Singletrack World Response to Nadine Dorries’ Comments on Trans Athletes

by 460

Singletrack World takes the position that Trans women are women, and cannot support the recent statements by the UK Culture Secretary, Nadine Dorries. In the Mail on Sunday, she wrote that ‘competitive women’s sport must be reserved for people born of the female sex. Not someone who was born male, took puberty blockers or has suppressed testosterone, but unequivocally and unarguably someone who was born female. I want all of our sporting bodies to follow that policy.’

This position has since been reiterated at a Westminster summit, from which the following statement has been released:

‘The Culture Secretary has urged leaders of the UK’s biggest sports to work to ‘raise their game’ and protect the integrity of elite and competitive women’s sport, at a Westminster summit on the inclusion of transgender athletes this afternoon (28 June). 

‘Nadine Dorries met with bosses of national governing bodies, and urged them to adopt the Government’s unequivocal view that elite and competitive women’s sport must be reserved for people born of the female sex.’

We understand that British Cycling was at the meeting, but will continue its ongoing policy review and will not issue any response at this time.

Singletrack World is concerned that this message to UK sporting bodies will result in exclusionary and prejudicial policies, and would urge British Cycling to set policies which allow Trans women – and men – to participate at all levels of sport.

Singletrack World supports inclusion, equality and diversity, not just when it comes to riding bikes, but in daily life. We are concerned that difficult and sensitive discussions about ‘fairness’ in elite sport are being used to enable a wider global political agenda of anti Trans rights, and are being used to promote transphobia. We encourage all our readers to reject any such rhetoric and help make our sport a welcoming and diverse space.  

We realise that this statement will likely prompt many questions, and we don’t believe we have all the answers. However, we cannot stand by and see a government minister give such direction to our national sports governing bodies without voicing our dissent. Trans women are women, Trans men are men, and sport is for all.

For reference, here is the full release from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport following yesterday’s meeting:

The Culture Secretary has urged leaders of the UK’s biggest sports to work to ‘raise their game’ and protect the integrity of elite and competitive women’s sport, at a Westminster summit on the inclusion of transgender athletes this afternoon (28 June). 

Nadine Dorries met with bosses of national governing bodies, and urged them to adopt the Government’s unequivocal view that elite and competitive women’s sport must be reserved for people born of the female sex. 

Having listened to the challenges that sports are facing in implementing policies on transgender participation, the Culture Secretary emphasised that clear direction is needed that protects and shows compassion to all athletes, and encouraged sports to make progress with moving towards a position where fairness takes priority in competitive sport. This includes the consideration of launching inclusive open categories where appropriate. 

Governing bodies made clear 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. UK Sport and Sport England will support the interpretation of the guidance published by the UK’s sports councils, and will coordinate the process of reporting back to Ministers on progress later in the summer. 

The Culture Secretary also encouraged governing bodies to engage with their international federations and encourage them to have consistent policies worldwide. 

Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries said: 

“Sport is for everyone, no matter where you’ve come from in life. It allows people to come together and perform on a level playing field, based upon basic fairness and the integrity of competition.

“The government has the utmost compassion for people born into a body they don’t recognise. But we can’t pretend that sex doesn’t have a direct impact on a person’s athletic performance. Asking women and teenage girls to compete against someone who was biologically born a male is inherently unfair.

“I recognise that this is a complex and emotionally charged issue, so I welcome the support of our domestic governing bodies to protect and show compassion to all athletes. In the interests of sporting integrity, we must bring clarity to protect the future interests of sport around the world.” 

Today’s summit follows guidance published by the UK’s sports councils in September 2021 which made clear that balancing transgender inclusion, safety and fairness where sex can have an impact on a result, is not always possible. In April 2022 British Cycling suspended their current transgender policy, pending a full review. 

Beyond the UK, last week the International Swimming Federation (FINA) voted to bar transgender athletes participating in women’s events if they have gone through the process of male puberty.

This policy was reached after its scientific panel found that trans women had a “relative performance advantage over biological females, even after medication to reduce testosterone”. Later in the week International Rugby League also suspended the participation of male-born transgender players from competing in international women’s matches while they conduct more research. 

