms, or would there need to be 3 change rooms – one for male only, one for female only, and one for unisex.

It would need a vast por-barrel fund to build new change rooms for every suburban sporting body.

It’s transphobic to suggest that males shouldn’t be using female changing rooms, if they identify as female.

Yes, and that is a silly ideology. This is where they lose public support and sympathy. This is why there is no emotional investment in it from the wider community.

buffy said:

Michael V said:

And then there is Caster Semenya (and others).

I read the Caster Semenya story. Special medical situation. Not really the same as transitioners. I’m not sure how you should deal with it. Although I gathered from what I read that they really did think she was a girl at birth and as a child.

But the dilemma is similar.

Michael V said:

As an aside, the only transgender people I know (3), transitioned to male.

And how are they at sport?

Try a Google Scholar search on “Transgender sport”. I also limited it to “since 2022” to get the latest stuff.

I tried it on PubMed but it’s easier on Google Scholar.

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

Would it mean sharing change rooms, or would there need to be 3 change rooms – one for male only, one for female only, and one for unisex.

It would need a vast por-barrel fund to build new change rooms for every suburban sporting body.

It’s transphobic to suggest that males shouldn’t be using female changing rooms, if they identify as female.

Yes, and that is a silly ideology. This is where they lose public support and sympathy. This is why there is no emotional investment in it from the wider community.

It’s possible that many people do get angry about these things in the privacy in their own homes, but don’t express their views publicly for fear of being branded a bigot.

furious said:

Michael V said:

As an aside, the only transgender people I know (3), transitioned to male.

And how are they at sport?

My niece => nephew stopped sport around transition time. As far as I know (it’s not allowed to be talked about much) there were puberty blockers and then testosterone. So I worry for M’s bone and cardiovascular health. You build your bones by challenging them with muscle contractions in childhood and youth, up to about your 20s. M didn’t really do this.

furious said:

Michael V said:

As an aside, the only transgender people I know (3), transitioned to male.

And how are they at sport?

None of them do sport.

privacy in their own homes = of

I also have a nephew => niece. In America. That one went through normal male puberty, went into the US army, medical discharge, then started transitioning a bit later. He was required at that time (turning 30 this year) to “live the life” for 12 months before treatment would be considered. The change has taken many years. Until recently, as far as I can tell from here, A only dressed female socially. I don’t know about the hormone or surgery aspects. There were problems with self-worth in that case. I don’t think sport is a thing for A. But having done a normal puberty, the risks are different and less troublesome.

Tamb said:

Bubblecar said:

ChrispenEvan said:

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/majority-of-female-athletes-support-the-inclusion-of-transgender-women-20220419-p5aehx.html

Link

Fine, if most women don’t think it’s unfair, I’m happy to stop complaining.

I assume that eventually the separate Men and Women categories will be abolished in favour of unisex sports, since the idea that men have any unfair advantage is now regarded as old-fashioned and somewhat bigoted.

Then why is the male 400m record almost 4 seconds faster than female?

I was being sarcastic (but also resigned to reality. There’s not much point complaining about the unfairness of these things if “most women” disagree).

Bubblecar said:

Tamb said:

Bubblecar said:

Fine, if most women don’t think it’s unfair, I’m happy to stop complaining.

I assume that eventually the separate Men and Women categories will be abolished in favour of unisex sports, since the idea that men have any unfair advantage is now regarded as old-fashioned and somewhat bigoted.

Then why is the male 400m record almost 4 seconds faster than female?

I was being sarcastic (but also resigned to reality. There’s not much point complaining about the unfairness of these things if “most women” disagree).

How many of these women surveyed have actually competed against, or shared changerooms with, transgendered competitors?

furious said:

Bubblecar said:

Tamb said:

Then why is the male 400m record almost 4 seconds faster than female?

I was being sarcastic (but also resigned to reality. There’s not much point complaining about the unfairness of these things if “most women” disagree).

How many of these women surveyed have actually competed against, or shared changerooms with, transgendered competitors?

Fair question.

furious said:

Bubblecar said:

Tamb said:

Then why is the male 400m record almost 4 seconds faster than female?

I was being sarcastic (but also resigned to reality. There’s not much point complaining about the unfairness of these things if “most women” disagree).

How many of these women surveyed have actually competed against, or shared changerooms with, transgendered competitors?

why does sharing changerooms matter? do straight sportsmen worry about gay team members sharing a change room? or the same for women?

buffy said:

Michael V said:

And then there is Caster Semenya (and others).

I read the Caster Semenya story. Special medical situation. Not really the same as transitioners. I’m not sure how you should deal with it. Although I gathered from what I read that they really did think she was a girl at birth and as a child.

Aye, Semenya has the external sex organs of a woman and some internal organs of a woman, but it is typical for people with her genotype to have small internal testes high in the pelvis which gives elevated testosterone levels. This was discovered when she was an adult. I thought the IOCs decision was reasonable: if she takes testesterone-lowering drugs such that her levels are within the normal range, she can compete.

buffy said:

I also have a nephew => niece. In America. That one went through normal male puberty, went into the US army, medical discharge, then started transitioning a bit later. He was required at that time (turning 30 this year) to “live the life” for 12 months before treatment would be considered. The change has taken many years. Until recently, as far as I can tell from here, A only dressed female socially. I don’t know about the hormone or surgery aspects. There were problems with self-worth in that case. I don’t think sport is a thing for A. But having done a normal puberty, the risks are different and less troublesome.

p;[repef.efw[ ;fwe\
‘;

buffy said:

I also have a nephew => niece. In America. That one went through normal male puberty, went into the US army, medical discharge, then started transitioning a bit later. He was required at that time (turning 30 this year) to “live the life” for 12 months before treatment would be considered. The change has taken many years. Until recently, as far as I can tell from here, A only dressed female socially. I don’t know about the hormone or surgery aspects. There were problems with self-worth in that case. I don’t think sport is a thing for A. But having done a normal puberty, the risks are different and less troublesome.

p;[repef.efw[ ;fwe\
‘;

ChrispenEvan said:

furious said:

Bubblecar said:

I was being sarcastic (but also resigned to reality. There’s not much point complaining about the unfairness of these things if “most women” disagree).

How many of these women surveyed have actually competed against, or shared changerooms with, transgendered competitors?

why does sharing changerooms matter? do straight sportsmen worry about gay team members sharing a change room? or the same for women?

Possibly…

Michael V said:

buffy said:

I also have a nephew => niece. In America. That one went through normal male puberty, went into the US army, medical discharge, then started transitioning a bit later. He was required at that time (turning 30 this year) to “live the life” for 12 months before treatment would be considered. The change has taken many years. Until recently, as far as I can tell from here, A only dressed female socially. I don’t know about the hormone or surgery aspects. There were problems with self-worth in that case. I don’t think sport is a thing for A. But having done a normal puberty, the risks are different and less troublesome.

p;

that’s twice you’ve posted that and it still makes no sense.

ChrispenEvan said:

furious said:

Bubblecar said:

I was being sarcastic (but also resigned to reality. There’s not much point complaining about the unfairness of these things if “most women” disagree).

How many of these women surveyed have actually competed against, or shared changerooms with, transgendered competitors?

why does sharing changerooms matter? do straight sportsmen worry about gay team members sharing a change room? or the same for women?

How quickly the #MeToo movement and concerns about safeguarding women and girls have disappeared.

Men used to know “why it mattered” that they weren’t welcome in women’s safe spaces such as changing rooms, toilets etc.

Now they’re demanding entry and calling women “bigots” if they try to argue about the need for male-free zones.

ChrispenEvan said:

furious said:

Bubblecar said:

I was being sarcastic (but also resigned to reality. There’s not much point complaining about the unfairness of these things if “most women” disagree).

How many of these women surveyed have actually competed against, or shared changerooms with, transgendered competitors?

why does sharing changerooms matter? do straight sportsmen worry about gay team members sharing a change room? or the same for women?

From what I understand, yes it does matter for women who they share a changeroom with.

furious said:

ChrispenEvan said:

furious said:

How many of these women surveyed have actually competed against, or shared changerooms with, transgendered competitors?

why does sharing changerooms matter? do straight sportsmen worry about gay team members sharing a change room? or the same for women?

Possibly…

how about this then, gay men or women take up a sport so solely so they can perv on their straight team members in the change room?

ChrispenEvan said:

furious said:

ChrispenEvan said:

why does sharing changerooms matter? do straight sportsmen worry about gay team members sharing a change room? or the same for women?

Possibly…

how about this then, gay men or women take up a sport so solely so they can perv on their straight team members in the change room?

It is not about the motivations of an individual to play sport…

ChrispenEvan said:

Michael V said:

buffy said:

I also have a nephew => niece. In America. That one went through normal male puberty, went into the US army, medical discharge, then started transitioning a bit later. He was required at that time (turning 30 this year) to “live the life” for 12 months before treatment would be considered. The change has taken many years. Until recently, as far as I can tell from here, A only dressed female socially. I don’t know about the hormone or surgery aspects. There were problems with self-worth in that case. I don’t think sport is a thing for A. But having done a normal puberty, the risks are different and less troublesome.

p;

that’s twice you’ve posted that and it still makes no sense.

It doesn’t make sense to me, either.

(I was testing the new plug-in keyboard and accidentally pressed a key that submitted the nonsense twice.)

ChrispenEvan said:

furious said:

ChrispenEvan said:

why does sharing changerooms matter? do straight sportsmen worry about gay team members sharing a change room? or the same for women?

Possibly…

how about this then, gay men or women take up a sport so solely so they can perv on their straight team members in the change room?

How about you compare the stats for male sexual assault with the other groups mentioned?

Women are vastly more likely to be sexually assaulted by men than by women.

As for gay sportsmen, I suspect many would welcome their own changing rooms.

Bubblecar said:

ChrispenEvan said:

furious said:

Possibly…

how about this then, gay men or women take up a sport so solely so they can perv on their straight team members in the change room?

