There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Transgender man wins women's 100 yd and 400 yd freestyle races.
Comments
-
What's the point of biological male and biological female categories if anyone can compete in either? (and still note, that any capable enough female is generally allowed compete in the biological male category).
If the categories exist, the fair thing is to follow the rules for the category.
If so inclined, campaign for a "Treated as a woman by society" cateogory.
The numbers are low enough right now that it's not really an issue (there's only a handful of examples) but as trans becomes more accepted (a good thing) then the problem in sports grows to the point where it breaks the female categories.
Similarly, I can't believe that some people are espousing people to be allowed to take PED and still compete (which is what a trans-man on testosterone competing in the female category would amount to, drop the PED and compete all you want).
Now, there is a future problem looming, medical science can only emulate the outward appearance of a chosen gender right now (and the surgical options generally have drawbacks and side effects), this is likely to get more advanced in the future, is body modification going to be allowed in competitors (body building has been heading down this road already, though not really a sport in the traditional sense), Lasek/Lasik is allowed, inhalers are allowed, where does the line get drawn and how does sport adapt in the future (Tom Dempsey was an interesting case where a prosthetic was required by rules to be fair even though he was better without it).
3 -
They are. There are a finite amount of spaces in teams and conpetitions. If one of those spaces goes to a biological male, a female is prevented from participating.
5 -
Not at all. I'm attempting to clarify with point you're making. No one claimed anyone was preventing biological females from participating in their own sports categories.
But where you do allow biological males to participate in biological female sports competitions, then that negates the reason that any such discrete categories exist in the first place viz to cater for the biological and physical differences between biological males and females.
Ergo I presumed you are advocating that these discrete categories should be got rid of entirely.
1 -
"Because the point of your insisting that it’s a different issue is to downplay the reality of the fact that there are issues which have a greater impact on women’s sports and women’s participation in sports, than an issue which is really not an issue that has any significant impact on women’s sports and women’s participation in sports."
But I'm not 'insisting' I'm saying it and you're agreeing. Why would anyone insist on something that isn't being contested?
0 -
-
Funding for women's sports and transwomen in sport are not really related. Women's sport does need more funding I think everyone knows that, however, a lot of women's sports are not helping themselves by having such lopsided matches on a very consistent basis and passing it off as elite sports, for any sport to be successful long term it needs to be competitive or support for it will dwindle. Of course lop sided results also happen in men's sports, but, they are generally the exception, whereas in women's sports it happens very regularly, referring to team sports not individual sports. All that is a separate argument and doesn't have anything to do with trans men or women in sports.
0 -
The point is that it isn’t just anyone can compete in either category. In order to ask what’s the point of maintaining categories segregated by sex, you would have to ignore the fact that the categories are actually based upon sex stereotypes based upon gender. You would also have to note that strict adherence to biological differences between the sexes means that biological females are prohibited from competing in biological male categories. As an example -
You might reasonably respond by pointing out that wrestling is a niche sport when compared to the prevalence of football, or soccer, depending upon whom you ask -
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-americans-call-it-soccer-2014-6?r=US&IR=T
But that sport too, includes rules which prohibit biological females from participating in competition with biological males, reasoning that it is for the protection of biological females as they are at greater risk of injury if they are permitted to participate in the men’s game. They’re also at greater risk of earning a lot more than they do in the women’s game, but that point doesn’t seem to be a factor in justifying their exclusion from competition involving men.
The increasing number of people who are transgender participating in sports is only an issue for the tiny number of people who insist on making it an issue. It’s not actually an issue for the sports in question, and it would be presumptuous to assume that the participation of people who are transgender in sports is an issue which will only increase with increasing acceptance of people who are transgender in wider society, if by your own standards, the increasing numbers of people who are open about being transgender is a good thing. You can see why the argument in the first instance doesn’t support the argument in the second instance.
Nobody is espousing that anyone be permitted to take PED, that would be arguing that people who are currently cheating should be permitted to do so. Nobody is arguing that anyone who is transgender should be permitted to cheat just because they are transgender.
Anyone, regardless of whether they are transgender or not, is not permitted to cheat. Everyone is able to apply for a therapeutic medical exemption. WADA already exist as the authority with oversight in this area, they’re the organisation the Court of Arbitration in athletics turns to when someone is suspected of doping, protesting their innocence and blaming the result of the test on Mexican immigrants in an attempt to engender sympathy for their plight from a general public which they’re fairly certain contains nuts.