Meanwhile international federations including World Athletics and FIFA have signalled they will review their transgender eligibility policies. 

The official user account of Singletrack Magazine

More posts from Singletrack

Viewing 40 posts - 361 through 400 (of 460 total)
  • Singletrack World Response to Nadine Dorries’ Comments on Trans Athletes
  • benos
    Full Member

    In order to come up with a solution you first need a problem. So far you haven’t detailed any problem. You’ve made sweeping statements without actually going into any specifics.

    Ah, you proposed the problem: that some women get challenged when using women’s spaces, and you asked me what my solution was.

    I admitted I don’t have one. I just think your solution (for women to have no spaces) is ridiculous.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    I described two real issues of great concern to a number of women i know some of whom are linked with womans refuges

    That you chose to dismiss them as not possible is your choice.

    I know these concerns are widely shared amongst feminists and tbe issue is divisive and the debate vitriolic.

    Its not a simple issue given to simplistic solutions as you would like to pretend.

    I merely relay the concerns of these women i know. These are feminists and activists with a long and honourable record of fighting predjudice and to call them transphobic is simply wrong.

    However we will not solve anything debating on here especilly when you do not want to listen and nor do i want to be labbelled transphobic or associated with some obvious transphobes on here

    tjagain
    Full Member

    Ah. That comment not aimed at me?

    Ignore my post then

    benos
    Full Member

    Not you! I was responding to BruceWee.

    I also know people who work in women’s shelters and counselling services. It was listening to them that made me understand the situation. They’re fine with the services that exist for women and trans women together, and they completely support the services that exist only for trans women. They just want to *also* have a service which is only for women, but there’s no longer a single one!

    Cougar
    Full Member

    Trans women should not be in the women’s prison estate, and trans men should not be on the men’s prison estate. Both situations are unsafe.

    We’re going round in circles now.

    Assuming that to be the case, we then have two alternatives:

    1) We put trans men in the women’s prison and trans women in the men’s. Is that any safer?

    2) We file trans people of whatever identity as ‘other’ and deal with them separately, presumably along with anyone else who is a bit different and doesn’t fit into neat little boxes. Aside from the psychological damage this might cause, this is paradoxical with your assertion that trans women are men. If that were true then why treat them differently?

    Cougar
    Full Member

    TJ:

    I know these concerns are widely shared amongst feminists and tbe issue is divisive and the debate vitriolic.

    Its not a simple issue given to simplistic solutions as you would like to pretend.

    I merely relay the concerns of these women i know. These are feminists and activists with a long and honourable record of fighting predjudice and to call them transphobic is simply wrong.

    We’ve already discussed this too.

    These concerns may be ‘widely shared’ but that doesn’t mean that they have any basis in reality. I could have concerns about meteor strikes, do we have a sensible conversation around risk and threat and maybe try to allay some of those concerns, or do we make a start on building a biodome over Great Britain?

    And if people are frightened of trans women when, in fact, there is nothing to be frightened of, is that not the very definition of transphobia? It doesn’t have to be born out of hate and it doesn’t have to be rational, it’s simply a fear.

    benos
    Full Member

    We’re going round in circles now.

    You posed a qestion in form of a binary: that if trans women should not use women’s spaces, then trans men must use women’s spaces.

    I’m saying it’s a false binary.

    Assuming that to be the case, we then have two alternatives:

    This is another one 🙂

    Cougar
    Full Member

    And from the other thread,

    you claim that every right, space and service women that fought for to allow them to particiapte in a male-dominated society now already belongs to men if they want them, because you just redefined ‘woman’ with some semanic slight of hand.

    But if that were the case then every male space now also belongs to women because you’ve similarly just redefined ‘men’. So that’s good then, right?

    Your White Knighting for cisgender women to champion and protect them from the vanishingly miniscule threat from trans women is laudable but at what cost? Are an even more persecuted and vulnerable minority that you’re throwing under the bus in order to achieve that simply acceptable collateral damage? I sincerely cannot reconcile “I’m fighting for women’s rights” with “so bollocks to those guys.”