How about you compare the stats for male sexual assault with the other groups mentioned?

Women are vastly more likely to be sexually assaulted by men than by women.

As for gay sportsmen, I suspect many would welcome their own changing rooms.

When discussing these general issues with my daughter, she points out that the incidence of sexual assault against transgender people in male toilets is far higher than the incidence of sexual assault against female people in female toilets.

Which is not to say that the latter is not an issue, but rather that the former is an issue.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

ChrispenEvan said:

how about this then, gay men or women take up a sport so solely so they can perv on their straight team members in the change room?

How about you compare the stats for male sexual assault with the other groups mentioned?

Women are vastly more likely to be sexually assaulted by men than by women.

As for gay sportsmen, I suspect many would welcome their own changing rooms.

When discussing these general issues with my daughter, she points out that the incidence of sexual assault against transgender people in male toilets is far higher than the incidence of sexual assault against female people in female toilets.

Which is not to say that the latter is not an issue, but rather that the former is an issue.

So that is assault against transgender males (natal females) or against transgender females (natal males)? I find it all very confusing. Once upon a time I knew what a trannie was.

buffy said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

How about you compare the stats for male sexual assault with the other groups mentioned?

Women are vastly more likely to be sexually assaulted by men than by women.

As for gay sportsmen, I suspect many would welcome their own changing rooms.

When discussing these general issues with my daughter, she points out that the incidence of sexual assault against transgender people in male toilets is far higher than the incidence of sexual assault against female people in female toilets.

Which is not to say that the latter is not an issue, but rather that the former is an issue.

So that is assault against transgender males (natal females) or against transgender females (natal males)? I find it all very confusing. Once upon a time I knew what a trannie was.

A trannie is a transistor radio.

buffy said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

How about you compare the stats for male sexual assault with the other groups mentioned?

Women are vastly more likely to be sexually assaulted by men than by women.

As for gay sportsmen, I suspect many would welcome their own changing rooms.

When discussing these general issues with my daughter, she points out that the incidence of sexual assault against transgender people in male toilets is far higher than the incidence of sexual assault against female people in female toilets.

Which is not to say that the latter is not an issue, but rather that the former is an issue.

So that is assault against transgender males (natal females) or against transgender females (natal males)? I find it all very confusing. Once upon a time I knew what a trannie was.

I’m not sure, but I assumed natal males who had transitioned to female, but were forced to use male public toilets.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

ChrispenEvan said:

how about this then, gay men or women take up a sport so solely so they can perv on their straight team members in the change room?

How about you compare the stats for male sexual assault with the other groups mentioned?

Women are vastly more likely to be sexually assaulted by men than by women.

As for gay sportsmen, I suspect many would welcome their own changing rooms.

When discussing these general issues with my daughter, she points out that the incidence of sexual assault against transgender people in male toilets is far higher than the incidence of sexual assault against female people in female toilets.

Which is not to say that the latter is not an issue, but rather that the former is an issue.

Except it isn’t true. Such claims are common but never backed up by any statistics.

Anyway enough from me, there are plenty of articles on this topic by women:

>Men, as a class, pose a danger to women, as a class. That is an unequivocal fact. And male offending patterns are not altered by ‘gender identity’.

Whenever women protest the inclusion of trans-identified males in our spaces, we’re shouted down and dismissed as transphobes and hysterics. There is no risk, we’re in no danger, this never happens, we’re constantly told. When we produce evidence to the contrary, we’re accused of bigotry and of demonising trans people. We cannot win.

The point is that men can pose a threat to women and children however they ‘identify’ and women have every reason to fear male violence. Since it’s impossible to tell which males are harmless and which are not, basic safeguarding means we exclude all males from women’s spaces. Even the ones who claim to ‘identify as women’. The list below demonstrates that we are right to do so.

It is far from an exhaustive list – these are just some examples of which I’m aware – but there are 100 names on it. Look how easily violent, dangerous males can claim a trans identity and be believed, accommodated, enabled. I’d like to ask all those shouting at us to be ‘inclusive’, how many victims do you deem acceptable collateral damage for prioritising male feelings over women’s safety?

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/this-never-happens?s=r

Bubblecar said:

Anyway enough from me, there are plenty of articles on this topic by women:

>Men, as a class, pose a danger to women, as a class. That is an unequivocal fact. And male offending patterns are not altered by ‘gender identity’.

Whenever women protest the inclusion of trans-identified males in our spaces, we’re shouted down and dismissed as transphobes and hysterics. There is no risk, we’re in no danger, this never happens, we’re constantly told. When we produce evidence to the contrary, we’re accused of bigotry and of demonising trans people. We cannot win.

The point is that men can pose a threat to women and children however they ‘identify’ and women have every reason to fear male violence. Since it’s impossible to tell which males are harmless and which are not, basic safeguarding means we exclude all males from women’s spaces. Even the ones who claim to ‘identify as women’. The list below demonstrates that we are right to do so.

It is far from an exhaustive list – these are just some examples of which I’m aware – but there are 100 names on it. Look how easily violent, dangerous males can claim a trans identity and be believed, accommodated, enabled. I’d like to ask all those shouting at us to be ‘inclusive’, how many victims do you deem acceptable collateral damage for prioritising male feelings over women’s safety?

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/this-never-happens?s=r

A perfectly reasonable question.

As is, how many victims do you deem acceptable collateral damage for prioritising female feelings over trans-people’s safety?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Anyway enough from me, there are plenty of articles on this topic by women:

>Men, as a class, pose a danger to women, as a class. That is an unequivocal fact. And male offending patterns are not altered by ‘gender identity’.

Whenever women protest the inclusion of trans-identified males in our spaces, we’re shouted down and dismissed as transphobes and hysterics. There is no risk, we’re in no danger, this never happens, we’re constantly told. When we produce evidence to the contrary, we’re accused of bigotry and of demonising trans people. We cannot win.

The point is that men can pose a threat to women and children however they ‘identify’ and women have every reason to fear male violence. Since it’s impossible to tell which males are harmless and which are not, basic safeguarding means we exclude all males from women’s spaces. Even the ones who claim to ‘identify as women’. The list below demonstrates that we are right to do so.

It is far from an exhaustive list – these are just some examples of which I’m aware – but there are 100 names on it. Look how easily violent, dangerous males can claim a trans identity and be believed, accommodated, enabled. I’d like to ask all those shouting at us to be ‘inclusive’, how many victims do you deem acceptable collateral damage for prioritising male feelings over women’s safety?

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/this-never-happens?s=r

A perfectly reasonable question.

As is, how many victims do you deem acceptable collateral damage for prioritising female feelings over trans-people’s safety?

So you genuinely think that women should be used as “human shields” to protect potentially dangerous men from other potentially dangerous men?

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Anyway enough from me, there are plenty of articles on this topic by women:

>Men, as a class, pose a danger to women, as a class. That is an unequivocal fact. And male offending patterns are not altered by ‘gender identity’.

Whenever women protest the inclusion of trans-identified males in our spaces, we’re shouted down and dismissed as transphobes and hysterics. There is no risk, we’re in no danger, this never happens, we’re constantly told. When we produce evidence to the contrary, we’re accused of bigotry and of demonising trans people. We cannot win.

The point is that men can pose a threat to women and children however they ‘identify’ and women have every reason to fear male violence. Since it’s impossible to tell which males are harmless and which are not, basic safeguarding means we exclude all males from women’s spaces. Even the ones who claim to ‘identify as women’. The list below demonstrates that we are right to do so.

It is far from an exhaustive list – these are just some examples of which I’m aware – but there are 100 names on it. Look how easily violent, dangerous males can claim a trans identity and be believed, accommodated, enabled. I’d like to ask all those shouting at us to be ‘inclusive’, how many victims do you deem acceptable collateral damage for prioritising male feelings over women’s safety?

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/this-never-happens?s=r

A perfectly reasonable question.

As is, how many victims do you deem acceptable collateral damage for prioritising female feelings over trans-people’s safety?

So you genuinely think that women should be used as “human shields” to protect potentially dangerous men from other potentially dangerous men?

No, I do not think that, genuinely or otherwise, as you would know if you read what I actually wrote, rather than slotting everything into one of two equally ridiculous extremes.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

A perfectly reasonable question.

As is, how many victims do you deem acceptable collateral damage for prioritising female feelings over trans-people’s safety?

So you genuinely think that women should be used as “human shields” to protect potentially dangerous men from other potentially dangerous men?

No, I do not think that, genuinely or otherwise, as you would know if you read what I actually wrote, rather than slotting everything into one of two equally ridiculous extremes.

It seems to be an exact representation of your position.

You think that men who identify as women should be allowed into women’s safe spaces, even though they’re just as likely to be a danger to women as men who identify as men.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

So you genuinely think that women should be used as “human shields” to protect potentially dangerous men from other potentially dangerous men?

No, I do not think that, genuinely or otherwise, as you would know if you read what I actually wrote, rather than slotting everything into one of two equally ridiculous extremes.

It seems to be an exact representation of your position.

You think that men who identify as women should be allowed into women’s safe spaces, even though they’re just as likely to be a danger to women as men who identify as men.

I didn’t say anything remotely like that.

But I’m off to do some computer work to get away from all this binary extremism.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

No, I do not think that, genuinely or otherwise, as you would know if you read what I actually wrote, rather than slotting everything into one of two equally ridiculous extremes.

It seems to be an exact representation of your position.

You think that men who identify as women should be allowed into women’s safe spaces, even though they’re just as likely to be a danger to women as men who identify as men.

I didn’t say anything remotely like that.

But I’m off to do some computer work to get away from all this binary extremism.

You said:

As is, how many victims do you deem acceptable collateral damage for prioritising female feelings over trans-people’s safety?

Even the most rabid trans activists don’t normally express such an extreme misogynist position.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

It seems to be an exact representation of your position.