There isn’t any future problem looming, any more than there wasn’t a future problem looming when Renee Richards right to participate in sports was upheld when they sued the USTA for discriminating against them on the basis that they are a biological male and therefore ineligible to participate in competitions aimed at promoting women’s sports. You’re again looking to create problems where they don’t exist, by using the slippery slope argument to hold people who are transgender to a different standard than everyone else based upon the objections of a tiny minority of the general population who agree with your personal beliefs.
People’s personal beliefs, no matter how strongly held they are in their conviction, no matter how popular those beliefs are shared among the majority of the population, have never been regarded as legitimate justification to uphold discrimination which disproportionately applies to a tiny, vanishingly small percentage of the population. Regardless of however many there are and regardless of however many there will be, their numbers simply have no relevance whatsoever to any decision as to whether they are deserving of the same rights as everyone in society in accordance with the aim of everyone having an equal right to participate in society and no group holding another group to ransom, disabling them from exercising their human rights, which they are fully entitled to do in accordance with their status as equal members of a democratic society.
A good example of this in practice is that people do not have the right to use their religious beliefs to justify discrimination against anyone on the basis of their beliefs -
It would be equally prejudicial, and just as wrong, to presume on the basis of anyone’s religious affiliation, that they support such blatant discrimination and dehumanising treatment of anyone on the basis that science insists they exhibit such ignorance, disrespect and disregard for other human beings. Blaming science for their behaviour and attitudes towards other people is equally unjustifiable as blaming religion to absolve themselves of taking any responsibility for their opinions, opinions which they are hoping find favour among the majority of people, and they are rewarded, instead of it being pointed out to them why their opinions of other people just don’t amount to any kind of credible argument to justify their belief that people should be treated unfairly because it would be unfair to them if those people were treated fairly too!
0 -
you would have to ignore the fact that the categories are actually based upon sex stereotypes based upon gender.
This clearly isn't the case, biological females performing roughly 10% below a biological male in a multitude of sports is not a stereotype (and I think that calling it a stereotype is insulting to a lot of people who have worked their lives at getting where they are at a sport), it is fact backed up by mountains of data and evidence.
Soccer is a good example that you bring up, there is no bar that stops a female competing against males other than their ability, given the wage rates on offer, if this were at all possible, it would have happened by now.
But that sport too, includes rules which prohibit biological females from participating in competition with biological males, reasoning that it is for the protection of biological females as they are at greater risk of injury if they are permitted to participate in the men’s game. They’re also at greater risk of earning a lot more than they do in the women’s game, but that point doesn’t seem to be a factor in justifying their exclusion from competition involving men.
The equivalent for a biological male competing in the biological female category is for all the biological female competitors to sign that the risk is acceptable to them. The risk is on the biological females both ways, not on the biological males (and the risk is of course graded as every sport has risk associated with it but a biological female competing against biological males faces greater risks, at least in contact sports).
Nobody is espousing that anyone be permitted to take PED
That is what Bannasidhe was arguing over and over.
On the subject of equality, I agree that it's unfair that a trans-woman can't just compete against biological females, it was unfair they were born into a male body as well, however, given the categories exist, I would argue that it is more unfair on the biological females in the category, they can't compete elsewhere, the trans-woman can (and be competitive of course, which will depend on what level of transition they have decided upon). The more this unravels and cases occur, the more of an issue it will be found to be and there isn't an equality for all solution here that doesn't end up greatly damaging female sports in the longer term. The fact that Thomas went from top 500 male to top ~10 female is an indication that the current rules aren't working as expected (there will be differences just not to that extreme level), similarly Hubbard was the oldest ever female weightlifter to qualify, while her performance wasn't great at the games, the ability to qualify when all biological female would be retired (at Olympic level at least) points to problems in using just one metric (testosterone) but I'm honestly unsure that qualifying metric could be used that would work as intended.
3 -
astro with the greatest of respect to you, and I do mean that because you’ve been more than fair in this discussion, but I would urge you to do some research before making an assessment like this, because if there’s one thing there is no shortage of, it’s evidence of rules that prohibit women from participating where they don’t belong in the beautiful game.
Soccer is a good example that you bring up, there is no bar that stops a female competing against males other than their ability, given the wage rates on offer, if this were at all possible, it would have happened by now.
The reason it hasn’t happened by now, and the reason you’re not aware of it happening, is precisely because it’s not just the rules are doing what they’re intended to do, it’s because of the tiny minority of people who are intent on punishing anyone who they perceive as needing to be taught a lesson that they don’t belong in the sport -
It wasn’t easy back then when girls in a “schoolboys” soccer squad were an even more unusual sight than today. Striker Stephanie did make the Valeview team but had to endure some rough treatment by defenders with a point to prove against a girl cheeky enough to take them on. “My shins used to be black and blue after some games. I’ll never forget it. But the only way to get back at them was to score. It made me a better player.”
