Transgender man wins women's 100 yd and 400 yd freestyle races.

gameoverdude

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121001944#Comment_121001944

No rhetorical digging here Adam.

I just asked you to refer to me as a man. Not a cis man. Just a plain and simple man as I identify with. Hard to ask?

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120999307#Comment_120999307

Over 8,000 words - it's some screed.

The Conservative government, elected in 2020, has also bolstered the anti-trans movement by creating policies which align with TERF talking points, including classification of prisoners based on their genitalia, 

It's actually a war crime to put male and female prisoners of war together. In peace time however, it seems to be considered "progress".

telling sporting bodies that women’s sport must be reserved for those who are “born of the female sex” and dropping plans to ban conversion therapy for trans people.

It's the sporting bodies themselves who are coming to that conclusion. It's not the UK government telling them.

When it comes to the US, Gallagher outlines that much of the anti-trans movement is based on a culture war created by conservative groups, with which the Republican Party has increasingly aligned itself over the past number of decades.

There was an interesting discussion a while back between the researcher mentioned there Aoife Gallagher and the podcaster William Campbell. It's one of the few "calm discussions" on this topic between people who hold different views. Worth listening to.

https://blog.hereshow.ie/2022/10/heres-how-145-a-calm-discussion/

and a follow up here:

https://blog.hereshow.ie/2022/11/heres-how-146-another-calm-discussion/

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121002191#Comment_121002191

Nobody was discussing you or your sex or gender.

gameoverdude

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121002196#Comment_121002196

Don't have a gender.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121002192#Comment_121002192

telling sporting bodies that women’s sport must be reserved for those who are “born of the female sex” and dropping plans to ban conversion therapy for trans people.

It's the sporting bodies themselves who are coming to that conclusion. It's not the UK government telling them.

In that context no, that much is fact - it was definitely a Conservative UK Government telling sporting bodies in the UK that women’s sport must be reserved for those who are “born of the female sex”. It’s down at the bottom of the article that’s linked:

In June, UK culture secretary Nadine Dorries met with the heads of UK sporting bodies and told them that "elite and competitive women's sport must be reserved for people born of the female sex".

The author of the Journal article* is making the point more so about the Conservative UK Government and what they said, rather than implying it was because the UK Government told them they had to come to the conclusions they did.

The sporting bodies didn’t quite come to the conclusions they did on their own though, at least not if the sporting bodies themselves are to be believed, versus the account given by Joanne Harper (a contributor to the review of the literature mentioned in the Journal article, for reasons I’m not entirely certain are relevant). Joanne Harper tells the encounter differently -

“Well, frankly, I think they had their minds made up, before they called the meeting,” Harper said. “It would have been nice to have seen a trans woman rugby player there, but I doubt it would have made any difference.”

A spokesperson for World Rugby told Outsports after publication of this story: “It would be inaccurate to state that a decision had been made prior to the forum.”

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

The review which is mentioned in the Journal article*, was published after that consultation:

https://www.outsports.com/platform/amp/2021/3/9/22321015/joanna-harper-transgender-athlete-research

*The hyperlink for the Journal article uses the term ‘fact-check’, though given the content of the article itself, I’d suggest that was stretching the definition; ‘explainer’ might have been more appropriate.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121002402#Comment_121002402

Actually nobody has.

It's a social construct that some people elect to identify with.

But it doesn't objectively exist, unlike biological sex.

And more importantly than that, "gender" should never be the basis upon which sport should be organised.

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121002520#Comment_121002520

When has a politician not tried to take the credit for something that was coming anway?

It's probably fair to say that the Tories were easier to turn around than the Labour party but they didn't just decide to align with "TERF talking points". This came from the grass roots - like the recent 80% vote of the members of British Rowing. The article is not a balanced 'explainer', never mind a factcheck.

Mebuntu

One of the items on the main RTE headlines this morning was the Women's soccer World Cup Final that takes place today.

If the opinions of a couple of posters on this thread were the acceptable norm then the fans (mostly women and young girls, I'm told) would actually be watching two teams comprising of women and males (even possibly all-males) competing for the Women's trophy.

That's how ludicrous those opinions are.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121002692#Comment_121002692

I know what you mean, but the Conservative Government weren’t turned around, they always held the same position, even when Boris was PM, Liz Truss was Health Secretary and the question of reform of the gender recognition act was in play. Dories was just reiterating that position, was the point that was being made about the Conservative Government.

I never thought the article was balanced either, this is exactly what I said earlier-

There’s much more obfuscation and many criticisms of that article I’d have than just the ones you have, but they’re outside the scope of this thread. Taken as a whole though, the article does a fairly ok job of outlining the state of play.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121002191#Comment_121002191

Nobody is referring to you as a cis man.

CatFromHue

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120999899#Comment_120999899

It's so poorly written it's hard to know exactly what he means.