You think that men who identify as women should be allowed into women’s safe spaces, even though they’re just as likely to be a danger to women as men who identify as men.

I didn’t say anything remotely like that.

But I’m off to do some computer work to get away from all this binary extremism.

You said:

As is, how many victims do you deem acceptable collateral damage for prioritising female feelings over trans-people’s safety?

Even the most rabid trans activists don’t normally express such an extreme misogynist position.

That’s a question, not a position, and a question stated to reveal the unreasonableness of the opposite question it was based on.

The underlying assumption that you can do nothing to improve the safety of women/trans people without endangering trans people/women is so obviously ridiculous that I really don’t know why you don’t see it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I didn’t say anything remotely like that.

But I’m off to do some computer work to get away from all this binary extremism.

You said:

As is, how many victims do you deem acceptable collateral damage for prioritising female feelings over trans-people’s safety?

Even the most rabid trans activists don’t normally express such an extreme misogynist position.

That’s a question, not a position, and a question stated to reveal the unreasonableness of the opposite question it was based on.

The underlying assumption that you can do nothing to improve the safety of women/trans people without endangering trans people/women is so obviously ridiculous that I really don’t know why you don’t see it.

We’re talking specifically about access to women’s safe spaces for men who identify as women.

The fact that you don’t wish to commit to a coherent position on this doesn’t make you somehow more “reasonable” than the women who demand that their rightful safeguards be respected.

And you’re the one engaging in “false binaries” by portraying a false equivalence between men’s safety and women’s safety, when women are more at risk of sexual attack and less able to defend themselves.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

You said:

As is, how many victims do you deem acceptable collateral damage for prioritising female feelings over trans-people’s safety?

Even the most rabid trans activists don’t normally express such an extreme misogynist position.

That’s a question, not a position, and a question stated to reveal the unreasonableness of the opposite question it was based on.

The underlying assumption that you can do nothing to improve the safety of women/trans people without endangering trans people/women is so obviously ridiculous that I really don’t know why you don’t see it.

We’re talking specifically about access to women’s safe spaces for men who identify as women.

The fact that you don’t wish to commit to a coherent position on this doesn’t make you somehow more “reasonable” than the women who demand that their rightful safeguards be respected.

And you’re the one engaging in “false binaries” by portraying a false equivalence between men’s safety and women’s safety, when women are more at risk of sexual attack and less able to defend themselves.

Complete bollocks.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

That’s a question, not a position, and a question stated to reveal the unreasonableness of the opposite question it was based on.

The underlying assumption that you can do nothing to improve the safety of women/trans people without endangering trans people/women is so obviously ridiculous that I really don’t know why you don’t see it.

We’re talking specifically about access to women’s safe spaces for men who identify as women.

The fact that you don’t wish to commit to a coherent position on this doesn’t make you somehow more “reasonable” than the women who demand that their rightful safeguards be respected.

And you’re the one engaging in “false binaries” by portraying a false equivalence between men’s safety and women’s safety, when women are more at risk of sexual attack and less able to defend themselves.

Complete bollocks.

Well, I’ll let you mull the matter over and maybe you’ll come up with a more articulate response.

these are all things that a good police state with social credit system and pervasive surveillance capabilities could solve slash es

Bubblecar said:

Men, as a class, pose a danger to women, as a class. That is an unequivocal fact. And male offending patterns are not altered by ‘gender identity’.

Whenever women protest the inclusion of trans-identified males in our spaces, we’re shouted down and dismissed as transphobes and hysterics.

>Men, as a class, pose a danger to women, as a class

the hoodoo of conceptual categories, consider for a moment the biological reality might be softer than the force of concepts trying to confirm their truth in reality

transition said:

>Men, as a class, pose a danger to women, as a class

the hoodoo of conceptual categories, consider for a moment the biological reality might be softer than the force of concepts trying to confirm their truth in reality

Nah, it’s just a statistical fact.

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

>Men, as a class, pose a danger to women, as a class

the hoodoo of conceptual categories, consider for a moment the biological reality might be softer than the force of concepts trying to confirm their truth in reality

Nah, it’s just a statistical fact.

I see, you’re falling back on what you think is normal, referring to statistics to do it

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

>Men, as a class, pose a danger to women, as a class

the hoodoo of conceptual categories, consider for a moment the biological reality might be softer than the force of concepts trying to confirm their truth in reality

Nah, it’s just a statistical fact.

I see, you’re falling back on what you think is normal, referring to statistics to do it

No, I’m talking about reality, which statistics seek to describe.

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

Nah, it’s just a statistical fact.

I see, you’re falling back on what you think is normal, referring to statistics to do it

No, I’m talking about reality, which statistics seek to describe.

do they, always, or are they used to normative ends, often serve to affirm conceptual categories

Of course, many individual men don’t pose a danger to women.

But if those individual men genuinely care about women’s safety, they realise that women who don’t know them can’t tell if they’re a danger or not, and therefore they don’t seek to compromise women’s sense of security by imposing themselves on women’s safe spaces.

Bubblecar said:

Of course, many individual men don’t pose a danger to women.

But if those individual men genuinely care about women’s safety, they realise that women who don’t know them can’t tell if they’re a danger or not, and therefore they don’t seek to compromise women’s sense of security by imposing themselves on women’s safe spaces.

>Of course, many individual men don’t pose a danger to women.

how decent of you to allow for exceptions to exist

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

Of course, many individual men don’t pose a danger to women.

But if those individual men genuinely care about women’s safety, they realise that women who don’t know them can’t tell if they’re a danger or not, and therefore they don’t seek to compromise women’s sense of security by imposing themselves on women’s safe spaces.

>Of course, many individual men don’t pose a danger to women.

how decent of you to allow for exceptions to exist

You’re being needlessly emotive again.

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

Of course, many individual men don’t pose a danger to women.

But if those individual men genuinely care about women’s safety, they realise that women who don’t know them can’t tell if they’re a danger or not, and therefore they don’t seek to compromise women’s sense of security by imposing themselves on women’s safe spaces.

>Of course, many individual men don’t pose a danger to women.

how decent of you to allow for exceptions to exist

You’re being needlessly emotive again.

I don’t feel emotive, and i’m not entirely mindblind that way

It’s always good, esp as a dude, to have the humility to put oneself in the cheap seats and listen to what the major feminist publications are saying on the topics of the day: publications that have done the hard yards, been around for decades through some of the toughest times for the movement and have hundreds of thousands of readers. Checking them is a good way to find out where you stand in comparison to mainstream feminist thought, as a guard against the possibility that one os just giving undue weight to a miniscule minority that aligns with one’s own views. Give it a go.

https://msmagazine.com/

https://femmagazine.com/

dv said:

It’s always good, esp as a dude, to have the humility to put oneself in the cheap seats and listen to what the major feminist publications are saying on the topics of the day: publications that have done the hard yards, been around for decades through some of the toughest times for the movement and have hundreds of thousands of readers. Checking them is a good way to find out where you stand in comparison to mainstream feminist thought, as a guard against the possibility that one os just giving undue weight to a miniscule minority that aligns with one’s own views. Give it a go.

https://msmagazine.com/

https://femmagazine.com/

Yes, there are plenty of pro-trans-ideology feminists out there, generally regarded as “captured” by the others.

But I suppose the important question in the context of this thread is the one I’ve been asking: Is it fair for male-bodied sports people to compete against female-bodied sports people?

Maybe I’m wrong, maybe it is. Maybe women competing against men and losing more often than not is just “nature’s way”, and women should accept it.

According to Boris’s link, most women are happy with that situation.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

It’s always good, esp as a dude, to have the humility to put oneself in the cheap seats and listen to what the major feminist publications are saying on the topics of the day: publications that have done the hard yards, been around for decades through some of the toughest times for the movement and have hundreds of thousands of readers. Checking them is a good way to find out where you stand in comparison to mainstream feminist thought, as a guard against the possibility that one os just giving undue weight to a miniscule minority that aligns with one’s own views. Give it a go.

https://msmagazine.com/

https://femmagazine.com/

Yes, there are plenty of pro-trans-ideology feminists out there, generally regarded as “captured” by the others.

But I suppose the important question in the context of this thread is the one I’ve been asking: Is it fair for male-bodied sports people to compete against female-bodied sports people?

Maybe I’m wrong, maybe it is. Maybe women competing against men and losing more often than not is just “nature’s way”, and women should accept it.

According to Boris’s link, most women are happy with that situation.

…note also that both the magazines that dv recommends “dudes” should read are American (and in the case of one of them, associated with an American university).

The situation in the US is particularly polarised in regard to transgender ideology, with “mainstream feminists” as dv calls them very much part of the unthinkingly conformist US left orthodoxy, particularly virulent in the universities. US radical feminists have little in common with them.

Gender-critical feminism is more common and more outspoken in the UK, which is often known as “Terf Island” by US trans activists.

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

It’s always good, esp as a dude, to have the humility to put oneself in the cheap seats and listen to what the major feminist publications are saying on the topics of the day: publications that have done the hard yards, been around for decades through some of the toughest times for the movement and have hundreds of thousands of readers. Checking them is a good way to find out where you stand in comparison to mainstream feminist thought, as a guard against the possibility that one os just giving undue weight to a miniscule minority that aligns with one’s own views. Give it a go.

https://msmagazine.com/

https://femmagazine.com/

Yes, there are plenty of pro-trans-ideology feminists out there, generally regarded as “captured” by the others.

But I suppose the important question in the context of this thread is the one I’ve been asking: Is it fair for male-bodied sports people to compete against female-bodied sports people?

Maybe I’m wrong, maybe it is. Maybe women competing against men and losing more often than not is just “nature’s way”, and women should accept it.

According to Boris’s link, most women are happy with that situation.

…note also that both the magazines that dv recommends “dudes” should read are American (and in the case of one of them, associated with an American university).