    It’s a complex issue and you probably don’t have the answers. I don’t. But I’m fairly confident that this isn’t it.

    t3ap0t
    Free Member

    Returning to the sport question, I believe Prof Ross Tucker, who is a physiologist and was an expert in various hearings regarding Caster Semenya, talks about retained post-pubertal advantage in transgender women in this podcast (prompted by the Lia Thomas furore). There are a number of pods where he discusses these issues so I may be mistaken.

    https://shows.acast.com/realscienceofsport/episodes/the-lia-thomas-controversy-anger-in-the-age-of-trans-gender-

    Here’s another one.

    MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    And if people are frightened of trans women when, in fact, there is nothing to be frightened of, is that not the very definition of transphobia? It doesn’t have to be born out of hate and it doesn’t have to be rational, it’s simply a fear.

    A fair point

    MrsMC is a Guide leader. There was mass hysteria on social media (Mumsnet, I’m looking at you) when Guiding said it would accept young people who identified as female. Parents (mostly mothers) were going to pull their daughters out of any organisation that would put their daughters at risk etc.

    We are several years on now, and I’m not aware there’s been any incidents to support their concerns.

    Cougar
    Full Member

    I’m saying it’s a false binary.

    I was going to say “it’s your binary” but I think I may have conflated your and Markie’s posts somewhere along the line. Apologies if so, I’m not very good at tracking usernames.

    The assertion, the hypothesis if you like, was that “trans women are men.” This is a binary, the statement is either true or it isn’t. If it is true then trans men should be in women’s spaces because they’re women. Conversely if trans men shouldn’t be in women’s spaces then at a stroke it defeats the initial hypothesis.

    Cougar
    Full Member

    We are several years on now, and I’m not aware there’s been any incidents to support their concerns.

    Exactly.

    We (as a country) had a near-identical discussion around homosexuality not all that long ago. “The maths teacher is gay, why are they allowed to be around children, I’m taking mine out of school!” and so forth, there were mass “concerns” back then also. Did those concerns turn out to be justified? Being distrustful of ‘other’ is part of the human condition.

    Yes of course, you’d probably find some who turned out to be a bit noncy if you looked hard enough in order to prove a point. But I’ll wager that it’s a statistically insignificant number compared both to the ones who aren’t and to the straight ones who are.

    It’s surely similar with trans folk, no? When asked, TJ found one example. Heck, if there’s a sudden flurry then I might need to start counting on my other hand.

    And we of course need to be sensitive around places like shelters where people using those facilities are… troubled. Anything could be a potential trigger. An assault victim might have blocked out any memory of their attacker apart from their piercing blue eyes and minty fresh breath, in which case you’d probably want to send a counsellor in with sunglasses rather than a pack of Polos. Trans people of either direction could potentially be triggering if one of the sensitivities is a deep voice and they happen to meet that criterion. But all of this is far more complex and nuanced than “yes but sperm”.

    benos
    Full Member

    The assertion, the hypothesis if you like, was that “trans women are men.” This is a binary, the statement is either true or it isn’t.

    Yes. But whether true or not depends on whether you’re using a sex or gender based definition of the word. That conflation is responsible for a lot of hassle

    If it is true then trans men should be in women’s spaces because they’re women.

    This is the specific point I’ve been making. I disagree – the aim is not forced segregation of all people on the basis of sex, but for female people to have equal access to society and not be discriminated against because of their sex.

    Are an even more persecuted and vulnerable minority that you’re throwing under the bus in order to achieve that simply acceptable collateral damage? I sincerely cannot reconcile “I’m fighting for women’s rights” with “so bollocks to those guys.”

    I’m fully behind less throwing under the bus. Less using one group in the service of another. No, it’s not easy. I believe any solution needs to start by recognising that there are different groups involved which have different needs

    Thanks, Couger. Have a good weekend 👍

    Cougar
    Full Member

    Yes. But whether true or not depends on whether you’re using a sex or gender based definition of the word. That conflation is responsible for a lot of hassle

    Of course it is. And that’s exactly what I’m trying to shine a light onto. We cannot even begin to have a conversation around sex / gender issues if the initial premise is “M2F trans women are still men, end of story.” That’s barely the beginning of the story.