Stephanie underplays her bravery with a cheerful positivity that almost has you believing that those sexist hackers were doing her a favour. She also values the loyalty of her team mates back then. “I played on the streets with those boys for years. They were my friends and they always stood up for me when things got rough.”
Stephanie had to give up playing mixed football almost as soon as she’d started due to the rule against mixed teams over 12. Though she found the standard slightly lower she went on to play for several seasons with Cabinteely Girls before catching the eye of Noel King, coach of the Irish women’s senior team. “I just missed out in the final trials for Ireland under 15s and I was really heartbroken. But then I made the team at under 17s.”
https://archive.ph/20120327182154/http://www.shankillfc.ie/stephanie-roche.html
The equivalence you refer to is based upon a false premise. It’s the organisations responsibility to ensure the safety of all participants, not the participants responsibility if they are injured by another participant.
It’s also unfair of you to characterise anyones argument as though they are suggesting anyone be permitted to cheat. You’re undoubtedly aware of the context in which they are granted an exemption from the rules which would normally apply on the grounds of having a legitimate medical reason for taking drugs which are not taken with the intent of increasing their performance, but are part of their treatment for an entirely separate medical issue. It’s as disingenuous as Iran claiming that there are no homosexuals in Iran - there aren’t if you insist on anyone who is homosexual undergoing unnecessary medical procedures in order to maintain the illusion that your claim is true - it does not address the fact that there are homosexuals in Iran, it addresses the issue of anyone’s ability to refute your argument! 😳
You wouldn’t accept anecdotal evidence in support of a claim, yet here you are relying on anecdotal evidence in support of your already held beliefs about biological males who are transgender participating in women’s sports, that they have an unfair advantage. There’s a reason I can’t be arsed with the COVID forum on here, for that very reason - people relying on anecdotal evidence based upon their already held beliefs. It’s simply impossible to overcome that level of deeply held prejudice. The probability of changing their opinions is far lower than the probability of Lia Thomas competing in the Paris Olympics in 2024, so I don’t get too wrought up about it. The impact of either upon the wider population, is limited.
It’s why I stated from the outset of my participation in this particular thread that focusing on individual athletes is not credible evidence of anything one way or the other, it isn’t - it just leads to a situation much like the effect of the “bathroom bills” farce where the greater impact it has is increased scrutiny of biological women who do not conform to the individual’s stereotype of what constitutes woman in their opinion. There are already enough voyeurs in women’s bathrooms without making the practice an acceptable way to behave in public for people who claim their behaviour is justified on the basis that they only wanted to protect biological females and children from biological males who might make them feel uncomfortable! 🙄
0 -
The thread wasnt started about Lia
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Terry Pratchet
0 -
Advertisement
-
The reason it hasn’t happened by now, and the reason you’re not aware of it happening, is precisely because it’s not just the rules are doing what they’re intended to do, it’s because of the tiny minority of people who are intent on punishing anyone who they perceive as needing to be taught a lesson that they don’t belong in the sport
Probably showing my knowledge of the sport (or more likely Channel 4 Italian soccer) but there was female players in the Italian league at the turn of the century, it was more of a publicity stunt, but they were registered to play and from memory, came on a few times for one of the lower division teams, dutch football has started the same and fact is that if a player like Rapinoe was good enough, a multitude of male teams would take her on, the marketing money alone would make it worthwhile.
Female athletes cannot compete with male athletes in the vast majority of sports, that is scientific fact that has been proved over and over, arguing against it would be akin to arguing that water is not wet, the end point of your argument is that male and female categories cease to exist completely just at the time when female sports are turning professional and sponsorship money is coming in.
I was a big fan of Roche and she did well initially, but foundered in most of the leagues she played in due to other females being better than her, while I'd disagree that she should have had to move to segregated sports, to imply she would have kept pace as puberty kicked in is disingenuous (many other countries don't forcefully segregate but it happens anyway beyond training sessions). This is not down to lack of effort by females, this is down to biology.
What goes on in Iran and toilets is tangential to this topic (what goes on in Iran being particularly horrific).
The equivalence you refer to is based upon a false premise. It’s the organisations responsibility to ensure the safety of all participants, not the participants responsibility if they are injured by another participant.
For contact sports the trans man signs the waiver of risk, the biological male opponent does not, this is the organisation saying they cannot ensure the safety of all participants (well, they can never ensure the safety anyway, accidents happen, the level of risk is higher than the organisation can reasonably cover in these cases).