The situation in the US is particularly polarised in regard to transgender ideology, with “mainstream feminists” as dv calls them very much part of the unthinkingly conformist US left orthodoxy, particularly virulent in the universities. US radical feminists have little in common with them.

Gender-critical feminism is more common and more outspoken in the UK, which is often known as “Terf Island” by US trans activists.

It’s entirely possible that different rules will apply for community sporting leagues where encouraging participation and inclusion are paramount and elite sports where biological males might be banned regardless of their testosterone levels and gender identity.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar said:

Yes, there are plenty of pro-trans-ideology feminists out there, generally regarded as “captured” by the others.

But I suppose the important question in the context of this thread is the one I’ve been asking: Is it fair for male-bodied sports people to compete against female-bodied sports people?

Maybe I’m wrong, maybe it is. Maybe women competing against men and losing more often than not is just “nature’s way”, and women should accept it.

According to Boris’s link, most women are happy with that situation.

…note also that both the magazines that dv recommends “dudes” should read are American (and in the case of one of them, associated with an American university).

The situation in the US is particularly polarised in regard to transgender ideology, with “mainstream feminists” as dv calls them very much part of the unthinkingly conformist US left orthodoxy, particularly virulent in the universities. US radical feminists have little in common with them.

Gender-critical feminism is more common and more

It’s entirely possible that different rules will apply for community sporting leagues where encouraging participation and inclusion are paramount and elite sports where biological males might be banned regardless of their testosterone levels and gender identity.

I’m content to leave it in the hands of sports admins.

Bubblecar said:

Anyway enough from me, there are plenty of articles on this topic by women:

>Men, as a class, pose a danger to women, as a class. That is an unequivocal fact. And male offending patterns are not altered by ‘gender identity’.

Whenever women protest the inclusion of trans-identified males in our spaces, we’re shouted down and dismissed as transphobes and hysterics. There is no risk, we’re in no danger, this never happens, we’re constantly told. When we produce evidence to the contrary, we’re accused of bigotry and of demonising trans people. We cannot win.

The point is that men can pose a threat to women and children however they ‘identify’ and women have every reason to fear male violence. Since it’s impossible to tell which males are harmless and which are not, basic safeguarding means we exclude all males from women’s spaces. Even the ones who claim to ‘identify as women’. The list below demonstrates that we are right to do so.

It is far from an exhaustive list – these are just some examples of which I’m aware – but there are 100 names on it. Look how easily violent, dangerous males can claim a trans identity and be believed, accommodated, enabled. I’d like to ask all those shouting at us to be ‘inclusive’, how many victims do you deem acceptable collateral damage for prioritising male feelings over women’s safety?

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/this-never-happens?s=r

Personally I feel there must be something wrong when a large transgender wants to play strength required sports with females much smaller than themselves and probably weaker. They must have a very controlling nature to even want to do so. You would think their pride and moral foundations would simply say, Don’t do it, because you look defective and stupid.

>I’m content to leave it in the hands of sports admins.

I’m happy to confess, it’s none of my business.

I’m just interested in the principles involved and how they cope with rational scrutiny.

Hanging onto separate Male and Female sports categories seems pointless if “male” and “female|” are taken to be matters of personal identity choice, rather than physical categories.

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

It’s always good, esp as a dude, to have the humility to put oneself in the cheap seats and listen to what the major feminist publications are saying on the topics of the day: publications that have done the hard yards, been around for decades through some of the toughest times for the movement and have hundreds of thousands of readers. Checking them is a good way to find out where you stand in comparison to mainstream feminist thought, as a guard against the possibility that one os just giving undue weight to a miniscule minority that aligns with one’s own views. Give it a go.

https://msmagazine.com/

https://femmagazine.com/

Yes, there are plenty of pro-trans-ideology feminists out there, generally regarded as “captured” by the others.

But I suppose the important question in the context of this thread is the one I’ve been asking: Is it fair for male-bodied sports people to compete against female-bodied sports people?

Maybe I’m wrong, maybe it is. Maybe women competing against men and losing more often than not is just “nature’s way”, and women should accept it.

According to Boris’s link, most women are happy with that situation.

…note also that both the magazines that dv recommends “dudes” should read are American (and in the case of one of them, associated with an American university).

The situation in the US is particularly polarised in regard to transgender ideology, with “mainstream feminists” as dv calls them very much part of the unthinkingly conformist US left orthodoxy, particularly virulent in the universities. US radical feminists have little in common with them.

Gender-critical feminism is more common and more outspoken in the UK, which is often known as “Terf Island” by US trans activists.

Just doesn’t seem like a major issue to feminists, who by and large have bigger fish to fry these days.
Here are the issues that according to them are important enough to be front page news… issues that are going to affect women for real I guess.

Enforcing Criminal Abortion Bans Post-Roe: ‘A Massive Escalation of Surveillance’

The U.S. Women’s Soccer Team Just Won Equal Pay—Cue the Misogynist Backlash

Media Coverage of Uvalde Misses the Gender Issues at the Heart of School Shootings 

What My Ancestors Might Think of This Moment in U.S. History

It’s Time To Close the Gender Gap in Education Leadership—and Give Women What They’ve Earned

Enforcing Criminal Abortion Bans Post-Roe: ‘A Massive Escalation of Surveillance’

Losing Roe v. Wade Is a Matter of Global Significance

—-

Nothing there are tranbos in toilets or swimming carnivals. But sometimes the majority is wrong. Maybe feminists with 50 years of experience in spotting divisive tactics are wrong, and Socott Morrison and Graham Linehan are right. I’m just inclined to give the former the botd.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

Anyway enough from me, there are plenty of articles on this topic by women:

>Men, as a class, pose a danger to women, as a class. That is an unequivocal fact. And male offending patterns are not altered by ‘gender identity’.

Whenever women protest the inclusion of trans-identified males in our spaces, we’re shouted down and dismissed as transphobes and hysterics. There is no risk, we’re in no danger, this never happens, we’re constantly told. When we produce evidence to the contrary, we’re accused of bigotry and of demonising trans people. We cannot win.

The point is that men can pose a threat to women and children however they ‘identify’ and women have every reason to fear male violence. Since it’s impossible to tell which males are harmless and which are not, basic safeguarding means we exclude all males from women’s spaces. Even the ones who claim to ‘identify as women’. The list below demonstrates that we are right to do so.

It is far from an exhaustive list – these are just some examples of which I’m aware – but there are 100 names on it. Look how easily violent, dangerous males can claim a trans identity and be believed, accommodated, enabled. I’d like to ask all those shouting at us to be ‘inclusive’, how many victims do you deem acceptable collateral damage for prioritising male feelings over women’s safety?

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/this-never-happens?s=r

Personally I feel there must be something wrong when a large transgender wants to play strength required sports with females much smaller than themselves and probably weaker. They must have a very controlling nature to even want to do so. You would think their pride and moral foundations would simply say, Don’t do it, because you look defective and stupid.

I suppose it’s the same as any other form of habitual cheating. You wonder how they can maintain an intact self-esteem, but I suppose their attitude is: “If the sports bodies don’t call it cheating, I don’t either.”

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar said:

Yes, there are plenty of pro-trans-ideology feminists out there, generally regarded as “captured” by the others.

But I suppose the important question in the context of this thread is the one I’ve been asking: Is it fair for male-bodied sports people to compete against female-bodied sports people?

Maybe I’m wrong, maybe it is. Maybe women competing against men and losing more often than not is just “nature’s way”, and women should accept it.

According to Boris’s link, most women are happy with that situation.

…note also that both the magazines that dv recommends “dudes” should read are American (and in the case of one of them, associated with an American university).

The situation in the US is particularly polarised in regard to transgender ideology, with “mainstream feminists” as dv calls them very much part of the unthinkingly conformist US left orthodoxy, particularly virulent in the universities. US radical feminists have little in common with them.

Gender-critical feminism is more common and more outspoken in the UK, which is often known as “Terf Island” by US trans activists.

Just doesn’t seem like a major issue to feminists, who by and large have bigger fish to fry these days.
Here are the issues that according to them are important enough to be front page news… issues that are going to affect women for real I guess.

Enforcing Criminal Abortion Bans Post-Roe: ‘A Massive Escalation of Surveillance’

The U.S. Women’s Soccer Team Just Won Equal Pay—Cue the Misogynist Backlash

Media Coverage of Uvalde Misses the Gender Issues at the Heart of School Shootings 

What My Ancestors Might Think of This Moment in U.S. History

It’s Time To Close the Gender Gap in Education Leadership—and Give Women What They’ve Earned

Enforcing Criminal Abortion Bans Post-Roe: ‘A Massive Escalation of Surveillance’

Losing Roe v. Wade Is a Matter of Global Significance

—-

Nothing there are tranbos in toilets or swimming carnivals. But sometimes the majority is wrong. Maybe feminists with 50 years of experience in spotting divisive tactics are wrong, and Socott Morrison and Graham Linehan are right. I’m just inclined to give the former the botd.

You won’t find gender-critical feminist voices in publications that are designed to be acceptable to the left patriarchy, especially in the US.

For an alternative view, some feminists see the Left as more of a threat these days than the Right:

Should Feminists Work with the Right?

by Jo Bartosch

The women’s movement is resurgent, yet every day brings more examples of what Phyllis Chesler recognized as “women’s inhumanity to women” — of trashing, smearing and the vicious vanity of small differences. The latest has cleaved along that man-made fault of left and right; a conservative man, Matt Walsh made a film about the threat of transgenderism called ‘What is a Woman?’.

Some have welcomed his film as reaching an audience outside the cliques of radical feminists, arguing that it will raise awareness about an immediate threat to the safety of women and children. Others refuse to separate the film from the misogynist values of its creator, regarding the promotion of the documentary as a betrayal, as working with a man who would gleefully sacrifice women’s bodily autonomy to his patriarchal god. Cut through the crossfire and it is clear the issue hinges on whether the ends justify the means when it comes to feminists allying with those with whom we disagree on wider matters.