    This is the specific point I’ve been making. I disagree

    I disagree also. But that’s the logical conclusion from the above. If trans women are really men then trans men are really women, and suddenly no-one seems to want to talk about that for some reason.

    the aim is not forced segregation of all people on the basis of sex, but for female people to have equal access to society and not be discriminated against because of their sex.

    Well… yes, but, what’s that got to do with trans people?

    benos
    Full Member

    But that’s the logical conclusion from the above. If trans women are really men then trans men are really women, and suddenly no-one seems to want to talk about that for some reason.

    I’ve been talking to you about it 👋 I’ve been saying your conclusion doesn’t follow.

    benos
    Full Member

    Well… yes, but, what’s that got to do with trans people?

    You’re pulling my leg here, right? This is a thread about trans women in women’s sports in the context of male performance advantage.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    Benos

    You cacelled your sub because of the “political” statement by stw yet you are still posting. Double standards / hypocrisy? Your statements are much more political and pretty extreme.

    configuration
    Free Member

    We (as a country) had a near-identical discussion around homosexuality not all that long ago.

    Did we? I don’t remember that. I do remember countless debates and discussions around the ‘issue’, and thankfully we came out of it fairly positively. I don’t remember anything around the fear of erosion of women’s hard won sex based rights being eroded by Homosexuality.

    Any discussion of the issue of trans rights has to involve having women’s voices heard. There’s been a lot of cancelling and shutting down of debate, overwhelmingly by a small yet extremely vocal section of the trans ‘community’, it must be said, and an awful lot of knee jerk reactions, which are just ruining any chance of intelligent debate. The abuse and cancelling suffered by women such as JK Rowling, Maya Forstater and many others, is absolutely appalling. We’re going backwards in terms of Womens Rights.

    The real discussion that should be happening, is why men are still making women suffer.

    benos
    Full Member

    You cacelled your sub because of the “political” statement by stw yet you are still posting. Double standards / hypocrisy? Your statements are much more political and pretty extreme.

    I said I was cancelling my paid subscription, not flouncing off. I’m a free member now.

    Political, yes. STW’s actions and statements have been political. Everyone’s responses on the topic  have been political. Extreme, no.

    benos
    Full Member

    @configuration

    Precisely.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    If the stw statement is that offensive you cancell your sub then why are you still here? Gross hypocrisy imo.

    And yes your position is extreme and refusing to acknowledge that this is a very difficult topic with plenty of shades of grey and some of your statements are downright offensive even to a fence sitter on this topic like me

    benos
    Full Member

    If the stw statement is that offensive you cancell your sub then why are you still here? Gross hypocrisy imo.

    I didn’t find their statement offensive. I disagreed with it. I cancelled my subscription after reading Mark’s comment that they’d intervened in a sporting event, because I didn’t want to finance that. As I recall Mark put it, they decided to pick a side.

    And yes your position is extreme and refusing to acknowledge that this is a very difficult topic with plenty of shades of grey and some of your statements are downright offensive even to a fence sitter on this topic like me

    Would you mind telling me what you found offensive?

    tjagain
    Full Member

    Your comments on Caster Semaya amongst others

    With that I am out. If you cannot aee the gross hypocrisy in cacelling your sub but remaining on the platform I am sorry for you

    scotroutes
    Full Member

    I don’t see that as hypocrisy. Arguing a case should be possible without financially contributing to your “opponent”.

    benos
    Full Member

    Your comments on Caster Semaya amongst others

    I think you’re confusing me with someone else.

    If you cannot aee the gross hypocrisy in cacelling your sub but remaining on the platform I am sorry for you

    I like the forum, they offer free membership, and they’re allowing free discussion on this topic (which speaks very highly of the STW team). I don’t want to leave, and no one is forcing me to.