2 -
You do know those safety waivers aren’t worth the paper they’re written on? That’s if there is paper involved and not just a gentleman’s agreement that the organisation assumes indemnifies them from any liability in law while from the participants perspective they’re given an opportunity they wouldn’t otherwise have to participate in competition, because they’re assuming that the law contains nothing about protecting their rights to participate in sports.
That’s why what you now actually see are legislators scrambling to introduce laws to specifically prohibit their participation - they’re only NOW changing the rules, to specifically prohibit people who are transgender from participating in sports!
If you’re going to use examples which are unrelated to providing evidence for an entirely different claim in support of your assertion that it is sufficient to warrant the exclusion of biological males who are transgender from participating in women’s sports, on the basis that not excluding them would have terrible consequences for the sport…
Then it’s only reasonable that you allow examples of the outcomes of similar practices and their impact and effect to show that your doomsday naysayer predictions have no grounding in reality.
What you’re doing by the way, and I have no doubt you’re aware of what you’re doing, is using statistics to misrepresent reality. I know you’ll claim that the example has nothing to do with the discussion, but what you’re doing is the same thing as people who were opposed to divorce did during the referendum. They made the claim that “50% of marriages end in divorce in countries where divorce is permitted”.
Up to that point in Ireland, 100% of marriages ended in death.
0 -
What you're attempting to do (and I don't think it will convince anyone) is that there is no differences between males and females that would explain the performance differences in sports, it is an interesting side to take (and one you have backed away from before, so I'm unsure why you're pursuing it now, although I had noticed the difference in responses that led me to believe you were trying to argue this, hence my line of questioning).
It is a line of argument that belittles all of the achievements of female athletes on the basis that they should have tried better and thus competed against males. It also goes beyond the transgender argument (where sports implement hormone limits to try and get to fair competition for trans-women).
The fact is that there are many sports that don't purposely segregate but it instead occurs to encourage females into the competitive nature of the sport.
The divorce scenario is again irrelevant as the segregation doesn't exist for many sports that end up completely male dominated.
2 -
The thread was started about Iszac Henig, a trans man who was competing in the same women's race as Lia Thomas.
Because you see, a trans man is a woman, a trans woman is a woman, and women are bleeders, menstruators, vagina havers, or whatever other objectifying, misogynistic bullshit the "progressives" dream up next week.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ~C.S. Lewis
1 -
While I do understand your interpretation of my actions, I feel obligated to inform you that your assumptions are incorrect. I didn’t back away from a stance that I still maintain in the face of an immovable object. I simply went around the block - takes a bit longer and I know it looks like I’ve given up, but while the object remains in place satisfied that it has achieved it’s objective, in reality it hasn’t.
That’s why the same arguments you’re using that were used to justify discrimination against women on the basis that they were inferior to men as a consequence of the biological differences between men and women, and men’s proven superiority in activities where they dominated, and the same arguments that were used again to demonstrate white societies superiority over blacks, again using specious argument, which it was claimed were based upon scientific evidence and couldn’t be disputed, and any attempt to do so was an indignity to the achievements of women or black people and whatever the case may be, as an attempt to elevate your argument beyond criticism.
That whole nonsense about “the fact that sports don’t purposely segregate” is the same nonsense argument that the legacy athletes are using to suggest that Lia Thomas should be prohibited from competing, but they would “allow Thomas to be an exhibition so they could enjoy the atmosphere of what it feels like to compete at the highest levels in women’s sports”. It’s nothing more than condescending BS used to disguise their contempt for other people who they don’t want to allow to contaminate the “purity” of “their” sport 🙄
Same arguments which were used against them, are the same arguments which they use against people who they regard as being beneath them too. Dress it up however you like, the intended effect is the same, it just takes a bit longer to overcome the existing prejudice as your prejudices are more difficult to maintain with each iteration.
0 -
In the paragraph below are you suggesting that existing male / female categories in competitive sport are a form of discrimination or?
discrimination against women on the basis that they were inferior to men as a consequence of the biological differences between men and women,0 -
Well, they are?
The reasons for the existing discrimination as it is now is because historically, women were prohibited from participating in sports which were regarded as male pursuits. Women who tried to participate in sports were shut down and shut out of the sport and didn’t receive wider support in society because it was thought they were incapable of participating in sports and it wasn’t very ladylike and all the rest of it.
It’s why still to this day women’s sports do not enjoy the same status in society as men’s sports - not because men are superior or women are inferior or any of the rest of it, but because of the perception that they are, a perception that is maintained by the rules which exclude their inclusion, coupled with the lack of support for the idea that they should be participating in sports at all -
The principle as it applies to women participating in men’s sports:
The same principle as it applies to biological males who are transgender participating in women’s sports:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/male-bodies-dont-belong-in-womenssport-n5ghggrpk
0 -
OK one of the reasons I asked is that your rhetorical style of commentary can often be hard to follow. A simple yes or no would suffice eitherway. Thanks
2 -
.