Leaving aside the specifics, it is worth noting that the one thing which unites feminists of any stripe is that as a rule we do not judge the ‘choices’ women find themselves making. Whether a woman finds herself in prostitution, living with an abusive man, or undergoing surgery because she hates her body, it is the job of feminism to shift the focus away from how a woman plays the game, to who makes the rules. Yet, too often, we fail to apply this basic analysis when it comes to our own movement.

Today, politically engaged women have two depressing options. We can align with parties on the left which refuse to recognize the existence of women let alone our humanity. Or we can work alongside the right, which in the US means with those who force women to become mothers and then leave them financially unsupported. Any self-respecting woman can’t fail but to feel unsatisfied and sullied by this grubby, and notably binary decision. As Andrea Dworkin so pithily observed in Right Wing Women:

“The difference between left-wing and right-wing when it comes to women is only about where exactly on our necks their boots should be placed. To right-wing men, we are private property. To left-wing men, we are public property.”

Unlike the structures within other political groups, there is no central commission of feminists dictating policy and setting boundaries. “Feminism” is a term anyone can use, a philosophy with multiple definitions and interpretations. And so, it falls to those who make-up the movement to demarcate the boundaries of acceptable behavior, to shun those who step out of line and love-bomb new recruits. It is easy to lose oneself in this moral quagmire of competing values and varying understanding. Given this uncertainty, there is a temptation to try to establish oneself as an arbiter of feminist values; to police the parameters and bully heretics, to brand them ‘unfeminist’. Just as within patriarchy, a code of honour operates – women whose opinions are deemed suspect will live with a stain on their character.

Compared to feminism, malestream politics is simple. For Marxists, people are bracketed according to their relationship with the means of production – this is naturally based on the male as default. The productivity of women as mothers has largely been seen as an inconvenience by the traditional left and an endpoint by the religious right. Arguably, in this way feminists have always sat outside of the patriarchal powerplay that is party politics.

But now many feel a sense of urgency, a need to stop an impending disaster by any means necessary. Fifty years on from the championing of PIE & NAMBLA, today’s mainstream left is still driven by male fetishes and the redistribution of resources has slipped down the agenda. Instead, those who believe themselves progressive advocate for our daughters to be sold into prostitution, for the sterilization of youth, and for the destruction of the category of ‘woman’. Whether this is a greater or lesser threat than the rolling-back of abortion rights is arguably a matter of personal morality and priorities.

It is understandable that some women feel anger that feminists have aligned with the right. We should not have had to make a pragmatic alliance with those who in other circumstances would relegate us to home and hearth. But to others what is happening to the rights of women and the bodies of children is an emergency that demands drastic measures. Given this, the rage of feminists embedded on the left towards those whose tactics differ seems misplaced. After-all, when men overcome ideological differences in pursuit of a common goal it is recognized as politics.

Ultimately, it would be more productive if we were to offer each other a little leeway. Whether one opts to work with the nihilistic perverts on the left to protect bodily autonomy, or the anti-abortionists to protect society from pornography or transgenderism, is irrelevant in the end. We didn’t make the rules within which we’re forced to play, nor did we choose the game.

Feminism, of the type which threatens male power, will never be popular and no matter how hard we work, realistically, we won’t overturn patriarchy. But what each woman can do is what she believes to be right, and we need to give our sisters the space to do that without tearing one another down. To borrow a sensible line from those who are both our allies and opponents, “let she who is without sin cast the first stone.”

dv said:

sometimes the majority is wrong

antidemocratic shit

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

sometimes the majority is wrong

antidemocratic shit

Nah it’s true though. These are complex issues and maybe the minority view will win out eventually, and I suppose all we can do is assume good faith and treat each other with respect in the mean time. Clearly among people who are seriously dedicated to women’s rights, there are some strongly opposed to trans rights, some strongly in favour, some like me who are kind of mixed or agnostic. It’s plain that you can determine how serious someone is about women’s rights by looking at their stance on trans issues.

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

sometimes the majority is wrong

antidemocratic shit

Nah it’s true though. These are complex issues and maybe the minority view will win out eventually, and I suppose all we can do is assume good faith and treat each other with respect in the mean time. Clearly among people who are seriously dedicated to women’s rights, there are some strongly opposed to trans rights, some strongly in favour, some like me who are kind of mixed or agnostic. It’s plain that you can determine how serious someone is about women’s rights by looking at their stance on trans issues.

Jesus, what a time to leave out the n wordm
It’s plain that you can not determine how serious someone is about women’s rights by looking at their stance on trans issues.

dv said:

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

antidemocratic shit

Nah it’s true though. These are complex issues and maybe the minority view will win out eventually, and I suppose all we can do is assume good faith and treat each other with respect in the mean time. Clearly among people who are seriously dedicated to women’s rights, there are some strongly opposed to trans rights, some strongly in favour, some like me who are kind of mixed or agnostic. It’s plain that you can determine how serious someone is about women’s rights by looking at their stance on trans issues.

Jesus, what a time to leave out the n wordm
It’s plain that you can not determine how serious someone is about women’s rights by looking at their stance on trans issues.

I was wondering if the original statement was really what you meant.

dv said:

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

antidemocratic shit

Nah it’s true though. These are complex issues and maybe the minority view will win out eventually, and I suppose all we can do is assume good faith and treat each other with respect in the mean time. Clearly among people who are seriously dedicated to women’s rights, there are some strongly opposed to trans rights, some strongly in favour, some like me who are kind of mixed or agnostic. It’s plain that you can determine how serious someone is about women’s rights by looking at their stance on trans issues.

Jesus, what a time to leave out the n wordm
It’s plain that you can not determine how serious someone is about women’s rights by looking at their stance on trans issues.

Can’t agree. For those of us following this debate, there are many people whose comments supporting trans ideology are markedly opposed to the most basic women’s rights.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

dv said:

Nah it’s true though. These are complex issues and maybe the minority view will win out eventually, and I suppose all we can do is assume good faith and treat each other with respect in the mean time. Clearly among people who are seriously dedicated to women’s rights, there are some strongly opposed to trans rights, some strongly in favour, some like me who are kind of mixed or agnostic. It’s plain that you can determine how serious someone is about women’s rights by looking at their stance on trans issues.

Jesus, what a time to leave out the n wordm
It’s plain that you can not determine how serious someone is about women’s rights by looking at their stance on trans issues.

Can’t agree. For those of us following this debate, there are many people whose comments supporting trans ideology are markedly opposed to the most basic women’s rights.

I mean I’m sure there are, but there are also people in the world strongly opposed to trans rights who are markedly opposed to the most basic women’s rights. Billions of them, I dare say. In the US the Venn diagram of those who want to overturn Roe v Wade and those opposed to trans rights is a circle.

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

Jesus, what a time to leave out the n wordm
It’s plain that you can not determine how serious someone is about women’s rights by looking at their stance on trans issues.

Can’t agree. For those of us following this debate, there are many people whose comments supporting trans ideology are markedly opposed to the most basic women’s rights.

I mean I’m sure there are, but there are also people in the world strongly opposed to trans rights who are markedly opposed to the most basic women’s rights. Billions of them, I dare say. In the US the Venn diagram of those who want to overturn Roe v Wade and those opposed to trans rights is a circle.

Those are obviously not gender-critical feminists. And for the record, most GC feminists are not opposed to trans rights except where they seek to violate the rights of women and children.

Dark Orange said:

Bubblecar said:

Dark Orange said:

Here’s one for Bubbles.

I’ve gone right off rainbows.

;)

Oh, so you’re excluding everybody?

no because there’s a deep fucking irony in all this which is

white is the combination of all colours

the end

SCIENCE said:

Dark Orange said:

Bubblecar said:

I’ve gone right off rainbows.

;)

Oh, so you’re excluding everybody?

no because there’s a deep fucking irony in all this which is

white is the combination of all colours

the end

Yes that’s the true white power

Wait

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

Dark Orange said:

Oh, so you’re excluding everybody?

no because there’s a deep fucking irony in all this which is

white is the combination of all colours

the end

Yes that’s the true white power

Wait

well i don’t know, seeing we’re talking skin pigments wouldn’t all colours equal black?

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

no because there’s a deep fucking irony in all this which is

white is the combination of all colours

the end

Yes that’s the true white power

Wait

well i don’t know, seeing we’re talking skin pigments wouldn’t all colours equal black?

“In theory”. In practice, most likely to end up with a dark brown.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

Yes that’s the true white power

Wait

well i don’t know, seeing we’re talking skin pigments wouldn’t all colours equal black?

“In theory”. In practice, most likely to end up with a dark brown.

being a printer and all… I also doubt we have the full gamut of skin colours anyway.

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

well i don’t know, seeing we’re talking skin pigments wouldn’t all colours equal black?

“In theory”. In practice, most likely to end up with a dark brown.

being a printer and all… I also doubt we have the full gamut of skin colours anyway.

Not on this planet anyway.

buffy said:

There you go.

Or, as Dave Allen called it, mixed doubles.

I say get rid of male and female sports all together and let the best man win.

A British perspective, from Fair Play For Women. The article looks at individual cases in a number of different sports.

How transgender inclusion leads to female exclusion

https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-inclusion-is-already-harming-uk-females-in-sport/

Man beats woman to a pulp for public entertainment, but it’s OK ‘cos it’s a sporting event, and the man uses female pronouns.

Bubblecar said:

Man beats woman to a pulp for public entertainment, but it’s OK ‘cos it’s a sporting event, and the man uses female pronouns.

probably historically sport was built on ‘segregation’ of sexes, if I can use segregation in a positive way there, though I am not saying it all has been positive

Bubblecar said:

Man beats woman to a pulp for public entertainment, but it’s OK ‘cos it’s a sporting event, and the man uses female pronouns.