    I may even re-subscribe at some point, because although I disagree with STW on this topic, I am grateful that I’m allowed to voice my opinions on their forum.

    configuration
    Free Member

    Meanwhile, in Leeds, a Lesbian Strength rally was threatened with cancellation following threats of violence by so-called trans activists. Who are demanding that trans women be included in a rally that specifically states it is for biological lesbian women only. Now whatever your views, I’m sure most folk would agree that shutting down free speech and the right to protest is somewhat fascistic. Such incidents are increasingly frequent, and there have been several attack on women attending women only events etc, and several so-called trans activists have been convicted of crimes including assault, following such violence. Attacks by biological males on women, are misogyny, pure and simple. And this has to stop.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    Apologies Benos. I was confusing you with another poster

    benos
    Full Member

    Thanks, tjagain.

    I know I’ve been bald or blunt at times but I don’t think I’ve been offensive.

    A couple of years ago I would’ve supported STW’s statement completely. I mean, I didn’t pay much attention to trans rights, but I thought it was obviously the right side of history.

    But then I read about events similar to configuration’s post above: protesters shouting abuse at lesbians in the name of trans rights.

    And also what you talked about: the loss of all female-only rape counselling services in some areas, but trans-only services are allowed (both should exist!).

    Then of course there’s sport.

    So now I’m a middle-aged man posting on a cycling forum about women’s rights. But the homophobia especially shocked me into changing my views. I marched for gay rights in the 80s, and 4 decades later lesbians are being abused all over again.

    That’s why I got riled on Friday and responded to BruceWee when I really should’ve left that cost-of-living-appeal thread alone.

    I support trans rights and women’s rights. Both equally. Sometimes that means separate rights. That’s really my point.

    BruceWee
    Full Member

    Meanwhile, in Leeds, a Lesbian Strength rally was threatened with cancellation following threats of violence by so-called trans activists

    If you want to reduce all the work done by Sisters Uncut to simply being ‘trans activists’ then I think that’s being a bit disingenuous.

    I had a look on the various social media sites for Lesbian Strength to find any evidence of the violence referenced by Dr Louise Moody but Lesbian Strength don’t seem to making as much noise about the violence as Louise Moody is.

    It was quite informative scrolling through the Facebook pages for Lesbian Strength and Sisters Uncut Leeds. I would advise everyone who wants to try to build a better picture of the activities of these so called trans activists to do the same and compare it to what seems to be Lesbian Strength’s primary (only?) concern.

    I’m going to step back from this thread now because it’s really not doing my mental health any good. It’s really sad to see the state of this debate in the UK (and it really is a UK issue, other countries do not have this level of toxic debate other than from the usual suspects such as religious fundamentalists).

    All I would ask is that you don’t just take the tweets you agree with as gospel. Read the social media posts from those on the other side and try to build a view of the full picture.

    Cougar
    Full Member

    Sorry, I’ve been away for a couple of days.

    I don’t know who either of those groups are but I’ve argued for years that with any demographic it’s a vocal minority which give the rest a bad name. Extremists are, well, the clue is in the name, they are not representative of the whole.

    This argument isn’t a world apart from saying that you’re standing up for the rights of white people because Muslims are terrorists, then posting links to the Manchester Arena bombing as evidence.

    I’ll reply to the earlier questions later.

    benos
    Full Member

    I’m glad you say these views are extreme, Cougar. I just don’t think they’re that uncommon.

    On Friday BruceWee warned that we’d be seeing homophobia and behaviour policing in the near future if we didn’t get behind trans rights now, but less than 24 hours later a group of trans activists in Leeds shouted at lesbians for saying they’re not interested in penises.

    This is overt and public homophobia, and it receives too much tacit acceptance. Look at your response: you ended up dismissing the whole thing using an argument in which you actually compared calling-out lesbian abuse to white supremacy.

    In some situations, like sport and sex, trans women and women are different. If there were some compromise here, the left wing could stop being so fractured and get on with challenging the tories.

    configuration
    Free Member

    This argument isn’t a world apart from saying that you’re standing up for the rights of white people because Muslims are terrorists, then posting links to the Manchester Arena bombing as evidence.

    Wow. This is incredibly offensive, and if you can’t work out why, then perhaps you should step away from the thread.