0 -
Advertisement
-
You do of course understand the concept of treating people as equals even though everyone is unique. Saying people are all equal is not the same as saying everyone can do the same things. Some people are better at some things than others, even within the sexes, it’s why in competition the outcome is generally predicated upon who starts with the greatest advantage - generally speaking, they win. It doesn’t mean they will always win, it just means the odds of winning are in their favour, even more so if they are able to dictate who is or isn’t permitted to compete against them.
0 -
Finally, something we can agree on.
See, jokes aren't that hard. Just keep it simple lol
3 -
I think it's interesting that the sports where well known women have come out against trans women competing against women are ones where there isn't the same, or as big, a disparity in resources and participation rates between men and women. I'm thinking of athletics (Sonia O'Sullivan), swimming (Sharron Davies) and tennis (Martina Navratilova) At least, I haven't heard the same kind of controversies as have wracked soccer and rugby for example.
3 -
In elite sports, for example at Olympic level, there is a definitive difference between male and female records, the reason is that the average elite male athlete will be slightly stronger and taller than the average elite female athlete-even in cases where male & female athletes have had equal access to training and funding e.g. Team GB. It's widely accepted that the ceiling for female athletes is slightly lower than male athletes because on average elite males have slight physical advantages over their female counterparts. This doesn't mean women are inferior to men, it's just the way it is. Many elite females will often be technically better than their male counterpart at their chosen sport, but, because of the physical advantage their male conuterpart generally have they would still do better than their female counterpart.
An elite female will absolutely destroy the average guy in their chosen sport, but, when up against an elite male counterpart in their chosen sport they will generally lose out, e.g. Serena Williams in her prime would not beat Federer, Nadal or Djokovic in their prime, but, would wipe the floor with any good amateur male player.
3 -
"That’s why the same arguments you’re using that were used to justify discrimination against women on the basis that they were inferior to men as a consequence of the biological differences between men and women, and men’s proven superiority in activities where they dominated, and the same arguments that were used again to demonstrate white societies superiority over blacks, again using specious argument, which it was claimed were based upon scientific evidence and couldn’t be disputed, and any attempt to do so was an indignity to the achievements of women or black people and whatever the case may be, as an attempt to elevate your argument beyond criticism."
You've finally convinced me.
1 -
Nobody is espousing that anyone be permitted to take PED
That is what Bannasidhe was arguing over and over.
Bannasidhe was arguing nothing of the sort. But this is the kind of disingenuous rubbish the 'biology side' continually resorts to which shows how weak their "it's about fairness in sport" stance is. It has feck all do with with women's sport. Women's sport has just become a hook to hang their transphobic 'concerns' - a screen behind which they think they can safely punch down on a tiny minority.
Bannasidhe asked if the 'biology' side believed transgender men who have medically transitioned should compete in women's events. A perfectly reasonable question under the circumstances.
Bannasidhe further stated that , as a former rugby player, I would prefer to play against a transgender woman that a transgender man. Precisely because I have seen after effects of medical transition many many times.
Bannasidhe pointed out that there are occasions where athletes are permitted to take otherwise prohibited drugs while competing depending on individual circumstances so the rules are not written in stone. I did not write the rules. I am simply pointing out there is flexibility built in to the system.
At absolutely no point did Bannasidhe state, argue, comment, infer, imply, that anyone be permitted to take any substance with the intentions of enhancing their performance. If anyone considers transgender men take hormones simply to "enhance their performance" that says more about that person's mindset than the athlete in question.
Furthermore - transgender women taking hormone blockers is the exact opposite of PED so how do you explain Bannsidhe's "arguing" in favour of that?
2 -
Advertisement
-
Transmen can compete in women's sports until they start taking testosterone at that point purely from a sporting point of view it would be considered cheating as the testosterone would give them an unfair advantage- it's a by product of their transition. Transwoman on the other hand have the opposite effect, their performance will drop due to transition- the question is by how much and at what point is it fair to everyone both biological and trans women for transwomen to compete in women's sports. We are still currently trying to figure this out and it's only in the longer term this will eventually be sorted fairly to both transwomen and biological women.
Personally I think a way needs to be found to fairly accommodate transwomen without unfairly disadvantaging biological women in the process, we need to find a fair process for all athletes. I don't have the answers as it's a very complex subject, I don't think it's a one size fits all argument either as I think each case may need to be considered on their own merits
It will probably take decades for this issue to be sorted fairly for all, unfortunately until then transwomen in particular will probably bear the brunt of most criticism
1 -
We are in broad agreement.