It’s not like the female participant had no say in the matter. If she’s not fazed by extreme violence you’d presume she could cope with boycotting the transgender woman in question.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

Man beats woman to a pulp for public entertainment, but it’s OK ‘cos it’s a sporting event, and the man uses female pronouns.

It’s not like the female participant had no say in the matter. If she’s not fazed by extreme violence you’d presume she could cope with boycotting the transgender woman in question.

LOL, it’s a nice strawman too, witty.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

Man beats woman to a pulp for public entertainment, but it’s OK ‘cos it’s a sporting event, and the man uses female pronouns.

It’s not like the female participant had no say in the matter. If she’s not fazed by extreme violence you’d presume she could cope with boycotting the transgender woman in question.

True enough. But that doesn’t alter the fact that it’s a man beating up a woman for public entertainment, but it’s regarded as OK (by you too, apparently) ‘cos it’s a sporting event, and the man uses female pronouns.

Maybe you’re right, maybe there’s nothing wrong with men beating up women, if the women “know what they’re letting themselves in for.”

More on this topic:

Man makes history by beating/choking woman on live television

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/man-makes-history-by-beatingchoking?s=r

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

Man beats woman to a pulp for public entertainment, but it’s OK ‘cos it’s a sporting event, and the man uses female pronouns.

It’s not like the female participant had no say in the matter. If she’s not fazed by extreme violence you’d presume she could cope with boycotting the transgender woman in question.

Once again… I’m content for sports administrators to make sports administration decisions, but it should be noted that to date there’s been nothing remarkable about either the win rate nor the injury rate in bouts between cis and trans MMA fighters. Like I said, in some sports the height thing is am advantage that being a born dude will usually have that hormone adjustment won’t fix, but it turns out a 50 kg m2ft with lowered testosterone doesn’t have much advantage over a 50 kg bornlass in the octagon.
It’s a brutal and dangerous sport anyway. This is Kay Hansen after meeting Kal Schwartz.

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

Man beats woman to a pulp for public entertainment, but it’s OK ‘cos it’s a sporting event, and the man uses female pronouns.

It’s not like the female participant had no say in the matter. If she’s not fazed by extreme violence you’d presume she could cope with boycotting the transgender woman in question.

Once again… I’m content for sports administrators to make sports administration decisions, but it should be noted that to date there’s been nothing remarkable about either the win rate nor the injury rate in bouts between cis and trans MMA fighters. Like I said, in some sports the height thing is am advantage that being a born dude will usually have that hormone adjustment won’t fix, but it turns out a 50 kg m2ft with lowered testosterone doesn’t have much advantage over a 50 kg bornlass in the octagon.
It’s a brutal and dangerous sport anyway. This is Kay Hansen after meeting Kal Schwartz.

This fellow (who has qualifications in this area) disagrees with you:

>It has been shown that even after 24 months of testosterone suppression, transgender women maintain bone mass . Bone mass may even be preserved over 12 years which suggests that sporting advantage from increased bone mass would be retained.

No study has reported muscle loss greater than 12% with testosterone suppression, even studies that tested transgender male to females after 3 years of therapy . After 12 months of testosterone suppression, muscle loss is only around 3-5% on average.

Considering males have approximately 40% greater muscle mass than females, this reduction still leaves transgender athletes with a great advantage.

Similarly, a reduction in handgrip strength of 7% and 9% after 12 and 24 months respectively has been found in transgender women .

Further, when transgender women had testosterone within a normal female range, a decrease of only 4% in grip strength was found after 12 months of hormone therapy.

This lead to transgender women being in the top 10% of female grip strength scores. Further, transgender women remained 50% stronger than females after 12 months of testosterone suppression in the lower body .

Even 3 years after sex reassignment surgery and 8 years of hormone treatment, transgender women have been found to still be in the top 10% of females regarding lean body mass and have a 25% stronger grip .

These data suggest that strength, lean mass, and skeletal structure are maintained to a higher degree than the average female even in the long term for transgender women giving them a strength advantage.

https://sweetscienceoffighting.com/transgender-mma-fighters-time-to-stop-the-madness/

Bubblecar said:

These data suggest that strength, lean mass, and skeletal structure are maintained to a higher degree than the average female even in the long term for transgender women giving them a strength advantage.

https://sweetscienceoffighting.com/transgender-mma-fighters-time-to-stop-the-madness/

…he mentions Fallon Fox, who broke a woman’s skull during one of these entertainments. Here’s what Fox later said about that incident:

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

Man beats woman to a pulp for public entertainment, but it’s OK ‘cos it’s a sporting event, and the man uses female pronouns.

It’s not like the female participant had no say in the matter. If she’s not fazed by extreme violence you’d presume she could cope with boycotting the transgender woman in question.

True enough. But that doesn’t alter the fact that it’s a man beating up a woman for public entertainment, but it’s regarded as OK (by you too, apparently) ‘cos it’s a sporting event, and the man uses female pronouns.

Maybe you’re right, maybe there’s nothing wrong with men beating up women, if the women “know what they’re letting themselves in for.”

I said nothing of the sort about it being okay. I said the female fighter has some agency in the matter and should she choose to fight a man, for whatever reason – even including to prove a point – it is not the be-all and end-all of the debate around transgender politics

Coming over all preachy and stamping your foot as though you speak for all women is exactly the sort of emotive collectivist argument that you criticise in the transgender community when they make catch-all proclamations that a ‘transgender woman is a woman’ etc.

It is not a sport.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

It’s not like the female participant had no say in the matter. If she’s not fazed by extreme violence you’d presume she could cope with boycotting the transgender woman in question.

True enough. But that doesn’t alter the fact that it’s a man beating up a woman for public entertainment, but it’s regarded as OK (by you too, apparently) ‘cos it’s a sporting event, and the man uses female pronouns.

Maybe you’re right, maybe there’s nothing wrong with men beating up women, if the women “know what they’re letting themselves in for.”

I said nothing of the sort about it being okay. I said the female fighter has some agency in the matter and should she choose to fight a man, for whatever reason – even including to prove a point – it is not the be-all and end-all of the debate around transgender politics

Coming over all preachy and stamping your foot as though you speak for all women is exactly the sort of emotive collectivist argument that you criticise in the transgender community when they make catch-all proclamations that a ‘transgender woman is a woman’ etc.

I wasn’t aware that I’m stomping my foot. I thought I was maintaining a fairly detached demeanour :)

And I’m certainly not “speaking for all women”, or any women, since I’m not one.

In my experience, most women keep their heads down on this issue and “don’t want to make a fuss”. Many come out in support of transwomen.

But I personally admire the gender-critical feminists because I think science, reason and sound ethics are on their side.

party_pants said:

It is not a sport.

Seems harsh. Can you elucidate?

party_pants said:

It is not a sport.

I disagree.

Bubblecar said:

But I personally admire the gender-critical feminists because I think science, reason and sound ethics are on their side.

You may be right but to my mind any self-respecting TERF who considers transgender men’s participation in women’s sports as the most important issue in gender politics needs their head read.

Paying any attention to the issue shows that the most pressing issue is the rapidly rising incidence of self-proclaimed trans-men in young women, and given that, whatever transwpmen happen to get up to is a side issue IMO.

sibeen said:

party_pants said:

It is not a sport.

I disagree.

So does Wikipedia, which describes MMA as a full-contact combat sport.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_martial_arts

dv said:

party_pants said:

It is not a sport.

Seems harsh. Can you elucidate?

It does not embody “sporting behaviour”. The aim seems to be to injure the opponent, sometimes permanently. It is not just a risk involved in playing the game, it is the aim of of each match for one participant to get hurt beyond which is necessary for the purpose of mere entertainment or display of skill.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

But I personally admire the gender-critical feminists because I think science, reason and sound ethics are on their side.

You may be right but to my mind any self-respecting TERF who considers transgender men’s participation in women’s sports as the most important issue in gender politics needs their head read.

Paying any attention to the issue shows that the most pressing issue is the rapidly rising incidence of self-proclaimed trans-men in young women, and given that, whatever transwpmen happen to get up to is a side issue IMO.

I’ve never suggested that I regard sport as the most important issue. It just happens to be the subject of this thread that buffy posted.

Indeed many GC feminists complain about the unfairness in sport getting so much mainstream media attention, when the problem is much deeper and more serious than that.

party_pants said:

dv said:

party_pants said:

It is not a sport.

Seems harsh. Can you elucidate?

It does not embody “sporting behaviour”. The aim seems to be to injure the opponent, sometimes permanently. It is not just a risk involved in playing the game, it is the aim of of each match for one participant to get hurt beyond which is necessary for the purpose of mere entertainment or display of skill.

I amateur boxed. I suspect this sport is safer than boxing, especially long term.

party_pants said:

dv said:

party_pants said:

It is not a sport.

Seems harsh. Can you elucidate?

It does not embody “sporting behaviour”. The aim seems to be to injure the opponent, sometimes permanently. It is not just a risk involved in playing the game, it is the aim of of each match for one participant to get hurt beyond which is necessary for the purpose of mere entertainment or display of skill.

what did the romans ever do for us?

And at the risk of getting even more controversial perhaps in time the trans-community will split into a larger, inclusiive, cisgender women respecting overwhelming majority and a splinter, bitter, women-hating minority the same way the gay community had to hound out the crazy NAMBLA crowd in the development of the mainstream gay politics in the 1970s.

party_pants said:

dv said:

party_pants said:

It is not a sport.

Seems harsh. Can you elucidate?

It does not embody “sporting behaviour”. The aim seems to be to injure the opponent, sometimes permanently. It is not just a risk involved in playing the game, it is the aim of of each match for one participant to get hurt beyond which is necessary for the purpose of mere entertainment or display of skill.

I wouldn’t say that’s the case. Most bouts end without injury and are decided by judges on points.