    To me, the real issue is that male violence towards women is being ignored, and women are being blamed for ‘transphobia’ simply for standing up for their sex based rights. So why aren’t we, as men (given that this forum is overwhelmingly male by demographic), discussing that?

    BruceWee
    Full Member

    @benos @configuration

    Can you please stop misrepresenting the Lesbian Strength demonstration and the counter-demonstration by Sisters Uncut Leeds.

    Sisters Uncut are a feminist organisation, not a trans activist organisation. They are not a TERF organisation as Lesbian Strength is (not using TERF as an insult here, it accurately describes their philosophy and they proudly refer to themselves as TERFS on social media) but they are an inclusive feminist organisation.

    I’m not sure if you are deliberately misrepresenting the demonstration and counter-demonstration or if you have found a single tweet and decided that, because it agrees with your viewpoint, it is gospel. Either way, please stop.

    From Sisters Uncut’s FAQs:

    Why can’t men come to meetings?

    We believe that women and non-binary people must be at the forefront of the movement for our rights. Therefore we need safer, collective spaces where we can organise, share our experiences, learn from each other and support one another. We want to ensure our meetings are welcoming and empowering for survivors of domestic, sexual and state violence, and for that reason we ask men not to attend.

    How can men support Sisters Uncut?

    We welcome support from male allies. When we stage a protest, men can support us by promoting our activity on media and social media. They can also help by enabling their sisters attendance at our meetings and actions, for example by providing childcare or covering a colleague’s shift at work. We are thankful to the male allies who donate money to us through fundraising and regular contributions.

    By continuing to say that this was men silencing women you are, at best, ignorantly promoting a falsehood or you’re just plain lying. Either way, this has to stop.

    Stepping away from the thread went well, I see.

    Cougar
    Full Member

    I just don’t think they’re that uncommon.

    What you or I may think is commonplace is neither here nor there. Is it commonplace? Do you have any statistics?

    There aren’t good figures for how many trans people there are in the UK but a few minutes googling and cross-referencing suggests less than 1% of the population. What percentage of that fraction of a percent do you suppose are “activists” of the type to be holding a counter-protest? Much more than the 30 that turned up? “Common” seems an unlikely descriptor.

    We have better stats on lesbians. You can read that here if you like. (I don’t really need to tell you how many cis women are in the country in the country regardless of their sexuality, I assume.)

    On Friday BruceWee warned that we’d be seeing homophobia and behaviour policing in the near future if we didn’t get behind trans rights now, but less than 24 hours later a group of trans activists in Leeds shouted at lesbians for saying they’re not interested in penises.

    Or a possible alternative scenario: less than 24 hours later a group of feminists in Leeds shouted at a hate group who proudly self-describe as being a radical and exclusionary organisation.

    You’ve got two sides with opposing views clashing. Try to be objective.

    This is overt and public homophobia, and it receives too much tacit acceptance.

    I don’t think many people are accepting it at all, are they? Having a gang rammy in the middle of town is clearly wrong.

    benos
    Full Member

    Gents, this is the statement from Lesbian Strength’s Facebook page:

    “We are a collective of (exclusively same sex attracted women), who promote and celebrate lesbian lives, culture and visibility. We hold the Lesbian Strength March annually every September in Leeds, UK”

    Sisters Uncut, accompanied by masked men (I’ve seen the videos) protested against this rally. The police ended up telling Lesbian Strength to change their plans for their own safety.


    @Cougar
    having already compared the right to be same-sex attracted to white supremacy, are you really now comparing it to Nazism?

    Cougar
    Full Member

    Wow. This is incredibly offensive, and if you can’t work out why, then perhaps you should step away from the thread.

    Help help, I’m being cancelled! 😁

    I was suggesting that it was OK to hate a group of people based on the unacceptable actions of a small minority of them, package up that hate as a positive by saying that I want to protect another group, and then provide an example of a tragic but vanishingly rare incident in order to justify it. You quite rightly felt that this would be an offensive viewpoint to hold.