But to clarify - I asked about medically transitioned trans men competing against women because if the "decide by biology" group have their way that would be the unintended consequence. Of course, they would then cry 'cheats' and demand trans men de-transition in the interests of 'fairness'.
To those (not you @Girly Gal!) who trot out retired athletes to support your point of view like Sonia O'Sullivan and Martina Navratilova I give you Megan Rapinoe (not retired) and Billie Jean King (Martina's hero) plus 148+ other athletes who went very public in their support of transgender athletes.
Ironically both King and Rapinoe were leaders in the fight for women to be fairly rewarded for their participation in elite sport. (Cue posts about them being not being as good as biological men....).
Here more than 300 current and former NCAA, Team USA and international swimmers and divers, publicly expresses support for Lia Thomas.
I reckon they know more about swimming than O'Sullivan, Navratilova, or anyone here.
1 -
The point about medically transitioned transmen competing in women's sports is that they wouldn't be allowed as their testosterone levels would be above the allowed limit, unless they could keep below the allowable level they could not compete, if medically transitioned transmen with higher than the allowed testosterone levels were allowed compete what would stop biological women taking other performance enhancing drugs to level the playing field.
A medically transitioned transman purely from a sporting point of view is taking a performance enhancing substance.
Post edited by Girly Gal on1 -
-
Just been listening to This Week on RTE1 radio's coverage of this issue and specifically Sonia O'Sullivan's IT article.
Very fair coverage IMO, well done RTE.
0 -
Advertisement
-
I haven’t heard any of the radio coverage, but I read some of the articles covering Sonia O’ Sullivan’s stance on the issue. Her point is pretty much this -
‘That a male who becomes a transgender woman, are they allowed to then compete against biological women? With the science behind it all, it just doesn’t make sense that they should be allowed to do that.
https://extra.ie/2022/03/25/news/sonia-osullivan-transgender-athletes?amp=1
And I’m not a regular reader of her contributions to the Irish Times, nor a regular viewer of her opinions on RTE, but I do remember when she was giving her opinions about the Irish Teams performance in Tokyo, and where she was of the opinion they had made a crucial mistake in their approach -
Speaking on RTE on Monday morning Sonia O’Sullivan said: ‘I think it might have been a mistake for a lot of the athletes to go out to Japan so early for a training camp.
‘A lot of them were out there way too long. Particularly, someone like Sarah Healy. She said she was nervous when she got to the stadium. She’s been out there for nearly two weeks.
‘You’re in a very artificial environment. There’s nothing to distract you. You’re going training, you’re eating, you’re sleeping. There’s nothing else going on.’
When it was pointed out that this early journey was for acclimatisation, O’Sullivan shot back: ‘A maximum of five days is all you need for that. I’m sure there’s a load of science and physiology out there that would disagree with me.
‘If you were to speak to someone like myself, or Derval (O’Rourke, also in studio at the time), we’ve been there before, and done this.
‘We know what it takes, and you don’t have to prepare that long in advance if you’re fit, and ready to go.’
https://extra.ie/2021/08/02/sport/sport-extra/sonia-osullivan-rte?amp=1
It would appear that like so many people who claim that their opinions are supported by science, Sonia O’ Sullivan is just as quick to abandon scientific evidence in favour of anecdotes and claims about political correctness, when her opinions aren’t supported by scientific evidence.
1 -
The This Week program featured Gillian O'Sullivan (former olympian), Nial Moyna (prof. of clinical exercise physiology DCU) and Sara Phillips (transgender activist).
Transgender athletes in elite sports | This Week - RTÉ Radio 1 (rte.ie)
1 -
What's with the bizarre fixation on Sonia O'Sullivan? You clearly have no respect for her at all. The late great Gerry Kiernan also had some firm if odd views at times but was also a voice always worth listening to on athletics. You can ignore her just as one can ignore randomers on the internet spouting stuff. Her thing is women's athletics and defending it and her long years of association means she has a perspective on it however little you think of it.
5 -
Watching Lia Thomas competing against the women is reminiscent of those 40 year old bearded refugees in Sweden at the school sports day. Everyone expected to believe they are teenagers too.
5 -
There is a strong added political element and culture clash to what goes on in the US and those on the GOP/conservative side will likely be most vocal against this. Not sure why you imagine lists of people who back your view proves a point. It's sometimes very easy to support a position if asked, regardless of what view you have on it; celebrities shamelessly do so. We had quite a few experts putting their names to some every dubious proposals during COVID.