Bubblecar said:

But I personally admire the gender-critical feminists because I think science, reason and sound ethics are on their side.

we ain’t on anyone’s or even our own side, we stand on our feet

Witty Rejoinder said:

the gay community had to hound out

Rebel Wilson didn’t they

Witty Rejoinder said:

And at the risk of getting even more controversial perhaps in time the trans-community will split into a larger, inclusiive, cisgender women respecting overwhelming majority and a splinter, bitter, women-hating minority the same way the gay community had to hound out the crazy NAMBLA crowd in the development of the mainstream gay politics in the 1970s.

If they want to convincingly respect women, as traditionally defined by sex, one of the first things they’ll do is drop the term “cisgender” :)

Women are women, they don’t require a qualifying prefix.

“Trans women” do, but that’s because they’re men.

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

It’s plain that you can not determine how serious someone is about women’s rights by looking at their stance on trans issues.

Can’t agree. For those of us following this debate, there are many people whose comments supporting trans ideology are markedly opposed to the most basic women’s rights.

I mean I’m sure there are, but there are also people in the world strongly opposed to trans rights who are markedly opposed to the most basic women’s rights. Billions of them, I dare say. In the US the Venn diagram of those who want to overturn Roe v Wade and those opposed to trans rights is a circle.

Here’s a little chart to illustrate that concept.

Bottom-right we have trans-exclusionary feminists such as Greer and Burchill, people with a long record of feminism who view the trans movements as corrosive of real women’s rights. I’ve presumptuously put Bubblecar in that direction. Slightly to the west of that I have got Lily Cade there, with pretty violent and vile ideas about trans folks and a kind of “mixed” women’s rights record. Linehan is somewhat gender critical but not in an extreme way and you wouldn’t say he’s got any kind of women’s rights record so he’s just kind of south of the middle of the chart.
Top right you’ve got other people who’ve lived their lives for feminism but have a different take and are trans-inclusionary, such as Steinem. I’ve got myself drifting in that direction.
Biden is pretty close to the middle but he has a record of being very slightly ahead of the ball in terms of women’s rights, particularly in the modern milieu, so I’ve nudged him to the east a bit.
Up in the top left we have Crispin Blunt who is quite large on the trans-rights issue but nothing to brag about at all in terms of women’s rights. Anything Jenner has said makes me place her pretty much bang on the centre of the US Republican party in terms of women’s rights and that’s bad, so she’s pretty far on the west in this chart.
Most conservatives, nationally and internationally, find themselves down in the bottom left of this chart. I’ve listed some prominent individuals here but honestly, I would think that perhaps half or more of the world’s population is down in that area: people who think women do not need many rights and should be in traditional roles, and that trans people need to be in prison or set alight.

You’ve never made a diagram for me….

Witty Rejoinder said:

You’ve never made a diagram for me….

you cad, DV!

Witty Rejoinder said:

You’ve never made a diagram for me….

ChrispenEvan said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

You’ve never made a diagram for me….

you cad, DV!

Hardly a job for CAD

SCIENCE said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

the gay community had to hound out

Rebel Wilson didn’t they

I saw Tahir the other night: I remember when their respective characters were dating back on Pizza.

Bubblecar said:

…he mentions Fallon Fox, who broke a woman’s skull during one of these entertainments.

Fallon Fox fractured an opponent’s occular orbit, something that has happened a few dozen times in women’s MMA.

In particular, in strictly weight bracketed sports, high bone density is not advantageous. A 50 kg person with high linear bone density has lower maximum muscle mass than one with low linear bone density, which might be why Ashlee Evans-Smith was able to knock Fallon Fox the fuck out. I would not expect her to be able to beat a man but she can beat a transwoman in her weight range.

Most Americans oppose trans athletes in female sports, poll finds

By Tara Bahrampour, Scott Clement and Emily Guskin
June 14, 2022 at 7:00 a.m. EDT

Even as an increasing share of Americans report familiarity with and tolerance for transgender people, most oppose allowing transgender female athletes to compete against other women at the professional, college and high school level, according to a Washington Post-University of Maryland poll.

The poll, conducted May 4 through 17 among 1,503 people across the United States, finds 55 percent of Americans opposed to allowing transgender women and girls to compete with other women and girls in high school sports and 58 percent opposed to it for college and professional sports. About 3 in 10 Americans said transgender women and girls should be allowed to compete at each of those levels, while an additional 15 percent have no opinion.

At the youth level, 49 percent are opposed to transgender girls competing with other girls, while 33 percent say they should be allowed to compete and 17 percent have no opinion.

The poll was taken as an increasing portion of Americans, particularly younger ones, identify as transgender and the issue of whether transgender women and girls should compete against cisgender women and girls has become a point of social and political debate.

Last week, Louisiana joined at least 17 other states in banning transgender women and girls from competing on female sports teams. Much of that legislation across the country has been passed in the past year, led by Republican lawmakers. The Louisiana ban, which applies to all public and some private elementary and secondary schools and colleges, became law after the state’s Democratic governor declined to sign it or veto it.

The issue has become politicized despite the small share of people who identify as transgender and the limited number of specific situations in which participation has raised concerns.

A Pew Research Center poll released last Tuesday found that 0.6 percent of Americans identify as transgender, but among people age 18 to 29, the share rose to 2 percent. An additional 1 percent of Americans said they are nonbinary — neither a man nor a woman, or not strictly one or the other — a share that rose to 3 percent of people 18 to 29.

A 2021 Gallup telephone poll found 0.7 percent of adults identifying as transgender, while a slightly larger percentage identified as gay (1.5 percent), lesbian (1.0 percent), bisexual (4.0 percent) or another non-heterosexual identity (0.3 percent).

Among athletes, the controversy has centered on transgender women and girls, in particular. Critics say they have an unfair physical advantage against cisgender women and girls because of factors such as generally having a greater muscle mass and larger skeletal frame, bone density and testosterone levels, which can help boost athletic performance.

Critics of the bans say they deny transgender athletes’ right to compete in a space that aligns with their gender, further stigmatizing children who are at greater risk of mental health problems. Critics also say the bans overestimate the extent of trans girls’ and women’s participation in athletics.

The Post-UMD poll finds over two-thirds of Americans, 68 percent, say that transgender girls would have a competitive advantage over other girls if they were allowed to compete with them in youth sports; 30 percent say neither would have an advantage, while 2 percent say other girls would have an advantage.

A slim 52 percent majority say they are “very” or “somewhat” concerned that transgender girls’ mental health will suffer if they are not allowed to compete with other girls in youth sports; 48 percent are “not too” or “not at all” concerned about this.

Despite being mostly opposed to their participation in sports, the Post-UMD poll finds Americans’ general attitudes toward transgender people to be more positive than negative.

The poll also finds that 40 percent of Americans say greater social acceptance of transgender people is “good for society,” while 25 percent say it is “bad for society,” and another 35 percent say it is “neither good nor bad.” The percentage saying transgender acceptance is bad for society is down from 32 percent in a Pew Research Center survey one year ago.

Transgender acceptance ranges widely depending on age, political leanings and personal connections. Roughly 1 in 6 Americans, 16 percent, know a close friend or family member who is transgender, and 40 percent say they personally know any person who is transgender, apart from acquaintances, the poll finds.

Americans who personally know a close friend or family member who is transgender are twice as likely to say greater social acceptance of transgender people is good for society: 70 percent, compared with 35 percent among those who do not have a transgender friend or family member. Among those who don’t have a transgender friend or family member, 38 percent say social acceptance of transgender people is neither good nor bad, while 28 percent say it is bad.

Nearly two-thirds of Democrats (64 percent) believe that greater social acceptance of transgender people is good for society, compared with 40 percent of Independents and 14 percent of Republicans.

Younger people also report more positive feelings about increasing transgender acceptance, with 54 percent of Americans ages 18 to 29 saying it is good for society, compared with 48 percent of Americans in their 30s, 46 percent of those in their 40s, 28 percent of those ages 50 to 64 and 32 percent of people 65 and older. At the same time, less than half of 18-to-29-year-olds say transgender women and girls should be allowed to compete with other female athletes at any level.

It is possible that transgender familiarity and acceptance could be on a similar trajectory to familiarity with gay and lesbian people a generation ago. The 40 percent of people saying they personally know someone transgender echoes the share of Americans who said they personally knew someone who is gay or lesbian in a 1992 CBS News/New York Times poll (42 percent); that figure grew to 77 percent in a 2010 CBS News poll.

Americans’ attitudes about transgender athletes appear malleable, and some polls asking differing questions have found contrasting results. The Post-UMD results are similar to 2021 Gallup poll results, which indicated 62 percent of Americans said transgender athletes should be allowed to play only on sports teams that match their birth gender rather than gender identity. However, a May 2022 survey conducted by SSRS found 59 percent of Americans saying they oppose banning transgender girls from participating in K-12 girls sports, while 41 percent supported a ban.

Transgender people have also become increasingly common in popular culture, from retired Olympian and media personality Caitlin Jenner to the reality TV series “I Am Jazz,” about a transgender teenager.

The idea that Americans would become more accepting of transgender people as they become more visible in society makes sense to Michael Hanmer, research director of UMD’s Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement, which partnered with The Post on the survey.

“A long line of research shows that knowing members of a particular group leads to more positive attitudes toward the group,” Hanmer said. “We see that here, as there is a large increase in the proportion who say greater acceptance is good for society among those who personally know a transgender person.”

But, Hanmer added, despite “some evidence of this when we look specifically at support for allowing transgender women and girls to compete with other women and girls … the shifts are much smaller, suggesting there are additional considerations involved.”

Cherisse Villanueva, 34, a pharmacy technician in Honolulu, said she knows more than 10 transgender people and believes society should be accepting of them. “Everybody’s human regardless of how they feel or what they were born with,” she said.

But Villanueva said she does not believe that transgender girls and women should compete against cisgender ones. “Not to be mean, but biologically they’re built like a male, even though they identify as female … so of course they would have the advantage of winning.” Villanueva, a tennis player, added that she is “already intimidated when we play co-ed tennis and there’s a male on the other side.”