What we do know is that he's wrongly cited a study. In reality the study is a good one for showing why transwomen shouldn't be allowed compete in the women's category.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121003451#Comment_121003451

It is hard to know what he means, but he didn’t cite any study either, and the review that he did link to, he mustn’t have read it. I certainly wouldn’t have included it in the article and then gone on to explain why it shouldn’t be taken as indicative of anything conclusive! 😳

plodder

David Cameron and Theresa May were both in favour of self-id. It was on the way around 2017. Boris Johnson was the first to oppose it iirc and I think he was just following public opinion. So, I think it is reasonable to say the Tories were turned around.

I think the article below probably represents the "establishment" view on Trans rights back then, just after the Tories legalised gay marriage and we had passed self-id a couple of years previously. It's all about trans people's right to self-expression and while it does anticipate some of the controversies to come, there's no mention of the impact on sports. Though there is a curious kind of honesty in it about biology and sex which has since fallen out of favour on the trans rights side. If someone claimed today that the statement “biological sex does not exist”: is "a form of scientific denialism that is such an ominous feature of the post-truth era" you'd be branded a biological essentialist if not a nasty TERF ... 🙂

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/30/tories-transgender-debate-justne-greening-gender-recognition-act

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121003616#Comment_121003616

You’re going back to the previous Conservative Government though, whereas the article is making the point that it was under the leadership of Boris and Co. that policies which reflected TERF talking points were introduced. That’s why I said they weren’t turned around, the Government being referred to held that position already, and reiterated the position at every opportunity, like Nadine Dorries telling sporting bodies that elite and competitive women’s sport must be reserved for people of the female sex, and the sporting bodies responded with this:

For their part, the governing bodies said that they are "actively carrying out their own scientific research to establish the impact of athletes' sex at birth and gender reassignment on athletic performance".

https://www.bbc.com/sport/61973789

If someone claimed today that the statement “biological sex does not exist”: is "a form of scientific denialism that is such an ominous feature of the post-truth era" you'd be branded a biological essentialist if not a nasty TERF ... 

It’s true that they likely would be branded a biological essentialist or a nasty TERF or any one of dozens hopefully more creative terms, by the person to whom they would be making such a statement. That would be the only context anyway in which I could think they would make such a statement - to get a rise out of someone, to elicit a reaction, the more animated the better, so they can point to that person and say ‘look how unhinged they are’.

Outside of that context, there’s not too many people would take any notice of them, be like yer man in the podcast you linked who was disappointed he didn’t get more pushback from yer one. It’s not what he was hoping for, and as he said himself - everyone else he contacted to come on the show had turned him down. Gumption, or lack thereof, was not the reason anyone wasn’t interested in entertaining his bullshìt.

By that same token, a similar but opposite effect would be observed if anyone, let alone people who like to larp as serious Conversatives, were to take the writers next paragraph seriously -

With this distraction out of the way, we can devote more time and energy to what matters. It was entirely sensible of the Commons women and equalities select committee to recommend that the process whereby a trans person changes their gender be “demedicalised”. Unlike biological sex, gender is indeed a social construct: accordingly, an individual’s identity is an essential part of their autonomy. Why should a trans 16-year-old require a doctor’s permission to declare herself a woman? And why should NHS resources be wasted on such humiliation?

That too, is intended to get a rise, provoke a negative reaction, etc. It certainly did when the same reforms were seriously suggested, and the Conservative Government ignored the views of the general public in favour of reiterating populist policies, in much the same way as the tiny handful of overly influential governing bodies in sports have done, by claiming that people who have no authority whatsoever, will somehow lead to the demise of integrity and fairness in the sport! 😒

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121003897#Comment_121003897

Yes, the Conservative government elected in 2020 introduced those policies, but if you want a complete picture you have to look at the background that led to that situation. Political memories can be short, so it is significant to note that the Conservatives were on board with self-id prior to that. What changed their minds? Surely an 8,000 word explainer could have addressed that.

AllForIt

If memory serves there wasn't a peep out of the Tory goverment in relation to the gender wars until Penny Mordaunt MP was seen to have done a U turn on her 'transwomen are women' stance. The 'LGBT community' thought they had an ally in her what with her gay brother an all.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/18/penny-mordaunts-trans-rights-u-turn-draws-fire-sides/

The gender wars had been going on for years up unitll that occurance. I recall Beth Rigby trying to get Boris to comment on it when he was PM and all he said was 'these people desever all the help they need' or something to that effect. It was Rosie Duffield, a Labour MP who brought up the issue where a no comment attitude from the government of the day could no longer continue.

I listened to a interview on UK radio last year with a former advisor to the UK govermernt on LGBT issues. She said peole were really ignorant you can't tell what sex someone is by just looking at them and that scientists in the south of France had discovered there were more than 2 sexs. That is who the Tory govermnet had as an advisor. I shall not forget that interview for a long time

It may very well be that that current Tory goverment think they can get votes outta this now but they must not agree with Natasha Devon, a broadcast mentioned in the article, who yeasterday I heard say that the vast vast vast majority of women are pro trans rights. Well I wonder where the Tory's think they are going to get all these votes from them if that were true. 