Was reading the US swimming regulations earlier and they do define two groups of swimmers, non-elite where people can do as they please and the elite where there are now more stringent rules to follow. Ultimately the fairness element has to be balanced/biased in favour of those who are biologically women.
2 -
What bizarre fixation? She gave her opinion on something she saw as an issue in sports, and it’s not unreasonable to examine whether her opinions have any legitimacy as opposed to simply taking them as fact because Sonia O’ Sullivan said them. That would be called an argument from authority, it doesn’t constitute scientific evidence.
At no point have I ever said anyone isn’t entitled to express an opinion, I would welcome opinions from various perspectives, and if Jerry Kiernan were alive today, I’m not sure he would be arsed to give an opinion on the issue, but if he did, it’s not unreasonable to assume he wouldn’t give a shiny shyte what anyone thought of him as a person, good or bad, on the basis of his opinions.
Same standard applies to Sonia O’ Sullivan, regardless of my admiration for her as an athlete, it has nothing to do with Sonia O’ Sullivan as a person. I’m not the person who needs reminding that every athlete is also a human being.
Wonderful article in the42 about Kiernan btw, cheers for the reminder 👍
https://www.the42.ie/jerry-kiernan-appreciation-5332338-Jan2021/?amp=1
0 -
There was a scientific opinion given on This Week program. Don't know if you've had a chance to listen to it yet?
0 -
I listened to it, and thank you for the link. I agree with your assessment that RTE’s coverage was very fair.
0 -
Not sure why you imagine lists of people who back your view proves a point.
Is that so? You’re not sure why anyone why anyone imagines a list of people who back their views prove a point, after you’d just tried to tear me a new one for what you perceived was a bizarre fixation on an an athlete who by your own admission -
Her thing is women's athletics and defending it and her long years of association means she has a perspective on it however little you think of it.
G’wan up that garden 😂
Just as I’m watching Dancing With The Stars Final right now, one of the participants is also a swimmer - Ellen Keane. You imagine she bitches about other athletes having biological advantages? Does in her hole, she makes the point that her whole journey on the show has been about representation and being that person that she needed when she was a kid -
https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2022/0325/1288475-dwts-the-final-countdown-ellen-keane/
0 -
Right, the scientific opinion seemed pretty clear that the trans competitor has an advantage, would you agree?
0 -
Advertisement
-
I wouldn’t agree that the scientific opinion is pretty clear that the trans competitor has an advantage. Now, hold onto your hat for a minute and allow me to explain.
Professor Niall Moyna is a good example of the phenomenon of science popularisers who, shall we say, are not a media personality. Another good example of the phenomenon was Matt Taylor, just to give you some idea of what I mean. We all know how that turned out -
I have zero interest, none, in seeing Moyna being flamed or any of the rest of it, he just has a very poor understanding of the science involved, and isn’t particularly media savvy. You’ll see what I mean in a minute when I say to you that Ross Tucker, as an example, is far more media savvy, and he exemplified the issues involved in one single quip -
Good data is unethical, and ethical data is not good
Ethical conflicts like that come up in scientific and medical research ALL the time -
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Treatment
There is a good interview with both scientists from three years ago, and they both made the point then that there isn’t enough data on transgender athletes performance in sports. They both were of the opinion that more data on transgender athletes is needed, but it’s incredibly difficult to gather, given the numbers of people who are openly transgender is so minuscule, and within that data, the number of athletes is even more minuscule, and within that data, well, you can see the issue - the number of transgender athletes, let alone biological males who choose to transition, you could literally count them on two hands, one hand if you were only taking into consideration biological males who were already elite athletes who chose to transition and participate in women’s competitions.
That’s just not even coming close to providing sufficient data which could credibly provide scientific evidence of any sort of an advantage which transgender athletes who’s sex is biologically male, and their gender identity is female, competing in women’s sports, would have over other women in sports. It could only be determined on a case by case basis, at national, local, and international level in women’s sports, and as you widen the field of potential eligible athletes for any competition, then the potential fairness element, or what is called equity, increases as the field of eligible athletes increases. You can design mathematical models for fairness, or apply machine learning to the problem of determining fairness (anyone who says determining fairness is a zero-sum game - 😬):
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_(machine_learning)
And while mathematical and data modelling is sexy AF in a data-driven society, still you’re going to have to deal with the issue of individuals who are of the opinion that any rules by way of coming up with a solution to the issue, are unfair to them, as individuals.
Ultimately, it’s only a problem for the individuals who think it’s a problem, or they want to create a problem where a problem doesn’t exist, and no amount of data, or scientists opinions, or athletes opinions, is going to have any effect to change their mentality - as far as they’re concerned, they’re not being treated fairly, and they’ll continue to fight until they are. I wouldn’t expect any less tbh if I were in their position. It’s precisely for this reason that I’m not in their position.