    Perhaps you can work out why I might have provided that example? Maybe there’s an equally offensive parallel to be drawn with another scenario? Hmm?

    To me, the real issue is that male violence towards women is being ignored

    Is it? By whom?

    Violence against women is a big problem and of course it is unacceptable. We have support structures (granted, of varying effectiveness due to resourcing) in place to help victims and potential victims. It’s a small thing but the nominated charity on my Amazon Smile account is a local women’s aid charity.

    We, of course, also have systems that could be better. The police historically have been notoriously poor in their dealings with abuse victims. But it’s getting better for one reason – it isn’t being ignored.

    and women are being blamed for ‘transphobia’ simply for standing up for their sex based rights.

    Well, no, they’re being blamed for transphobia for being transphobic (if ‘blamed’ is the right word). Sometimes – perhaps even in the majority of cases – it’s born of ignorance rather than hate, but they don’t like other people because of what they are.

    So why aren’t we, as men (given that this forum is overwhelmingly male by demographic), discussing that?

    looks around

    What you suppose we’re doing right now? This is a public forum, feel free to take the lead on any subject you like if there’s something else you want to want to talk about.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    Feminists concerned about erosion of safe spaces are not transphobic. What you are doing there is shutting down debate as the trans activists are doing.

    This is pretty sinister. If you do not agree that all a man has to do to become a woman and gain access to women only services and safe spaces is to declare they are a woman you get shouted down, no platfirmed and are subject to horrendous abuse.

    There is no room for any debate. If you dont agree then you are kabbelled a bigot.

    There are serious issues with instant self identification. Express any doubts and you are instantly attacked

    Cougar
    Full Member

    @Couger

    Who?

    having compared the right to be same-sex attracted

    You already have that right, it’s enjoyed daily by the vast, vast majority of the adult population. I provided statistics earlier if you want to look them up.

    to white supremacy

    You missed the point.

    are you really now comparing it to Nazism?

    Do you really now believe that I am?

    Cougar
    Full Member

    Feminists concerned about erosion of safe spaces are not transphobic.

    Feminists who self-identify as TERFs are, by definition.

    Your logical fallacy here is: rash generalisation.

    What you are doing there is shutting down debate as the trans activists are doing.

    Yet, here you are, debating it. If you’re being shut down then it’s not proving very effective, is it.

    I’m getting increasingly bored with this lazy line of argument, it’s cropping up again and again at the moment. It’s this generation’s “political correctness gone mad” wail, and has a similarly tenuous basis in reality. You aren’t being “cancelled” or “shut down” if people simply don’t agree with you FFS.

    Honestly, you can’t bloody win. You hold a minority opinion and it’s cancel culture, you hold a majority opinion and it’s an echo chamber.

    This is pretty sinister. If you do not agree that all a man has to do to become a woman and gain access to women only services and safe spaces is to declare they are a woman you get shouted down, no platfirmed and are subject to horrendous abuse.

    If all a man had to do to access women’s spaces was go “hi, I’m a woman today” then yes, you’re absolutely right, that would be a disastrous situation and I’d be by your side protesting against it. But crucially, as has been explained to you time and again, that simply is not the case. You’ve assumed a misunderstanding and that’s why you’re meeting resistance, not because we all secretly want to put on a frock in order to get a bit rapey in the toilets.

    There are serious issues with instant self identification.

    There are. I agree 100%.

    But.

    NO-ONE IS DOING THAT, THAT IS ALREADY NOT HOW IT WORKS.

    Access to places like shelters is strictly controlled. Aside from the seemingly clear and present danger from marauding transexuals you also have issues with things like abusive partners or parents. It’s not “sign here, show us your fanny, off you go then love.”

    You are arguing against a fiction. This is a comedy sketch, not a documentary.

    BruceWee
    Full Member

    Sisters Uncut, accompanied by masked men (I’ve seen the videos) protested against this rally.

    Feel free to post this video. I’ve searched but couldn’t find it.

Viewing 40 posts - 361 through 400 (of 460 total)

The topic ‘Singletrack World Response to Nadine Dorries’ Comments on Trans Athletes’ is closed to new replies.