Anyway the point is Evanglican Christins, the far right, Trump, the Tory govmenent, etc had nothing whatsovever to do with the gender wars until after they had been going on for a few years. That they may be invovled now is completely irrelavent to the issue as far as I'm concerend. I thought it hypocritial of the author to talk about people whipping up a moral panic when he was clearly whipping up a panic about all these 'dark' actors.

chopperbyrne

Rosie Duffield has been treated absolutely horribly by her own party for raising perfectly valid concerns.

chopperbyrne

Yet more bullying of women speaking up for the interests of girls and women in sport.

https://twitter.com/JZachreson/status/1693488046338081276

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121007919#Comment_121007919

"X" dump with $8 sourcing. Loose fit for this thread too (IMHO). If they're injured they have options and rights.

Gatling

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121007919#Comment_121007919

Little man syndrome

El Gato De Negocios

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121002670#Comment_121002670

I find it quite amusing that there are only 2 options for gender reassignment surgery despite the claims (from some) that there are multiples genders.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121010977#Comment_121010977

The argument in favour of trans women in women's sport fails on a purely linguistic level.

Men and women are not genders; they're biological terms. Male and female are the gendered terms.

Gender and sex are different, they rightly say.

So why is it that when a person transitions from male to female (gendered terms), the goalposts immediately shift that the same person must be allowed to compete as "women" (biological term).

It falls flat on its face, even without discussing the inherent and axiomatic biological advantages. It's a sinister sleight of hand that many people miss.

Enduro

Tonight is a big evening for Irish sport, as Ciara Mageean will be taking part in the 1500m Final at the world champions in Athletics. She is one of the 2 realistic Irish medal hopes, the other being Rahidat Adeleeke in the 400m final tomorrow evening.

Ciara is ranked #3 in the world right now by World Athletics. But of course that's all in the female sex category. If she had to compete alongside male sex athletes she wouldn't even get into the 2023 top 20 Irish performance this year. So never mind not being able to compete in the finals with a genuine chance of a medal for Ireland, she wouldn't have made it into any international teams at all, or even the national finals. In fact the female world record wouldn't get into thoose top 2023 top 20 Irish male times either.

It's a stark illustration of why anyone who thinks there is a chance of fair compettion of between male sex athletes and female sex athletes is either clueless or delusional. It's also a stark illustration of why anyone who is in favour of abolishing sex caegories is effectively misogynist (even if that is not their intention).

It's no wonder posters run away like scalded cats from answereing the question of whether males sex athletes have a significant performance advcantage over female sex athletes.

satguy

If I had a daughter that wanted to be a runner / swimmer / boxer ,, I would be really really upset if a man that just turned up and announced that he was now a lady entered her event, and then beat the crap out of her dreams.

I would shout loud and say it was wrong ,, and if I caught him in her locker room / changing room ,, he would see just how manly an angry Dad can get.

Men should stay out of girls events, and out of their safe spaces,, and thank god the tide is turning, and people are starting to see the light.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121013139#Comment_121013139

If I had a daughter that wanted to be a runner / swimmer / boxer ,, I would be really really upset if a man that just turned up and announced that he was now a lady entered her event, and then beat the crap out of her dreams.

That's more than understandable.

It also highlights how utterly self-obsessed and entitled the person in question must be to want to take a woman's title away from them, without a shred of guilt.

satguy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121014396#Comment_121014396

If the Dad's of the world stood up for their Daughters, we could fix this......

I would never let a man overpower my baby girl ,, and if he wanted to keep all his teeth,, he better hope that some pride flag cop is nearby, and willing to step up and save him.. otherwise ..

lizzyjane

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121007919#Comment_121007919

Jesus Christ. America is in big trouble and what is worrying is this nonsense is working its way into Irish society also.

lizzyjane

I see an Alaskan gender affirming clinic want to replace the word "mother" with "egg producer". They are well on their way to wiping us off the dictionary/map.

When is this madness going to stop.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12413023/Bidens-trans-health-secretary-Dr-Rachel-Levine-praises-Alaska-gender-affirming-care-clinic-wants-word-mother-replaced-phrase-EGG-PRODUCER.html

ceadaoin.

Funny how it's fine to dehumanize women by reducing us down to bodily functions but god forbid you call a trans woman a male or even allude to the fact that they are anything other than a "real woman". Add this to birthing person, vagina (now also known as a "bonus hole") owner, menstruator and even bleeder.

Something tells me joe Bidens transgender health secretary would object to being referred to as a "semen producer" , "person with a penis", or "xy chromosome bearer".

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121011037#Comment_121011037

It's a sinister sleight of hand that many people miss.

I doubt anyone missed the sleight of hand in claiming that woman and man are biological terms, when they most certainly are not. Biological sex refers to the male and female of the sexes in dimorphic species such as humans, mammals, in just the same manner as one wouldn’t refer to a dog as either a woman or a man in biological terms.

Gender, refers to the masculine and the feminine, gender identity is one’s own sense of gender identity, it refers to being either of the male gender, the female gender or non-binary - those people who do not identify themselves as either masculine or feminine.