33 mins but worth every minute:
2 -
I was motivated to read the Sonia piece based on what Sara Phillips said in her opening remarks there. No idea what Phillips was talking about after reading it, 'I'm so disappointed....should be careful with their words...they have an effect...visceral effect's on trans youth.... should talk in a clear and concise way, blah blah". What the fck was she on about. Would have been a lot more concise to say I don't agree with a single word Sonia said.
0 -
Ellen Keane. You imagine she bitches about other athletes having biological advantages?
Well I mean...
"They reclassified Brock Whiston. Last year I was European champion and I was world number one until April. Then she got put into my classification.
....
"They based it off that one swim they watched her do in April. Then they confirmed (her category) until 2021.
"After that swim she broke the world record by four seconds. She went on to become world champion. So many questions have been asked about the system because... a lot of athletes are slipping through that."
https://www.rte.ie/sport/swimming/2019/1125/1095105-ellen-keane-the-classification-system-is-flawed/3 -
I read a blog the other day written by a Democratic party member in the US who said this issue is killing his party, and could lead to Donald Trump being reelected in 2024. His own view is that maybe sometime in the future, sport will be organised along other lines than biological sex, but the world isn't ready for that yet. I think as Ross Tucker puts it, you can have fairness or inclusion, but you can't have both. While I believe that top level competitive sport should be organised by sex, there are already some sporting activities organised by gender and there has to be lots of opportunity to expand that and do things differently for participative sport, if only we could get past the slogans and the insults and the fake science. That's all I'm going to say on it for a while.
Post edited by plodder on0 -
Right, so you want scientific evidence but when you get it and it's unequivocal you attack it because you say there's insufficient data.
1 -
There's an abundance of data, I can only imagine it's trying to debate a contrarian view to try and pour doubt on the data but even the flat-earthers have more "convincing" arguments.
The real world debate that is happening is to what level trans-athletes need to be disadvantaged or advantaged to be able to compete on a level-playing field against others of their chosen gender, the problem is also a one-way problem (man to woman) with woman to man primarily being a safety issue (along with making sure their hormone level doesn't act as a PED).
As there is consensus around the need to reduce hormone levels for trans-women to compete (at least in a competitive environment, outside competitions, sports have a mix all the time without any issues), discussing zero changes other than affirmation would effectively be off topic and probably better discussed in a "Is there any difference between males and females?" thread if anyone was interested in that.
0 -
Oh give me a break.
Some blogger claims Trump will win due to transgensder women competing in elite sports is as head in the sand bat s*ite crazy as transgender people being blamed for Putin invading Ukraine. And yes, that has happened.
The geo-political issues in the world and the Democratic Party in the U.S failing to connect with voters has feck all to do with the miniscule percentage of the population who have gender dysphoria, and claiming it does is eerily reminiscent of other times a minority group was singled out and blamed for political and economic problems.
Shame on you for giving that hate fire oxygen.
2 -
As there is consensus around the need to reduce hormone levels for trans-women to compete (at least in a competitive environment, outside competitions, sports have a mix all the time without any issues)
Except there isn't. There is an understandable push against forced medicalisation of athletes and while I wouldn't expect a rash of sports dropping the requirement, even within the new IOC guidelines it is very much implied that this should be looked at and reconsidered.
1 -
I can't find the exact blog but it referred to the one below
"At the same time, I think progressives have grown somewhat overconfident about the broad popularity of some of these issues and are not paying enough attention to the potential electoral ramifications of supporting trans participation on women’s sports teams. The Transgender Law Center itself says that in their message testing that “our opposition wins the debate on trans youth in sports against any and all arguments we have tried for our side." It is not smart for elected officials to take up a political cause whose own advocates say it’s currently a losing position. And I think it’s important not to die on that hill because there are other important political fights that are winnable."
1 -
Advertisement
-
It's a bloody blog. I could find you many that state say it is the duty of politicians to protect minority rights. But this isn't a battle of the Blogs because at the end of the day - they are blogs. One person so convinced what they think is important and interesting they self publish their opinions. Jeeze - this one doesn't even have recipes for Mom's Apple Pie.
A blog that is throwing political shapes at a tiny minority group for feck sake.
You really happy to be on that side of history? Cos mate - you are sharing that shite. Blowing that dog whistle.
IF the Democratic Party lose to Trump it will NOT be because a few trans woman competed as women, and anyone who claims it is is pushing a very particular agenda. Heard the exact shame crap about Gay Rights, Civil Rights, Women's Rights.
1
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