Villanueva said she didn’t know how to resolve the question of mental health repercussions for transgender female athletes who are not allowed to compete against other women and girls. “This issue is such a dilemma,” she said. “It’s hard to make it equal.”

That concern is common even among people who generally support transgender people, said Mark Hyman, director of UMD’s Shirley Povich Center for Sports Journalism. “People increasingly have an awareness of the issue and are empathetic toward the journey that transgender people are on, but the notion that they are competing against athletes that are born a particular sex are lagging behind that.”

Even the teammates of Lia Thomas, the University of Pennsylvania transgender female swimmer who won a national championship, voiced reservations, Hyman noted.

“They were totally supportive of her surgery and her path but opposed to her competing on the women’s team, so from a practical standpoint this is more evidence that there is considerable pushback,” he said. “There is significant momentum against transgender athletes competing. … The survey results point to me that that’s a factor in how people are reacting to this.”

The poll was conducted online May 4-17, 2022, among a random national sample of 1,503 adults by The Washington Post and the University of Maryland’s Shirley Povich Center for Sports Journalism and Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement. The sample was drawn through SSRS’s Opinion Panel, an ongoing survey panel recruited through random sampling of U.S. households. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/06/13/washington-post-umd-poll-most-americans-oppose-transgender-athletes-female-sports/?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-20/fina-votes-to-restrict-transgender-swimmers-in-competition/101166220

FINA votes to restrict transgender women’s participation in elite swimming competitions

>>The new policy states transgender women must prove they had not experienced male puberty “beyond Tanner Stage 2 or before age 12, whichever is later”<<

This seems to be in line with the science.

buffy said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-20/fina-votes-to-restrict-transgender-swimmers-in-competition/101166220

FINA votes to restrict transgender women’s participation in elite swimming competitions

>>The new policy states transgender women must prove they had not experienced male puberty “beyond Tanner Stage 2 or before age 12, whichever is later”<<

This seems to be in line with the science.

Had to happen.

buffy said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-20/fina-votes-to-restrict-transgender-swimmers-in-competition/101166220

FINA votes to restrict transgender women’s participation in elite swimming competitions

>>The new policy states transgender women must prove they had not experienced male puberty “beyond Tanner Stage 2 or before age 12, whichever is later”<<

This seems to be in line with the science.

I agree.

ah

buffy said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-20/fina-votes-to-restrict-transgender-swimmers-in-competition/101166220

FINA votes to restrict transgender women’s participation in elite swimming competitions

>>The new policy states transgender women must prove they had not experienced male puberty “beyond Tanner Stage 2 or before age 12, whichever is later”<<

This seems to be in line with the science.

As I’ve always said, I’m content to go with the decision of the sports administrators.

Fina bars transgender swimmers from women’s elite events if they went through male puberty

Fina, swimming’s world governing body, has voted to stop transgender athletes from competing in women’s elite races if they have gone through any part of the process of male puberty.

Fina will also aim to establish an ‘open’ category at competitions for swimmers whose gender identity is different from their birth sex.

….Former Great Britain swimmer Sharron Davies, who has argued against transgender participation in women’s elite swimming, told BBC Sport she was “really proud of Fina”.

“Four years ago, along with 60 other Olympic medallists, I wrote to the IOC (International Olympic Committee) and said ‘Please just do the science first’ and no governing body has done the science until now,” she said.

“That is what Fina has done. They’ve done the science, they’ve got the right people on board, they’ve spoken to the athletes, and coaches.

“Swimming is a very inclusive sport, we love everyone to come and swim and be involved. But the cornerstone of sport is that it has to be fair and it has to be fair for both sexes.”

Asked whether Fina’s policy left trans athletes “in limbo” while they waited for an open category to be created, Davies praised Fina for having conversations around trans inclusion that should have “happened five years ago”.

“Sport by definition is exclusionary – we don’t have 15-year-old boys racing in the under-12s, we don’t have heavyweight boxers in with the bantamweights, the whole reason we have lots of different classes in the Paralympics is so that we can create fair opportunities for everybody,” she said.

“So that is the whole point of having classifications in sports and the only people who were going to be losing out were females – they were losing their right to fair sport.”

https://www.bbc.com/sport/swimming/61853450

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-21/international-rugby-league-bans-transgender-women-fina-policy/101169870

“Sport’s governing bodies are at loggerheads about transgender participation, but Australia can take the lead”

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-27/sport-governing-bodies-transgender-participation-australia-lead/101182484

Usually Tracey Holmes has an opinion. So I read this piece, but she doesn’t really say anything much.

buffy said:

“Sport’s governing bodies are at loggerheads about transgender participation, but Australia can take the lead”

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-27/sport-governing-bodies-transgender-participation-australia-lead/101182484

Usually Tracey Holmes has an opinion. So I read this piece, but she doesn’t really say anything much.

She wants to keep her job.

A lot of commentators find that fence-sitting on this issue is the most comfortable position.

Bubblecar said:

buffy said:

“Sport’s governing bodies are at loggerheads about transgender participation, but Australia can take the lead”

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-27/sport-governing-bodies-transgender-participation-australia-lead/101182484

Usually Tracey Holmes has an opinion. So I read this piece, but she doesn’t really say anything much.

She wants to keep her job.

A lot of commentators find that fence-sitting on this issue is the most comfortable position.

She is quite outspoken at times. She’s had a bit to say about Caster Semenya over the years.

Good article by Olympian marathon runner Mara Yamauchi.

Ministers need to enforce fairness for females in sport – now

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/29/ministers-fairness-females-sport-swimming-policy?CMP=fb_cif

I think the new swimming policy is proportionate, robust and overdue – and hope other sports heed the call to follow suit

Why does the female category in sport exist? It exists so that those born female – women and girls – can participate, compete and excel in sport that is fair and safe. Without the female category, women and girls would be nowhere in sport because of the massive physical advantages that those born male enjoy.

The scale of these advantages is poorly understood, but was well illustrated by the UK sports councils’ hypothetical example of Sir Mo Farah being lapped twice in a 10,000m race if he were up against someone 10% faster than him – 10% being the gap between males and females in my own sport, running.

The fact of you reading this article right now is due to the female category existing. Without it, I would be a complete nobody. When I set my personal best, 2:23:12 in 2009, I was ranked second in the world in women’s road running. But 2:23:12 is, being frank, nothing special by male standards. In 2009, at least 1,300 men ran faster. If I had been told to suffer unfair competition against male-born athletes, I would never have become the UK’s joint most successful female marathon runner in the Olympics ever, and a Commonwealth Games medallist. I would have been excluded from things of value such as places on teams, prize money and podium places. That is if I’d persevered in sport at all – probably, I would have quit sport altogether. Why would anyone want to compete in an event that is unfair?

The whole point of the female category is it excludes the advantage male bodies have. Logically, this must be enforced, or it ceases to be the female category and instead becomes a mixed category. I therefore welcome Fina’s recently announced new policy to exclude male-born people from elite female competitions if they have experienced any part of male puberty, for two main reasons: it has focused, laser-like, on the source of male advantage – androgenisation, which is mostly acquired during male puberty (there are small differences evident in childhood). Second, Fina has made very clear its belief, which I share, that trans people must be welcome and included in sport, by committing to developing an open category. The details of this are to be decided, but this solution ensures fairness and inclusion for everyone, including for females. I hope other federations will follow Fina’s lead.

The debate about trans inclusion in sport has focused mostly on the elite level. But the crisis facing women’s sport is just as serious at grassroots level. Male-born people are competing in women’s sport all over the UK. Officials and event organisers, many of them volunteers, are powerless to turn away requests from people born male to compete in the female category. I know, because I hear about examples of this happening frequently. I am in touch with a group of women in the UK who have been deliberately avoiding events in which a male-born person is competing, and are considering quitting altogether. I can’t say which sport, to protect their anonymity. But why should any woman be put in this invidious position?

Last September, the UK sports councils made clear that fairness and safety for females on the one hand, and inclusion of male-born people in the female category on the other, cannot coexist, even with testosterone suppression. Fairness and inclusion cannot be balanced: sports face a choice. But since then, national governing bodies or NGBs have equivocated, and all the while there is evidence that females are being excluded from things of value in their own category, or are self-excluding.

The culture secretary, Nadine Dorries, has said she would instruct the national governing bodies to protect the female category. This is long overdue, and I hope she did exactly that in her meeting with them on Tuesday. It need not have come to this if the national governing bodies had protected the female category. But they haven’t, and although I am no fan of this government, I am glad to see leadership coming from the top. This issue affects 51% of the population; it is a public health matter, and millions of tax-payers’ money is spent on sport annually. I am glad to see what I hope will be the beginning of the end of this ideological assault on fair and safe sport for women and girls.

One feature of this debate that I find very frustrating is the lack of basic understanding of sport by many who favour inclusion of male-born people in the female category. For example, conflating the differences between the sexes (which are massive), with differences in bodies – for example big feet, or being left-handed – which occur in both males and females (and are, by comparison, minuscule). Otherwise known as the Phelps gambit – named after swimmer Michael Phelps and based on the idea that his physique gave him an unfair competitive edge over his closest competitors – this argument has been demolished by scientists numerous times, yet still it gets wheeled out.

Another misunderstanding is the asymmetry of what trans inclusion offers to the two sexes. Males can enjoy competition in the female category with retained male advantages, therefore enhancing their careers, opportunities and bank balances. By contrast, females suffer exclusion in their own category and have zero chance of being competitive in the male category, even on testosterone, which is banned anyway. The Tokyo 2021 qualifying standard in the men’s marathon was 2:11:30; the women’s world record is 2:14:04.

Inclusion’s supporters tout this as a social justice and human rights issue. If only they would include females in their crusade.

https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/33/2/in-humans-sex-is-binary-and-immutable